Ask a Mormon

[Old Tex]

I get a pop-up message that tells me I have a PM. He ought to see that.


That has to be turned on before it will work, bas. Maybe he didn't turn his on.

[RayMan]

That has to be turned on before it will work, bas. Maybe he didn't turn his on.

CD is in the know ya'll.

[THE LIGHT]

yeah yeah, I've been there before.:rolleyes:

Pretty darn helpful I might add:D

you guys are the greatest when it comes to that stuff.:silenced:

If it were a hotel I could give it a five star rating, but it isn't. Is the next closest thing a rentacar? That would be like an economy class rating right?:angel:

[THE LIGHT]

Hmmmmmm..... Silence!!!:D

http://bestsmileys.com/silly/1.gif

everyone must have gone to the Vatican. Well, okay, the thread at least.:D

[justamere10]

Upon arriving at the Red Sea, Nephi reports that they discovered an unoccupied valley
where a river enters the sea. Flowing rivers in the Middle East are very scarce occurrences. Where they do occur, cities arise, especially where they enter the sea. For Nephi to have discovered an unoccupied valley where a significant river enters the sea, a short distance from both Egypt and Israel, seems highly improbable. Even though climatic conditions are similar now to the ones encountered by Nephi’s party in 600 BC, there is not a single river entering the 1,500 mile long Red Sea today along either the African or Arabian coastlines. This leads me to wonder if either (a) God is really dumb, or (b) someone needed to study geography a little more to make up a better story.


Sorry, you won't get any mileage out of that one whatsoever. A group called "The Nephi Project" has been researching Lehi's route from Jerusalem to the point where they embarked for the west coast of America (probably Guatemala) for many years. They've pretty much nailed it.

Guess what? Everything's there, just like the Book of Mormon said it would be. Not too shabby for a semi-literate farm boy from upstate New York in the 1800's. Could it be that he really translated the record by the power of God, like he said he did?

http://www.nephiproject.com/nephi_project_major_discoveries.htm

[Old Tex]

OK folks, I went to the mod forum to see what all the talk was about. (I seldom go there) I decided that my help was not needed........besides............. my wife just brought me a plate with three big pieces of hot cornbred with butter running out of each slice. So if I may be excused, I'm like outta here. (As one of my grand daughters says)..............Old Tex

[justamere10]

Don't be too hard on CD, Terri. He's a guy with a lot of knowledge and has taught all of us things we didn't know before. He just got a little frustrated having to singlehandedly defend his faith among all the Mormons. Looks like he will be going back to Iraq soon and I think he can shape up without a mod getting involved.


I'm still figuring out what makes things tick on this board but my understanding of the matter is that it is not Terri (a Catholic) who was hitting Catholic Defender. Terri was trying to warn CD that someone on this thread had reported him for violating TOS. He did in fact do that as per the moderator's ruling, but it looks like he wasn't suspended.

It is my hope that Catholic Defender and others will return to this thread and find it a friendly albeit lively place to engage in discussion about and with Mormons.

[RayMan]

I'm still figuring out what makes things tick on this board but my understanding of the matter is that it is not Terri (a Catholic) who was hitting Catholic Defender. Terri was trying to warn CD that someone on this thread had reported him for violating TOS. He did in fact do that as per the moderator's ruling, but it looks like he wasn't suspended.

It is my hope that Catholic Defender and others will return to this thread and find it a friendly albeit lively place to engage in discussion about and with Mormons.

I can guarantee that Terri was not dissing CD. Your read on the situation is correct.

[coMITTed]

Don't be too hard on CD, Terri. He's a guy with a lot of knowledge and has taught all of us things we didn't know before. He just got a little frustrated having to singlehandedly defend his faith among all the Mormons. Looks like he will be going back to Iraq soon and I think he can shape up without a mod getting involved.

Uh, do you not remember what HE instigated with his posts about the LDS Church? He wasn't defending Catholicism so much as he was slamming Mormons. The point of my posts, incindiary (and deleted) as they were, was to show him how rediculous he sounded. Now I'm the bad guy, despite my apologies, but whatever. It's done.

[RayMan]

Uh, do you not remember what HE instigated with his posts about the LDS Church? He wasn't defending Catholicism so much as he was slamming Mormons. The point of my posts, incindiary (and deleted) as they were, was to show him how rediculous he sounded. Now I'm the bad guy, despite my apologies, but whatever. It's done.

Technically coM you're the bad girl now, especially with being pregnant and all...:D

Sorry. Never met a straight line I didn't like.

[coMITTed]

Technically coM you're the bad girl now, especially with being pregnant and all...:D

Sorry. Never met a straight line I didn't like.

Okay, okay. Now I'm the village idiot.

How's that? Androgenous enough for ya? :mrgreen: :lol:

[THE LIGHT]

Uh, do you not remember what HE instigated with his posts about the LDS Church? He wasn't defending Catholicism so much as he was slamming Mormons. The point of my posts, incindiary (and deleted) as they were, was to show him how rediculous he sounded. Now I'm the bad guy, despite my apologies, but whatever. It's done.

It is best to show the right thing to do by example not how bad you can be other wise no one will know for sure if you are telling the truth.:angel:

[justamere10]

Uh, do you not remember what HE instigated with his posts about the LDS Church? He wasn't defending Catholicism so much as he was slamming Mormons. The point of my posts, incindiary (and deleted) as they were, was to show him how rediculous he sounded. Now I'm the bad guy, despite my apologies, but whatever. It's done.

I really appreciate your participation in this thread. My experience on other boards is that it matters not how incendiary a post may be, it always gives me an opportunity to discourse on something about my beliefs.

Counterpoint, point, counterpoint, point, it works every time. Without the counterpoints, no point, got the point? :-)

[THE LIGHT]

I really appreciate your participation in this thread. My experience on other boards is that it matters not how incendiary a post may be, it always gives me an opportunity to discourse on something about my beliefs.

Counterpoint, point, counterpoint, point, it works every time. Without the counterpoints, no point, got the point? :-)

daha. I understand everything now.:D

[coMITTed]

It is best to show the right thing to do by example not how bad you can be other wise no one will know for sure if you are telling the truth.:angel:

Funny that no one's getting on to CD with the same admonition. :think:

[RayMan]

Okay, okay. Now I'm the village idiot.

How's that? Androgenous enough for ya? :mrgreen: :lol:

Hey! I've seen your Avie. You're gorgeous!

[coMITTed]

Hey! I've seen your Avie. You're gorgeous!

You're very sweet :redface:

That was from last Halloween. It was inspired by the album cover to Crazytown's single, "Butterfly." I'd been wanting to pull that one off for seven years :mrgreen:

[THE LIGHT]

Funny that no one's getting on to CD with the same admonition. :think:

It's funny that it is funny, cuz I'm not laughing.:D

Same goes for both of ya. If I were da mod Id give ya both a good lickin'.:D

I am not singling you out for what happened, since the mods have already dealt with this and I am supposing you both did as you were suppose to, then I am just saying that it is kinda hard to say that you were just trying to prove a point. Im just sayin.:angel:

[RayMan]

You're very sweet :redface:

That was from last Halloween. It was inspired by the album cover to Crazytown's single, "Butterfly." I'd been wanting to pull that one off for seven years :mrgreen:

Very cool. A couple years ago my wife and I went to a Halloween party at a cantina some friends of our run. We dressed as "scene kids." Almost Goth. Hoodies, black wigs, some Green Day black eyeshadow. That was me. At 6'3" and 220lbs.

A couple of guys who were getting their drunk on needed to be 86'd and were trying to start a fight with my friend and one of the waiters. I walked up and said nothing.

The guys kept cussing my friend out but caught a glimpse of me dolled up as described above, said, "but you I'm afraid of..." and they walked off without a fight. It was sweet. Especially since I am WAY too old to actually get physical with a couple drunk guys in their twenties.

[THE LIGHT]

You're very sweet :redface:

That was from last Halloween. It was inspired by the album cover to Crazytown's single, "Butterfly." I'd been wanting to pull that one off for seven years :mrgreen:

close, but the hair is a different color.:snooty:

[coMITTed]

It's funny that it is funny, cuz I'm not laughing.:D

Same goes for both of ya. If I were da mod Id give ya both a good lickin'.:D

I am not singling you out for what happened, since the mods have already dealt with this and I am supposing you both did as you were suppose to, then I am just saying that it is kinda hard to say that you were just trying to prove a point. Im just sayin.:angel:

Actually, CD hasn't deleted his posts yet as per instructed by FW. But whatev.

[CatholicDefender]

Actually, CD hasn't deleted his posts yet as per instructed by FW. But whatev.

They have been changed to have nothing in them that is objectionable, is there another issue here that I don't see?

[coMITTed]

They have been changed to have nothing in them that is objectionable, is there another issue here that I don't see?

Go back to the mod forum immediately. You are still referring to Joseph Smith as a false prophet in one and to the LDS Church as an "arian cult" in another. You REALLY don't think that's objectionable? SERIOUSLY?!?

[CatholicDefender]

Go back to the mod forum immediately. You are still referring to Joseph Smith as a false prophet in one and to the LDS Church as an "arian cult" in another. You REALLY don't think that's objectionable? SERIOUSLY?!?

Which posts were they, I didn't see them in your post that you exhibited?

[CatholicDefender]

Go back to the mod forum immediately. You are still referring to Joseph Smith as a false prophet in one and to the LDS Church as an "arian cult" in another. You REALLY don't think that's objectionable? SERIOUSLY?!?

Not any more than you calling the second century Church murderers and robbers killing the "legitament" authority? But that is beside the point.

[coMITTed]

Not any more than you calling the second century Church murderers and robbers killing the "legitament" authority? But that is beside the point.

WHICH IS WHY I DELETED THEM!!!!!!! Deleted and apologized! Do you SERIOUSLY not get it yet? This isn't about tit-for-tat anymore. You are STILL violating the RF TOS BIGTIME.

Go to the mod forum and view the posts in question--they're quoted in my OP. I highlighted the "objectionable" parts in red. I've got a feeling that if you don't you'll be gone in the next hour. FW doesn't mess around, dude.

[CatholicDefender]

WHICH IS WHY I DELETED THEM!!!!!!! Deleted and apologized! Do you SERIOUSLY not get it yet? This isn't about tit-for-tat anymore. You are STILL violating the RF TOS BIGTIME.

Go to the mod forum and view the posts in question--they're quoted in my OP. I highlighted the "objectionable" parts in red. I've got a feeling that if you don't you'll be gone in the next hour. FW doesn't mess around, dude.

God bless ya!

[coMITTed]

God bless ya!

Go back to the mod forum. You still have four more posts that need some serious house cleaning (or to be deleted altogether).

[coMITTed]

Well it's time for me to shower and hit the hay.

By the way, just so I leave on a positive note,

IT'S A GIRL!!!!!

Happy Cinco de Mayo to all of you :)!

[CatholicDefender]

Go back to the mod forum. You still have four more posts that need some serious house cleaning (or to be deleted altogether).

I took out anything objectionable, but the debate on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon stands. Get some good sleep and God bless!

[THE LIGHT]

Actually, CD hasn't deleted his posts yet as per instructed by FW. But whatev.

:eek:

[THE LIGHT]

Just a joke, but why are we given a smiley that looks like this: :liar: if we cannot use the word that looks like this: "liar" :D

[justamere10]

Apparently the Catholic Church recently ordered parish priests not to allow the LDS Church to microfilm their parish records. This to me seems to be a mistake of great magnitude because many of those records are very old and decaying and will soon be lost forever.

The LDS Church offers to film genealogical records free of charge, has been doing that all over the world for decades. They then provide a copy of the records they filmed to whoever has the original. A copy is deposited in a granite mountain in Utah that is temperature controlled, earthquake and bomb proof, etc. so that even in times of great destruction many of the world's vital records will be preserved.

The Saints make the records available in the library at Salt Lake City, in branch family history centers all over the world, and on the internet, free of charge, for anyone in the world to research their family roots. Family history research is a very popular hobby, it brings families closer together.

When you know your family history you begin to understand the vital relationships we have with every other human being. My own great great something grandfather was one of only seven white men with guns inside a fort that was being attacked by an army of opposing Indians. If he had been killed, or if he had not married and had children exactly as he did, I would not be writing this, my children and grandchildren would not exist, and your life would be less enriched.

Apparently the order from the Vatican is because Latter-days Saints believe they are commissioned of Jesus Christ to perform baptisms by proxy in sacred temples for those who are dead. Baptism is an ordinance that is essential to salvation. Latter-day Saints believe that ordinance must be performed on this earth. Baptism for the dead is a fulfillment of Malachi's admonition found in the very last verse of the last chapter of the Old Testament.

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6)


Baptism for the dead is not new, it's mentioned in the New Testament.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Corinthians 15:29

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29)


Catholics believe, I think, that if a person is not baptized before they die, that they cannot go to heaven. I would think that they would be pleased that someone is taking care of baptism for the millions who died without having an opportunity to be baptized. Otherwise, if I understand it correctly, in their doctrine Catholics are writing those unbaptized people off to burn or suffer for eternity for no fault of their own.

Latter-day Saints believe that once baptism has taken place by proxy for those who are dead, those persons will then have an opportunity in the spirit worlds to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to accept or reject the ordinance of baptism. Free agency, the power to choose, reigns supreme as an eternal principle.

I was a Catholic before converting to the LDS Church at age 22. A huge number of my own ancestors were Catholics. I was able to trace my ancestry mainly because the Catholic Church has been so diligent for so many centuries in keeping vital records at the parish level. There is one place in my ancestry that I cannot trace because a Catholic church burned down, taking the vital records with it forever. Because of the LDS Church filming program, I did not need to travel to foreign countries to research my ancestry, I did that in a local family history center, and in Salt Lake City.

Today many of those vital Catholic parish records are decaying almost to the point of losing their value. I could understand the Vatican's recent order if they were filming those records themselves, but they are not.

What really is behind that strange order from the Vatican, the order that condemns much of the world's vital records, the history of millions of families, many of them our own ancestors, to be lost forever? Some day, if that order is not reversed, people are going to shake their heads and wonder how some men in Vatican City could be so short-sighted. It will be similar to the burning of the historical records of the natives in the Americas, mainly by the Catholic Church as I understand it. But in this case it will be the ancestors of descendents of European migrants to the Americas, the ancestors of most of us who live in the USA.

I think pressures should be brought to bear on the Vatican to immediately take care of preserving those vital records themselves, or to let the LDS Church continue doing it for them, free of charge.

[archangelo]

Apparently the Catholic Church recently ordered parish priests not to allow the LDS Church to microfilm their parish records. This to me seems to be a mistake of great magnitude because many of those records are very old and decaying and will soon be lost forever.

The LDS Church offers to film genealogical records free of charge, has been doing that all over the world for decades. They then provide a copy of the records they filmed to whoever has the original. A copy is deposited in a granite mountain in Utah that is temperature controlled, earthquake and bomb proof, etc. so that even in times of great destruction many of the world's vital records will be preserved.

The Saints make the records available in the library at Salt Lake City, in branch family history centers all over the world, and on the internet, free of charge, for anyone in the world to research their family roots. Family history research is a very popular hobby, it brings families closer together.

When you know your family history you begin to understand the vital relationships we have with every other human being. My own great great something grandfather was one of only seven white men with guns inside a fort that was being attacked by an army of opposing Indians. If he had been killed, or if he had not married and had children exactly as he did, I would not be writing this, my children and grandchildren would not exist, and your life would be less enriched.

Apparently the order from the Vatican is because Latter-days Saints believe they are commissioned of Jesus Christ to perform baptisms by proxy in sacred temples for those who are dead. Baptism is an ordinance that is essential to salvation. Latter-day Saints believe that ordinance must be performed on this earth. Baptism for the dead is a fulfillment of Malachi's admonition found in the very last verse of the last chapter of the Old Testament.

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6)


Baptism for the dead is not new, it's mentioned in the New Testament.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Corinthians 15:29

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29)


Catholics believe, I think, that if a person is not baptized before they die, that they cannot go to heaven. I would think that they would be pleased that someone is taking care of baptism for the millions who died without having an opportunity to be baptized. Otherwise, if I understand it correctly, in their doctrine Catholics are writing those unbaptized people off to burn or suffer for eternity for no fault of their own.

Latter-day Saints believe that once baptism has taken place by proxy for those who are dead, those persons will then have an opportunity in the spirit worlds to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to accept or reject the ordinance of baptism. Free agency, the power to choose, reigns supreme as an eternal principle.

I was a Catholic before converting to the LDS Church at age 22. A huge number of my own ancestors were Catholics. I was able to trace my ancestry mainly because the Catholic Church has been so diligent for so many centuries in keeping vital records at the parish level. There is one place in my ancestry that I cannot trace because a Catholic church burned down, taking the vital records with it forever. Because of the LDS Church filming program, I did not need to travel to foreign countries to research my ancestry, I did that in a local family history center, and in Salt Lake City.

Today many of those vital Catholic parish records are decaying almost to the point of losing their value. I could understand the Vatican's recent order if they were filming those records themselves, but they are not.

What really is behind that strange order from the Vatican, the order that condemns much of the world's vital records, the history of millions of families, many of them our own ancestors, to be lost forever? Some day, if that order is not reversed, people are going to shake their heads and wonder how some men in Vatican City could be so short-sighted. It will be similar to the burning of the historical records of the natives in the Americas, mainly by the Catholic Church as I understand it. But in this case it will be the ancestors of descendents of European migrants to the Americas, the ancestors of most of us who live in the USA.

I think pressures should be brought to bear on the Vatican to immediately take care of preserving those vital records themselves, or to let the LDS Church continue doing it for them, free of charge.

Did you read this before you posted it? You should be ashamed of yourself. And I'm not referring to your beliefs, but your anti-Catholicism, and your slimy appeal to "preserve those vital records." Can't you see that you sound like one of those Web sites that promises you the world, and then sells your info so the world becomes your spam? Maybe that's what makes Catholics nervous about this whole thing, because it makes us feel like we're dealing with a giant email urging us to act now to get our share of some dead guy's bank account.

Of course, your motive in posting this was probably just to get a rise out of someone, in which case you've succeeded. Congratulations, Spambot!


BTW: Catholics are already baptized. That's why we have records.

[THE LIGHT]

Did you read this before you posted it? You should be ashamed of yourself. And I'm not referring to your beliefs, but your anti-Catholicism, and your slimy appeal to "preserve those vital records." Can't you see that you sound like one of those Web sites that promises you the world, and then sells your info so the world becomes your spam? Maybe that's what makes Catholics nervous about this whole thing, because it makes us feel like we're dealing with a giant email urging us to act now to get our share of some dead guy's bank account.

Of course, your motive in posting this was probably just to get a rise out of someone, in which case you've succeeded. Congratulations, Spambot!


BTW: Catholics are already baptized. That's why we have records.

:))

But wait there's more!! Order now and you will receive the second baptism and a extra bottle of Kaboooom absolutely FREE!! That's a over a $60 value for just $29.95. Call now! Offer lasts until Christ's return.

[Dancer]

Apparently the Catholic Church recently ordered parish priests not to allow the LDS Church to microfilm their parish records. This to me seems to be a mistake of great magnitude because many of those records are very old and decaying and will soon be lost forever. I am quite certain the Catholic Church has the capability to put those same records on microfilm as well.

The LDS Church offers to film genealogical records free of charge, has been doing that all over the world for decades. They then provide a copy of the records they filmed to whoever has the original. A copy is deposited in a granite mountain in Utah that is temperature controlled, earthquake and bomb proof, etc. so that even in times of great destruction many of the world's vital records will be preserved. I am quite certain that, free of charge or not, the Catholic Church is not concerned about the material cost, but they are concerned about the fact that the records would be misused by the LDS to perform a ritual that the Catholic Church does not accept as valid.
The Saints make the records available in the library at Salt Lake City, in branch family history centers all over the world, and on the internet, free of charge, for anyone in the world to research their family roots. Family history research is a very popular hobby, it brings families closer together. As was mentioned in the other thread, the historical accuracy of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith after that person has died offends many people of faiths that are NOT LDS.
When you know your family history you begin to understand the vital relationships we have with every other human being. My own great great something grandfather was one of only seven white men with guns inside a fort that was being attacked by an army of opposing Indians. If he had been killed, or if he had not married and had children exactly as he did, I would not be writing this, my children and grandchildren would not exist, and your life would be less enriched.I am happy for you that this is a benefit your church offers to you. I am amused that you consider our lives 'enriched' because you are in it...lol :lol: Not that it isn't, but it just amuses me that you phrased it that way. ;)

Apparently the order from the Vatican is because Latter-days Saints believe they are commissioned of Jesus Christ to perform baptisms by proxy in sacred temples for those who are dead. Baptism is an ordinance that is essential to salvation. Latter-day Saints believe that ordinance must be performed on this earth. Baptism for the dead is a fulfillment of Malachi's admonition found in the very last verse of the last chapter of the Old Testament.The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and most Protestant denominations do not accept any Mormon baptisms as valid (living or dead). Just as LDS do not accept traditional baptism as valid.

"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:6

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mal/4/6#6)

Baptism for the dead is not new, it's mentioned in the New Testament.
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Corinthians 15:29

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000525/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/29#29)Why should the Catholic Church release the private records of their congregants to any other Church who wants them? It is really none of the LDS Church's business when my son was baptized or when my husband and I married. THAT is truly the center of the question.


Catholics believe, I think, that if a person is not baptized before they die, that they cannot go to heaven. I would think that they would be pleased that someone is taking care of baptism for the millions who died without having an opportunity to be baptized. Otherwise, if I understand it correctly, in their doctrine Catholics are writing those unbaptized people off to burn or suffer for eternity for no fault of their own. I suppose you would be right, IF they accepted those baptisms as valid. But since in addition to baptizing people who have ALREADY BEEN baptized, they are also 'marrying off' people who have never been married...such as Popes.... This conflicts with ACTUAL history so I imagine that the Church would have a LOT of issues with lies about their Popes being bandied about...much less about their parishoners.

Latter-day Saints believe that once baptism has taken place by proxy for those who are dead, those persons will then have an opportunity in the spirit worlds to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to accept or reject the ordinance of baptism. Free agency, the power to choose, reigns supreme as an eternal principle.And the LDS can do that for the LDS, it is not necessary to expect the Catholic Church to agree though.

I was a Catholic before converting to the LDS Church at age 22. A huge number of my own ancestors were Catholics. I was able to trace my ancestry mainly because the Catholic Church has been so diligent for so many centuries in keeping vital records at the parish level. There is one place in my ancestry that I cannot trace because a Catholic church burned down, taking the vital records with it forever. Because of the LDS Church filming program, I did not need to travel to foreign countries to research my ancestry, I did that in a local family history center, and in Salt Lake City.Then you do not consider yourself Catholic and should realize the Catholic Church does not answer to the LDS. ;) As sad as it is that you lost family records, I am sure that the Catholic Church is more concerned about their faithful knowing that their records will not be altered by the LDS church to say that people were baptized LDS after they died.


Today many of those vital Catholic parish records are decaying almost to the point of losing their value. I could understand the Vatican's recent order if they were filming those records themselves, but they are not. And you know this for certain about every parish how, exactly? :confused:
What really is behind that strange order from the Vatican, the order that condemns much of the world's vital records, the history of millions of families, many of them our own ancestors, to be lost forever? Some day, if that order is not reversed, people are going to shake their heads and wonder how some men in Vatican City could be so short-sighted.I really don't think they will. It will be similar to the burning of the historical records of the natives in the Americas, mainly by the Catholic Church as I understand it. Do you have documentation for that inflammatory accusation?But in this case it will be the ancestors of descendents of European migrants to the Americas, the ancestors of most of us who live in the USA.

I think pressures should be brought to bear on the Vatican to immediately take care of preserving those vital records themselves, or to let the LDS Church continue doing it for them, free of charge.I think the LDS should worry about the LDS church and let the Catholic Church worry about their own faithful.

God bless you and yours. :D

[RayMan]

I am quite certain the Catholic Church has the capability to put those same records on microfilm as well.

I am quite certain that, free of charge or not, the Catholic Church is not concerned about the material cost, but they are concerned about the fact that the records would be misused by the LDS to perform a ritual that the Catholic Church does not accept as valid.
As was mentioned in the other thread, the historical accuracy of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith after that person has died offends many people of faiths that are NOT LDS.
I am happy for you that this is a benefit your church offers to you. I am amused that you consider our lives 'enriched' because you are in it...lol :lol: Not that it isn't, but it just amuses me that you phrased it that way. ;)

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and most Protestant denominations do not accept Mormon baptisms as valid. Just as LDS do not accept traditional baptism as valid.

Why should the Catholic Church release the private records of their congregants to any other Church who wants them? It is really none of the LDS Church's business when my son was baptized or when my husband and I married. THAT is truly the center of the question.

I suppose you would be right, IF they accepted those baptisms as valid. But since in addition to baptizing people who have ALREADY BEEN baptized, they are also 'marrying off' people who have never been married...such as Popes.... This conflicts with ACTUAL history so I imagine that the Church would have a LOT of issues with lies about their Popes being bandied about...much less about their parishoners.

And the LDS can do that for the LDS, it is not necessary to expect the Catholic Church to agree though.

Then you do not consider yourself Catholic and should realize the Catholic Church does not answer to the LDS. ;) As sad as it is that you lost family records, I am sure that the Catholic Church is more concerned about their faithful knowing that their records will not be altered by the LDS church to say that people were baptized LDS after they died.

And you know this for certain about every parish how, exactly? :confused:
I really don't think they will.Do you have documentation for that inflammatory accusation?I think the LDS should worry about the LDS church and let the Catholic Church worry about their own faithful.

God bless you and yours. :D

Hey Dancer,
Nicely put all the way through.

[Snow]

I think the LDS should worry about the LDS church and let the Catholic Church worry about their own faithful.

God bless you and yours. :D

I personally am going to worry about the unfaithful.

Somebody has to.

[orbitaldecay]

Well it's time for me to shower and hit the hay.

By the way, just so I leave on a positive note,

IT'S A GIRL!!!!!

Happy Cinco de Mayo to all of you :)!

Congrats!
You gonna name her after me?:angel: Nah, Orbitaldecay is probaly not very feminine. But I bet if you name her after one of the mods you could get special privledges.:D
Again, Congrats!!!

[RayMan]

Well it's time for me to shower and hit the hay.

By the way, just so I leave on a positive note,

IT'S A GIRL!!!!!

Happy Cinco de Mayo to all of you :)!

Praise God! Super news coMITTed. God bless and get a good night's rest.

[Dancer]

I personally am going to worry about the unfaithful.

Somebody has to.Since we were discussing doctrines of the differing churches, I didn't get into Catholic missions. All things in context, Snow. :mrgreen:

[Dancer]

Well it's time for me to shower and hit the hay.

By the way, just so I leave on a positive note,

IT'S A GIRL!!!!!

Happy Cinco de Mayo to all of you :)!Congratulations! May you be blessed with a healthy and nausea free pregnancy! ;)

[archangelo]

:))

But wait there's more!! Order now and you will receive the second baptism absolutely FREE!! That's a over a $60 value for just $29.95. Call now! Offer lasts until Christ's return.
There ya go. :D

Unfortunately, I'm not joking about the impression I get from explanations like the one in the earlier post. Doesn't it disturb any of you that, to us, it sounds like the spiel of a snake oil salesman? Can't you see why? Personally, every time one of you responds in this way, my impression of your side of the issue becomes even dimmer. Is the Gospel preached with so much triangulation and deliberate parsing (not that any of you are doing it on purpose, but, my have you learned those talking points well!)? It sounds so obvious that it renders prayerful consideration and discernment unnecessary!

Well, anyway, this is the effect it has on me. When it comes to this issue, I cannot trust what a Mormon tells me.

:neutral:

[justamere10]

Did you read this before you posted it? You should be ashamed of yourself. And I'm not referring to your beliefs, but your anti-Catholicism, and your slimy appeal to "preserve those vital records." Can't you see that you sound like one of those Web sites that promises you the world, and then sells your info so the world becomes your spam? Maybe that's what makes Catholics nervous about this whole thing, because it makes us feel like we're dealing with a giant email urging us to act now to get our share of some dead guy's bank account.

Of course, your motive in posting this was probably just to get a rise out of someone, in which case you've succeeded. Congratulations, Spambot!


BTW: Catholics are already baptized. That's why we have records.


That seems to me to be a very strange reaction to my post from anyone of any religion. "Ashamed", "anti-Catholicism", "slimy appeal", "spambot"??

So you think the world's vital records, the records of real people who were born, lived, died, much of which belong to the Catholics because they did a great job of collecting data, should be just allowed to decay into uselessness and be lost forever?

I haven't read the order from the Vatican but if I understand the controversy it's the Catholics that are making this an anti-Mormon event, not the other way around??

What's this about selling info? The truth is that it's the Mormons who are paying to preserve the world's vital records. They then make those records available to anyone in the world to research FREE OF CHARGE.

[justamere10]

:))

But wait there's more!! Order now and you will receive the second baptism absolutely FREE!! That's a over a $60 value for just $29.95. Call now! Offer lasts until Christ's return.


You guys sure are emotional about this. Did someone miss the point that it's the Mormons who are paying to preserve the world's vital records? And that the Mormons do not charge anyone to access those records?

[RayMan]

You guys sure are emotional about this. Did someone miss the point that it's the Mormons who are paying to preserve the world's vital records? And that the Mormons do not charge anyone to access those records?

And that the Mormon's use those records for their own purposes which Catholics are somewhat less than happy about?

[terri910]

I personally am going to worry about the unfaithful.

Somebody has to.
Indeed. As should we all. But no need to worry about the FAITHFUL of other faiths, Snow. And that the LDS does, in spades.

[scipio337]

[QUOTE=justamere10;26888311]That seems to me to be a very strange reaction to my post from anyone of any religion. "Ashamed", "anti-Catholicism", "slimy appeal", "spambot"??

So you think the world's vital records, the records of real people who were born, lived, died, much of which belong to the Catholics because they did a great job of collecting data, should be just allowed to decay into uselessness and be lost forever?

I haven't read the order from the Vatican but if I understand the controversy it's the Catholics that are making this an anti-Mormon event, not the other way around??

What's this about selling info? The truth is that it's the Mormons who are paying to preserve the world's vital records. They then make those records available to anyone in the world to research FREE OF CHARGE.
QUOTE]"Decay into uselessness"? Perhaps you could elaborate? Most records have been translated to microfige. Through the baptism records of the Catholic Church and local parished alone, I've been able to trace my family back a measly 909 years.

You understand that most Catholics believe the LDS Church has an ulteriour motive?


I've also heard that Microsoft is paying people to forward emails.

For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.

I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and within days, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over.

[/sarcasm]

[justamere10]

I am quite certain the Catholic Church has the capability to put those same records on microfilm as well.... (shortened to fit into the 10,000 character limit.)



"I am quite certain the Catholic Church has the capability to put those same records on microfilm as well."

I am also quite certain of that. Why not do it then?


"I am quite certain that, free of charge or not, the Catholic Church is not concerned about the material cost, but they are concerned about the fact that the records would be misused by the LDS to perform a ritual that the Catholic Church does not accept as valid."

And that has what to do with preserving vital records? It seems to be some Catholics who are making this into a Catholic vs Mormon thing. The LDS are not all emotional about it. (At least not on this thread, I don't have time to read or write anywhere else on this board.) You don't accept LDS temple ordinances as valid, so why should what the Latter-day Saints do in their temples be of concern to you?


"I am happy for you that this is a benefit your church offers to you. I am amused that you consider our lives 'enriched' because you are in it...lol Not that it isn't, but it just amuses me that you phrased it that way."

I'm glad I amused you. See, I enriched your life, even if only for a moment, as does everyone else you interact with. :-)



"The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and most Protestant denominations do not accept any Mormon baptisms as valid (living or dead). Just as LDS do not accept traditional baptism as valid."

And this has what to do with preserving the world's vital records, the traces people left behind when it was their turn on earth? Most people can only trace their ancestry back to about the 1500's when peasants were born, lived, died, and nobody cared enough to keep a record of any kind about it, except I suppose God who stamped it into our DNA. But the Latter-day Saints believe that God cares and that God accepts baptisms for the dead in LDS temples as valid. So, we're different. From the point of view of other denominations than yours, you are different too. So?


"Why should the Catholic Church release the private records of their congregants to any other Church who wants them? It is really none of the LDS Church's business when my son was baptized or when my husband and I married. THAT is truly the center of the question."

The Catholic Church of course has every right not to release the records to any other church the carefully kept by parish priests for centuries. I would be much more comforted though if the Catholic Church had filmed those records and stored them in a granite mountain somewhere where they would be preserved for future generations who were more concerned about that last verse in the last chapter of the Old Testament.

It is those vital records, hatch, match, and dispatch that are so valuable in identifying John Smith from John Smith from John Smith. I care about people. I care that John Smith lived. Maybe I'm related to John Smith. Maybe I wouldn't be here on this earth if John Smith had not lived and married the way he did.

The Catholic Church was and still is "Catholic" meaning universal, worldwide. There are zillions of members through the ages, and zillions of non-Catholics who were or are now related among those zillions. Call it your private records or not, those parish records are the records of the families of a huge number of non-Catholics too. I think it highly irresponsible of the Catholic Church, and it has the resources to do it, to not film and preserve those records even if today there are apparently some men in the Vatican who think they should not be made available for the world to research.


"As was mentioned in the other thread, the historical accuracy of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith after that person has died offends many people of faiths that are NOT LDS."

"Offend" is an emotional term. I say if you are offended by what the Masons do in their temples, the Buddhists do at their altars, or any Christian denomination does for religious practices, as long as what they are doing does you no real harm, then DEAL WITH IT! There is such a thing as religious freedom in this country.

And by the way, it's not the "Mormon" faith. Mormon is the prophet who compiled the writings of many other prophets into the book we call today "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ". People baptized by proxy in LDS temples are baptized by those having priesthood authority (in our belief) in the name of JESUS CHRIST, not Mormon or any other name. And again, why should you care? What Mormons do in their temples should not mean anything to you because you do not believe what we believe. It matters not to me what Catholics do in their cathedrals, that's how they worship the same God, the same Lord, Jesus Christ. Different than the way I do, different than the way the Baptists or any other Christian denomination does it, but still God, still Jesus Christ.


"I suppose you would be right, IF they accepted those baptisms as valid. But since in addition to baptizing people who have ALREADY BEEN baptized, they are also 'marrying off' people who have never been married...such as Popes.... This conflicts with ACTUAL history so I imagine that the Church would have a LOT of issues with lies about their Popes being bandied about...much less about their parishioners."

I am pleased that the Catholic Church took care of baptizing, marrying, and burying thousands of my ancestors. If those ordinances are all those ancestors need in the eyes of God to take care of their salvation, wonderful! If another church believes that there's a gap somewhere and that God has commissioned them to take care of that gap for my ancestors, LET THEM! I'm happy that possibility has been covered by someone. If when we die we find out that second "baptism" or whatever was not valid in God's eyes, then so, nothing has been harmed, some people who thought they were serving God and their fellow man deserve some credit for their service.

But if those additional baptisms were valid and necessary in God's eyes, then wonderful, IT'S TAKEN CARE OF! Besides, as you know, we believe that free agency, the power to choose, reigns supreme in the universe. Nobody is being forced to accept any ordinance, valid or invalid.

This is an emotional issue on this thread only because some writers have chosen to make it so. In the light of day, analyze what's really happening and it boils right down to responsibly preserving the world's vital records. Somebody's got to do it, or they will be lost forever. The religious thing should not apply to the issue because Catholics don't think what the Saints do is valid anyway. So, ho-hum, why should today be any different when it comes to religious differences?


"Then you do not consider yourself Catholic and should realize the Catholic Church does not answer to the LDS. As sad as it is that you lost family records, I am sure that the Catholic Church is more concerned about their faithful knowing that their records will not be altered by the LDS church to say that people were baptized LDS after they died."

Think about what you wrote. The LDS Church films original vital records all over the world. The Church gives the original owners a copy of the film, leaves the original records with them, then places a copy of the original records in a granite mountain for safe-keeping. Also, as a courtesy, the LDS Church makes a copy of those same ORIGINAL records available to researchers all over the world free of charge. And your problem is?

One would think the world would applaud the service the Saints are rendering to people all over the world who love families and who turn their heart to their fathers. It's the ordinary Saints, people like me and the other LDS writing on this board, by their tithing who are paying for all of that, for all of the world who will allow the volunteer filmers to preserve their vital records.


"Do you have documentation for that inflammatory accusation?"

I do not have documentation in front of me but it is very well known that almost all of the written records of native Americans were destroyed by the Spanish when they conquered Mexico and other places in the new world. Take any tour of Mexico and you will probably hear about that. You can google it I'm sure. Weren't the Spanish Catholic at that time?


"I think the LDS should worry about the LDS church and let the Catholic Church worry about their own faithful."

Yes, that is a good thought. But let's everyone in the world responsibly preserve the records of our ancestors if only for future generations. The Catholic Church has the records of thousands of my ancestors, as it has the records of millions of other non-Catholics. Take care of your sacred trust....

[scipio337]

Perhaps you would be satisfied if Catholics claimed Joseph Smith converted to Catholicism posthumously, and was canonized as the patron saint of single women? You don't belive in the Catholic process of canonization, anyway, so why should it matter to you?

(again, I'm reminded of the microsoft emails. Beware of a free lunch)

[terri910]

"I am quite certain the Catholic Church has the capability to put those same records on microfilm as well."

I am also quite certain of that. Why not do it then?
The Catholic Church of course has every right not to release the records to any other church the carefully kept by parish priests for centuries. I would be much more comforted though if the Catholic Church had filmed those records and stored them in a granite mountain somewhere where they would be preserved for future generations who were more concerned about that last verse in the last chapter of the Old Testament.

The Catholic Church was and still is "Catholic" meaning universal, worldwide. There are zillions of members through the ages, and zillions of non-Catholics who were or are now related among those zillions. Call it your private records or not, those parish records are the records of the families of a huge number of non-Catholics too. I think it highly irresponsible of the Catholic Church, and it has the resources to do it, to not film and preserve those records even if today there are apparently some men in the Vatican who think they should not be made available for the world to research.


In the light of day, analyze what's really happening and it boils right down to responsibly preserving the world's vital records. Somebody's got to do it, or they will be lost forever.

The Catholic Church has the records of thousands of my ancestors, as it has the records of millions of other non-Catholics. Take care of your sacred trust....

Just FYI
"Decay into uselessness"? Perhaps you could elaborate? Most records have been translated to microfige. Through the baptism records of the Catholic Church and local parished alone, I've been able to trace my family back a measly 909 years.

[justamere10]

"Decay into uselessness"? Perhaps you could elaborate? Most records have been translated to microfige.

That's wonderful then. Are the microfiche stored safely at the Vatican? Are they available for researchers whose ancestors were Catholic but they aren't?

Please tell me more about this microfiche program of the Catholic Church. Who has been doing the microfilming? How long has it been going on? I had the impression that it was LDS missionaries who were doing that??

I think someone posted a link on this thread to a story about a parish priest who knew his records were decaying and almost to the point of becoming useless, so he allowed the LDS to film them.

To me the emotions surrounding this order from the Vatican are quite strange when Catholics don't think what Mormons do in their temples has any validity anyway. Have they changed their minds about that recently?

Anyway, I just wrote a long post to convey the way I see today's 'issue'.

[terri910]

Perhaps you would be satisfied if Catholics claimed Joseph Smith converted to Catholicism posthumously, and was canonized as the patron saint of single women? You don't belive in the Catholic process of canonization, anyway, so why should it matter to you?

(again, I'm reminded of the microsoft emails. Beware of a free lunch)
I can predict the answer to this, scipio.

The problem is, the only way to know the true answer would be to observe an alternate universe. I believe that in an alternate universe, where another faith performed proxy rites upon people, but the LDS Church did not, these same people would quickly understand the objections.

[justamere10]

Perhaps you would be satisfied if Catholics claimed Joseph Smith converted to Catholicism posthumously, and was canonized as the patron saint of single women? You don't belive in the Catholic process of canonization, anyway, so why should it matter to you?

(again, I'm reminded of the microsoft emails. Beware of a free lunch)


I don't, and it wouldn't. My life would be enriched with a very good chuckle if the Catholics canonized Joseph Smith. With respect, I can't prevent myself from writing this: Would Catholics pray to Joseph Smith then?? :-)

By the way, Latter-day Saints pray only to Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Dancer]

Justamere...here is what I am going to say...

Clearly you don't respect the Catholic faith. Why would you? You left it. If you respected it, then you would respect the BELIEFS of that body of Christ. The beliefs of the faithful (and their relationship with God) are more important to the Catholic Church than the LDS desire to 'preserve records'.

I am happy for you that you want to learn about your family history, but implying that you knowing your family history is more important than another person's relationship with God comes across as you worshipping your family history. Worshipping your family history still isn't worshipping God. These records are about a relationship with God through the Catholic Church and that relationship is NOT the business of the Church of LDS. Certain members of the Church of LDS have been using the records they have been able to obtain to do things that the Catholic Church cannot support.

If God thinks it is that important for you to know your family history, God will find a way for you to find it out eventually. You won't need the Catholic Church to provide private records to you for it.

God bless.

[terri910]

I need to take my psychic abilities on the television circuit.

My talent is wasted here. :))

[Snow]

Perhaps you would be satisfied if Catholics claimed Joseph Smith converted to Catholicism posthumously, and was canonized as the patron saint of single women? You don't belive in the Catholic process of canonization, anyway, so why should it matter to you?

(again, I'm reminded of the microsoft emails. Beware of a free lunch)

What is your point? Do you know of The Church of Jesus Christ claiming that Catholics have posthumously converted to Mormonism?

[scipio337]

What is your point? Do you know of The Church of Jesus Christ claiming that Catholics have posthumously converted to Mormonism?Assuming they accept the proxy baptism isn't the same?

Those people were already baptised. As Catholics. They heard Joseph Smith's testimony, and rejected it.

[coMITTed]

Perhaps you would be satisfied if Catholics claimed Joseph Smith converted to Catholicism posthumously, and was canonized as the patron saint of single women? You don't belive in the Catholic process of canonization, anyway, so why should it matter to you?

(again, I'm reminded of the microsoft emails. Beware of a free lunch)

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with that b/c it would have no bearing whatsoever on his soul. If I don't believe in the validity of the "canonization," obviously it means nothing. I'd find it flattering that another church was concerned enough about the eternal welfare of others to do something proactive about it, but other than that, it would all just be pomp and circumstance to me.

I think that's where we're having a difficult time understanding each other, though. Y'all pose reverse hypotheticals and it REALLY doesn't bother us the same way it bothers you. So many of us don't know why it's such a big deal, especially if you see LDS proxy ordinances as having no validity. It's not as if we publish a public list of those for whom temple work has been done (other than noting it on LDS genaelogical records). We don't claim our current membership to contain the names of the dead (otherwise we'd be potentially at well over 100 million, but obviously there's no way to know who's accepted those ordinances on the other side and who hasn't).

HOWEVER, I understand that many of you non-LDS are upset by our practices for your own personal reasons, which are more than valid. If you're upset you're upset, and it doesn't matter how many times we say "oh, but you shouldn't be." I get that, I really do. All I can say is that we do our darndest to provide proxy work solely for our DIRECT relatives (and as far as I understand it, we've been instructed to work primarily on our paternal line first before moving on to maternal lines, so the Church is getting really specific as to whom we should be doing the work for). So unless you have a grand-child or great-grandchild who joins the LDS Church, you've got nothing to worry about. Personally, I think the end of days is so close that even that concern is moot (for anyone under the age of 30, anyway). I know it's little comfort to some of you, but it's the best I can offer.

[Meriweather]

What is your point? Do you know of The Church of Jesus Christ claiming that Catholics have posthumously converted to Mormonism?


You don't believe they have? If you don't believe in their conversion, then you must not believe in the conversion of those you have been baptized LDS when alive. In other words, LDS baptism means nothing to you?

[coMITTed]

Assuming they accept the proxy baptism isn't the same?

Those people were already baptised. As Catholics. They heard Joseph Smith's testimony, and rejected it.

Actually, there are only a few generations who'd even have had the chance to know about Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most on the other side have been there for centuries--some for millenia. I can sorta understand your opposition to proxy baptism to those who'd have had the chance to hear the gospel in this life, but would you deny those who'd NEVER heard it that opportunity?

[terri910]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/terri910/carnac.jpg
My mentor.

[scipio337]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with that b/c it would have no bearing whatsoever on his soul. If I don't believe in the validity of the "canonization," obviously it means nothing. I'd find it flattering that another church was concerned enough about the eternal welfare of others to do something proactive about it, but other than that, it would all just be pomp and circumstance to me.

I think that's where we're having a difficult time understanding each other, though. Y'all pose reverse hypotheticals and it REALLY doesn't bother us the same way it bothers you. So many of us don't know why it's such a big deal, especially if you see LDS proxy ordinances as having no validity. It's not as if we publish a public list of those for whom temple work has been done (other than noting it on LDS genaelogical records). We don't claim our current membership to contain the names of the dead (otherwise we'd be potentially at well over 100 million, but obviously there's no way to know who's accepted those ordinances on the other side and who hasn't).

HOWEVER, I understand that many of you non-LDS are upset by our practices for your own personal reasons, which are more than valid. If you're upset you're upset, and it doesn't matter how many times we say "oh, but you shouldn't be." I get that, I really do. All I can say is that we do our darndest to provide proxy work solely for our DIRECT relatives (and as far as I understand it, we've been instructed to work primarily on our paternal line first before moving on to maternal lines, so the Church is getting really specific as to whom we should be doing the work for). So unless you have a grand-child or great-grandchild who joins the LDS Church, you've got nothing to worry about. Personally, I think the end of days is so close that even that concern is moot (for anyone under the age of 30, anyway). I know it's little comfort to some of you, but it's the best I can offer.

I appreciate the sentiment, coMITT (and congrats on the baby!), but my point is, by doing so, you claim that person's previous baptism invalid, and it is rather presumptious to imply that someone would accept in "the spirit world" what they rejected in life.

[justamere10]

Justamere...here is what I am going to say...

Clearly you don't respect the Catholic faith. Why would you? You left it. If you respected it, then you would respect the BELIEFS of that body of Christ. The beliefs of the faithful (and their relationship with God) are more important to the Catholic Church than the LDS desire to 'preserve records'.

I am happy for you that you want to learn about your family history, but implying that you knowing your family history is more important than another person's relationship with God comes across as you worshipping your family history. Worshipping your family history still isn't worshipping God. These records are about a relationship with God through the Catholic Church and that relationship is NOT the business of the Church of LDS. Certain members of the Church of LDS have been using the records they have been able to obtain to do things that the Catholic Church cannot support.

If God thinks it is that important for you to know your family history, God will find a way for you to find it out eventually. You won't need the Catholic Church to provide private records to you for it.

God bless.


We really do have a disconnect happening here and I honestly do not comprehend the emotions attached to it if Catholics don't consider valid what the Saints do inside their temples. Why should it matter to you? What you do in your cathedrals means nothing to me except I might get some joy when passing by and hearing hymns sung to my God and my Lord Jesus Christ and know that others too are worshipping Him, even if differently than I do.

And pardon me! It's clear to me that I DO respect Catholics and their beliefs as much as I respect the members of any other Christian denomination, or any of God's children on earth for that matter regardless of which denomination of which church they choose to affiliate with.

I respect your beliefs, I know quite a bit about your beliefs having been Catholic myself. Elsewhere I expressed gratitude for having been raised Catholic and been taught the moral beliefs that kept me to the best of my ability from succumbing to carnal temptations that if acted upon offend God and cause part of another precious drop of the blood of my Redeemer to fall to the ground. I have great respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

I don't understand the logic of that other paragraph you wrote. I do not "worship" family history or relationships or whatever. I worship God.

[Dancer]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with that b/c it would have no bearing whatsoever on his soul. If I don't believe in the validity of the "canonization," obviously it means nothing. I'd find it flattering that another church was concerned enough about the eternal welfare of others to do something proactive about it, but other than that, it would all just be pomp and circumstance to me.

I think that's where we're having a difficult time understanding each other, though. Y'all pose reverse hypotheticals and it REALLY doesn't bother us the same way it bothers you. So many of us don't know why it's such a big deal, especially if you see LDS proxy ordinances as having no validity. It's not as if we publish a public list of those for whom temple work has been done (other than noting it on LDS genaelogical records). We don't claim our current membership to contain the names of the dead (otherwise we'd be potentially at well over 100 million, but obviously there's no way to know who's accepted those ordinances on the other side and who hasn't).

HOWEVER, I understand that many of you non-LDS are upset by our practices for your own personal reasons, which are more than valid. If you're upset you're upset, and it doesn't matter how many times we say "oh, but you shouldn't be." I get that, I really do. All I can say is that we do our darndest to provide proxy work solely for our DIRECT relatives (and as far as I understand it, we've been instructed to work primarily on our paternal line first before moving on to maternal lines, so the Church is getting really specific as to whom we should be doing the work for). So unless you have a grand-child or great-grandchild who joins the LDS Church, you've got nothing to worry about. Personally, I think the end of days is so close that even that concern is moot (for anyone under the age of 30, anyway). I know it's little comfort to some of you, but it's the best I can offer.I am going to compare something a little different.

I have no problem if you consider/call previous Popes "false prophets"...that is your opinion. Is it ok if I call Joseph Smith a false prophet?

You are claiming their faith and baptism is WRONG...thus FALSE. They have no way to object for themselves. Their relatives are offended on their behalf...just as you have become offended on Joseph Smith's behalf.

[coMITTed]

You don't believe they have? If you don't believe in their conversion, then you must not believe in the conversion of those you have been baptized LDS when alive. In other words, LDS baptism means nothing to you?

Personally, I happen to believe that the vast majority for whom proxy work is done end up accepting it. I have felt the comfort and thanks from those for whom I am standing as proxy many times, and I've heard stories of people who even heard or saw their ancestor in the temple, thanking them for their gift of service. I know this probably means nothing to you (I certainly hope it doesn't offend you), other than to assure you that I feel very strongly about the sacredness of what we're doing in our temples, that we take it very seriously, and that we believe these proxy ordinances are not in vain.

[justamere10]

Assuming they accept the proxy baptism isn't the same?

Those people were already baptised. As Catholics. They heard Joseph Smith's testimony, and rejected it.


And, in your hypothesis, they have every right to do that rejecting or accepting. I don't hear them complaining. :-)

[coMITTed]

I appreciate the sentiment, coMITT (and congrats on the baby!), but my point is, by doing so, you claim that person's previous baptism invalid, and it is rather presumptious to imply that someone would accept in "the spirit world" what they rejected in life.

Just to clarify, off topic--I haven't had the baby yet. We just had the ultra sound a couple weeks ago and found out it's a girl. I'm at 21 weeks, so just over half-way there :).

As to your post, I actually just addressed this very topic in my immediately previous post above.

[Dancer]

We really do have a disconnect happening here and I honestly do not comprehend the emotions attached to it if Catholics don't consider valid what the Saints do inside their temples. Why should it matter to you? What you do in your cathedrals means nothing to me except I might get some joy when passing by and hearing hymns sung to my God and my Lord Jesus Christ and know that others too are worshipping Him, even if differently than I do.

And pardon me! It's clear to me that I DO respect Catholics and their beliefs as much as I respect the members of any other Christian denomination, or any of God's children on earth for that matter regardless of which denomination of which church they choose to affiliate with.

I respect your beliefs, I know quite a bit about your beliefs having been Catholic myself. Elsewhere I expressed gratitude for having been raised Catholic and been taught the moral beliefs that kept me to the best of my ability from succumbing to carnal temptations that if acted upon offend God and cause part of another precious drop of the blood of my Redeemer to fall to the ground. I have great respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

I don't understand the logic of that other paragraph you wrote. I do not "worship" family history or relationships or whatever. I worship God.If you worship God then you understand that worshipping God is not about 'family records' it is about a person's relationship with God.

A relationship that the LDS church attempts to change with proxy baptisms. Thus, the Catholic Church is going to protect their faithful from proxy baptisms.

[outdamyboat]

Call it your private records or not, those parish records are the records of the families of a huge number of non-Catholics too. [/SIZE]I think it highly irresponsible of the Catholic Church, and it has the resources to do it, to not film and preserve those records even if today there are apparently some men in the Vatican who think they should not be made available for the world to research.


[I]"As was mentioned in the other thread, the historical accuracy of re-baptizing someone into the Mormon faith after that person has died offends many people of faiths that are NOT LDS."

"Offend" is an emotional term. I say if you are offended by what the Masons do in their temples, the Buddhists do at their altars, or any Christian denomination does for religious practices, as long as what they are doing does you no real harm, then DEAL WITH IT! There is such a thing as religious freedom in this country.
And by the way, it's not the "Mormon" faith. Mormon is the prophet who compiled the writings of many other prophets into the book we call today "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ". People baptized by proxy in LDS temples are baptized by those having priesthood authority (in our belief) in the name of JESUS CHRIST, not Mormon or any other name. And again, why should you care? What Mormons do in their temples should not mean anything to you because you do not believe what we believe. It matters not to me what Catholics do in their cathedrals, that's how they worship the same God, the same Lord, Jesus Christ. Different than the way I do, different than the way the Baptists or any other Christian denomination does it, but still God, still Jesus Christ.


"I suppose you would be right, IF they accepted those baptisms as valid. But since in addition to baptizing people who have ALREADY BEEN baptized, they are also 'marrying off' people who have never been married...such as Popes.... This conflicts with ACTUAL history so I imagine that the Church would have a LOT of issues with lies about their Popes being bandied about...much less about their parishioners."

I am pleased that the Catholic Church took care of baptizing, marrying, and burying thousands of my ancestors. If those ordinances are all those ancestors need in the eyes of God to take care of their salvation, wonderful! If another church believes that there's a gap somewhere and that God has commissioned them to take care of that gap for my ancestors, LET THEM! I'm happy that possibility has been covered by someone. If when we die we find out that second "baptism" or whatever was not valid in God's eyes, then so, nothing has been harmed, some people who thought they were serving God and their fellow man deserve some credit for their service.

But if those additional baptisms were valid and necessary in God's eyes, then wonderful, IT'S TAKEN CARE OF! Besides, as you know, we believe that free agency, the power to choose, reigns supreme in the universe. Nobody is being forced to accept any ordinance, valid or invalid.

This is an emotional issue on this thread only because some writers have chosen to make it so. In the light of day, analyze what's really happening and it boils right down to responsibly preserving the world's vital records. Somebody's got to do it, or they will be lost forever. The religious thing should not apply to the issue because Catholics don't think what the Saints do is valid anyway. So, ho-hum, why should today be any different when it comes to religious differences?


"Then you do not consider yourself Catholic and should realize the Catholic Church does not answer to the LDS. As sad as it is that you lost family records, I am sure that the Catholic Church is more concerned about their faithful knowing that their records will not be altered by the LDS church to say that people were baptized LDS after they died."

Think about what you wrote. The LDS Church films original vital records all over the world. The Church gives the original owners a copy of the film, leaves the original records with them, then places a copy of the original records in a granite mountain for safe-keeping. Also, as a courtesy, the LDS Church makes a copy of those same ORIGINAL records available to researchers all over the world free of charge. And your problem is?

One would think the world would applaud the service the Saints are rendering to people all over the world who love families and who turn their heart to their fathers. It's the ordinary Saints, people like me and the other LDS writing on this board, by their tithing who are paying for all of that, for all of the world who will allow the volunteer filmers to preserve their vital records.


"Do you have documentation for that inflammatory accusation?"

I do not have documentation in front of me but it is very well known that almost all of the written records of native Americans were destroyed by the Spanish when they conquered Mexico and other places in the new world. Take any tour of Mexico and you will probably hear about that. You can google it I'm sure. Weren't the Spanish Catholic at that time?


"I think the LDS should worry about the LDS church and let the Catholic Church worry about their own faithful."

Yes, that is a good thought. But let's everyone in the world responsibly preserve the records of our ancestors if only for future generations. The Catholic Church has the records of thousands of my ancestors, as it has the records of millions of other non-Catholics. Take care of your sacred trust....

I have deleted some of the above post just to make it shorter. In reference to the enlarged text:

1.) My geneology is in the Catholic archives b/c my ancestors were Catholic at the time. The Catholics only have that information from 'free will'. Just as my ancestors would have to have a 'court ordered' document to review my medical records..if I was dead...I would like a court order in place for the release of these geneology records.

2.) Offend is not just an emotion experience. It can be a physical experience also...when LDS take my families geneology w/out my permission the LDS have performed a physically offending act...emotion may or may not be involve. ie: LDS, with all due respect, keep your hands off my private information. Again, I do think this will be eventually settled legally. I do not have the right to break another persons legal 'boundaries' to fulfill my spiritual needs.

LDS religious freedom can not trample other personal freedoms, IMO. I don't think it will hold up in the US court system.

3.) Many care about this practice because we see it as an infringement of our personal privacy and constitutional rights.

4.) Your ancestors records, given to the Catholic church, were not given so that LDS could 'undo' the intention of your ancestors. The Catholic church has a moral/ethical responsibility to perserve the records of myself and my children....I gave my records in good faith, never suspecting the Catholic church would be 'manipulated' to give those records out for anothers gain. They have a responsibility to protect my private information.

[coMITTed]

I am going to compare something a little different.

I have no problem if you consider previous Popes "false prophets"...that is your opinion. Is it ok if I call Joseph Smith a false prophet?

You are claiming their faith is WRONG...thus FALSE. They have no way to object for themselves. Their relatives are offended on their behalf...just as you have become offended on Joseph Smith's behalf.

I'm pretty sure that's a TOS no-no, which is why I deleted all my posts that implied such, and CD (supposedly) deleted his. As far as comparing that to the offense you find in proxy ordinances, it really makes no sense b/c you have to look at where it's coming from. Temple work is providing a service for those who cannot do for themselves what we can. It's a very selfless and loving act, which sentiment I know you don't share, but that's how we approach it. Calling Joseph Smith a false prophet does nothing but stir up contention b/c it's coming from a place which purpose is solely to, well, stir up contention, no matter how you look at it.

As far as objection goes, the dead certainly have a way to object--they either accept the proxy ordinance or they don't. The only reason the ordinances are noted on genaelogical records is so that people (family members) know it's been done already, and regardless of whether or not the relative accepted it, it's been done. It's not to indicate posthumous "membership" in anything--just that the deceased now have had the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel on the other side, given whatever new knowledge or insight that they might have.

[scipio337]

Actually, there are only a few generations who'd even have had the chance to know about Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most on the other side have been there for centuries--some for millenia. I can sorta understand your opposition to proxy baptism to those who'd have had the chance to hear the gospel in this life, but would you deny those who'd NEVER heard it that opportunity?My point is, it is a pointy stick to the eye regarding our own faith. To put it succinctly, it's as if you're saying.

"Look, your religion really sucks. In fact, it sucks so bad, that those people you provided sacraments for weren't saved at all, which is why they need to be offered salvation, posthumously, from your sucky faith. Have a nice day".

Great about the baby. I'm a godfather to a 5lb 4oz girl born last Friday. (No, I'm not trying to include infant baptism in the thread!)

[justamere10]

If you worship God then you understand that worshipping God is not about 'family records' it is about a person's relationship with God.

A relationship that the LDS church attempts to change with proxy baptisms. Thus, the Catholic Church is going to protect their faithful from proxy baptisms.

That's what I thought I just wrote. I worship God, not relationships or family records. I cherish my own personal relationship with God.

I kind of think you are not understanding the issue, and I know you are not speaking for the Catholic Church or probably for many other Catholics. Is the Vatican order to apparently no longer allow the LDS Church to film and preserve vital parish records somehow going to "protect the faithful?"

Don't forget too, that the descendents of probably an enormous number of those "faithful" whose lives are documented in parish records probably number in the tens or hundreds of millions of non-Catholics. Those records faithfully kept over the centures by sincere Catholic priests, in my opinion, are also sacred trust for enormous numbers of people who today are not Catholics. Take care of them please, that's MY family too that you are keeping records for...

[coMITTed]

I have deleted some of the above post just to make it shorter. In reference to the enlarged text:

1.) My geneology is in the Catholic archives b/c my ancestors were Catholic at the time. The Catholics only have that information from 'free will'. Just as my ancestors would have to have a 'court ordered' document to review my medical records..if I was dead...I would like a court order in place for the release of these geneology records.

2.) Offend is not just an emotion experience. It can be a physical experience also...when LDS take my families geneology w/out my permission the LDS have performed a physically offending act...emotion may or may not be involve. ie: LDS, with all due respect, keep your hands off my private information. Again, I do think this will be eventually settled legally. I do not have the right to break another persons legal 'boundaries' to fulfill my spiritual needs.

LDS religious freedom can not trample other personal freedoms, IMO. I don't think it will hold up in the US court system.

3.) Many care about this practice because we see it as an infringement of our personal privacy and constitutional rights.

4.) Your ancestors records, given to the Catholic church, were not given so that LDS could 'undo' the intention of your ancestors. The Catholic church has a moral/ethical responsibility to perserve the records of myself and my children....I gave my records in good faith, never suspecting the Catholic church would be 'manipulated' to give those records out for anothers gain. They have a responsibility to protect my private information.

With all due respect--if we share the same paternal great-grandmother, she's MY great-grandmother just as much as she is yours. We do work for OUR ancestors, not YOURS, so unless there is an equivalent, shared relative I really wouldn't lose any sleep over this.

I know it sounds ugly and stark, but it would absolutely hold up in a court of law b/c we are not infringing on anyone's private property or physcial well being. Unlike medical records, names and dates are public domain; and unless we're violating civil law in any way (which the Church is VERY careful not to do), there's no need to bring litigation into the equation. The Church would win without a fight (it'd probably be dismissed from court altogether as a frivolous lawsuit) and it would only anger the opposition more; and as a religious person yourself, I REALLY don't think you'd want the government poking around in strictly spiritual practices. Imagine what they'd do with the idea of transubstantiation--isn't canibalism illegal in this counry. . .:think:? Isn't THAT what the constituion is supposed to protect us from insofar as freedom of religion is concerned? Isn't THAT what separation of church and state REALLY means--keeping the gov't out of our churches, not the other way around?

[Bigcanuck]

Well Hello Big C! Yes, there are so many LDS here we we're thinking about passing sacrament, except we were going to use cornbread. (There have be many cornbread discussions going on sorta sprinlied in. In fact, my wife has some in the oven now). Good to hear from you again. I hope you can hang around. Things here have become much tamer than they were when you were here last.

Thanks old Tex. Things got a little slow on the little discussion forum up here once we all got tired of a certain poster and let him know it.

I make cornbread a couple of times a month for the missionaries up here. Even an elder from texas thought it was decent.

good to be back.

[Dancer]

I'm pretty sure that's a TOS no-no, which is why I deleted all my posts that implied such, and CD (supposedly) deleted his. Actually, I am pretty sure it isn't based on the ruling tislaw made that as long as I say "I believe" and "because" around it that its ok, but I am not referring to 'in here'.

I am referring to 'in general'. IF I were to say "I believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet because of all the errors in translation that are similar from the KJV to the BoM" it would offend you. It doesn't offend me at all if you consider my husband (a priest...an OLD CATHOLIC priest, not Roman Catholic) a false prophet. That is your opinion! It doesn't offend me if you think or say that anyone is a false prophet. That is your opinon.

When a Mormon performs a proxy baptism, they are, in essense, saying, "Everything this person believed and taught in life was false regarding faith, so I am going to rewrite history to say they believe something else now...hopefully."

As far as comparing that to the offense you find in proxy ordinances,Woah, stop right there. I have said over and over and over in previous thread on this that I really don't care if you baptize me by proxy ANYTHING. I know the truth and so does God and that is all that is important to me. it really makes no sense b/c you have to look at where it's coming from. Temple work is providing a service for those who cannot do for themselves what we can. It's a very selfless and loving act, which sentiment I know you don't share, but that's how we approach it.Perhaps those who are calling Joseph Smith a false prophet are doing so because it is a loving act and they are concerned for your salvation, follow a false prophet can be harmful because they lead people AWAY from God. Calling Joseph Smith a false prophet does nothing but stir up contention b/c it's coming from a place which purpose is solely to, well, stir up contention, no matter how you look at it.No, not no matter how I look at it. I just showed how a person could honestly have good intentions and still be doing something that offends you.

As far as objection goes, the dead certainly have a way to object--they either accept the proxy ordinance or they don't. The only reason the ordinances are noted on genaelogical records is so that people (family members) know it's been done already, and regardless of whether or not the relative accepted it, it's been done. It's not to indicate posthumous "membership" in anything--just that the deceased now have had the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel on the other side, given whatever new knowledge or insight that they might have.I am not arguing against your church doing them. You and your church are going to do what you believe is right. I am JUST trying to help you see the other point of view. I realize that Mormons believe they are helping people. I happen to think you are completely wasting your time. I am ONLY trying to show those of you who appear not to be able to understand the CATHOLIC point of view HOW the people who are offended by this feel and why they would say, "You are not allowed to do this to my family."

[coMITTed]

My point is, it is a pointy stick to the eye regarding our own faith. To put it succinctly, it's as if you're saying.

"Look, your religion really sucks. In fact, it sucks so bad, that those people you provided sacraments for weren't saved at all, which is why they need to be offered salvation, posthumously, from your sucky faith. Have a nice day".

Great about the baby. I'm a godfather to a 5lb 4oz girl born last Friday. (No, I'm not trying to include infant baptism in the thread!)

But that's not what we're saying at all. We're not saying that anyone "sucks". We're saying that maybe you lived your life in one faith. Maybe you were a really good person, and maybe that faith had a lot of good and truth to offer. Maybe after you died you had the opportunity to learn about the WHOLE truth, the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness, and maybe now you've accepted it as truth. But now that you're dead, you have no way to participate in the saving ordinances that Christ commanded and provided. We can help offer that to you. It's a lot of maybes, I realize. But like I said, I really do feel that most accept these ordinances on the other side. We just have no way of knowing what all will be revealed when we take that next great step that is death in our eternal progression. Not even the modern prophets and apostles have told us everything. I'm sure we'll all be surprised--LDS and non-LDS--at what awaits us next.

[birdonawire]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time! Keep it up guys I am enjoying it.

I do say thank you to the LDS here that have posted the link to the geneology data base!!!!

I have been trying to find my grandfather for YEARS and got nothing but it took all of five minutes and I found him!!!!!!

Thank you!!!!:hug:

[Meriweather]

Personally, I happen to believe that the vast majority for whom proxy work is done end up accepting it. I have felt the comfort and thanks from those for whom I am standing as proxy many times, and I've heard stories of people who even heard or saw their ancestor in the temple, thanking them for their gift of service. I know this probably means nothing to you (I certainly hope it doesn't offend you), other than to assure you that I feel very strongly about the sacredness of what we're doing in our temples, that we take it very seriously, and that we believe these proxy ordinances are not in vain.

Actually it does touch me. You see, I pray for those who have passed on, and I, too, have had experiences which lead me to believe these prayers have not been in vain. The difference is, in praying for them, I do not baptize them into my own beliefs. The atheist is still respected as an atheist, the Quaker as a Quaker, and so forth and so on. I, a Catholic, am only offering prayers for the happy repose of the soul of my relatives, ancestors, and friends who have passed on. Each year, the Catholic Church dedicates month of November, for prayers and remembrances of those who have passed on. And, of course, we pray for the dead during our daily Mass.

As you believe in the sacredness of LDS ceremonies and beliefs, so do I believe in the sacredness of Catholic ceremonies and beliefs. LDS ceremonies and beliefs should not be thrust upon Jews, Catholics, or anyone else whose life has demonstrated they adhere to a different faith. You would agree that it is not right do this while they are alive, so death certainly cannot make it a right thing to do.

[coMITTed]

Actually, I am pretty sure it isn't based on the ruling tislaw made that as long as I say "I believe" and "because" around it that its ok, but I am not referring to 'in here'.

I am referring to 'in general'. IF I were to say "I believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet because of all the errors in translation that are similar from the KJV to the BoM" it would offend you. It doesn't offend me at all if you consider my husband (a priest...an OLD CATHOLIC priest, not Roman Catholic) a false prophet. That is your opinion! It doesn't offend me if you think or say that anyone is a false prophet. That is your opinon.

When a Mormon performs a proxy baptism, they are, in essense, saying, "Everything this person believed and taught in life was false regarding faith, so I am going to rewrite history to say they believe something else now...hopefully."

Woah, stop right there. I have said over and over and over in previous thread on this that I really don't care if you baptize me by proxy ANYTHING. I know the truth and so does God and that is all that is important to me. Perhaps those who are calling Joseph Smith a false prophet are doing so because it is a loving act and they are concerned for your salvation, follow a false prophet can be harmful because they lead people AWAY from God. No, not no matter how I look at it. I just showed how a person could honestly have good intentions and still be doing something that offends you.

I am not arguing against your church doing them. You and your church are going to do what you believe is right. I am JUST trying to help you see the other point of view. I realize that Mormons believe they are helping people. I happen to think you are completely wasting your time. I am ONLY trying to show those of you who appear not to be able to understand the CATHOLIC point of view HOW the people who are offended by this feel and why they would say, "You are not allowed to do this to my family."

If someone approaches me politely (and that would include "it is my belief" or "I think" on these forums) with genuine concern that Joseph Smith is a false prophet and that I am being led away from God, I usually thank them for their concern and appreciate that they care enough about me to want to help me. However, if someone rants in a tirade about Joseph being a false prophet b/c their emotions are stirred up in anger, or to somehow "prove" that their faith is superior to mine, that's another matter. It really all depends on where the person is coming from.

In addition, even if that person is coming from a place of pride and anger, it is my CHOICE to be offended. I CHOSE to let CD get the best of me Sunday evening and my response was less than Christ-like. That's MY FAULT for allowing MY pride and anger get the best of me and I acknowledge that. So again, your comparison really doesn't hold water b/c the ONLY place proxy ordinances can come from is love and selflessness and concern. People don't perform them to "best" another person's faith, or just to stir up contention. Quite the contrary. At one point in one of our ordinances, we are actually asked NOT to participate if we have any unkind feelings toward anyone involved.

Again, we are not saying that everything the deceased was taught in their faith was wrong. On the contrary, we feel there is a lot of truth and beauty in any faith that leads men to do good and serve their fellow man. We see these wonderful expressions of faith as great things with many true principles, just incomplete insofar as the gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned. And that's where the proxy ordinances come in, to fill in the gaps, as it were.

Also, when you get far enough back in a family tree, YOUR ancestors become just as much MY ancestors. If it's a direct paternal line, then that's what I've been asked to research and whose names to submit for proxy work. This is not an issue of mine vs. yours as far as ancestors are concerned. Mistakes have been made, and we've acknowledged that they were indeed mistakes. But the Church is quite clear insofar as instruction goes--research the paternal lines, submit the names, do the work for OUR ancestors.

[justamere10]

I have deleted some of the above post just to make it shorter. In reference to the enlarged text:

1.) My geneology is in the Catholic archives b/c my ancestors were Catholic at the time. The Catholics only have that information from 'free will'. Just as my ancestors would have to have a 'court ordered' document to review my medical records..if I was dead...I would like a court order in place for the release of these geneology records.

2.) Offend is not just an emotion experience. It can be a physical experience also...when LDS take my families geneology w/out my permission the LDS have performed a physically offending act...emotion may or may not be involve. ie: LDS, with all due respect, keep your hands off my private information. Again, I do think this will be eventually settled legally. I do not have the right to break another persons legal 'boundaries' to fulfill my spiritual needs.

LDS religious freedom can not trample other personal freedoms, IMO. I don't think it will hold up in the US court system.

3.) Many care about this practice because we see it as an infringement of our personal privacy and constitutional rights.

4.) Your ancestors records, given to the Catholic church, were not given so that LDS could 'undo' the intention of your ancestors. The Catholic church has a moral/ethical responsibility to perserve the records of myself and my children....I gave my records in good faith, never suspecting the Catholic church would be 'manipulated' to give those records out for anothers gain. They have a responsibility to protect my private information.

With respect, you too in my opinion do not understand the reality of this 'issue' but you certainly understand the emotions that are flowing today.

There is no legal issue in this matter. The Latter-day Saints NEVER forced anyone to give them access to their vital records so they could film and preserve them, and they are not going to start trying.

In my opinion it is sad that a few men (I assume) in a far away country have issued a dictate that will potentially deprive millions of Americans from ever knowing who their ancestors are.

That's the real issue as I understand it.

If, as someone wrote in this thread this morning, the Catholic Church has already filmed all the parish records and are preserving them, then the issue becomes only one of the right of Catholics and non-Catholics alike to have reasonable access to those records for genealogical research.

[coMITTed]

Actually it does touch me. You see, I pray for those who have passed on, and I, too, have had experiences which lead me to believe these prayers have not been in vain. The difference is, in praying for them, I do not baptize them into my own beliefs. The atheist is still respected as an atheist, the Quaker as a Quaker, and so forth and so on. I, a Catholic, am only offering prayers for the happy repose of the soul of my relatives, ancestors, and friends who have passed on. Each year, the Catholic Church dedicates month of November, for prayers and remembrances of those who have passed on. And, of course, we pray for the dead during our daily Mass.

As you believe in the sacredness of LDS ceremonies and beliefs, so do I believe in the sacredness of Catholic ceremonies and beliefs. LDS ceremonies and beliefs should not be thrust upon Jews, Catholics, or anyone else whose life has demonstrated they adhere to a different faith. You would agree that it is not right do this while they are alive, so death certainly cannot make it a right thing to do.

I guess there's no way to help you see that we are not "thrusting" anything on anyone. I realize the ticket-left-at-the-box-office analogy is somewhat profane, but we're not shoving that ticket in anyone's pocket. Public records will ALWAYS say that you were born a Catholic, lived a Catholic, and died a Catholic. Even if proxy work was done for you, the only way anyone would ever know is if they researched LDS genealogical records and saw the footnotes. And they would not see that we "claim" that you were "posthumously" Mormon--just that the work had been done. And the only reason even that would be noted would be so that the work was not repeated. We don't note proxy ordinances as having been performed to "claim" anyone--it's to prevent redundancy b/c there's just so much work to do for so many people and we can't afford to get stuck on the names for whom the work has been offered already.

Two questions: first, being a Catholic, I assume that you believe that only Catholics will receive their reward in heaven? All others will be in purgatory or hell? Correct me if I'm wrong there. And as a devout Catholic, believing that you have a monopoly on the whole truth, wouldn't you want all those you loved to be able to be with you in heaven? If they die and realize that you were right, that Catholicism is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that they actually still had the opportunity to change their hearts and minds, wouldn't you want to afford them the opportunity to be able to accept certain saving rites and sacraments? I realize that mindset kind of flies in the face of the Catholic doctrine, but I'm just curious as to how you feel about this particular hypothetical.

Second, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now how exactly your "distant" relatives were related to your grandmother for whom proxy work was done. Third cousins twice-removed, for example?

[justamere10]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time! Keep it up guys I am enjoying it.

I do say thank you to the LDS here that have posted the link to the geneology data base!!!!

I have been trying to find my grandfather for YEARS and got nothing but it took all of five minutes and I found him!!!!!!

Thank you!!!!:hug:

It's wonderful that so many caring and responsible people allow the LDS to film, preserve, and make available vital records that in my opinion should be made available to everyone so they can easily free of charge trace their family roots as you have done.

Congratulations on your almost instant success. That's the way it should be for everyone. And without interference that's the way it would be for everyone until the LDS stop paying their tithing and providing all of that free to the world.

[scipio337]

But that's not what we're saying at all. We're not saying that anyone "sucks". We're saying that maybe you lived your life in one faith. Maybe you were a really good person, and maybe that faith had a lot of good and truth to offer......BUT, that wasn't enough? Maybe after you died you had the opportunity to learn about the WHOLE truth, the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness, and maybe now you've accepted it as truth. Okay, you may not be coming straight out with a "you suck" charge, but we believe the FULL Gospel of Christ was delivered and received, as is outlines in the Scriptures and Traditions. Is there something wrong with our own Baptisimal rite? But now that you're dead, you have no way to participate in the saving ordinances that Christ commanded and provided. We can help offer that to you. It's a lot of maybes, I realize. But like I said, I really do feel that most accept these ordinances on the other side. We just have no way of knowing what all will be revealed when we take that next great step that is death in our eternal progression. Not even the modern prophets and apostles have told us everything. I'm sure we'll all be surprised--LDS and non-LDS--at what awaits us next.Again, I think this a an incredible presumption on the person performing the proxy baptism.

In your great grandmother example, of course I agree she would be as much your great grandmother as she is mine, but if great granny was a Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic, or atheist, shouldn't her religious freedom (and freedom from religion) end where your religious freedom begins? All things being equal, shouldn't the deciding factor be what choices that person decided in life?

[scipio337]

[QUOTE=justamere10;26895641]It's wonderful that so many caring and responsible people allow the LDS to film, preserve, and make available vital records that in my opinion should be made available to everyone so they can easily free of charge trace their family roots as you have done.

Congratulations on your almost instant success. That's the way it should be for everyone. And without interference that's the way it would be for everyone until the LDS stop paying their tithing and providing all of that free to the world.

QUOTE]With all respect, I don't believe its done out of the kindess of their hearts, but to give the LDS Church a greater database for proxy baptisms.

[Meriweather]

Two questions: first, being a Catholic, I assume that you believe that only Catholics will receive their reward in heaven? All others will be in purgatory or hell? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Yes, you are wrong. Catholics do not believe this. Catholics do not claim to know who is in heaven, hell, or purgatory. That is God's judgment, not ours.

And as a devout Catholic, believing that you have a monopoly on the whole truth, wouldn't you want all those you loved to be able to be with you in heaven?

Through the mercy of God, I believe I will see my relatives, which include my atheist grandfather, atheist husband, and any number of other atheists in my family.

If they die and realize that you were right, that Catholicism is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that they actually still had the opportunity to change their hearts and minds, wouldn't you want to afford them the opportunity to be able to accept certain saving rites and sacraments? I realize that mindset kind of flies in the face of the Catholic doctrine, but I'm just curious as to how you feel about this particular hypothetical.

Wouldn't I want to afford them the opportunity? They have passed on. Why would they look back to ME? Why wouldn't they be looking forward to Christ? You believe they can get to Christ through me? I'm not the way, the truth, and the life--Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Second, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now how exactly your "distant" relatives were related to your grandmother for whom proxy work was done. Third cousins twice-removed, for example?

That I didn't calculate. They shared a common ancestor, Great-Great, if I'm remembering correctly, so it is distant enough that my family doesn't hasn't even heard of their existence. Until I contacted her, all my grandmother's family line was to her were names on paper.

[scipio337]

Since we already have a proxy baptism thread, I will politely change the subject to a previously unanswered question:

Since there was a ban on non-whites receiving the Priesthood and ordinances, wouldn't all the descendents of Joseph and Asneath (an Egyptian woman), alse be unable to attain the Priesthood, and all the related ordinances? Wouldn't that ban include Manasseh and Ephriam, and all of their descendants, up until 1978?

Pharaoh also bestowed the name of Zaphnath-paneah on Joseph, and he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of Heliopolis.


Before the famine years set in, Joseph became the father of two sons, borne to him by Asenath, daughter of Potiphera, priest of Heliopolis.
He named his first-born Manasseh, meaning, "God has made me forget entirely the sufferings I endured at the hands of my family";
and the second he named Ephraim, meaning, "God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction."


Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the aloins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first agovernment of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;....

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1

But I guess it could lead to a question of "Proxy Priesthood Ordinances" (which I don't think exist)

[justamere10]

At the website linked directly below this sentence you can trace your family history online free of charge, courtesy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members.




That website contains the largest collection of genealogical data in the world. Because LDS missionaries are filming vital records free of charge all over the world, the online database is constantly being added to. Possibly tens of thousands of LDS volunteers spend an enormous amount of unpaid time diligently indexing many of the important databases and making those indexes available for easy online search, free for anyone in the world of any denomination or religious persuasion.
you can take free online courses to help you become an effective genealogical researcher. You can download genealogy software, possibly the best in the world, developed over many years at great cost. That software will make it incredibly easy for you to maintain your family tree and add to it. Try it, you'll find out!

The cost to you for the software? It's FREE, courtesy of the tithing paid by ordinary members of the LDS Church. (The "Mormons".)

Personally I'm proud of what we, the members of the church I affiliate with, are selflessly doing for so many. I pay my tithes willingly, considering it a joy and a blessing to be able to help others. It is my hope that this great work to preserve and make available the vital data of the world will not be stopped or interfered with in any way by anyone, regardless of the merit of whatever it may be that motivates them to hinder it.

To easily research free of charge the genealogical data that is already online (and even interact if you want to with other members of your family who too, unknown to you, are researching the same family line) go to:

http://www.familysearch.org (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000617/!x-usc:http://www.familysearch.org/)

Courtesy of "the Mormons".

[coMITTed]

.....BUT, that wasn't enough? Okay, you may not be coming straight out with a "you suck" charge, but we believe the FULL Gospel of Christ was delivered and received, as is outlines in the Scriptures and Traditions. Is there something wrong with our own Baptisimal rite?

No, it wasn't enough, b/c unless the baptism was performed with the proper authority, it isn't valid. We believe that the keys to the priesthood are held exclusively by the LDS, and therefore we are the only ones authorized (at this time) to provide valid baptisms. We feel it a tremendous responsibility to make sure that all are provided with the option of membership in this Church--whether it be via missionaries prostelyting to a person in this life, or ordinances offered to those in the next.

Again, I think this a an incredible presumption on the person performing the proxy baptism.

In your great grandmother example, of course I agree she would be as much your great grandmother as she is mine, but if great granny was a Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic, or atheist, shouldn't her religious freedom (and freedom from religion) end where your religious freedom begins? All things being equal, shouldn't the deciding factor be what choices that person decided in life?

Well, it's not a completely baseless presumption, though. I've already described some of my own personal experiences, as well as those of others who have felt or even heard or seen the presence of their ancestors as they were performing their proxy ordinances. Those impressions of gratitude and acceptance are unmistakable. Likewise, I've heard stories of people researching names and felt the distinct impression that their ancestor was NOT ready to have their name submitted, and so the researcher puts them on hold. Again, we just don't know what further knowledge awaits us on the other side. Great-grandma may have learned something there or gained a new perspective from which she accepted the truthfulness of the fullness of the gospel. Christ commanded baptism, but since she's dead, she cannot participate in that physical ordinance--but we can provide that for her.

[Reeder]

Since we already have a proxy baptism thread, I will politely change the subject to a previously unanswered question:

Since there was a ban on non-whites receiving the Priesthood and ordinances, wouldn't all the descendents of Joseph and Asneath (an Egyptian woman), alse be unable to attain the Priesthood, and all the related ordinances? Wouldn't that ban include Manasseh and Ephriam, and all of their descendants, up until 1978?









http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1

But I guess it could lead to a question of "Proxy Priesthood Ordinances" (which I don't think exist)


That IS a very good question, scipio, and even though I've already answered this in the past I'll post it in this thread as well. Maybe it'll get the wheels turning.

First of all, I don't think blacks have EVER been denied the ordinances of the gospel, or membership in the church. They were strictly denied the privilege to hold the priesthood until 1978. They could still be baptized, partake of the sacrament, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

Second of all, Joseph of Egypt was NOT part of that lineage (even though Asneath presumably was). Does that play any significant part in the matter? I don't know. Perhaps someone with more knowlege on the subject can further answer the question.

[justamere10]

With all respect, I don't believe its done out of the kindess of their hearts, but to give the LDS Church a greater database for proxy baptisms.


It mattters not what you believe, or what I believe is the motivation for it, that database EXISTS, it's being added to, and it serves millions of people all over the world who want to find their family roots. Courtesy of faithful Latter-day Saints who pay their tithes.

I could choose to believe that your remarks were unkind, that you were motivated by your desire to put down the Mormons, which is faddish right now, and I could choose to get emotional about it.

But that would not change the fact that you wrote a message on this board, that it EXISTS, that I and others see it and can believe whatever we want about why you wrote it, without affecting the message at all.

If you want to research your family roots, and want to do it online free of charge then go to and you can do so, that's a fact, that website and database EXIST independent of anyone's beliefs regarding the motivation behind the people who created it and made it available to others.

But fine, your opinion is noted.

[coMITTed]

Since we already have a proxy baptism thread, I will politely change the subject to a previously unanswered question:

Since there was a ban on non-whites receiving the Priesthood and ordinances, wouldn't all the descendents of Joseph and Asneath (an Egyptian woman), alse be unable to attain the Priesthood, and all the related ordinances? Wouldn't that ban include Manasseh and Ephriam, and all of their descendants, up until 1978?









http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1

But I guess it could lead to a question of "Proxy Priesthood Ordinances" (which I don't think exist)

Actually, the "ban", as you put it, only lasted between the years from which it was instigated until 1978. Joseph Smith personally ordained many black men to the priesthood, and their priesthood was never repealed. It was Brigham Young who instigated the "hold," as I like to put it, under the direction of God, and it was Spencer W. Kimball who repealed it in 1978 (also under the direction of God). Many prophets between the two prayed about it, desiring greatly that it be lifted, but for whatever reason the time wasn't right until it was.

[scipio337]

It mattters not what you believe, or what I believe is the motivation for it, that database EXISTS, it's being added to, and it serves millions of people all over the world who want to find their family roots. Courtesy of faithful Latter-day Saints who pay their tithes.And what is done with this "database"?

[scipio337]

No, it wasn't enough, b/c unless the baptism was performed with the proper authority, it isn't valid. .....

Ahhh....there's the rub. Did you know the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of other faiths (with some restrictions, I believe)?

[coMITTed]

Yes, you are wrong. Catholics do not believe this. Catholics do not claim to know who is in heaven, hell, or purgatory. That is God's judgment, not ours.



Through the mercy of God, I believe I will see my relatives, which include my atheist grandfather, atheist husband, and any number of other atheists in my family.



Wouldn't I want to afford them the opportunity? They have passed on. Why would they look back to ME? Why wouldn't they be looking forward to Christ? You believe they can get to Christ through me? I'm not the way, the truth, and the life--Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.



That I didn't calculate. They shared a common ancestor, Great-Great, if I'm remembering correctly, so it is distant enough that my family doesn't hasn't even heard of their existence. Until I contacted her, all my grandmother's family line was to her were names on paper.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you have faith that you'll just see all your loved ones again in heaven no matter how they lived their mortal lives. That might explain why you don't see a need for proxy anything.

We believe that the saving ordinance of baptism is only available through the Atonement of Christ. Were it not for Him, it would not be possible to return to the Father again. We also believe that baptism by water was commanded by Christ for all to be saved, and since this is a physical ordinance, the dead are unable to perform it for themselves should they choose such. Therefore, we perform it by proxy so that they can accept or deny it for themselves once they have any newfound knowledge or perspective to be gained on the other side. We do not claim to "save" these people. We only act as servants for Christ, who is the ultimate source of their salvation. Our ancestors look to Christ for the gospel, for salvation, for eternal life; they look to us to provide certain rites that He has commanded that they cannot perform for themselves, but that He requires of all who would be saved in His name.

[coMITTed]

Ahhh....there's the rub. Did you know the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of other faiths (with some restrictions, I believe)?

Not LDS baptisms ;).

[scipio337]

That IS a very good question, scipio, and even though I've already answered this in the past I'll post it in this thread as well. Maybe it'll get the wheels turning.

First of all, I don't think blacks have EVER been denied the ordinances of the gospel, or membership in the church. They were strictly denied the privilege to hold the priesthood until 1978. They could still be baptized, partake of the sacrament, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

Second of all, Joseph of Egypt was NOT part of that lineage (even though Asneath presumably was). Does that play any significant part in the matter? I don't know. Perhaps someone with more knowlege on the subject can further answer the question.I was thinking more of Asneath and Joseph's children.

Isn't the priesthood required for Endowment? Isn't Endowment required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom?

[scipio337]

Actually, the "ban", as you put it, only lasted between the years from which it was instigated until 1978. Joseph Smith personally ordained many black men to the priesthood, and their priesthood was never repealed. It was Brigham Young who instigated the "hold," as I like to put it, under the direction of God, and it was Spencer W. Kimball who repealed it in 1978 (also under the direction of God). Many prophets between the two prayed about it, desiring greatly that it be lifted, but for whatever reason the time wasn't right until it was.That seems to contradict Abraham 1:26-27:

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;....

Pharoh was cured due to his lineage through the Canaanites and Ham......

[terri910]

It's wonderful that so many caring and responsible people allow the LDS to film, preserve, and make available vital records that in my opinion should be made available to everyone so they can easily free of charge trace their family roots as you have done.

The implication being that any church that would not make their records available to the LDS Church is not......
:rolleyes:

[justamere10]

And what is done with this "database"?

Judging by the number of 'hits' and the downloading of PAF software, millions of people all over the world have already used the database to trace their ancestral line. I'm sure they are pleased and grateful that it is available, and they're I expect delighted that it's all free of charge.

[scipio337]

Not LDS baptisms ;).Or other nonTrinitarian faiths, but I believe it does the EoC, Lutheran, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist faiths.


Waitaminute, here is the official proclamation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.ht ml

And an explanation:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM

According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.

I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).

Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.

IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

[terri910]

Judging by the number of 'hits' and the downloading of PAF software, millions of people all over the world have already used the database to trace their ancestral line. I'm sure they are pleased and grateful that it is available, and they're I expect delighted that it's all free of charge.
And that is the sole purpose of the LDS database?

[coMITTed]

I was thinking more of Asneath and Joseph's children.

Isn't the priesthood required for Endowment? Isn't Endowment required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom?

Priesthood ordinances are also performed by proxy in the Temple prior to the endowment.

[coMITTed]

That seems to contradict Abraham 1:26-27:



Pharoh was cured due to his lineage through the Canaanites and Ham......

Doesn't mean he was black--just means he was of a lineage from whom God forbade the priesthood. For millenia it was ONLY availabe to the Jews and no one else. Remember that God forbade intermarriage between the Jews and the Canaanites, and this was one of the reasons--the Canaanites were ineligable for the priesthood.

So God has from time to time provided the gospel to some, forbidden it from others. But in the end, EVERYONE will have the opportunity to hear it, accept it, or reject it.

[scipio337]

Priesthood ordinances are also performed by proxy in the Temple prior to the endowment.Huh?

[scipio337]

Doesn't mean he was black--just means he was of a lineage from whom God forbade the priesthood. For millenia it was ONLY availabe to the Jews and no one else. Remember that God forbade intermarriage between the Jews and the Canaanites, and this was one of the reasons--the Canaanites were ineligable for the priesthood.

So God has from time to time provided the gospel to some, forbidden it from others. But in the end, EVERYONE will have the opportunity to hear it, accept it, or reject it.I'm not saying he was black, but weren't all blacks considered in the lineage of Ham?

Since Asenath was Egyptian ("the daughterPotipherah, a priest of On") wouldn't her and Joseph's sons (Manasseh and Ephraim) also be ineligible?

[coMITTed]

I'm not saying he was black, but weren't all blacks considered in the lineage of Ham?

Since Asenath was Egyptian ("the daughterPotipherah, a priest of On") wouldn't her and Joseph's sons (Manasseh and Ephraim) also be ineligible?

I don't know about all blacks being of the lineage of Ham. Again, you're focusing on the wrong apsect of the issue. It's not always about skin color. In this case, you're referencing ANYONE who was not of direct Abrahamic lineage as being ineligable for the priesthood for a time.

Asenath was a woman and therefore wouldn't have been able to hold the priesthood in the first place. She could, however, have been adopted into the lineage of Jacob through marriage, and Joseph's sons would have been heirs to the priesthood through HIM, not her anyway. Birthright was passed from father to son--the wife had nothing to do with it.

[basilisk]

This entire discussion thread seems to me to be based on the premise that LDS have no right to preach to Christians who don't belong to our faith because the Christian Church is a universal (catholic with a small "c") one. We don't believe that. We believe that baptism must be performed by someone with the proper authority, and we don't recognize the authority of the Catholic priesthood to perform these rites, especially when they perform them on babies and by sprinkling. This is a doctrinal difference of no small importance to us. Our religions are different. There will be no reconciling. They cannot both be true at the same time.

The LDS will be respectful the Vatican's concerns, but there is only one Truth, we believe we have it, and we will not apologize for it. We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege: let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[justamere10]

And that is the sole purpose of the LDS database?

First tell me what is the SOLE purpose of you asking that question?

Isn't it enough that millions of people have already been helped and served?

What is the SOLE purpose of the edict apparently issued by the Vatican commanding parish priests to no longer allow the Latter-day Saints to film, preserve, and make available vital data?

Maybe you would know, was the Pope involved in that decision? Or was it just a council of men, or a man perhaps somewhere in Italy who decided to prevent the further making available of vital records for genealogical research?

[Old Tex]

CD is in the know ya'll.

In Texas if you are addressing a single individual... it's "ya'll".

If you are addressing more than one at the same time, it's "all ya'll".

[terri910]

It's been discussed here, too, but you may want to post it in the thread that actually is all about that one issue:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=649271

[coMITTed]

Huh?

Meaning that all males for whom proxy ordinances are performed recieve the priesthood authority by proxy prior to recieving the endowment by proxy.

[scipio337]

Meaning that all males for whom proxy ordinances are performed recieve the priesthood authority by proxy prior to recieving the endowment by proxy.Really? I honsetly though proxy baptisms were the only ordinances given by proxy. How many proxy ordinances are there, and are these given to non-LDS?

[coMITTed]

First tell me what is the SOLE purpose of you asking that question?

Isn't it enough that millions of people have already been helped and served?

What is the SOLE purpose of the edict apparently issued by the Vatican commanding parish priests to no longer allow the Latter-day Saints to film, preserve, and make available vital data?

Maybe you would know, was the Pope involved in that decision? Or was it just a council of men, or a man perhaps somewhere in Italy who decided to prevent the further making available of vital records for genealogical research?

I think Terri just wants to know if the LDS are providing genaelogical records SOLELY out of the goodness of our hearts, or if we have always intended to ALSO use them as references for the purpose of proxy ordinances.

To Terri, I would be the first to admit that the purpose of providing our ancestral record to anyone and everyone is multifold. Yes, we feel we are providing a free service to anyone who wishes to research their ancestors for whatever purpose they may have. We also use them ourselves in our own personal ancestry research with the intent of submitting names to the temple for proxy ordinances.

I also don't have any problem with the Vatical sealing their own records if that is their desire in order to "protect" their fold. God has made His commandments clear, and other ways will be found in order to fulfill His will. All we can do is obey the law, respect others in this and not push the issue where the doors have been closed. This is how the Church has always operated and will continue to operate.

[terri910]

First tell me what is the SOLE purpose of you asking that question?
justamere10 has tried to deflect scipio's point. I would like to see someone just say what the main purpose of having the geneaology database IS.

Isn't it enough that millions of people have already been helped and served?No, not if there is a "catch" or an ulterior motive. I do not believe that the LDS Church has gone to all this trouble out of the goodness of their hearts. Sorry. They may make it available to everyone out of the goodness of their hearts, but I believe they have gone to all this trouble for the purpose of researching ancestors for whom they can perform proxy baptisms.

What is the SOLE purpose of the edict apparently issued by the Vatican commanding parish priests to no longer allow the Latter-day Saints to film, preserve, and make available vital data?

Maybe you would know, was the Pope involved in that decision? Or was it just a council of men, or a man perhaps somewhere in Italy who decided to prevent the further making available of vital records for genealogical research?
You can read for yourself here
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27825&cb300=vocations

[coMITTed]

Really? I honsetly though proxy baptisms were the only ordinances given by proxy. How many proxy ordinances are there, and are these given to non-LDS?

All ordinances required of the living are also required for the dead for salvation and exaltation. We perform proxy baptisms, confirmations, priesthood ordinations, washings and annointings, the endowment, and family sealings. The purpose is ultimately to link the entire human race into one great family to return and live again as brothers and sisters with our Father in Heaven.

[scipio337]

I don't know about all blacks being of the lineage of Ham. Again, you're focusing on the wrong apsect of the issue. It's not always about skin color. In this case, you're referencing ANYONE who was not of direct Abrahamic lineage as being ineligable for the priesthood for a time.

Asenath was a woman and therefore wouldn't have been able to hold the priesthood in the first place. She could, however, have been adopted into the lineage of Jacob through marriage, and Joseph's sons would have been heirs to the priesthood through HIM, not her anyway. Birthright was passed from father to son--the wife had nothing to do with it.Okay, this I'm picking up. Manasseh and Ephraim would have been eligible for the priesthood, despite having Canaanite/Egyptian blood through their mother, because she is adopted into the lineage of Jacob. There is no type of "one drop rule"?

[terri910]

I think Terri just wants to know if the LDS are providing genaelogical records SOLELY out of the goodness of our hearts, or if we have always intended to ALSO use them as references for the purpose of proxy ordinances.

To Terri, I would be the first to admit that the purpose of providing our ancestral record to anyone and everyone is multifold. Yes, we feel we are providing a free service to anyone who wishes to research their ancestors for whatever purpose they may have. We also use them ourselves in our own personal ancestry research with the intent of submitting names to the temple for proxy ordinances.

I also don't have any problem with the Vatical sealing their own records if that is their desire in order to "protect" their fold. God has made His commandments clear, and other ways will be found in order to fulfill His will. All we can do is obey the law, respect others in this and not push the issue where the doors have been closed. This is how the Church has always operated and will continue to operate.
Not only an excellent assessment of my post, but a pretty good assessment (and response to) the Vatican announcement.

[coMITTed]

Okay, this I'm picking up. Manasseh and Ephraim would have been eligible for the priesthood, despite having Canaanite/Egyptian blood through their mother, because she is adopted into the lineage of Jacob. There is no type of "one drop rule"?

Correct. I don't think there was any kind of "one drop rule" back in the day (I assume you're referring to something Brigham Young might have said with regard to race). Again, it wasn't about skin color or even race, per se, but being of the lineage of the Children of Israel. Even Christ, though not related to Joseph physically, has His lineage traced through Joseph's line to be considered of the House of David.

[coMITTed]

Not only an excellent assessment of my post, but a pretty good assessment (and response to) the Vatican announcement.

Thank you, my dear lady.

I'm now going to bask in one of my more gracious moments on these threads :lol:.

[Meriweather]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you have faith that you'll just see all your loved ones again in heaven no matter how they lived their mortal lives. That might explain why you don't see a need for proxy anything.

No, you're understanding is not correct, although you may be getting closer. As I said before, Catholics do not claim to know the names of all who are in heaven. What I believe in is God's justice and mercy, and His power. I believe in souls looking forward, not back. The Catholic Church gives me no assurance than any atheist is in heaven--it cannot. But nor does it thunder that my grandfather is burning in hell. I believe, in a just, merciful, and loving God, who believes in the SPIRIT of the law, not the letter.

With your baptism by proxy, it seems what you are doing is claiming that the letter of the law overrides the spirit. Not only that, this letter of the law is over-riding your own beliefs about what constitutes a valid baptism. Unless you feel it is correct to baptize the living by proxy, it cannot be correct to baptize the dead by proxy. In other words your trying to keep to the letter of the law, causes you to trample all over the spirit of your other laws.

[coMITTed]

Okay, this I'm picking up. Manasseh and Ephraim would have been eligible for the priesthood, despite having Canaanite/Egyptian blood through their mother, because she is adopted into the lineage of Jacob. There is no type of "one drop rule"?

I also want to interject my own personal opinion of Brigham Young as a man, here. He was a hard-core racist, no doubt about it. I was talking to my dad the other day about this very topic. When Joseph Smith died, there was much contention as to who was supposed to lead the Church and how succession was to work. Brigham Young spoke to a crowd in which he took on the sound of Joseph's voice--even his very appearance--for two hours, and it was known that the mantle of Church leadership had fallen on him. He was to be the next prophet and to lead the Saints west.

It is my belief that the Saints HAD to have this experience in order to follow Brigham west and accept him as their leader. He rubbed A LOT of people the wrong way, personally, but the Lord chooses His servants for His reasons. I think the Lord "held" the priesthood from blacks for a time for His own reasons, much the same as he held the gospel from the gentiles until His resurrection and commandment to "feed my sheep. . .which are not of this fold, them also I must bring. And there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

I think much of what Brigham said regarding the matter insofar as race is concerned, inferior, superior, whatever, was him speaking for HIMSELF, and not for God. Prophets have been known to do that, and have been chastised for it. When Moses struck water from the rock in the wilderness, he basically told the children of Israel, "do I have to do EVERYTHING for you? Where is your faith?" For this "claim" that it was HIM providing water and not God, Moses was not allowed to set foot in the promised land. I think a lot of what is in the JoD regarding blacks and the priesthood is the personal opinions of men, and not the doctrine of God.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

[THE LIGHT]

You guys sure are emotional about this. Did someone miss the point that it's the Mormons who are paying to preserve the world's vital records? And that the Mormons do not charge anyone to access those records?

AHHHHHH... added value!!!:D Free of charge, that has to be a limited time offer!!

Sounds like a full service gas station. As for me, I prefer self service. On the other hand, I cannot complain about your service. I've never really used it in depth but from what I have tried, it's great!:D

By the way, I am not emotional on this, I was just reading archangelo's post and couldn't help myself. Sorry.:angel:

[Reeder]

Ahhh....there's the rub. Did you know the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of other faiths (with some restrictions, I believe)?

Good for the Catholic faith. I'm fairly certain, however, that the Catholic faith does NOT accept LDS baptisms as valid.

[coMITTed]

No, you're understanding is not correct, although you may be getting closer. As I said before, Catholics do not claim to know the names of all who are in heaven. What I believe in is God's justice and mercy, and His power. I believe in souls looking forward, not back. The Catholic Church gives me no assurance than any atheist is in heaven--it cannot. But nor does it thunder that my grandfather is burning in hell. I believe, in a just, merciful, and loving God, who believes in the SPIRIT of the law, not the letter.

With your baptism by proxy, it seems what you are doing is claiming that the letter of the law overrides the spirit. Not only that, this letter of the law is over-riding your own beliefs about what constitutes a valid baptism. Unless you feel it is correct to baptize the living by proxy, it cannot be correct to baptize the dead by proxy. In other words your trying to keep to the letter of the law, causes you to trample all over the spirit of your other laws.

Of course it would be wrong to baptize the living by proxy. They have as much information on the gospel as anyone else and are free to make their choice in mortality. But the fact is that we just don't know what awaits us on the other side insofar as new knowledge and insight is concerned. We are baptized for the dead b/c they have the opportunity to hear the gospel on the other side in a way that they may not have been afforded in life. They are still free to choose there, just as they were here, but the information and experiences they're basing their post-mortal choices on is potentially vastly different than what they would have been offered in life.

[Reeder]

I was thinking more of Asneath and Joseph's children.


Thats what I was referring to. The fact that their children would be a combination of the two.

[justamere10]

You can read for yourself here
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27825&cb300=vocations


Thank-you for providing that link to a Catholic source. It has helped me understand the situation better, just not the emotions that were displayed on this thread. I'll have to chalk up the latter to human nature and the passionate way people on this board defend their own beliefs. (Including the Saints :-)


Here are a few excerpts from the Catholic source that particularly impressed me:

Msgr. J. Terrence Fitzgerald -- vicar general of the Diocese of Salt Lake City -- said he didn't understand why the Latter-day Saints church was singled out in this latest Vatican policy regarding parish records.

"We have a policy not to give out baptismal records to anyone unless they are entitled to have them," Msgr. Fitzgerald said of his diocese. "That isn't just for the Church of the Latter-day Saints. That is for all groups."

"We don't have an issue with the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize our baptisms, because we don't recognize theirs," Otterson (LDS) said. "It's a difference of belief."

"Baptism by proxy is a fundamentally important doctrine of the Latter-day Saints," Otterson said. "We have cooperative relationships with churches, governments -- both state and national -- going back to the last century. Our practice of negotiating for records and making them available for genealogical research is very well known."

Father Massa said he is not aware of aggressive attempts to obtain baptismal records at Catholic parishes in any of the U.S. dioceses.
He also said the Catholic Church will continue to reach out to the Mormons and carry on the efforts of understanding that have already begun, especially in Salt Lake City.

"Profound theological differences are not an excuse for avoiding dialogue, but a reason for pursuing dialogue," Father Massa said.


Well, we're certainly not avoiding dialogue here are we?

Back to trying to understand each other better, or more apropos to the opening message, back to better understanding what Mormons really believe?

Thanks for a good discussion all.

[scipio337]

Correct. I don't think there was any kind of "one drop rule" back in the day (I assume you're referring to something Brigham Young might have said with regard to race). Again, it wasn't about skin color or even race, per se, but being of the lineage of the Children of Israel. Even Christ, though not related to Joseph physically, has His lineage traced through Joseph's line to be considered of the House of David.Thanks, and for your post on Brigham Young.

[scipio337]

All ordinances required of the living are also required for the dead for salvation and exaltation. We perform proxy baptisms, confirmations, priesthood ordinations, washings and annointings, the endowment, and family sealings. The purpose is ultimately to link the entire human race into one great family to return and live again as brothers and sisters with our Father in Heaven.These aren't done for dead people too, are they? Who are the proxies?

[THE LIGHT]

There ya go. :D

Unfortunately, I'm not joking about the impression I get from explanations like the one in the earlier post. Doesn't it disturb any of you that, to us, it sounds like the spiel of a snake oil salesman? Can't you see why? Personally, every time one of you responds in this way, my impression of your side of the issue becomes even dimmer. Is the Gospel preached with so much triangulation and deliberate parsing (not that any of you are doing it on purpose, but, my have you learned those talking points well!)? It sounds so obvious that it renders prayerful consideration and discernment unnecessary!

Well, anyway, this is the effect it has on me. When it comes to this issue, I cannot trust what a Mormon tells me.

:neutral:

I do agree. They should be upfront and ask about these things no matter how little of an effect THEY think it may cause. It is only respectful to do it that way.

[coMITTed]

These aren't done for dead people too, are they? Who are the proxies?

Yes, all those ordinances are performed for the dead via proxies (and in that order, too). If we are required to have those ordinances for ourselves for our own salvation and exaltation, then so are the dead. We believe it has been commanded of us by God so that all will have the chance to progress to the highest degree of eternal life with God our Father. We serve as the proxies when we attend the temple to do vicarious work for the dead. I have personally participated in all of them myself (with the exception of being ordained into the priesthood--that is reserved for men).

[scipio337]

Yes, all those ordinances are performed for the dead via proxies (and in that order, too). If we are required to have those ordinances for ourselves for our own salvation and exaltation, then so are the dead. We believe it has been commanded of us by God so that all will have the chance to progress to the highest degree of eternal life with God our Father.So it's not just "baptism for the dead" that these "geneological lists are used for?

:sick:

I can't condone that at all, at all.

[coMITTed]

So it's not just "baptism for the dead" that these "geneological lists are used for?

:sick:

I can't condone that at all, at all.

No, it's the whole gamut. Again, the dead are free to choose whether or not they accept said ordinances, but they are available for them and will be written in that great book of life--from which we will all ultimately be judged--as having been performed, and whether or not they were accepted. That is our understanding, anyway.

[Old Tex]

Uh, do you not remember what HE instigated with his posts about the LDS Church? He wasn't defending Catholicism so much as he was slamming Mormons. The point of my posts, incindiary (and deleted) as they were, was to show him how rediculous he sounded. Now I'm the bad guy, despite my apologies, but whatever. It's done.

I didn't read Terri's message close enough, It appeared to me that she was the one who reported CD. I personally though he needed to be cut some slack and we could have continued the conversaton. Looks like that may not happen now.

As usual, things got even crazier and someone reported me for making a statement based on what I saw on the History Channel. I have found the History Channel to be pretty factual, but I guess not. But, it's water under the bridge. I'm too old and too tired to get upset about something written in a dumb on-line discussion group.

Those who count know that you are not the "bad guy", coMITTed. You are one of Heavenly Father's valiant daughters. I hear often that the war in Heaven did not end there. Instead, it just expanded to include the earth. One's best weapon in either place is still one's Testimony of Christ.

[Meriweather]

Of course it would be wrong to baptize the living by proxy. They have as much information on the gospel as anyone else and are free to make their choice in mortality. But the fact is that we just don't know what awaits us on the other side insofar as new knowledge and insight is concerned. We are baptized for the dead b/c they have the opportunity to hear the gospel on the other side in a way that they may not have been afforded in life. They are still free to choose there, just as they were here, but the information and experiences they're basing their post-mortal choices on is potentially vastly different than what they would have been offered in life.


I find this interesting. You believe the dead have the opportunity to hear the gospel there, and you feel they are free to choose there. But then what? They are locked in place until a proxy baptism occurs back on earth? i.e, "I order one LDS proxy baptism," - and every so often a heavenly waiter comes along and says, "We're kind of busy up here, so we did a back order. Your order is being processed by someone on earth, but it should be here momentarily . . . please stand by"?

[scipio337]

No, it's the whole gamut. Again, the dead are free to choose whether or not they accept said ordinances, but they are available for them and will be written in that great book of life--from which we will all ultimately be judged--as having been performed, and whether or not they were accepted. That is our understanding, anyway.Doesn't that mean you are assuming that the deceased does in fact accept the minimum ordinances required for each successive ordinance?

ie, the deceased would have to accept the proxy Baptism for the Dead in order to reach the proxy Priesthoods, accepty the proxy Priesthoods in order to reach the proxy Endowment, accept the proxy Endowment to reach the proxy Sealing, etc??

[Reeder]

Doesn't that mean you are assuming that the deceased does in fact accept the minimum ordinances required for each successive ordinance?

ie, the deceased would have to accept the proxy Baptism for the Dead in order to reach the proxy Priesthoods, accepty the proxy Priesthoods in order to reach the proxy Endowment, accept the proxy Endowment to reach the proxy Sealing, etc??

Everyone has to have an equal opportunity to accept ALL of the gospel ordinances. Whether or not they ultimately do is up to them. But everyone WILL have the same opportunity.

[outdamyboat]

I'm too old and too tired to get upset about something written in a dumb on-line discussion group.

.

Old Tex: (very big smile!!! just took my Namenda),

Just for the record..I'm a big fan of 'old and tired guys' and happen to think that they make wonderful grandfathers, even when they get a bit 'spunkie'.

That's the time that Poppy's the most endearing to my girls; they love the 'old tired Poppy' the best when he's in trouble for being 'spunkie'...especially when Nanny catches him :D

[Reeder]

Snow,

Just for the record..I'm a big fan of 'old and tired guys' and happen to think that they make wonderful grandfathers, even when they get a bit 'spunkie'.

That's the time that Poppy's the most endearing to my girls; they love the 'old tired Poppy' the best when he's in trouble for being 'spunkie'...especially when Nanny catches him :D


LOL, that was Old Tex you were talking to.....not Snow.

[scipio337]

Everyone has to have an equal opportunity to accept ALL of the gospel ordinances. Whether or not they ultimately do is up to them. But everyone WILL have the same opportunity.But if you are giving those proxy ceremonies with minimum requirements, you ARE assuming that they ARE accepting those required ordinances.

[outdamyboat]

LOL, that was Old Tex you were talking to.....not Snow.

Oh my goodness...now I'm going to get reported ...for stupidity!!! :eek:

Is Snow an old guy? Heck, I'm an ole gal on these threads...I'm amazed at some of the ages of these young posters!

[noelle12]

But if you are giving those proxy ceremonies with minimum requirements, you ARE assuming that they ARE accepting those required ordinances.

I have to disagree with you. We do not assume they are accepting, but speaking for myself I hope they are accepting.

[Reeder]

But if you are giving those proxy ceremonies with minimum requirements, you ARE assuming that they ARE accepting those required ordinances.

Hoping.....not assuming. We do our part here on earth by performing the actual ordinances for the deceased. We believe there are missionaries on the other side who are teaching the gospel to those same people. If they accept Christ and His gospel, they are expected to also accept baptism, and all other ordinances connected to His gospel. If they do not accept Christ or His gospel or ordinances, then they (the proxy ordinances performed for them) become null and void, and it is my personal opinion that their names will not be written in the Lamb's Book of Life. But that is their choice.

[Reeder]

Oh my goodness...now I'm going to get reported ...for stupidity!!! :eek:

Is Snow an old guy? Heck, I'm an ole gal on these threads...I'm amazed at some of the ages of these young posters!

Tex is in his 70's, I believe. I'm not sure of Snow's age, but I'm fairly certain he has about 4 kids.

[scipio337]

I have to disagree with you. We do not assume they are accepting, but speaking for myself I hope they are accepting.How can you give an Endowment to someone who hasn't accepted the Baptism and Confirmation of the LDS Church? Or a male who doesn't hold the Melchizedek priesthood?

[Reeder]

How can you give an Endowment to someone who hasn't accepted the Baptism and Confirmation of the LDS Church? Or a male who doesn't hold the Melchizedek priesthood?

But we don't KNOW who is accepting what. Eveyone must have an equal opportunity. The work must be finished for all mankind, so that all mankind can be judged according to the same law.

[outdamyboat]

Tex is in his 70's, I believe. I'm not sure of Snow's age, but I'm fairly certain he has about 4 kids.

Hey Tex...I just edited my previous post..it was for you, buddy!!! :D

[noelle12]

How can you give an Endowment to someone who hasn't accepted the Baptism and Confirmation of the LDS Church? Or a male who doesn't hold the Melchizedek priesthood?

If the baptism is accepted then the endowment is available also. If the baptism is not accepted then the endowment is also null and void.

[basilisk]

I find this interesting. You believe the dead have the opportunity to hear the gospel there, and you feel they are free to choose there. But then what? They are locked in place until a proxy baptism occurs back on earth? i.e, "I order one LDS proxy baptism," - and every so often a heavenly waiter comes along and says, "We're kind of busy up here, so we did a back order. Your order is being processed by someone on earth, but it should be here momentarily . . . please stand by"?
Then what? Then they wait for the resurrection, like everyone else, good and evil alike.

[scipio337]

If the baptism is accepted then the endowment is available also. If the baptism is not accepted then the endowment is also null and void.Seems a little convenient.

"Let's also give a proxy ......... in case they accepted the proxy ...........".


I can't say I agree at all.


Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.

[Reeder]

Seems a little convenient.

"Let's also give a proxy ......... in case they accepted the proxy ...........".


I can't say I agree at all.


Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.

Is there really any other choice? OK, so they accept the proxy baptism. Then what? Oops, those people down on earth figured you wouldn't accept the baptism anyway, so they decided not to offer you the endowment.

And no, scipio, I can all but assure you that you're not a son of perdition (coming from an LDS point of view). I'm fairly certain that you'd first have to accept what we refer to as the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and all ordinances and doctrines associated with it.

[justpassingby]

Sorry to change the subject. I didn't realize where the thread was and I had this open this morning.


Okay, this I'm picking up. Manasseh and Ephraim would have been eligible for the priesthood, despite having Canaanite/Egyptian blood through their mother, because she is adopted into the lineage of Jacob. There is no type of "one drop rule"?

I'm not sure Asenath was adopted into the lineage of Jacob, but I came across this while researching about her.

And this link below that explains how Asenath, the mother of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, was the daughter of Dinah of the house of Israel. An LDS point of view.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000818answer.html

[noelle12]

Seems a little convenient.

"Let's also give a proxy ......... in case they accepted the proxy ...........".


I can't say I agree at all.


Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.

You're right. It is convenient. I like convenient. Why make things complicated and hard? Things are hard enough already.

It is fine that you don't agree. I like you anyway.

I can't help you with the signing of a disclosure. So far nobody has given me any authority to decide on the policies of the church.

You are absolutely NOT a son of perdition. You can't become a son of perdition unless you KNOW the truth, and then deny it.

[basilisk]

Seems a little convenient.

"Let's also give a proxy ......... in case they accepted the proxy ...........".


I can't say I agree at all.


Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.
The very atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance, whereby he took upon himself our pains, transgressions, and suffered for us so we would not have to. Would you make such flippant comments about giving a proxy sacrifice for us, just in case we accept it? Really, isn't that all that's required of us, namely, to accept that proxy sacrifice on our behalf? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus performed a proxy ordinance for millions of now-dead people without their consent? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus is making people resurrect from the dead who may or may not want to accept that gift from him? After all, the Bible teaches that resurrection from the dead is universal.

As Paul said, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

[Old Tex]

:))

But wait there's more!! Order now and you will receive the second baptism and a extra bottle of Kaboooom absolutely FREE!! That's a over a $60 value for just $29.95. Call now! Offer lasts until Christ's return.

light, just to let you know that I just decided not to read any more of your messages until you can start discussing things responsablity. You are now on my ignore list. I'm tired of your constant ridicule, goading, and bad maners.

Old Tex

[Reeder]

The very atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance, whereby he took upon himself our pains, transgressions, and suffered for us so we would not have to. Would you make such flippant comments about giving a proxy sacrifice for us, just in case we accept it? Really, isn't that all that's required of us, namely, to accept that proxy sacrifice on our behalf? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus performed a proxy ordinance for millions of now-dead people without their consent? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus is making people resurrect from the dead who may or may not want to accept that gift from him? After all, the Bible teaches that resurrection from the dead is universal.

As Paul said, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Amen! :clap:

[noelle12]

The very atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance, whereby he took upon himself our pains, transgressions, and suffered for us so we would not have to. Would you make such flippant comments about giving a proxy sacrifice for us, just in case we accept it? Really, isn't that all that's required of us, namely, to accept that proxy sacrifice on our behalf? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus performed a proxy ordinance for millions of now-dead people without their consent? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus is making people resurrect from the dead who may or may not want to accept that gift from him? After all, the Bible teaches that resurrection from the dead is universal.

As Paul said, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Very well said!

[Predecessor]

Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity?

Scipio, this really bothers you that much? I know that I have non-LDS friends who pray for me by name...that I will someday see the futility of my belief in the LDS faith and come to a "true" (ie: their) understanding of the gospel. If that is what they want to do with their time so be it. It's just not important enough for me to take the time to fill out some Baptist disclosure statement that officially precludes my friends from using my name in a prayer.

[justamere10]

Seems a little convenient.

"Let's also give a proxy ......... in case they accepted the proxy ...........".


I can't say I agree at all.


Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.

You know not what you are asking for Scip, might be better to hedge your bets just in case the Church of Jesus Christ is really His Church on earth today. The absence of proof (to you) does not mean it does not exist. Ultimately we live by faith in this life. I'd be careful of possibly offending or mocking God whose ways are mysterious to most until you've crossed that line where faith becomes knowledge. Be careful...

I wish you the very best my brother. Don't wish upon yourself evil even though you may not recognize it as such today...

[Meriweather]

The very atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance, whereby he took upon himself our pains, transgressions, and suffered for us so we would not have to. Would you make such flippant comments about giving a proxy sacrifice for us, just in case we accept it? Really, isn't that all that's required of us, namely, to accept that proxy sacrifice on our behalf? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus performed a proxy ordinance for millions of now-dead people without their consent? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus is making people resurrect from the dead who may or may not want to accept that gift from him? After all, the Bible teaches that resurrection from the dead is universal.

As Paul said, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Sorry, but the crucifixion of Christ was not a proxy ordinance. No one was crucifying me by proxy or any other means. I was not up there on the cross, my Savior was. He was not making a proxy sacrifice, but a real one. He also voluntarily gave up his life.

I would not voluntarily give up my faith. I would not have anyone re-state my faith for me--EVEN IF with all the good intentions in the world someone decided they should re-state my faith for me "just in case."

[scipio337]

You know not what you are asking for Scip, might be better to hedge your bets just in case the Church of Jesus Christ is really His Church on earth today. The absence of proof (to you) does not mean it does not exist. Ultimately we live by faith in this life. I'd be careful of possibly offending or mocking God whose ways are mysterious to most until you've crossed that line where faith becomes knowledge. Be careful...

I wish you the very best my brother. Don't wish upon yourself evil even though you may not recognize it as such today...Pascal's Wager? No thanks. My beliefs aren't due to my fear of the afterlife, but my understanding of Truth.

[Reeder]

Sorry, but the crucifixion of Christ was not a proxy ordinance. No one was crucifying me by proxy or any other means. I was not up there on the cross, my Savior was. He was not making a proxy sacrifice, but a real one. He also voluntarily gave up his life.

He was making a proxy sacrifice ON YOUR BEHALF! When you say "I was not there on the cross, my Savior was,"......why do you think He was up there dying? Was it not "FOR US?" Had the Savior not accomplished the atonement, would any of us have had the opportunity to be saved? It was a proxy sacrifice, even for those who "don't want to be saved," or who "don't believe in Christ." He accomplished the atonemente for all mankind, not just Christians.

And I believe basilisk brought up a good point about being resurrected. Everyone will be resurrected, regardless of what they wanted. Would it be wrong to resurrect those who committed suicide on the earth? Wouldn't that be going against their wishes?



I would not voluntarily give up my faith. I would not have anyone re-state my faith for me--EVEN IF with all the good intentions in the world someone decided they should re-state my faith for me "just in case."


I believe we heard you the first time. But what of those who deny Christ, and yet have the opportunity to repent and become clean because CHRIST SACRIFICED HIMSELF FOR THEM????

[noelle12]

Sorry, but the crucifixion of Christ was not a proxy ordinance. No one was crucifying me by proxy or any other means. I was not up there on the cross, my Savior was. He was not making a proxy sacrifice, but a real one. He also voluntarily gave up his life.

I would not voluntarily give up my faith. I would not have anyone re-state my faith for me--EVEN IF with all the good intentions in the world someone decided they should re-state my faith for me "just in case."

You may want to re-read basilisk's post. The crucifixion was not a proxy ordinance, but the Atonement involved Jesus taking upon Himself our sins. In other words He acted as our proxy and paid for our sins, thereby making it possible for us to repent of our sins and be made perfect through him (by accepting His atonement), something which we are not able to do on our own.

[scipio337]

The very atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance, whereby he took upon himself our pains, transgressions, and suffered for us so we would not have to. Would you make such flippant comments about giving a proxy sacrifice for us, just in case we accept it? Really, isn't that all that's required of us, namely, to accept that proxy sacrifice on our behalf? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus performed a proxy ordinance for millions of now-dead people without their consent? Is it sacrilegious to say that Jesus is making people resurrect from the dead who may or may not want to accept that gift from him? After all, the Bible teaches that resurrection from the dead is universal.

As Paul said, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."No, it was an actual crucifiction, a paschal sacrifice which I am free to accept or not accept in my lifetime.

[basilisk]

Sorry, but the crucifixion of Christ was not a proxy ordinance. No one was crucifying me by proxy or any other means. I was not up there on the cross, my Savior was. He was not making a proxy sacrifice, but a real one. He also voluntarily gave up his life.

I would not voluntarily give up my faith. I would not have anyone re-state my faith for me--EVEN IF with all the good intentions in the world someone decided they should re-state my faith for me "just in case."
Are you saying you do not believe that Jesus died for our sins? Are you saying you do not believe his sacrifice was made so we would not, ourselves, have to suffer the penalty for sin? What, then, pray tell, is the point of Christ in your theology?

Christ's atonement absolutely was for our sin. It was much more than merely being brutally murdered by the Roman Government. It was much more than merely providing us salvation from physical death. It was absolutely a proxy sacrifice, he willingly being sacrificed so we would not have to be, as justice would demand, for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son. The atonement of Christ is the central point of our theology. Everything else, including baptism, including temple proxy work, is an appendage to that atonement.

[Reeder]

No, it was an actual crucifiction, a paschal sacrifice which I am free to accept or not accept in my lifetime.

:think: Isn't that exactly what a proxy ordinance is???? Isn't that what we've been saying all along? People are "free to accept or not accept it?"

What about the resurrection? What of those who don't wish to be resurrected?

[basilisk]

No, it was an actual crucifiction, a paschal sacrifice which I am free to accept or not accept in my lifetime.
:wall: Did I say Christ was not crucified? No. I said he was crucified as a proxy for you, but on conditions of your accepting it.

[noelle12]

Scipio,
What is the definition of "paschal." My understanding is having to do with Easter. That seems a little vague to me. Do you have a better definition? What, to you, is a "paschal sacrifice?"

Left to my own understanding, I would define "paschal" the same as "proxy." Please correct me if I am wrong.

[scipio337]

Scipio,
What is the definition of "paschal." My understanding is having to do with Easter. That seems a little vague to me. Do you have a better definition? What, to you, is a "paschal sacrifice?"

Left to my own understanding, I would define "paschal" the same as "proxy." Please correct me if I am wrong.Korban Pesach, the Passover sacrifice G*d commanded Moses and the Isrealites to make.

[noelle12]

Korban Pesach, the Passover sacrifice G*d commanded Moses and the Isrealites to make.

It still seems to be to be a proxy sacrifice.

[justamere10]

Pascal's Wager? No thanks. My beliefs aren't due to my fear of the afterlife, but my understanding of Truth.

Just watching your back, I've been where you are... :-)

[justamere10]

Sorry, but the crucifixion of Christ was not a proxy ordinance. No one was crucifying me by proxy or any other means. I was not up there on the cross, my Savior was. He was not making a proxy sacrifice, but a real one. He also voluntarily gave up his life.

"

Yes, his sacrifice was real, but it was by proxy for us, so we wouldn't have to go through the same ordeal. (Even though we could never be capable of it.)

[scipio337]

:wall: Did I say Christ was not crucified? No. I said he was crucified as a proxy for you, but on conditions of your accepting it.But Christ was not standing in for my crucifiction. Yes, he did accept my future sins in His sacrifice. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved".

[basilisk]

It still seems to be to be a proxy sacrifice.
The very idea of sacrifice equates to a proxy. You make an offering for sin, symbolically telling God that your sinful self will die, as the sacrifice made dies, so you can be reborn a new creature. In Christ's case it was quite literal. He literally died and was reborn a new creature, a resurrected, glorified figure. (Yes, I realize he wasn't literally reborn out of the womb, unless you continue the symbolism to say the womb of the earth, meaning the grave.)

[outdamyboat]

Is there any type of disclosure I can sign that would exclude me from any such activity? If this is what the LDS Church is, I'm a Son of Perdition, through and through.

Well, you need to get in line after me, buddy. :mrgreen:

I'm absoluely spiritually vile when it comes to this bbp...

[basilisk]

But Christ was not standing in for my crucifiction. Yes, he did accept my future sins in His sacrifice. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved".
I never said he stood in for your crucifixion. You are parsing words where I am stating clearly my meaning. Why are you so determined to be offended? The comparison is valid. You just don't want to admit it.

[Reeder]

But Christ was not standing in for my crucifiction. Yes, he did accept my future sins in His sacrifice. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved".

He paid for your sins, and offered you immortality and eternal life even if you didn't want it. How is that any different than proxy ordinances?

So I'll ask you you're very own question. Why offer redemtion to those who have already said they didn't want it? Why offer a resurrected, immortal body to those who committed suicide? Isn't it obvious that they didn't want to live any longer?

[Meriweather]

Are you saying you do not believe that Jesus died for our sins? Are you saying you do not believe his sacrifice was made so we would not, ourselves, have to suffer the penalty for sin? What, then, pray tell, is the point of Christ in your theology?

I am saying I do not believe in baptism by proxy, and that I don't appreciate other events being twisted and spun to make proxy baptism palatable to me. Can you not see the differences between the crucifixion and a proxy baptism?

Christ's atonement absolutely was for our sin. It was much more than merely being brutally murdered by the Roman Government. It was much more than merely providing us salvation from physical death. It was absolutely a proxy sacrifice, he willingly being sacrificed so we would not have to be, as justice would demand, for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son. The atonement of Christ is the central point of our theology. Everything else, including baptism, including temple proxy work, is an appendage to that atonement.

The atonement is Christ's. All the appendages are yours.

[Reeder]

I am saying I do not believe in baptism by proxy, and that I don't appreciate other events being twisted and spun to make proxy baptism palatable to me. Can you not see the differences between the crucifixion and a proxy baptism?

It appears to me that you are trying to do nothing more than avoid such an obvious resemblance. Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins so that each of us could (if we so CHOOSE), be forgiven and gain eternal life. So, I'll ask you again....what of those who don't WANT to be resurrected? What of those who don't believe in Jesus Christ and didn't WANT Him to atone for their sins? What if they are offended by such an act? What would you say to them?



The atonement is Christ's. All the appendages are yours.

So you don't believe Christ suffered FOR your sins?

[MobyMule]

LDS Posters there is no use to continue on in this discussion about Baptism for the Dead. It is pointless imho.

[birdonawire]

LDS Posters there is no use to continue on in this discussion about Baptism for the Dead. It is pointless imho.


I disagree every page has a new thought on it and I am learning a lot from all involved. JMO.:D

[scipio337]

I never said he stood in for your crucifixion. You are parsing words where I am stating clearly my meaning. Why are you so determined to be offended? The comparison is valid. You just don't want to admit it.I can't conflate the two, and I'm not determined to be offended by anything.

In theory, yes, any sacrifice is a proxy death on behalf of the sacrificee, but again, this is something that we accept, or decline in this life and that acceptance or rejection is verifiable.

In my faith, the "General Resurrection", whether the dead accepted that sacrifice or not, does not guarantee atonement and salvation. The faithful are resurrected to Christ, the "unjust" are resurrected to Judgement. And here, it is our concious acceptance or rejection of that Sacrifice, in this life that is the determining factor.

[Meriweather]

It appears to me that you are trying to do nothing more than avoid such an obvious resemblance. Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins so that each of us could (if we so CHOOSE), be forgiven and gain eternal life. So, I'll ask you again....what of those who don't WANT to be resurrected? What of those who don't believe in Jesus Christ and didn't WANT Him to atone for their sins? What if they are offended by such an act? What would you say to them?

It is not an obvious resemblance. Jesus did not use my name to be crucified. He was crucified in his own name, and for this, his is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. His crucifixion lit the way for the choices I made and continue to make in my life. I do not make these choices lightly, but beneath the shadow of the cross of my savior. Those choices are between him and me--and I don't believe either one of us appreciates the meddling of the well intentioned.

Now for your questions: What of those who don't want to be resurrected and atonement for their sins? I know people who fit at least one of those categories. I believe that is between them and God. Just as I feel God and I can handle matters between He and I without the meddling of others, so can they who have strong feelings about resurrection and atonement. All I can be for these people is a good example of my own beliefs for them to consider. I'm certainly not going to hypnotize them and brainwash them for their own good. I have too much faith in God for that--and actually faith in them, too.


So you don't believe Christ suffered FOR your sins?

I believe Jesus suffered for the sins of mankind. I believe because he did lay down his life for the sins of the world, the world, and my life, are entirely different than what they might have been. His life, death, and resurrection certainly saved me from any number and all kinds of sin. Because he suffered so much, I suffer little.

[outdamyboat]

LDS Posters there is no use to continue on in this discussion about Baptism for the Dead. It is pointless imho.

Well, the whole original thought behind this thread was to get some thing other than evolution or the Trinity to make over 1000 post..

So in all due respect we're having a contest here...

( :shhh:you probably thought it was really serious but it's just a ploy to get the evolutionist and Trinitarians to not think they're so important....we're spiritual too!!! :snooty: )

[scipio337]

I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

I'm out.

[Meriweather]

Well, the whole original thought behind this thread was to get some thing other than evolution or the Trinity to make over 1000 post..

So in all due respect we're having a contest here...

( :shhh:you probably thought it was really serious but it's just a ploy to get the evolutionist and Trinitarians to not thing they're so important....we're spiritual too!!! :snooty: )

Still, perhaps we can move on from the baptism topic. I'm still home, miserable with this flu, and I truly don't mean to make others miserable along with me. Maybe we can come up with another question for the next 64 posts?

[Reeder]

I can't conflate the two, and I'm not determined to be offended by anything.

In theory, yes, any sacrifice is a proxy death on behalf of the sacrificee, but again, this is something that we accept, or decline in this life and that acceptance or rejection is verifiable.

In my faith, the "General Resurrection", whether the dead accepted that sacrifice or not, does not guarantee atonement and salvation. The faithful are resurrected to Christ, the "unjust" are resurrected to Judgement. And here, it is our concious acceptance or rejection of that Sacrifice, in this life that is the determining factor.

Then you admit that the only difference (to you) is that in one case it (the sacrifice) is accepted "IN THIS LIFE," and in the other case it (the proxy ordinance) is accepted in the next. Yet the idea is still the same:

In the case of the atonement:
_________________________

1. Christ does something for you that you cannot do for yourself.
2. You can either accept or reject that "something."
3. You reap the consequences of that choice.

In the case of proxy ordinances:
__________________________

1. Someone does something for you that you cannot do for yourself.
2. You can either accept or reject that "something."
3. You reap the consequences of that choice.


I don't understand why people who accept Christ are so offended over the IDEA of proxy baptisms. Its virtually the same concept, only on a different level.

[Old Tex]

"For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.

I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and within days, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over.

[/sarcasm]


I certainly hope this not expected to be taken any way except as sarcasm, but I know that many will take it as gospel.

For those who don't know. This is a cruel hoax. It has been making the rounds on that internet for at least 10 years. Microsoft has sent thousands of responses out to that effect that it is a hoax. It seems to me as irresponsible of you to bring it up again. It's no joke to the people who will believe it.

[Reeder]

It is not an obvious resemblance. Jesus did not use my name to be crucified. He was crucified in his own name, and for this, his is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. His crucifixion lit the way for the choices I made and continue to make in my life. I do not make these choices lightly, but beneath the shadow of the cross of my savior. Those choices are between him and me--and I don't believe either one of us appreciates the meddling of the well intentioned.

Now for your questions: What of those who don't want to be resurrected and atonement for their sins? I know people who fit at least one of those categories. I believe that is between them and God. Just as I feel God and I can handle matters between He and I without the meddling of others, so can they who have strong feelings about resurrection and atonement. All I can be for these people is a good example of my own beliefs for them to consider. I'm certainly not going to hypnotize them and brainwash them for their own good. I have too much faith in God for that--and actually faith in them, too.




I believe Jesus suffered for the sins of mankind. I believe because he did lay down his life for the sins of the world, the world, and my life, are entirely different than what they might have been. His life, death, and resurrection certainly saved me from any number and all kinds of sin. Because he suffered so much, I suffer little.

Nothing you said (atleast for me) distinguished between the "idea" of the two. Christ did something for you that you could not do for yourself. You have a choice to accept it or reject it. It is the exact same "idea" with proxy baptisms, yet you seem to think the "idea" is out of bounds.

[Dancer]

Scipio,
What is the definition of "paschal." My understanding is having to do with Easter. That seems a little vague to me. Do you have a better definition? What, to you, is a "paschal sacrifice?"

Left to my own understanding, I would define "paschal" the same as "proxy." Please correct me if I am wrong.It the root of the literal word for Easter in Latin, Greek, and in Hebrew "Pesach" which means Passover.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paschal

Etymology: Middle English pasche Passover, Easter, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin pascha, from Late Greek, from Greek, Passover, from Hebrew pesaḥ

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html

In Hebrew, it is known as Pesach (that “ch” is pronounced as in the Scottish “loch”), which is based on the Hebrew root meaning “pass over”

Korban is the Hebrew word meaning sacrifice.

[Bigcanuck]

I can't conflate the two, and I'm not determined to be offended by anything.

In theory, yes, any sacrifice is a proxy death on behalf of the sacrificee, but again, this is something that we accept, or decline in this life and that acceptance or rejection is verifiable.

In my faith, the "General Resurrection", whether the dead accepted that sacrifice or not, does not guarantee atonement and salvation. The faithful are resurrected to Christ, the "unjust" are resurrected to Judgement. And here, it is our concious acceptance or rejection of that Sacrifice, in this life that is the determining factor.

But what of those who never heard of Christ or His sacrifice in this world? What of those who never had the chance to make that choice while they lived here? That is what proxy work is all about. If someone made up their mind in this lifetime that they would not accept baptism performed by the priesthood in the LDS church... there is a very good chance they would reject it in the next life and therefore there is no need to sign a waiver etc. It would simply be void and you could laugh at the lds for all the effort they went through for nothing.

If you were a non drinker and you went into a restaurant and they offered you a wine list... would you be offended, or simply say no thank you? Would you demand they know in advance what you were a non drinker before hand?

But for those who never had a chance at being taught the gospel according to the LDS belief system (or any other for that matter) I think it answers a very big gaping hole that many Christian sects have no answer for.

[outdamyboat]

Still, perhaps we can move on from the baptism topic. I'm still home, miserable with this flu, and I truly don't mean to make others miserable along with me. Maybe we can come up with another question for the next 64 posts?

Okay....let's turn it into a Trivia contest....any suggestions for the topic?

[outdamyboat]

How about Morman Trivia? We could still play, we could use GOOGLE search engine!!!

[Meriweather]

Nothing you said (atleast for me) distinguished the "idea" of the two. Christ did something for you that you could not do for yourself. You have a choice to accept it or reject it. It is the exact same "idea" with proxy baptisms, yet you seem to think the "idea" is out of bounds.

Christ did something for the world, and as an inhabitant of this world, yes, I was affected by it. Through this crucifixion, he drew me to him in the manner of his choice--the Catholic Church. I have accepted Christ's authority, guided by the teachings and further guidance of the Catholic Church.

Now, as God's creature, God has the right and the authority to do what He wishes with me. Thankfully, He has also given me free will.

LDS is apart from my world. I avoid it and its teachings. I set myself apart from it.

The LDS Church has no authority over me. None-the-less, after I am dead, this church may well elect to usurp authority and give me a proxy baptism despite everything I stand for--and stand against.

[outdamyboat]

I certainly hope this not expected to be taken any way except as sarcasm, but I know that many will take it as gospel.

For those who don't know. This is a cruel hoax. It has been making the rounds on that internet for at least 10 years. Microsoft has sent thousands of responses out to that effect that it is a hoax. It seems to me as irresponsible of you to bring it up again. It's no joke to the people who will believe it.

Youthful indiscretion on his part...he's a youngster..it's the older crowd who gets caught in those scams..not the young whipper-snappers. They're too computer savy.

[Reeder]

Christ did something for the world, and as an inhabitant of this world, yes, I was affected by it. Through this crucifixion, he drew me to him in the manner of his choice--the Catholic Church. I have accepted Christ's authority, guided by the teachings and further guidance of the Catholic Church.

Now, as God's creature, God has the right and the authority to do what He wishes with me. Thankfully, He has also given me free will.

LDS is apart from my world. I avoid it and its teachings. I set myself apart from it.

The LDS Church has no authority over me. None-the-less, after I am dead, this church may well elect to usurp authority and give me a proxy baptism despite everything I stand for--and stand against.

I've heard that atleast a dozen times in the past couple of days, but it still makes no sense to me. If "The LDS Church has no authority over you," then why are you offended at the idea of a proxy baptism? (I'm not saying I would disrespect your wish.....I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that concept.)

I guess the reason I'm confused is because if the Catholic Church did the same thing to me, or any of my relatives, it wouldn't effect me. I do not recognize ANY authority whatsoever in the Catholic Church. It would make no difference to me.

[Meriweather]

How about Morman Trivia? We could still play, we could use GOOGLE search engine!!!

Wasn't there a thread started on that? Actually, what I had in mind was something more in line of a topic we all more or less agree on, but could share different perspectives. For example, I know in furthering their religious education, there is a young women's group, which leads me to believe there must be a young men's group.

Does LDS separate the two sexes for the purpose of religious education, or is this for another more non-educational (perhaps more social?) purpose?

Are there benefits from separating girls and boys into their own groups?

[Frazzled]

I've heard that atleast a dozen times in the past couple of days, but it still makes no sense to me. If "The LDS Church has no authority over you," then why are you offended at the idea of a proxy baptism? (I'm not saying I would disrespect your wish.....I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that concept.)

I guess the reason I'm confused is because if the Catholic Church did the same thing to me, or any of my relatives, it wouldn't effect me. I do not recognize ANY authority whatsoever in the Catholic Church. It would make no difference to me.

I'm having a hard time with this as well.

[outdamyboat]

I've heard that atleast a dozen times in the past couple of days, but it still makes no sense to me. If "The LDS Church has no authority over you," then why are you offended at the idea of a proxy baptism? (I'm not saying I would disrespect your wish.....I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that concept.)

I guess the reason I'm confused is because if the Catholic Church did the same thing to me, or any of my relatives, it wouldn't effect me. I do not recognize ANY authority whatsoever in the Catholic Church. It would make no difference to me.

What round is this now? It's a marathon but it's the same 1/4 mile track we've all been running for days...remember the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

Okay...Movie Trivia? I'll go first....

Who was the feature 'star' in the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

[Meriweather]

I've heard that atleast a dozen times in the past couple of days, but it still makes no sense to me. If "The LDS Church has no authority over you," then why are you offended at the idea of a proxy baptism? (I'm not saying I would disrespect your wish.....I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that concept.)

I guess the reason I'm confused is because if the Catholic Church did the same thing to me, or any of my relatives, it wouldn't effect me. I do not recognize ANY authority whatsoever in the Catholic Church. It would make no difference to me.

The Catholic Church would not do that to you. That is the whole point of this discussion.

The LDS has no authority to use my name, EVER, in any of its sacraments. It is MY name. It has already been conceded that LDS would NEVER, under any circumstances give me a proxy sacrament while I am alive. The same policy should be maintained upon my death.

[Meriweather]

What round is this now? It's a marathon but it's the same 1/4 mile track we've all been running for days...remember the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

Okay...Movie Trivia? I'll go first....

Who was the feature 'star' in the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

Bill Murray

[Bigcanuck]

What round is this now? It's a marathon but it's the same 1/4 mile track we've all been running for days...remember the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

Okay...Movie Trivia? I'll go first....

Who was the feature 'star' in the movie 'Groundhog Day'?

Bill Murray

[Bigcanuck]

The Catholic Church would not do that to you. That is the whole point of this discussion.

The LDS has no authority to use my name, EVER, in any of its sacraments. It is MY name. It has already been conceded that LDS would NEVER, under any circumstances give me a proxy sacrament while I am alive. The same policy should be maintained upon my death.

So would you deny that to those who would want it?

[noelle12]

Well, the whole original thought behind this thread was to get some thing other than evolution or the Trinity to make over 1000 post..

So in all due respect we're having a contest here...

( :shhh:you probably thought it was really serious but it's just a ploy to get the evolutionist and Trinitarians to not think they're so important....we're spiritual too!!! :snooty: )

Yay us! Are we winning yet?

[Meriweather]

So would you deny that to those who would want it?

Anyone who shows up at the LDS Church and wants to be baptized will probably find someone who is able to guide them through the sacrament.

[Meriweather]

Yay us! Are we winning yet?

Well, if we're not, we can always change the rules a bit to even the playing field! :mrgreen:

[noelle12]

It the root of the literal word for Easter in Latin, Greek, and in Hebrew "Pesach" which means Passover.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paschal

Etymology: Middle English pasche Passover, Easter, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin pascha, from Late Greek, from Greek, Passover, from Hebrew pesaḥ

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html

In Hebrew, it is known as Pesach (that “ch” is pronounced as in the Scottish “loch”), which is based on the Hebrew root meaning “pass over”

Korban is the Hebrew word meaning sacrifice.

Thanks. :)

The Spanish word for Easter is pascua, which obviously is a cognate with the word paschal, so I knew they were related, but I was confused by his reference to a paschal sacrifice as if it were different from a proxy sacrifice.

[Bigcanuck]

Anyone who shows up at the LDS Church and wants to be baptized will probably find someone who is able to guide them through the sacrament.

No, I'm speaking of the dead who had no knowledge of Christ while they lived on the earth... There have been billions... would you refuse them that opportunity to accept Christ?

[noelle12]

Anyone who shows up at the LDS Church and wants to be baptized will probably find someone who is able to guide them through the sacrament.

Sure, after they receive the lessons from the missionaries and have an interview to determine if they are ready to make that covenant.

[Dancer]

Thanks. :)

The Spanish word for Easter is pascua, which obviously is a cognate with the word paschal, so I knew they were related, but I was confused by his reference to a paschal sacrifice as if it were different from a proxy sacrifice.I was channeling vir doctus for a moment since she hasn't been around...lol

[noelle12]

How about Morman Trivia? We could still play, we could use GOOGLE search engine!!!

First question: How do you spell Mormon?

[noelle12]

I was channeling vir for a moment since she hasn't been around...lol

No kidding, where has she been? She is one smart cookie.

[Bigcanuck]

First question: How do you spell Mormon?


I was excited about playing morman trivia... I would do better at that than morwoman trivia... Still haven't figured that stuff out yet.

[noelle12]

I was excited about playing morman trivia... I would do better at that than morwoman trivia... Still haven't figured that stuff out yet.

:))

[Dancer]

First question: How do you spell Mormon?
basilisk started a Mormon trivia in Trivial pursuits and the Catholic trivia game was moved there. ;) :mrgreen:


:whistle:

[outdamyboat]

Yay us! Are we winning yet?

No not yet...but we are close...

Next question...

What was the choice in 'Sophie's Choice'?

[Dancer]

First question: How do you spell Mormon?I know I know! LDS! HA!

[outdamyboat]

basilisk started a Mormon trivia in Trivial pursuits and the Catholic trivia game was moved there. ;) :mrgreen:


:whistle:

See we can get along...:D

[Meriweather]

No, I'm speaking of the dead who had no knowledge of Christ while they lived on the earth... There have been billions... would you refuse them that opportunity to accept Christ?

I believe once we die, we pass on. It makes sense to me that those who had no knowledge, and even no belief, of Christ in this world would be given a chance at that time. But, I don't know. The choices and decisions we made in this life may automatically relegate us to a specific "mansion." I wouldn't say the place we go upon death is the type of waiting room that I've heard LDS describe.

In the Catholic Church, sacraments are visiible signs of an invisible reality. In other words, those signs have meaning to us because we are physical. But it is the spiritual reality in which we believe is the more real.

[noelle12]

See we can get along...:D

woohoo!!!!! I love these threads when they are friendly!

[birdonawire]

Sure, after they receive the lessons from the missionaries and have an interview to determine if they are ready to make that covenant.

So are you saying that you have to be qualified to be baptized?

[Portia]

But what of those who never heard of Christ or His sacrifice in this world? What of those who never had the chance to make that choice while they lived here? That is what proxy work is all about. If someone made up their mind in this lifetime that they would not accept baptism performed by the priesthood in the LDS church... there is a very good chance they would reject it in the next life and therefore there is no need to sign a waiver etc. It would simply be void and you could laugh at the lds for all the effort they went through for nothing.

If you were a non drinker and you went into a restaurant and they offered you a wine list... would you be offended, or simply say no thank you? Would you demand they know in advance what you were a non drinker before hand?

But for those who never had a chance at being taught the gospel according to the LDS belief system (or any other for that matter) I think it answers a very big gaping hole that many Christian sects have no answer for.


Christ opened the gates of Hell and all those who died before--without "hearing" what you refer to as the gospel--were set free.

Also, in practical terms, this baptism and doing proxy "ordinances" (hand shakes, secret words, marriages) for the dead seems like a very inefficient means of getting the word out. The vast majority of mankind never kept records of individuals. The best estimates are that there have been 62 billion folks who have inhabited this world. So even if every record which is extant were culled and used by the Mormons, it would still be a drop in the bucket of all humanity through all of history. It's a waste of time and resources since there's no way the Mormon church can baptise all 62 billion folks. I'm curious. Can African Mormons or Chinese Mormons trace their ancestors through the church's geneology records?

As to the question about "why" someone would be outraged that Mormons would arbitrarily baptise someone into a religion that was possibly polar opposites of their life and their beliefs, I think that's very simple. Mormons invalidate a person's very life by denying them the right to his/her own history and own beliefs. To this day, Mormons do not understand why Jews would be so outraged and deeply offended by usurping the good names of those who died for their beliefs. Baptising Jews who died in the Holocaust offends in the deepest possible way, and that Mormons do not understand this is perhaps very telling about Mormonism itself. And did you all know that Mormons also baptised Hitler and Eva Braun? The insult to Jewish martyrs is breathtaking.

As to why Catholics and Methodists do not accept Mormon baptism, it's also very simple. Mormons do not worship the same God as Jews and Christians. They are certainly welcome to worship their flesh and bone, exhaulted man-god, but that is not the God of Christianity or Judaism.

In regard to the very strange idea that Catholic parish records are public information and as one poster claimed could be accessed via court orders, does that mean all that information stored in the cave in Provo and the vaults in Salt Lake is also public information and Catholics can explore at will? Can anyone say "Salamander Killings"? How about opening up the information Fawn Brodie used in her expose of Joseph Smith, which she was excommunicated for (and the records she used were locked away)?

I do have a small problem with the original claims of this thread, i.e., there are a lot of folks making money by being "anti-Mormon" and that only practicing Mormons should be asked about their beliefs. There is, in fact, a very, very large community of ex-Mormons who know exactly what Mormon's teach and how the church is run. And, unlike, the carefully edited version of Mormon history and theology given by active Mormons, the ex-Mormons will give you the "real" story. Try exmormon.org. There are ex-Bishops, Temple Presidents, Stake Presidents, missionaries and links to original documents. Most work of "anti" Mormons is small scale and volunteer. For example Sandra Tanner and her husband have a small bookstore in Salt Lake City and they and their business has been under attack by the very wealthy and powerful Mormon church since its inception. Sandra Tanner is hardly a rich opponent of Mormonism, but the church wants her gone because she does sell the real history of the Mormon church. Google "Utah Lighthouse Ministeries" for her web site.

[noelle12]

So are you saying that you have to be qualified to be baptized?

Only qualified in the sense that you receive the lessons by the missionaries and have an interview to determine that you are prepared to accept the covenents that come with baptism. As far as qualifications go, they are not that hard to meet.

[scipio337]

Then you admit that the only difference (to you) is that in one case it (the sacrifice) is accepted "IN THIS LIFE," and in the other case it (the proxy ordinance) is accepted in the next. Yet the idea is still the same:

In the case of the atonement:
_________________________

1. Christ does something for you that you cannot do for yourself.
2. You can either accept or reject that "something."
3. You reap the consequences of that choice.

In the case of proxy ordinances:
__________________________

1. Someone does something for you that you cannot do for yourself.
2. You can either accept or reject that "something."
3. You reap the consequences of that choice.


I don't understand why people who accept Christ are so offended over the IDEA of proxy baptisms. Its virtually the same concept, only on a different level.The only similarities they share is that "the benefactor is not present" in either.

The LDS proxy ordinances totally destroys the concept of free agency. You may claim that these ordinances are either "accepted" or "rejected" in the afterlife, but this isn't verifiable, or may be contrary to that person's belief in life. Its conjecture that circumvents the whole concept of free agency as a means of grace.

[birdonawire]

Only qualified in the sense that you receive the lessons by the missionaries and have an interview to determine that you are prepared to accept the covenents that come with baptism. As far as qualifications go, they are not that hard to meet.

Could you be a little more specific on what the lessons are?

Is it just general information that you learn about the Church and what you believe?

[coMITTed]

Christ opened the gates of Hell and all those who died before--without "hearing" what you refer to as the gospel--were set free.

Also, in practical terms, this baptism and doing proxy "ordinances" (hand shakes, secret words, marriages) for the dead seems like a very inefficient means of getting the word out. The vast majority of mankind never kept records of individuals. The best estimates are that there have been 62 billion folks who have inhabited this world. So even if every record which is extant were culled and used by the Mormons, it would still be a drop in the bucket of all humanity through all of history. It's a waste of time and resources since there's no way the Mormon church can baptise all 62 billion folks. I'm curious. Can African Mormons or Chinese Mormons trace their ancestors through the church's geneology records?

As to the question about "why" someone would be outraged that Mormons would arbitrarily baptise someone into a religion that was possibly polar opposites of their life and their beliefs, I think that's very simple. Mormons invalidate a person's very life by denying them the right to his/her own history and own beliefs. To this day, Mormons do not understand why Jews would be so outraged and deeply offended by usurping the good names of those who died for their beliefs. Baptising Jews who died in the Holocaust offends in the deepest possible way, and that Mormons do not understand this is perhaps very telling about Mormonism itself. And did you all know that Mormons also baptised Hitler and Eva Braun? The insult to Jewish martyrs is breathtaking.

As to why Catholics and Methodists do not accept Mormon baptism, it's also very simple. Mormons do not worship the same God as Jews and Christians. They are certainly welcome to worship their flesh and bone, exhaulted man-god, but that is not the God of Christianity or Judaism.

In regard to the very strange idea that Catholic parish records are public information and as one poster claimed could be accessed via court orders, does that mean all that information stored in the cave in Provo and the vaults in Salt Lake is also public information and Catholics can explore at will? Can anyone say "Salamander Killings"? How about opening up the information Fawn Brodie used in her expose of Joseph Smith, which she was excommunicated for (and the records she used were locked away)?

I do have a small problem with the original claims of this thread, i.e., there are a lot of folks making money by being "anti-Mormon" and that only practicing Mormons should be asked about their beliefs. There is, in fact, a very, very large community of ex-Mormons who know exactly what Mormon's teach and how the church is run. And, unlike, the carefully edited version of Mormon history and theology given by active Mormons, the ex-Mormons will give you the "real" story. Try exmormon.org. There are ex-Bishops, Temple Presidents, Stake Presidents, missionaries and links to original documents. Most work of "anti" Mormons is small scale and volunteer. For example Sandra Tanner and her husband have a small bookstore in Salt Lake City and they and their business has been under attack by the very wealthy and powerful Mormon church since its inception. Sandra Tanner is hardly a rich opponent of Mormonism, but the church wants her gone because she does sell the real history of the Mormon church. Google "Utah Lighthouse Ministeries" for her web site.

:)) :)) :))

(Snort)

Oh yeah, that's the ticket. You want the "real" story on the Mormons? Visit i-hate-mormons-because-i-used-to-be-one-but-didn't-live-the-gospel-so-they-kicked-me-out.com

I'm not even going to touch the rest of this trollish garbage b/c it's either already been addressed, or it's so full of error it's just not even worth touching.

[justamere10]

I believe once we die, we pass on. It makes sense to me that those who had no knowledge, and even no belief, of Christ in this world would be given a chance at that time. But, I don't know. The choices and decisions we made in this life may automatically relegate us to a specific "mansion." I wouldn't say the place we go upon death is the type of waiting room that I've heard LDS describe.

In the Catholic Church, sacraments are visiible signs of an invisible reality. In other words, those signs have meaning to us because we are physical. But it is the spiritual reality in which we believe is the more real.

Mormons believe, as has already been stated, that essential gospel ordinances such as baptism must be done on this earth, they cannot be done in heaven. So, because there are I suppose billions of people who lived their lives without ever having even heard of Jesus Christ, let alone having had his pure gospel taught to them, then those people too need to be baptized.

The choice to accept or reject the gospel and the ordinances done for them by others on earth when they couldn't take care of it for themselves is of course entirely theirs, the same as it is the choice of the living who have had the gospel preached to them. The Latter-day Saints believe that they are commissioned of Jesus Christ to exercise the restored apostolic sealing power in their temples to take care of those essential ordinances.

[HokieCougarVandal]

:naughty:
Christ opened the gates of Hell and all those who died before--without "hearing" what you refer to as the gospel--were set free.

Also, in practical terms, this baptism and doing proxy "ordinances" (hand shakes, secret words, marriages) for the dead seems like a very inefficient means of getting the word out. The vast majority of mankind never kept records of individuals. The best estimates are that there have been 62 billion folks who have inhabited this world. So even if every record which is extant were culled and used by the Mormons, it would still be a drop in the bucket of all humanity through all of history. It's a waste of time and resources since there's no way the Mormon church can baptise all 62 billion folks. I'm curious. Can African Mormons or Chinese Mormons trace their ancestors through the church's geneology records?

As to the question about "why" someone would be outraged that Mormons would arbitrarily baptise someone into a religion that was possibly polar opposites of their life and their beliefs, I think that's very simple. Mormons invalidate a person's very life by denying them the right to his/her own history and own beliefs. To this day, Mormons do not understand why Jews would be so outraged and deeply offended by usurping the good names of those who died for their beliefs. Baptising Jews who died in the Holocaust offends in the deepest possible way, and that Mormons do not understand this is perhaps very telling about Mormonism itself. And did you all know that Mormons also baptised Hitler and Eva Braun? The insult to Jewish martyrs is breathtaking.

As to why Catholics and Methodists do not accept Mormon baptism, it's also very simple. Mormons do not worship the same God as Jews and Christians. They are certainly welcome to worship their flesh and bone, exhaulted man-god, but that is not the God of Christianity or Judaism.

In regard to the very strange idea that Catholic parish records are public information and as one poster claimed could be accessed via court orders, does that mean all that information stored in the cave in Provo and the vaults in Salt Lake is also public information and Catholics can explore at will? Can anyone say "Salamander Killings"? How about opening up the information Fawn Brodie used in her expose of Joseph Smith, which she was excommunicated for (and the records she used were locked away)?

I do have a small problem with the original claims of this thread, i.e., there are a lot of folks making money by being "anti-Mormon" and that only practicing Mormons should be asked about their beliefs. There is, in fact, a very, very large community of ex-Mormons who know exactly what Mormon's teach and how the church is run. And, unlike, the carefully edited version of Mormon history and theology given by active Mormons, the ex-Mormons will give you the "real" story. Try exmormon.org. There are ex-Bishops, Temple Presidents, Stake Presidents, missionaries and links to original documents. Most work of "anti" Mormons is small scale and volunteer. For example Sandra Tanner and her husband have a small bookstore in Salt Lake City and they and their business has been under attack by the very wealthy and powerful Mormon church since its inception. Sandra Tanner is hardly a rich opponent of Mormonism, but the church wants her gone because she does sell the real history of the Mormon church. Google "Utah Lighthouse Ministeries" for her web site.

[HokieCougarVandal]

:clap:
:)) :)) :))

(Snort)

Oh yeah, that's the ticket. You want the "real" story on the Mormons? Visit i-hate-mormons-because-i-used-to-be-one-but-didn't-live-the-gospel-so-they-kicked-me-out.com
(Best Larry voice I can muster)
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
:))

[scipio337]

:)) :)) :))

(Snort)

Oh yeah, that's the ticket. You want the "real" story on the Mormons? Visit i-hate-mormons-because-i-used-to-be-one-but-didn't-live-the-gospel-so-they-kicked-me-out.com

I'm not even going to touch the rest of this trollish garbage b/c it's either already been addressed, or it's so full of error it's just not even worth touching.Considering some doctrines/ceremonies are secre.... ahem, sacred, and given the propensity of certain LDS leaders/founders to cover up certain practices, do you really believe that these former LDS have no insight into the doctrines that they were raised (and sometimes born) in?

[Portia]

:)) :)) :))

(Snort)

Oh yeah, that's the ticket. You want the "real" story on the Mormons? Visit i-hate-mormons-because-i-used-to-be-one-but-didn't-live-the-gospel-so-they-kicked-me-out.com

I'm not even going to touch the rest of this trollish garbage b/c it's either already been addressed, or it's so full of error it's just not even worth touching.


What is your definition of "troll"?

BTW, ex-Mormon does NOT mean excommunicated. If all exmormons were, as you claim, kicked out, your officials must be holding excommunications hearings 24-7 because thousands and thousands are leaving every day. Which reminds me. The Mormon claims to 13,000,000 members is a bit off. The best estimates of active members is between 2 and 4 million worldwide.

[noelle12]

Could you be a little more specific on what the lessons are?

Is it just general information that you learn about the Church and what you believe?

Sure. When I was a missionary 15 or so years ago, the discussions, as they were called, consisted of six lessons. I will briefly outline them to you, but first I'll tell you that since then the lessons have changed, and I'm not totally sure about how they are now, but I imagine the content is basically the same. Probably another LDS poster who served a mission more recently than I did can give you more updated information.

But here were the discussions I taught.

1st Discussion: The Plan of our Heavenly Father
Principle 1: Our Heavenly Father's Plan
Principle 2: The Divine Origin of Jesus Christ
Principle 3: The Manner in which He Reveals His Plan
Principle 4: The Prophet Joseph Smith: A Modern Witness of Jesus Christ
Principle 5: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ
Principle 6: The Holy Ghost: A Witness of the Truth

2nd Discussion: The Gospel of Jesus Christ
P 1: Salvation from Physical Death
P 2: Salvation from Sin
P 3: Faith in Jesus Christ
P 4: Repentence
P 5: Baptism by Immersion for the Remission of Sins
P 6: The Gift of the Holy Ghost

3rd Discussion: The Restoration
P 1: Truth vs. Error
P 2: The Apostacy
P 3: The Restoration of the Truth
P 4: The Restoration of the Church
P 5: Being a Member of the True Church
P 6: Attending the Meetings of the Church and Partaking of the Sacrament

4th Discussion: Eternal Progression
P 1: The Pre-existence
P 2: Earth Life
P 3: Life After Death
P 4: Vicarious Work for the Dead
P 5: The Eternal Family
P 6: The Law of Chastity

5th Discussion: A Christ-like Life
P 1: The Two Great Commandments
P 2: Sacrifice Brings Blessings
P 3: Fasting and Fast Offerings
P 4: Tithing

6th Discussion: Members of the Kingdom of God
P 1: The Role of Jesus Christ in the Plan of Salvation
P 2: Exaltation Through Jesus Christ and His Church
P 3: The Mission of the Church: Perfecting the Saints
P 4: The Mission of the Church: Proclaim the Gospel
P 5: The Mission of the Church: Redeem the Dead
P 6: The Straight and Narrow Path

This is a brief outline of the discussions as I taught them. Each discussion (supposedly) took an hour. (With all of the questions and hospitality of the people of Argentina I was rarely in their home for just an hour.)

I hope you found this information to be helpful.

[coMITTed]

What is your definition of "troll"?

Right now, that would be you--offering nothing productive to the discussion, only negative distraction and red herrings.

BTW, ex-Mormon does NOT mean excommunicated. If all exmormons were, as you claim, kicked out, your officials must be holding excommunications hearings 24-7 because thousands and thousands are leaving every day. Which reminds me. The Mormon claims to 13,000,000 members is a bit off. The best estimates of active members is between 2 and 4 million worldwide.

Um, no. That's not true at all. Our numbers are among the fastest growing in the world--in fact, the only faith that has us beat (world-wide) is Islam, and that's due to sheer birth rate, not conversion. 13,000,000 is, if anything, an UNDERestimate b/c there are thousands upon thousands of converts baptized every day. It's amazing, b/c LDS is one of the FEW faiths in which untold numbers convert to, but VERY few leave. Our retention rates are among the highest. But fabricate numbers all you like. If you really have that bitter of an axe to grind, perhaps you should search your heart and figure out why you left in the first place.

[justamere10]

Could you be a little more specific on what the lessons are?

Is it just general information that you learn about the Church and what you believe?

At any given time there are about 50,000 LDS "missionaries" representives of the Church serving worldwide. Most of them are young men and women between 19 and about 24 years of age who serve voluntarily for 18 or 24 months. They are not paid for their service, in fact they are expected to pay their own way.

They are available to go to people's homes on appointment to teach them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They usually have about five separate "discussions" to present at separate times. Those discussions provide enough information about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its beliefs that those who are interested in joining the LDS Church can make an informed decision.

The missionaries quietly teach those principles, referring to scriptures. They ask investigators to pray about what they've been taught to find out from God for themselves if it is true, and if they should be baptized.

If they decide to be baptized, they are interviewed by one of the missionaries assigned to that responsibility to make sure that they understand the covenants of baptism and are ready for that ordinance. If so, the baptism is scheduled and family and friends are invited to attend. It is invariably a happy time and one never to be forgotten as new converts keep the Lord's commandments, walk the way Christ taught us to walk, and prepare to enter a House of the Lord to partake of the sealing ordinances that will unite them to their spouses, children, and parents for eternity.

Those interested in having the missonaries come to their home by appointment can look up Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the phone book and call, visit an LDS Church on a Sunday when there are cars in the parking lot, or inquire at:

http://www.mormon.org

All are welcome to attend our Sunday meetings. All are invited to come unto Christ and fellowship with us.

[coMITTed]

Considering some doctrines/ceremonies are secre.... ahem, sacred, and given the propensity of certain LDS leaders/founders to cover up certain practices, do you really believe that these former LDS have no insight into the doctrines that they were raised (and sometimes born) in?

There's just something that happens--a change in the heart, I suppose--to people who leave the Church or get ex-ed. They become so rabidly critical that any insight they can offer is skewed by the spirit of contention (and we all know where THAT comes from). They stretch and exaggerate and spin, and sacred things that we active members take on faith become fodder for anti-websites and blogs as to the "illogical" and "unreal" things that we believe. Granted, this is a VERY general summation, but it tends to be the broader pattern.

My dad puts it best when he says, "you can leave the Church, but you'll never be able to leave it alone."

[justamere10]

What is your definition of "troll"?

BTW, ex-Mormon does NOT mean excommunicated. If all exmormons were, as you claim, kicked out, your officials must be holding excommunications hearings 24-7 because thousands and thousands are leaving every day. Which reminds me. The Mormon claims to 13,000,000 members is a bit off. The best estimates of active members is between 2 and 4 million worldwide.

If you want to know the TRUTH about what Mormons believe, ask only active informed Mormons. Everybody else get it wrong. There are a few active informed Mormons writing on this thread, ask them...

.

[birdonawire]

Sure. When I was a missionary 15 or so years ago, the discussions, as they were called, consisted of six lessons. I will briefly outline them to you, but first I'll tell you that since then the lessons have changed, and I'm not totally sure about how they are now, but I imagine the content is basically the same. Probably another LDS poster who served a mission more recently than I did can give you more updated information.

But here were the discussions I taught.

1st Discussion: The Plan of our Heavenly Father
Principle 1: Our Heavenly Father's Plan
Principle 2: The Divine Origin of Jesus Christ
Principle 3: The Manner in which He Reveals His Plan
Principle 4: The Prophet Joseph Smith: A Modern Witness of Jesus Christ
Principle 5: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ
Principle 6: The Holy Ghost: A Witness of the Truth

2nd Discussion: The Gospel of Jesus Christ
P 1: Salvation from Physical Death
P 2: Salvation from Sin
P 3: Faith in Jesus Christ
P 4: Repentence
P 5: Baptism by Immersion for the Remission of Sins
P 6: The Gift of the Holy Ghost

3rd Discussion: The Restoration
P 1: Truth vs. Error
P 2: The Apostacy
P 3: The Restoration of the Truth
P 4: The Restoration of the Church
P 5: Being a Member of the True Church
P 6: Attending the Meetings of the Church and Partaking of the Sacrament

4th Discussion: Eternal Progression
P 1: The Pre-existence
P 2: Earth Life
P 3: Life After Death
P 4: Vicarious Work for the Dead
P 5: The Eternal Family
P 6: The Law of Chastity

5th Discussion: A Christ-like Life
P 1: The Two Great Commandments
P 2: Sacrifice Brings Blessings
P 3: Fasting and Fast Offerings
P 4: Tithing

6th Discussion: Members of the Kingdom of God
P 1: The Role of Jesus Christ in the Plan of Salvation
P 2: Exaltation Through Jesus Christ and His Church
P 3: The Mission of the Church: Perfecting the Saints
P 4: The Mission of the Church: Proclaim the Gospel
P 5: The Mission of the Church: Redeem the Dead
P 6: The Straight and Narrow Path

This is a brief outline of the discussions as I taught them. Each discussion (supposedly) took an hour. (With all of the questions and hospitality of the people of Argentina I was rarely in their home for just an hour.)

I hope you found this information to be helpful.

Thank you it was very helpful.:D

[justamere10]

Considering some doctrines/ceremonies are secre.... ahem, sacred, and given the propensity of certain LDS leaders/founders to cover up certain practices, do you really believe that these former LDS have no insight into the doctrines that they were raised (and sometimes born) in?


Some of them may have an intellectual knowledge of things that are sacred to Latter-day Saints having once been among them. The usual exit from the LDS Church is by breaking the commandments, especially after having made sacred temple covenants with God.

Committing adultery for example, after making those covenants is mocking God. The Spirit withdraws from such people and they are left on their own. In some cases they actively fight against the church that once meant so much to them.

The bottom line is that you cannot trust apostates or enemies of the LDS Church to tell you the TRUTH. They invariably get it wrong because it is the Holy Spirit that is the ultimate source of truth, and that is quickly out of reach for those who break major commandments and do not repent.

Some are excommunicated, some are just left to go their own way.

For those who remain faithful and endure to the end in righteousness, the sealing power that is exercised in holy temples cannot be broken in the eternities and they will know joy and the presence of the Father forever and ever.

.

[scipio337]

There's just something that happens--a change in the heart, I suppose--to people who leave the Church or get ex-ed. They become so rabidly critical that any insight they can offer is skewed by the spirit of contention (and we all know where THAT comes from). They stretch and exaggerate and spin, and sacred things that we active members take on faith become fodder for anti-websites and blogs as to the "illogical" and "unreal" things that we believe. Granted, this is a VERY general summation, but it tends to be the broader pattern.

My dad puts it best when he says, "you can leave the Church, but you'll never be able to leave it alone."But I've also found the inverse to be true. Some members of the Church become so rabidly un-critical that they lose any objective view to the beliefs, practices and history of the Church.

I for one was amazed earlier in this thread where you basically said "Brigham Young was a racist".

Not all criticism is an "attack", and while there are some exes who exaggerate to justify their own feelings, there are others exes who came with an open search for truth and dialouge, only to have the door shut in their face (see September Six).

I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle?

[Old Tex]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time! Keep it up guys I am enjoying it.

I do say thank you to the LDS here that have posted the link to the geneology data base!!!!

I have been trying to find my grandfather for YEARS and got nothing but it took all of five minutes and I found him!!!!!!

Thank you!!!!:hug:

And that's what these names are collected and categorized for. To give anyone, anywhere, a place to look in their efforts to find their own ancestors, and at absolutely no cost to the one doing the looking.

You can also download a free genealogy progam for your computer and as you go back to the Church site and find more of your kinfolk, you can enter them into your computer and start to build your own personal database of your family.

Or you can download and print two forms that everyone uses. One is called the Pedigree Form. It lets you lay out those in your direct line, mom and dad. Mom's parents and dad's parents, then your 8 great gransparents and you sixteen great-great grand parents. etc, etc.

Then the family group sheet allows to "group" each family on one sheet. Your mom and dad and all their kids on one sheet. One set of grandparents and their kids on another sheet, the other set of grandparents and all their kids on another sheet, etc,etc.

With the two types of sheets you can build a personal organized database as far back as you can find records with their names on them. You can build a history of your ancestors

I understand that genealogy is the number two use for the internet, with unfortunately, porno being the first.

If you have some general question I can help you with in searching for more of you kin, someone here will be tickled to help.

I wish everyone on this thread would try to find at least one realative, preferably someone in the states who was alive in 1880.

[coMITTed]

But I've also found the inverse to be true. Some members of the Church become so rabidly un-critical that they lose any objective view to the beliefs, practices and history of the Church.

I for one was amazed earlier in this thread where you basically said "Brigham Young was a racist".

Not all criticism is an "attack", and while there are some exes who exaggerate to justify their own feelings, there are others exes who came with an open search for truth and dialouge, only to have the door shut in their face (see September Six).

I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle?

I am open to critical thinking when it comes to Church history, b/c it's full of men who were far, far from perfect. Brigham Young WAS a racist. So were many men in that era. I think if I'd been alive back then I'd have had a problem following him initially--I'd have been one of the Saints who NEEDED to hear and see him as Joseph when he spoke to that crowd for two hours. If I had that testimony, I wouldn't be able to deny it, no matter how much I personally disliked the man. The problem I think is that we judge them by our 21st century standards, ethics, morals, what-have-you.

It is similar today, though, with many LDS leaders as well. My uncle is a love-him-or-hate-him type who's had some pretty high-up positions. I know some have struggled with following his admonitions as a Church leader, but I always remind myself that I have a testimony of the gospel, and that Christ's Church is perfect even if his called leaders aren't.

As far as issues like the September Six are concerned, they were going a lot farther than delving into church history and being critical and "seeking open dialogue". They were speaking out of place--preaching their personal, pet theories as doctrine from the classroom as well as the pulpit. When you start speaking on behalf of the Lord without His authority, that's where you get into trouble. God WANTS us to question, He WANTS us to understand WHY we have the commandments we do. He does not expect a blind faith following, He expects us to use our brains and think things through. But when we start to think we know more than He does, or more than His appointed servants, that's where we're overstepping our bounds and are in danger of apostasy.

[justamere10]

I wish everyone on this thread would try to find at least one realative, preferably someone in the states who was alive in 1880.

Just be sure to watch out for skeletons and closets. :-)

It's a fascinating hobby, millions and millions of people are turning their heart to the fathers. I was blessed to find about 80,000 of my relatives, and that pales to what many other people have found. The wonders of electronics and the LDS filming of vital records for many years have made it possible, genealogy software makes it manageable. Enjoy.

[outdamyboat]

Just 5 post to go before 1000 mark is met...

[justamere10]

It was many years ago when I first started genealogical research on my father's line. I used an XT computer, extremely basic, and one of the first versions of the PAF software that you can now download at




I remember times in the Family History Library in Salt Lake City when I'd be trying to read microfiche or microfilm of faded records, in sometimes very hard to decipher handwriting, in a foreign language, filmed in a foreign land. I could not make anything at all out of it.

But I'd pray, grit my teeth and move my chair a bit closer in. Without seemingly any transition at all I would be able to clearly focus and read, and find my ancestors. I'd get up to go for a drink or whatever, and have the same experience all over again when I returned to the reader. I couldn't read a thing, would pray, there would be no aware transition just a calm ability to read the film as if I always could.

I bear you my testimony that those people who are dead to us LIVE, and they are very interested in what we are doing as we turn our hearts to them, they turn their hearts to us, and this earth is spared the curse of Malachi in the last verse of the Old Testament. Often, very often, things happen as you research your family that fill you with JOY. Outside of LDS temples you will probably never get so close to God and family as you will when researching your family roots.

I spent some time in Macau, China. On the sidewalks of Macau the Chinese place red metal containers in which they burn paper in the shape of cars, money etc. As the smoke wends its way upward to me it is the heart of the Chinese turned to the fathers in their own way. They are sending them gifts to use in the worlds of spirit.

The spirit of Elijah who returned to lay his hands on Joseph Smith and give him the keys of the gathering of the fathers is alive and well on this earth today as we all wend our way towards the Millennial reign of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You are invited to turn your heart to your fathers and search for them, free of charge courtesy of the Latter-day Saints at:

http://www.familysearch.org (http://www.familysearch.org)

[outdamyboat]

What is the LDS church doing in China these days? Since China has opened up more to the West and relaxed it's ability for foreign visitors, (which includes different faiths) do the Chinese seem to want to grow spiritually?

My daughter spent some time in Eastern Europe doing humanitarian work. She found that the Communist generation adults (in general) were pretty apathetic to spiritual and religious ideas, but the younger generation was thirsty for God.

You spent some time in China, Justamere 10, what is the climate like spiritually?

[justamere10]

Authority in the Church - the divine right to preach, act in the name of God, and direct the Lord's Church.

An LDS Perspective.

Christian churches regard the question of authority — the divine right to preach, act in the name of God and direct the Lord’s church — in different ways. Some, like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, emphasize a continuous line of authority from the early apostles. Some who broke away from those churches say they find authority in the inerrancy of the Bible. Others rely heavily on a sense of “calling” to the ministry. Latter-day Saints have a distinctive view of priesthood authority that helps define them.

The New Testament describes the church established by Jesus Christ as one with structure and form. The apostles were at its head, and as recipients both of ordained authority and revelation, they were charged with guiding the church and keeping its doctrines pure as it expanded throughout the known world.

The fact that the original church of Jesus Christ would eventually fall into a state of apostasy was foretold by ancient prophets and by the apostles in Christ’s day.

Although Latter-day Saints believe that divine authority was lost in the ancient church after the death of the apostles and required a restoration by divine intervention, they do not dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences:

- Much of the true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ is found in churches today.

- Members of other churches who accept Jesus Christ and try to live by the principles he taught are entitled to divine guidance and inspiration in their lives.

- Faithful Christians who are not Latter-day Saints still go to heaven, and those who live according to all the truth and light they have will open themselves to further light in the hereafter.

- Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology.

- The Bible is a revelation from God, of immense value for the powerful impact it has to change the lives of men and women. It is not diminished by the existence of additional scripture.

- For Latter-day Saints, the restoration of priesthood authority in the first half of the 19th century was a literal act through angelic visitations from those who held the authority anciently. Divine authority was restored to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through a visitation of the resurrected John the Baptist in 1829 near Harmony (now Oakland), Pennsylvania, and sometime afterwards through the appearance of the resurrected ancient apostles Peter, James and John.

- Today, all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who hold the priesthood trace their authority directly to these visitations and bestowal of the priesthood of God on Joseph Smith and early leaders of the Church. A person receiving the priesthood today customarily sits while a person who already holds the priesthood stands and places his hands on the recipient’s head and formally confers that authority.

- The “Apostolic Keys” of priesthood authority today — by which is meant the right to direct the Church — are believed to be vested in the modern apostles in the same way that the ancient apostles had the authority to direct the early church.

Continuous line of authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism)
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (see under “VI. Apostolate and Episcopate”)
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx)
http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/ (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/)Inerrancy of the Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy)Calling to the ministry

www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=9 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000769/!x-usc:http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=9)
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/authority-in-the-church (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000731/!x-usc:http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/authority-in-the-church)

[coMITTed]

What is the LDS church doing in China these days? Since China has opened up more to the West and relaxed it's ability for foreign visitors, (which includes different faiths) do the Chinese people for spirituality?

My daughter spent some time in Eastern Europe doing humanitarian work. She found that the Communist generation adults (in general) were pretty apathetic to spiritual and religious ideas, but the younger generation was thirsty for God.

You spent some time in China, Justamere 10, what is the climate like spiritually?

I can tell you all about the LDS in China--my husband and I lived there for a year in Shanghai. The Church is allowed to meet, but not prostelyte. While we were there, expatriates had a branch, and Chinese nationals had their own branch--niether were allowed to meet together for religious purposes, but social gatherings were okey-dokey. The first part of the year (mid-2003) the nationals could not have local branch leadership--they had to answer directly to Salt Lake, and even that was under close gov't supervision. But by the time we were getting ready to leave (mid-2004), the gov't relaxed somewhat and allowed local, Chinese leadership within their branch. BIG step on the part of the Chinese gov't. Also, the first Chinese national was allowed to go on a mission--he was called to Singapore and the gov't allowed him to be issued a visa for that purpose. Another BIG step.

Also while we were there the little expatriate branch grew to well over 650 members, so for the first time in the Church's history in China, they had to split the branch (now there are two branches in Shanghai--Pu Dong and Pu Xi). We did have one baptism during that year, but she was from Taiwan and that was kosher. The only baptisms allowed were those performed for foreigners. So all Chinese national branch members had, at some point, been baptized in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the U.S., etc. but were still allowed to worship upon their return to the mainland.

So the LDS Church is recognized as an entity in China, but they have some pretty strict ground rules. The Church follows them very closely and has a very good relationship with the gov't. There is no prostelyting, but the Church has all but been assured that if that changes we'll be the first ones invited in for that purpose :).

There have also been some pretty awesome prophesies made about China by former and current LDS authorities. Neal A. Maxwell (a late apostle) told my dad personally in the 80s that the reason we can't go into China at this point is b/c there would be such a tidal wave of baptisms that it would literally break the Church's bank (insofar as providing buildings, resources, etc. for the members). Bruce R. McConkie, another late apostle, prophesied to the little branch of expatriates in Beijing that he forsaw the day when there would be five stakes and two temples in Beijing-proper alone.

So yeah, China and the LDS Church--it's a pretty exciting time over there right now. We feel honored to have been a part of it for the brief time we were there.

[outdamyboat]

fillibuster...? a fillibuster. I think it should be a legitimate discussion not a dissertation type post to move the thread over the top?

So what about the atmosphere in China?

[outdamyboat]

fillibuster...? a fillibuster. I think it should be a legitimate discussion not a dissertation type post to move the thread over the top?

So what about the atmosphere in China?

Well quoting myself...but what the heck we did it...:dance::dance:

After 1000 it's all gravy!

[terri910]

There's just something that happens--a change in the heart, I suppose--to people who leave the Church or get ex-ed. They become so rabidly critical that any insight they can offer is skewed by the spirit of contention (and we all know where THAT comes from). They stretch and exaggerate and spin, and sacred things that we active members take on faith become fodder for anti-websites and blogs as to the "illogical" and "unreal" things that we believe. Granted, this is a VERY general summation, but it tends to be the broader pattern.

So....we may assume that justamere10, as an ex-Catholic, can only offer insight skewed by the spirit of contention, and stretches, exaggerates and spins.

Interesting.