Reader comments
LDS Church investigates possible ordinances performed for Obama's late mother
191 comments | Read story
Simply Amused... | 9:36 a.m. May 6, 2009
Mr. Ignorance Justified...here is the correct quote from 1 Corinthians using the
correct translation.
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?
Paul is asking why they do baptisms for the dead if there is no resurrection...there is nothing in his discourse about anyone going to hell. We will all be given the opportunity to accept or reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ...either in this life or the life to come. Hence, baptisms for the dead.
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?
Paul is asking why they do baptisms for the dead if there is no resurrection...there is nothing in his discourse about anyone going to hell. We will all be given the opportunity to accept or reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ...either in this life or the life to come. Hence, baptisms for the dead.
Karen | 9:52 a.m. May 6, 2009
The sad fact is this type of thing happens all the time. We have been instructed
to submit names for our direct ancestors and others ONLY with permission from
their direct family. It is very disappointing that so many believe these
requirments do not apply to them. Also, it doesn't matter if it hurts
anything or not - the Brethren have instructed us to follow certain rules when
it comes to ordinances for the dead. It's not up to us to decide which to
follow and which to ignore!
Those who defy these requirements must also accept partial responsibility for others in the world withdrawing their support from the church's name extraction efforts. They make it impossible to state that members do not/will not abuse access to these records.
Those who defy these requirements must also accept partial responsibility for others in the world withdrawing their support from the church's name extraction efforts. They make it impossible to state that members do not/will not abuse access to these records.
Comments continue below
A Few Points | 9:58 a.m. May 6, 2009
As an active member I have a few points to make about this:
1. It is clear Church doctrine that all who have died will have the chance to receive and accept important ordinances such as baptism - whether or not members got around to performing them on their behalf or not. For example, we believe that all Hollocast victims who are for now off limits for baptism will still be given the opportunity at some point.
2. Because of point 1, this practice is really for the living LDS member to have an opportunity to serve someone who has died. Again, the deceased individual will have the opportunity at some point whether or not an LDS member performs the ordinance on their behalf.
3. Because of point 2, this practice is actually disposable. Many LDS practices have been revised or discontinued. Sometimes the reason appears obviously to be political or other pressures. If incidents like this seem to be hurting the image of the Church too much I would not be surprised to see it discontinued. Or at least revised to where one has to show documentation that they are related.
IMO, service should be geared more toward the living.
1. It is clear Church doctrine that all who have died will have the chance to receive and accept important ordinances such as baptism - whether or not members got around to performing them on their behalf or not. For example, we believe that all Hollocast victims who are for now off limits for baptism will still be given the opportunity at some point.
2. Because of point 1, this practice is really for the living LDS member to have an opportunity to serve someone who has died. Again, the deceased individual will have the opportunity at some point whether or not an LDS member performs the ordinance on their behalf.
3. Because of point 2, this practice is actually disposable. Many LDS practices have been revised or discontinued. Sometimes the reason appears obviously to be political or other pressures. If incidents like this seem to be hurting the image of the Church too much I would not be surprised to see it discontinued. Or at least revised to where one has to show documentation that they are related.
IMO, service should be geared more toward the living.
Re: Marcionites | 10:06 a.m. May 6, 2009
Yes, they practiced baptising the dead,but were considerd heritcal by the early
church.
Aaron T. | 10:14 a.m. May 6, 2009
Since one must be directly related to perform Temple Work for a deceased person, then Missionary Work and Baptism of people in all walks of life is the key to getting Temple Work done for those deceased persons who have yet to have their work done.
marc | 10:21 a.m. May 6, 2009
to anonymous: thanks for clarifying 1 Cor 15. yes, the whole point of this
chapter is indeed the resurrection and afterlife. you can't take one
scripture, like the pastor did, and make a point against baptism for the dead.
read the whole chapter and then interpret a particular scripture based on the
entire context of the chapter!
Chance | 10:29 a.m. May 6, 2009
Bill said it best.
Clifton | 10:33 a.m. May 6, 2009
Its good to see that others attempt to do things for others who never had a
chance to do for themselves, and there are plenty of those in this category all
over the World. Why should a person be condemned to hell just because he or she
never had a chance to hear the Gospel and decide whether or not to accept Gods
word and all it stands for? Thankfully there is a way through Baptisms for the
dead and God's plan of salvation.
It never ceases to amaze me how many Christian faiths can be so casual about assigning people to hell because they never had of Jesus Christ his GOSPEL. God is supposed to be a just God, Not a respecter of persons,so how can it be justified that some are saved and some are not according to Traditional and modern Christianity?
It never ceases to amaze me how many Christian faiths can be so casual about assigning people to hell because they never had of Jesus Christ his GOSPEL. God is supposed to be a just God, Not a respecter of persons,so how can it be justified that some are saved and some are not according to Traditional and modern Christianity?
genealogist | 10:47 a.m. May 6, 2009
I'm sure the work was performed by a relative, therefore no harm, no foul.
Clifton | 10:49 a.m. May 6, 2009
Brother Chuck Schroeder claims to be a member of the Church for 50 years, and
it seems to me he would have learned something in all those years. Then of
course he could be a member of some Ward and or stake that doesn't take the
time to teach their youngsters the purpose of Baptisms for the dead,
I have been on several Youth Temple days and can't remember a time when the youth were just "Turned loose" in the Temple to do as they please. Yeah,our youths knew exactly why they were there and what they were supposed to do.
Methinks Brother Schroeder considers himself some sort of Comedian, has an axe to grind.
I have been on several Youth Temple days and can't remember a time when the youth were just "Turned loose" in the Temple to do as they please. Yeah,our youths knew exactly why they were there and what they were supposed to do.
Methinks Brother Schroeder considers himself some sort of Comedian, has an axe to grind.
What? | 10:51 a.m. May 6, 2009
For land sakes!
The Rock | 10:54 a.m. May 6, 2009
I don't believe in VooDoo.
If somebody made a VooDoo doll in my image and stuck it with pins it would either do nothing or it would hurt. If it hurt then I might start believing in VooDoo, the source would be the only remaining question.
The LDS church is either true or it is not.
If it is true then there is no reason to object to our proxy work.
If it is false then the acts are null and void and accomplish nothing.
Any religion that believes that God would recognize the acts of a false religion and give Satan power to steel souls in the after life needs their head examined.
Those who believe that the LDS church is false and still want us to stop are only nosey busy bodies who need to get a life.
If somebody made a VooDoo doll in my image and stuck it with pins it would either do nothing or it would hurt. If it hurt then I might start believing in VooDoo, the source would be the only remaining question.
The LDS church is either true or it is not.
If it is true then there is no reason to object to our proxy work.
If it is false then the acts are null and void and accomplish nothing.
Any religion that believes that God would recognize the acts of a false religion and give Satan power to steel souls in the after life needs their head examined.
Those who believe that the LDS church is false and still want us to stop are only nosey busy bodies who need to get a life.
G | 11:15 a.m. May 6, 2009
The same people that oppose vicarious baptism often are the ones that laugh at
satirical uses of historical figures in the media. The Joseph Smith "South
Park" episode comes to mind.
I understand both can be offensive, but our temple rituals are protected by the First Amendment just as parody is. Be glad that anti-Mormon sentiment isn't like in days past.
I understand both can be offensive, but our temple rituals are protected by the First Amendment just as parody is. Be glad that anti-Mormon sentiment isn't like in days past.
Gifts | 11:27 a.m. May 6, 2009
For many years the LDS Church has given a detailed genealogy to each president
as a gift and that gift has always been well received. I'm sure such a
work is in progress for our current president, and I'm sure he will be
honored and intrigued by that gift.
Baptisms performed for the dead are a gift offered to those for whom they are performed and will, I'm sure, be graciously acknowledged by the the recipient in the after-life, whether or not they accept the gift.
Baptisms performed for the dead are a gift offered to those for whom they are performed and will, I'm sure, be graciously acknowledged by the the recipient in the after-life, whether or not they accept the gift.
76tr | 11:37 a.m. May 6, 2009
sometimes it is a good idea to mind ones business.
amb | 11:42 a.m. May 6, 2009
I personally would not mind if I learned I had been posthumously baptized or had
other temple work done by the Lds Church, or any other Church, but I wonder how
most Mormons would feel if they new a religion was regularly
'baptizing' their ancestors to become, for example, homosexuals. I am
sure many would be unhappy about this. While I cannot imagine such a group
actually doing such a thing, Imagining how one would feel in this situation
could be helpful for Mormons to understand how others feel when being baptized
against their will into something they strongly disagree with. And to Starlight,
if negative comments validate a religion you should probably become a
Scientologist since they currently have much more negative publicity than the
Lds Church.
Anonymous | 11:43 a.m. May 6, 2009
I rejected Mormonism during my life. Please respect my decision by not
baptizing me after I die
shawilli | 11:58 a.m. May 6, 2009
I wonder what the POTUS is saying about this? the president seems strangly
silent...he does not seem to be a "christian" or associated with any
faith group, could the rumors be true that we have a muslim president?
To amb | 11:42 | 12:03 p.m. May 6, 2009
Re: "I wonder how most Mormons would feel if they knew a religion was
regularly 'baptizing' their ancestors to become, for example,
homosexuals."
Fine with me, since I understand that there is nothing that can be done on my behalf by someone other than me that can bind my free will.
LDS ordinances are performed for others as an act of love.
When I die, I would hope I have been decent enough to my Catholic friends that they would say a mass for me, to my Buddhist frieds that they would burn incense for me, to my pagan friends that they would invoke Odin to protect me on my way to Valhalla.
Though some of my ancestors lived in England at the time he was alive, I have adopted George Washington as the father of my country. Should he take offense?
Though I have no known relations in common with Mohandas Ghandi, I still acknowlege him as Mahatma. Should he be offended?
These all seem like unselfish acts of love. How could anyone take offense at something intended to show love and concern?
Fine with me, since I understand that there is nothing that can be done on my behalf by someone other than me that can bind my free will.
LDS ordinances are performed for others as an act of love.
When I die, I would hope I have been decent enough to my Catholic friends that they would say a mass for me, to my Buddhist frieds that they would burn incense for me, to my pagan friends that they would invoke Odin to protect me on my way to Valhalla.
Though some of my ancestors lived in England at the time he was alive, I have adopted George Washington as the father of my country. Should he take offense?
Though I have no known relations in common with Mohandas Ghandi, I still acknowlege him as Mahatma. Should he be offended?
These all seem like unselfish acts of love. How could anyone take offense at something intended to show love and concern?
Richard Landis | 12:17 p.m. May 6, 2009
It is a serious matter for those who do not understand the sacredness of temple
ordinances and/or who take them lightly. This is especially true because they do
not know or even consider the affect such misuse or rejection of these
ordinances have on their own salvation.
Sarah Nichole | 12:17 p.m. May 6, 2009
In response to Ignorance Justified, did you know that the early Christian church
- and by that I mean the Church of the First Century, the Apostalic church -
actually did baptize their dead? Not only that, but they taught the idea of
deism and that of levels in Heaven, just like the LDS teach today. All of this
was starting to filter out of the mainstream during the Second Century, and
during the Nicene Councils in the Fourth Century, they were done away with
altogether.
There are literally dozens of sources that are very well known to Biblical/Christian scholars that detail these very things. It was a common practice for those Christians under the original Apostles to baptize their dead. Paul wasn't saying that it's not necessary, he was saying, "Why do you think we do it?"
There are literally dozens of sources that are very well known to Biblical/Christian scholars that detail these very things. It was a common practice for those Christians under the original Apostles to baptize their dead. Paul wasn't saying that it's not necessary, he was saying, "Why do you think we do it?"
I hate ignorance | 12:22 p.m. May 6, 2009
It seems my initial post has been misunderstood. I am not confused about the
LDS religion. I am one. I was baptised at 8 years old. My question is in
reference to certain mainstream religions that baptize a child in infancy. If
it is ok for that religion to refuse that child his "choice" by
baptizing him when he cannot reject it, just because the parents want to, then
why is it not ok for the LDS to baptize the dead?
re: Mennonite | 12:23 p.m. May 6, 2009
So you're saying that people shouldn't dwell on this practice because
it really doesn't affect anyone. I'll buy that a little bit. I mean
the dead really can't be offended, and if it is the wishes of the family
this should be a none issue to others.
Don't you think that is a little hypocritcal? I've made that exact same argument countless times on these blogs when the Gay Marriage issue comes up. What realistic affect does a gay couple obtaining a piece of paper have on anyone outside of that couple? None. Apparently what you mean is that unless something is offensive to yourself, or other LDS patrons, it should ignored by others. Good to know you're always thinking of yourself.
Don't you think that is a little hypocritcal? I've made that exact same argument countless times on these blogs when the Gay Marriage issue comes up. What realistic affect does a gay couple obtaining a piece of paper have on anyone outside of that couple? None. Apparently what you mean is that unless something is offensive to yourself, or other LDS patrons, it should ignored by others. Good to know you're always thinking of yourself.
PlanB | 12:24 p.m. May 6, 2009
What I don't get is that only a very small % of mankind has a written
record (name/birth/death). So that means that God must have a different plan for
all his 10's of Billions of children that won't get baptized via the
current LDS temples because there is no written record of them. If He has that
PlanB (which must be more efficient) then why don't LDS today spend the
huge amount of time/effort/$$$ on things that matter to the living and leave the
baptizing of the dead to Gods Plan B since it will obviously be more inclusive
to all his children???
Mike | 12:29 p.m. May 6, 2009
Where is John Pack Lambert? He knows everything.
Strange Practice | 12:31 p.m. May 6, 2009
As a non-LDS person with LDS family members, I find this practice very strange.
Granted I clearly do not understand the LDS beliefs for beyond this world, but
shouldn't the wishes of the dead be held in a little higher regard? If a
person was never baptised as an LDS member during their life, why is it assumed
they want that in death? I can see only a few situations where this might make
sense, such as a family member passing away before having the opportunity to get
baptised as they had wished for. Other than that, I'd say respect the
wishes of the dead. They lived their life and made their choices that did not
include a baptism, that should be the way it is left.
Doing this practice to fullfill the wishes or needs of family members survived by the dead is a very selfish thing. Find grief in the way that works for you, while also respecting the beliefs of the dead.
Doing this practice to fullfill the wishes or needs of family members survived by the dead is a very selfish thing. Find grief in the way that works for you, while also respecting the beliefs of the dead.
"Good Grief......" | 12:47 p.m. May 6, 2009
(Dixie Dan) "I wonder how the LDS people would feel if the late Gordon B.
Hinckley was baptized a Catholic or Jehovah Witness?"
Then he would have the Agency, (freely given), to accept or reject it???
Hopefully it would be done with the consent of the family????
Then he would have the Agency, (freely given), to accept or reject it???
Hopefully it would be done with the consent of the family????
Nancy | 12:48 p.m. May 6, 2009
What happened to fredom of religious expression in America ?What does it matter
to anyone what any faith practices especially anything as unselfash and
thoughtful as wanting good things for someone who is deceased? Nit-picking is
petty! Vultures sit on the fence, just waiting for something to pick at ... get
real!
Anonymous | 12:52 p.m. May 6, 2009
I really am LDS and I really don't understand how a person could be
offended by this practice, but really, what difference does that make? There
really are people who are offended and whether or not I can see a reason why
they should be offended does not change their offense.
It doesn't even matter if I am unoffended in similar situations or if I have all the great intentions in the world. If I am offending someone, I need to reassess how my behavior and choices are affecting others.
Don't try the argument that 'someone will always be offended with anything', because there are reasonable, intelligent people that are not prone to hysterics that have a problem with this practice.
I am not offering any solutions, just pointing out that invalidating another's offense is at best off-putting, but also narcissistic and judgmental, even if I have the best intentions.
It doesn't even matter if I am unoffended in similar situations or if I have all the great intentions in the world. If I am offending someone, I need to reassess how my behavior and choices are affecting others.
Don't try the argument that 'someone will always be offended with anything', because there are reasonable, intelligent people that are not prone to hysterics that have a problem with this practice.
I am not offering any solutions, just pointing out that invalidating another's offense is at best off-putting, but also narcissistic and judgmental, even if I have the best intentions.
Give it a rest | 1:12 p.m. May 6, 2009
I don't understand all the hoopla. My two year old niece was killed in a
car accident a number of years ago. My mother in-law had her baptized in St.
Marks Hospital, after she was pronounced dead. So it seems to me it's not
just the Mormons who use this practice.
Jiminy Cricket | 1:20 p.m. May 6, 2009
Who elected Helen Radkey to be the watchdog of proxy ordinances?
Witless | 1:21 p.m. May 6, 2009
It is disingenuous for the LDS Church to blame this event on well-meaning
members bypassing instruction and submitting the names of non-relatives or on
pranksters submitting fictitious names. The FACT is that LDS members, often
retired members, are CALLED knowingly by the Church to do genealogy extraction
work. Their calling IS unquestionably to look for names of deceased individuals
and submit them for temple work. Does anyone honestly believe that these
well-meaning individuals, who are simply performing their calling, only submit
names of their own relatives? Of course they dont. They submit names of anyone
they can lay their hands on. The LDS Church obviously accepts these names and
performs the posthumous ordinances for them WITHOUT questioning their
relationship to the submitters.
Im sorry, but the LDS Church is being dishonest blaming one of its members for submitting the name of Obamas mother for this purpose. It whole-heartedly encourages this practice. The person who submitted her name was simply doing his job. The Church obviously needs to change its practices.
Im sorry, but the LDS Church is being dishonest blaming one of its members for submitting the name of Obamas mother for this purpose. It whole-heartedly encourages this practice. The person who submitted her name was simply doing his job. The Church obviously needs to change its practices.
The Problem | 1:46 p.m. May 6, 2009
The Church HAS taken into account the sensitivities of others by requiring that
names be submitted by family members only. The problem here is that this policy
is not structured to be verified or enforceable allowing for things like this to
continue. If the Church wants to avoid this in the future they probably need to
have a process in place that can verify a name submitted has been done by an
actual relative before a baptism or other ordinance takes place. The current
practice unfortunately only provides lip service and allows for all kinds of
abuse. This is not so much to criticize the Church as to recognize an
organizational principle which is that policies often need to evolve based on
experience. And experience is showing that there are holes in this policy.
shoe on the other foot | 1:51 p.m. May 6, 2009
Just ONE example of shoe on the other foot...What if a "gay" church
decided that its members could be married for time and all eternity to any
deceased person they wanted and so a group of their most 'faithful'
followers decide that all the names of LDS prophets would be the first in their
line to be married to. They then went through a ceremony in their church where
one person stood in the wedding ceremony posing as Gordon B Hinckley and stood
next to his new "eternal companion". Would most LDS be offended by
this - OFCOURSE they would!!! Same kind of situation for the people offended by
what is happening in this article. So please don't say that you don't
understand why people would be offended by this act!
Re: Sarah Nicole | 1:53 p.m. May 6, 2009
Check 1cor 15:29 Paul does not say "why do you think we do it? Paul
says"Else what shall they"....."why are they", Paul is
making a case for the Resurrection with these people,(probaly Marcionites a
Gnostic cult) but does not join them. THEY not WE or I
What gall | 2:05 p.m. May 6, 2009
And Mormons wonder why people are suspect of them.
Look no further than this.
What a weird bunch.
Lu
Look no further than this.
What a weird bunch.
Lu
Lack of Empathy | 2:13 p.m. May 6, 2009
I am LDS and understand and support the practice of baptisms for the dead. But
like many other aspects of our doctrines/practices in which we are criticized,
we are often poor at showing empathy. Our response is usually defensive or
dismissive and, in this case, saying people shouldn't be offended because
we wouldn't be if the same was done to us.
Folks, there are LDS doctrines and practices and history that is hard to accept and understand for both members and non-members. We unfortunately seem to find it very hard to view their position or concerns from their point of view. Empathy is difficult but it is a very Christlike attribute. Our relationships with fellow members and non-members alike would greatly improve if we could practice empathy.
Folks, there are LDS doctrines and practices and history that is hard to accept and understand for both members and non-members. We unfortunately seem to find it very hard to view their position or concerns from their point of view. Empathy is difficult but it is a very Christlike attribute. Our relationships with fellow members and non-members alike would greatly improve if we could practice empathy.
I am offended | 2:14 p.m. May 6, 2009
To those who can't understand why anyone would be offended, I will let you
know that I would be and am offended that the LDS church does this. I see LDS as
a cult, and I do not want anything to do with a cult in life or after it. I am
an educated person who has made a conscious decision to have nothing to do with
the LDS church and I want to keep it that way. You understand that Holocaust
survivors are strongly opposed to your practice and have been allowed a
"waiver" from this . Why do you not understand that others, who did
not go through the Holocaust, are also offended.
If you want to honor those who aren't LDS, then say a prayer for them when they are sick. Go to their home and see if they would like to become LDS. But once they have decided NOT to become LDS, that choice should be honored. I don't want to be affiliated in any way with a cult, and that's what it is in my eyes.
If you want to honor those who aren't LDS, then say a prayer for them when they are sick. Go to their home and see if they would like to become LDS. But once they have decided NOT to become LDS, that choice should be honored. I don't want to be affiliated in any way with a cult, and that's what it is in my eyes.
"Thank You" | 2:24 p.m. May 6, 2009
"shoe on the other foot"
Unless you have an intimate understanding of "life after death", you would be "Wise" to not include those who have passed on in this argument. (you just may be convincing yourself)
You have, however, taught the three degrees of glory pretty well. 'Whatever level of intelligence is attained in this life, the same will rise in the next'.
I find it reinforcing to have the scriptures taught so differently, is there any more proof required as to the necessity of Apostles and Prophets.
I have NEVER been WRONG when I have followed Their divine guidance.
You too can have this same peace and assurance. It will save you a lot of money for prescriptions....
Unless you have an intimate understanding of "life after death", you would be "Wise" to not include those who have passed on in this argument. (you just may be convincing yourself)
You have, however, taught the three degrees of glory pretty well. 'Whatever level of intelligence is attained in this life, the same will rise in the next'.
I find it reinforcing to have the scriptures taught so differently, is there any more proof required as to the necessity of Apostles and Prophets.
I have NEVER been WRONG when I have followed Their divine guidance.
You too can have this same peace and assurance. It will save you a lot of money for prescriptions....
E | 2:36 p.m. May 6, 2009
Did not realize church policy had changed about being "related" to
submit names. What the heck was the ward extraction program?? Isnt that just
taking the names off of the immigrant lists? Need a date and a name and that is
it. I'm all confused now. What the heck was I doing.
Re: shoe on the other foot | 2:39 p.m. May 6, 2009
Since I am LDS, that kind of ceremony would mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me. If it
is a religion that has practices and beliefs that I don't believe in, than
why would the things they do offend me in any way? If I don't believe that
what they are doing falls in line with correct principles, than why would I care
since I don't have any investment in it whatsoever?
Nate | 2:40 p.m. May 6, 2009
Lets say I hit someone in the nose by accident and that person ends up with a
bloody nose it doesn't matter to them that it was an accident they still
have a bloody nose.
If I offend someone by accident, it doesn't matter that it wasn't my intent, I still offended them.
Your honor, I didn't mean to kill him I thought that I could save his soul by drilling a hole in his head and let out all those evil spirits.
To live in a society where actions are judged by their intent instead of their result would create anarchy.
If I offend someone by accident, it doesn't matter that it wasn't my intent, I still offended them.
Your honor, I didn't mean to kill him I thought that I could save his soul by drilling a hole in his head and let out all those evil spirits.
To live in a society where actions are judged by their intent instead of their result would create anarchy.
Re: 1:53 commentor | 2:46 p.m. May 6, 2009
You need to do your research. St. Ambrose, Josephus, Tertullian, Irenaeus,
Justin Martyr, the Pastor of Hermas, Epiphanius, Synod the Hippo, and about five
or six other early Christian historians all mention Christians baptizing the
dead - not by the Marcionites, but by the actual Christian church as led by the
original Apostles of Christ. It was being done by the mainstream church, and
documented as early as 40 AD. The Marcionites didn't even exist, let alone
adopt the practice, until more than a century after the Apostalic Church was
doing it.
In addition, in 1895, larger scraps of a previously known Apostalic Epistle dating from the 1st century were found, one that was hugely popular with the church of the 2nd century, that detailed a variety of works for the dead that that 1st century church was doing, including baptisms.
It is accepted among Biblical and early Christian scholars of all faiths that the very early church, under the leadership of the original Apostles, did in fact baptize their dead. This has been well documented by a variety of sources, and was commonly known in those circles more than 50 years ago, since Hugh Nibley quoted them extensively.
In addition, in 1895, larger scraps of a previously known Apostalic Epistle dating from the 1st century were found, one that was hugely popular with the church of the 2nd century, that detailed a variety of works for the dead that that 1st century church was doing, including baptisms.
It is accepted among Biblical and early Christian scholars of all faiths that the very early church, under the leadership of the original Apostles, did in fact baptize their dead. This has been well documented by a variety of sources, and was commonly known in those circles more than 50 years ago, since Hugh Nibley quoted them extensively.
To I am offended | 2:52 p.m. May 6, 2009
As an LDS member, I completely appreciate and understand your point of view.
Obviously I do not think I belong to a cult but can understand why you think I
do. The fact is that the LDS Church has changed it's practice and has asked
members to only submit names of relatives. So your only worry would
theoretically be if one of your relatives submitted your name. The problem,
however, is that policy has no teeth so members can still submit Elvis Presley
(probably for the 100th time) and it would go through. My sense is that the
church will do something soon to put some checks and balances into this policy.
It is things like this that only solidify the problems people like you and
others see in the LDS Church.
re: shoe on the other foot | 2:58 p.m. May 6, 2009
To "shoe on the other foot", nice try, but it doesn't fit. And
even if it did, at worst, I would be slightly amused. I'm not offended by
you, or anyone else - I certainly would not be offended by any conceived
possibility of the shoe on the other foot.
To "I am offended," I am truly sorry, because, good intentions or not, sometimes we DO offend others, and I really wouldn't knowingly offend another.
But truth is truth, and I respect that your perception of truth casts me as a cult member and my ordinances as foolishness that does not come from Christ. Can you respect that my perception of truth is that, once I have come to Christ, my obligation is to do what I can to help others do the same?
I must reconcile my desire to live at peace with my neighbors while striving to serve the Master. I hope you know and respect that when those to conflict, I will choose to follow the Master.
I am not offended by the protesters at General Conference. That is the best example I can give of "the shoe on the other foot."
To "I am offended," I am truly sorry, because, good intentions or not, sometimes we DO offend others, and I really wouldn't knowingly offend another.
But truth is truth, and I respect that your perception of truth casts me as a cult member and my ordinances as foolishness that does not come from Christ. Can you respect that my perception of truth is that, once I have come to Christ, my obligation is to do what I can to help others do the same?
I must reconcile my desire to live at peace with my neighbors while striving to serve the Master. I hope you know and respect that when those to conflict, I will choose to follow the Master.
I am not offended by the protesters at General Conference. That is the best example I can give of "the shoe on the other foot."
Re: Dixie Dan | 2:59 p.m. May 6, 2009
All a baptism for the dead is is a proxie baptism that gives the dead
person one more choice in the afterlife than they would have had. It
doesn't automatically make them Mormon. The baptisms aren't ratified
until the dead person accepts it, they can turn it down or choose it.
I'm LDS and let me state that if a proxie baptism automatically made a person Mormon or any other religion I would be upset about it, too. Obviously that's not right.
It doesn't really matter if a LDS hater gets a proxie baptism because they choose for themselves if they want it or not. They'll just choose "No Way!", and it means nothing to them.
So assuming that every dead person gets a choice to accept other religion's work in their behalf, let them do it. I have no problem with Gordon B. Hinckley being baptized a Catholic or a Jew. Same with my dead parents. When I'm gone, do me too.
I'm LDS and let me state that if a proxie baptism automatically made a person Mormon or any other religion I would be upset about it, too. Obviously that's not right.
It doesn't really matter if a LDS hater gets a proxie baptism because they choose for themselves if they want it or not. They'll just choose "No Way!", and it means nothing to them.
So assuming that every dead person gets a choice to accept other religion's work in their behalf, let them do it. I have no problem with Gordon B. Hinckley being baptized a Catholic or a Jew. Same with my dead parents. When I'm gone, do me too.
WOW | 3:11 p.m. May 6, 2009
A woman in an LDS Sunday School class once said that she would make it her
personal mission to make sure that Mother Teresa's temple work was done so
that she could be saved. Wow! This woman has the power to let Mother Teresa
into heaven! Even though she herself never sacrificed her life like Mother
Teresa!
I love how LDS people believe they have the keys to let people into heaven. That kind of assumed power is like a drug and can be abused.
I love how LDS people believe they have the keys to let people into heaven. That kind of assumed power is like a drug and can be abused.
No Chance for Salvation | 3:18 p.m. May 6, 2009
after death, Check; Alma 34:33-35, Luke 16:26-31,
Hebrews 9:27 "and as it is appointed unto men once to die,but after this the judgement"
Hebrews 9:27 "and as it is appointed unto men once to die,but after this the judgement"
How sad | 3:21 p.m. May 6, 2009
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I am sad that
some overzealous person had this work done. Why, why why? !!! Please
don't put us into one big group that we think this was right, it was not.
It's hard for me to even get family names done, I don't know how this
slipped in!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Associated Press
Stanley Ann Dunham
- Snow may fly with weekend warm-up 6:33 p.m.
- ATK to cut 800 jobs 6:11 p.m.
- Cops: Artist's son swipes paintings 5:57 p.m.
- Incentives to create new jobs 5:51 p.m.
- Teen to be tried as adult 5:45 p.m.
- Study: 5 steps to creativity 5:44 p.m.
- Former CEO is Entrepreneur of Year 5:40 p.m.
- Calendar of events for December 5:36 p.m.
- New films and special screenings 5:30 p.m.
- Jacksons' reality show feels phony 5:24 p.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Mutated version of H1N1 found
- Letters: Global warming a lie
254 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall193
- Palin signs books, chats with fans158
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil149
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead123
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness117
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.108
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
Latest comments
Some one asked who you would trade Boozer for? I believe last summer they...
@ 5:48, Here is the full text from Matthew 7: "Judge not, that ye be...
When I was younger I used to wonder why some adults seemed to be leery and...
So all stats identical with Pitta and Hernandez, except that one small...
I think Chick-fil-A is great food. It is not plasticized. This is a wonderful...
Gee, with "friends" like that to protect you, who needs enemies?....
Let's face it, these are a bunch of Yao Ming fans in China who love the...
"What in christainity could lead to the fall of an empire? The love your...
Article quote: "Pitta is No. 1 in the nation among tight ends in receiving...
The ancestors are still there today. You know nothing of history....
Advertisements
Having said that, many of the comments made have surrounded the motives for the actions taken. I understand other faiths being suspicious of the motives for doing posthumous temple work. I understand LDS motives for wanting to do posthumous temple work. The motive I find the most intriguing in all of this is Helen Radkey's motive for spending such a large part of her life policing the LDS Church. The Church obviously does not bar her from using its facilities and databases.
Actually, this scenario may have unfolded in more than one way. #1: Over-eager LDS member turns the name in and does the temple work. Shouldn't have happened. #2: One of Helen Radkey's "plants" submitted the name, did the work, and fed her the information. Is #2 a possibility? I don't know. Given Radkey's past actions, it would think it is not an impossibility.