Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/05/2002, 20:48:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
My playful friend, I'm glad you said these things and not me! Did you really have to make promises to become baptized?
Vicki
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/05/2002, 22:37:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
I agree with you that proxy ordinances for the dead make far, far less sense as a necessary prerequisite for their salvation and exaltation than as a device for stimulating and keeping alive the interest and activity of the living members performing the proxy work. The more I ponder about the idea of such proxy work, the less sense it makes to me. Good post!
Gunnar
|
Posted by: rpcman ®
05/06/2002, 09:30:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Considering that they began as a way for members to be baptised for their very close relatives who had died they originally can be viewed as a means of comfort to mourning. Members, BTW, used to get baptised repeatedly when they felt the need in the early days of the church for comfort, healing, etc. No one in Joseph Smith's day could have forseen what that would evolve into (i.e., doing the impossible of proxy baptism for everyone who has lived). Now it is just busy work with few people even doing it for close relatives.
|
Posted by: Holden ®
05/08/2002, 15:21:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
That baptisms for the dead are motivated by a desire to keep members busy is ludicrus! What benefit does the Church receive from having people be so busy running around dunking themselves and looking up names in Ancestral File? To dupe us into feeling like we're doing something worthwhile? Why not have us start homeless shelters or buying food for third world countries? Those are definitely worthwhile and a heck of a lot cheaper to run! Church leaders would have a lot more free time on their hands and would get a lot more adulation from the media. Really, why put so many resources into family history and temples? Give one logical reason besides that Church leaders really believe it's important. And to keep them paying tithing? Are you saying that members of the Church pay tithing so they can be allowed to go to temples and stay busy? I am paying 10% of my income so I can stay busy? Don't I have anything else to do? Yes, faith and repentance must precede baptism. It's a good thing to question why we must go through an outward, ritualistic manifestation. But just because you don't understand something completely (and neither do I) doesn't mean it's bunk. Either there is an afterlife or there isn't. Either baptism is required or it isn't. And either spirits can accept baptism for themselves or they can't. If you are going to tell me that baptism is required, then tell me how people who died without it will receive the ordinance. If it's not, then tell me why it isn't required. If you say God will make those people an exception, then tell me what other requirements He will make exceptions for. I'd like to know.
|
Posted by: james ®
05/08/2002, 23:11:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
Logan,
I don't quite understand when you say that the dead would be able to choose their own BAPTISM in the afterlife. Do you mean that they can choose to become catholic? I'm visualizing catholics standing in line for proxy baptisms for the dead, but instead of being dunked, the priest is pouring a cup of water on their head!The theory behind LDS works for the dead is that these works must be done to complete full adherence to law. LDS people teach that christ taught the 'spirits in prison' when he was dead for three days before being raised to life. I think they might also teach that spirits are being continually taught 'the gospel' so they can hear the word and accept or reject. In theory it only works for people who didn't get the chance to hear 'the gospel' during their life. I suppose that it does give 'the living' something to do, it certainly gives them the chance to experience these works over and over again. The endowments for the dead are probably particularly interesting for Mormons, as it gives them a chance to hear the content over and over again. The heirarchy supports it as it more strongly reinforces whatever is happening to the participants, over, and over again. Some non members find these things annoying. Especially 'celebrity' work, such as Baptizing George Washington, the Historical Buddha, and others...probably even Elvis Presley. Work for dead Jewish people has been particularly controversial, as well as general missionary work. j
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/10/2002, 17:27:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
This was my missionary companion's quip when we walked past a cemetery in Latin America that was running its sprinklers.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/11/2002, 21:37:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
I've probably asked this before but are those who are baptized posthumously in the LDS tradition...counted in the membership statistics?
Vicki
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/11/2002, 21:50:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Membership statistics only reflect live baptisms. Remember, the dead have to accept the baptism to make it effective. So far, the Church has not been successful in collecting that particular statistic.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/11/2002, 22:34:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
keep track of who and how many they have performed this rite for? BTW Alf, your advice on re-editing my posts to avoid the aol shut down works like a charm, takes longer but it works! Thanks!
Vicki
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/12/2002, 00:20:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Most vicarious work these days is done by people who have no genealogical connection with the deceased. I doubt that most people keep track of their running totals. I must confess that for the first dozen or so endowments I performed, I went home and recorded the names and dates of the persons I represented, but I don't think that this is typical. For people who are able to perform work for their own ancestors, it is certainly more meaningful. Three cheers for the editing feature, the one thing I would most miss if we were on the old forum!
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/12/2002, 00:27:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
I should think that the work would be considered meaningful whether it were performed for a relative or not. I could just picture me LDS...I'd have a journal where I'd record every name! The edit feature is nice Alf, but I have to say I miss the old board so much. I'd go back to it in a heart beat.
Vicki
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/09/2002, 04:03:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Logan, I ask this in a light-hearted, loving way... Is there anything you don't love? What's your opinion of roasted baby over a mesquite flame, for example? ;)
Just a little noodge to let you know I still love you!
- Martin
|
Posted by: Logan ®
05/12/2002, 10:36:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Martin! Well, I have to say that I definitely DO NOT love roasted baby over a mesquite flame. That's just plain sick! =) Usually, I DO try to keep a positive demeanor on issues that I know I cannot change. But roasted baby -- no way! I'll always find the roasting of babies to be deplorable and unacceptable. =) Lovingly,
Logan
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/12/2002, 20:30:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you, Logan, for taking such a clear and unequivocal stand.
I'm with you on that one, that's for certain. Mesquite? How vulgar! ;) You know what W.C. Fields used to say when asked if he liked children: "Oh, Yes", Fields would say, "medium rare". Anyway, it's good to hear from you. I hope all is well with you and yours. Give your Mom a hug from me and the rest of the gang here!
- Martin
|
|
