Comments about ‘LDS Church investigates possible ordinances performed for Obama's late mother’

Here come all the hateful comments about how awful everyone thinks the Mormon church is because everyone has nothing better to do.

Why does the church seem to walk into these public relations nightmares?

What has happened?

If you believe in Mormonism then great you saved a soul. If you don't believe in Mormonism, then this procedure did nothing. Why is this stuff even published? Is someone trying to stir something that isn't controversial into something that is?

gee i guess that when there is no news really at all, why not make an issue out of a non-issue. this is a really good example of how competetive the media is with one another. both the deseret news and the sl tribune have this as a big topic today. problem is is that whoever 'informed' them of it obviously has nothing better to do with their own time along with the reporter who decided it was their own story. the newspapers gave credit where it was due for the article but to the general population it is really not even a story to even be printed. the media just goes after anything and everything and will force it in to their print everyday.

I won't pretend to understand at all.

Ummmm, very interesting indeed?!?

very strange.

If I am not a believer in a religion, I don't want to have "work" done for me when I'm dead. Leave it alone. And LDS people usually seem so baffled when they hear about other religions doing "crazy" things and believing the "unbelievable." Wow.

Without religions the world would be a much better place!

People should understand that the person on the other side has the choice to accept or reject anything done on their behalf here. Nothing is binding.

Regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong isn't the question here. The problem is that if a Church member submitted the names without being a direct descendant of President Obama's Mother it is wrong for them to do so. We are counselled only to submit names for those that are in our direct lines of ancestory. Some of these may be indirect if over a hondred years old but still we should be careful about it.

Doing the work for someone who is clearly not of our faith or in our direct line is not right and should not be done. Still as stated the individual on the other side of the veil still holds their agency to choose or not to choose the work as it is been done. It still doesn't make it right.

The Church gets into some of these nightmares for PR not because of its practices but because members take it upon themselves to go beyond what has been counselled.

moral agency is the key.

in Pennsylvania once told me that he thought LDS Temple work for the dead was one of the most unselfish things he'd ever heard of. He said, "I don't believe in it at all, but it amazes me to think of the incredible time and expense that others will donate to do something they hope will help others." He went on to say that he couldn't see why anybody who didn't believe in the power of the practice could possibly object to it. He said, "If you don't think it does anything, why do you care what others do?"
I think he made a good point. If it does something for somebody that is needed--well, that's good. If you don't believe that it works before God, then who cares?
Tempest in a tea pot (and I'm related to Obama's mother--but I certainly wouldn't have submitted her work without family permission--as is supposed to be done.)

Can somebody tell me...how is baptizing the dead any different from baptizing an infant who cannot speak or make his or her own choice in the matter? It is quite frankly exactly the same thing whether it be 5 days after being born or 5 days after dying. Both are subject to the desires and wishes of the relative NOT the person in question.

So, why were you reading news online if your opinion of the media is so low? You do recognize that the Deseret News and other local papers have a responsibility to report on what is happening in their communities...even if it is negative. I do not imagine that the church-owned DNews was really excited about having to write a story about mistakes made by LDS church members, but at least they have the courage to do it anyways and not just brush things under the carpet.

The difference, if you believe in the doctrine (which I do) is that baptizing for the dead has no effect if the person doesn't choose to accept it. The belief is that such ordinances have to be performed on this earth to be binding, but if the person they are for is not here, they still have to accept it or it means nothing.

That said, those of other faiths sometimes see this as very offensive to think that someone "baptized" their relatives, who they may see as a religious hero or otherwise, into another religion.

either way, the problem is one of everyone striving to understand each other.

RE: I hate ignorance.... Members of the LDS faith baptism is actually 8 years old, and are asked, "
do you want to be Baptized?" And for speaking, an infant is "special in Christ, " Let the little ones come unto me", as he said... and does not need baptism as he (she) are not accountable... As far as the deceased, My Grandmother told me once with my wife, that she did not walk the temple work done for her and to be sealed together with " the old drunk " were her words. But will still did the temple work and she and her spouse can decide to accept or not accept it. It is called "Free Agency", which we all have in this life to choose to accept what we do, or not... or to let our relatives do the work and then can accept it, or decline it. has nothing to do with speaking.. five days either way, I am doing 2 of my brothers Temple work this week and they can accept or decline... Their Choice in accepting it... I will catch it later from them "all" in the hereafter, WHEN THEY SEE ME THERE !!!

Well, where are all the comments? I think this whole story is absurd. I heard about it on Fox 13 news tonight.

I believe that the LDS Church does try to stop non family members from submitting a name for baptism for the dead.

The problem in my opinion is, over zealous members who believe that others should have the option to be baptized in the only true, restored church of Christ and have agency.

Folks who have no idea of what the LDS Church is, non members or atheists upon discovering this belief to be offensive.

I have heard fellow LDS say it is like lighting a prayer candle for someone even if they are not of the faith. It is not. When non members hear the words baptism and endowment they become bewildered.

If, as the LDS Church believes that life is everlasting and eternal - doesnt logic extend that folks that are not members will have the choice to become so in the afterlife?

That in my opinion is why non members find the practice offensive.

From an outsider, I have frankly always been confused about the contraversy sorrounding this topic. It seems to me if the leaders of the Catholic Church or the Jewish Faith believed that their religion was the correct religion, the only true religion from God and that ordinances or rituals proformed in their churches or synagoges were correct in the eyes of God, then why does it matter if the Mormoms do ordinaces for the dead of Catholics or Jewish people? Wouldn't the ordinances performed by the Mormons be wrong and therfore non-binding.I don't mean to be cheeky, but do the leaders of the Catholic church or the Jewish faith believe they have the true religion from God? I am not so sure.

And this affects who?