Deseret News | LDS Church investigates possible ordinances performed for Obama's late mother

Reader comments
LDS Church investigates possible ordinances performed for Obama's late mother

191 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4

Marge | 11:10 a.m. May 7, 2009

To Dixie Dan: Why would it matter here. Hinkley made his choice here and would probably make the same choice in Heaven. However, it would be his choice to make there. Same with others who have passed on - they may wish to make that choice differently in Heaven. No harm was done.

Uh, | 11:49 a.m. May 7, 2009

To those of you getting so upset over the LDS church "messing with others' souls," if you believe in God, and you believe that He is a perfect being, why on earth would you assume that the baptizing of one person while reading the name of somebody who died has any effect whatsoever on them if they don't want it to? Would a perfect God really let something like that happen? Unless, by chance, you're suggesting that the leaders of the LDS church are smarter than God, and were able to pull one over on Him, which is so sacrilegious it's offensive.

To those who argue "Who Cares" | 12:35 p.m. May 7, 2009

Here's a question for all those believers who argue that non-believers shouldn't care what they do with the names of deceased persons. Would you care if an organization in which you do not believe in, say Socialist Party USA, Gay Pride, KKK etc., felt it their prerogative to include your name without your consent on a membership list that will be displayed to future generations?

Comments continue below

Blu Bergamo | 12:56 p.m. May 7, 2009

RE the thread about "a Mennonite friend of mine," you state that, "...I certainly wouldn't have submitted her work without family permission--as is supposed to be done." Is this what the Mormon church does, always require permission? This is not the LDS church that I knew when I was actively involved in its administration and temple "work." (I'm a former member, having resigned my membership.) The church always had us searching and scanning domestic and foreign government documents in order to populate the required forms for submitting to the temple. The effort was and probably still is a giant vacuum cleaner. For instance, my son was baptized "for and in behalf of" Black Pot, friend of Sitting Bull, for crying out loud. Likewise, one of my son's friends was baptized "for and in behalf of" Sitting Bull the same day. Like,... Mormons chased down their fellow tribesmen and got the families' permission?

Who is Radkey? | 1:05 p.m. May 7, 2009

She was probably planning to submit the name herself and was upset when she found out that someone else had already done it. It seems that those who submit the names of famous people are those fanatics who spend their days and nights in the FHL with nothing else to do.

offense after death? | 1:36 p.m. May 7, 2009

Geez, Rach, you think you would be offended in the afterlife if someone on earth was baptized on your behalf? I doubt there is an afterlife, but if there is, whether I'm basking in the glory of God or burning in hell, I can't imagine that I will be too concerned if someone among the living performs some meaningless act on my behalf. And if it turns out to be something I need, well, okay.

What confuses me about this whole thing is: the LDS church teaches that these sacraments must be done on the earth. So, out of love and concern, they are making an attempt to see to it that everyone who has ever lived has this work done by proxy (never mind how impossible that task is). So, what does that say when they back off doing the work for people, such as holocaust victims, whose descendants object? How will those people ever have these all-important rites and access to the highest kingdom? Or is that one of those things that will get sorted out in the millennium?

Re: To those who argue | 2:07 p.m. May 7, 2009

The thing is, those names are NOT put on membership rolls. They're maintained in a database so that the temple work won't be done unnecessarily for the same person twice, but they are not considered a member of the LDS church, and they are not counted when it comes to membership numbers. If somebody wants to posthumously put my name on a list, then fine, whatever. I'll be dead, it won't matter one bit. I think I'll probably have more important things to be worrying about than whether or not some group I'm not associated with wants to include me on its membership list.

Slug | 2:08 p.m. May 7, 2009

Nobody really knows anything about life after death. We simply just know what others interpret it to be within their own minds, and with their own opinion.

Solution | 2:11 p.m. May 7, 2009

Here's how to get rid of this problem... Even if Mormons spent all day every day doing this they would barely make a dent in the entire human race that has ever lived on earth - vast majority of which there is no written record anyway so no temple work. So logically God must have some other plan for those Billions of other souls. So why not let God deal with this baptizing the dead thing through his other plan and Mormons could then spend more time doing things for people living here on earth?

Plain Jane | 2:41 p.m. May 7, 2009

Re: Solution--""Ditto"" on that my friend.

2 questions | 2:45 p.m. May 7, 2009

If God has indicated that this temple work must be done, then why is it that the leadership in His church is now being so appologetic for doing what the Lord wants them to do?

Is the mormon church obedient to God's commands or aren't they?

I don't get it.

@2 questions | 3:43 p.m. May 7, 2009

I think you'll find that the LDS is rather liquid in their interpretations of many "commandments". Look up 1896 and 1978 in Mormon history and you'll see examples of what I mean. I can't spell it out or they won't let this posting thru the censor.

Re: "Who Cares" | 3:50 p.m. May 7, 2009

Just because YOU do not care how the legacy of your life and your name is portrayed to future generations, does not mean that others should be similarly unconcerned.

Hopeful | 5:01 p.m. May 7, 2009

I hope that after I'm dead somebody will do my temple work.

awsomeron | 5:02 p.m. May 7, 2009

One of the 1st things I learned in the Mormon Church was not to contend or tell another person that their faith group is wrong.

I do not like being told that I am not a Christian, I was a Christian before I joined the Church and remain so today.

I do not like being told that the Mormon Church is a False Religion and for White People Only. I live in Hawaii, so that is way not so.

I do not like beiong told by a none member what Mormons Believe or Do. Usually telling me like I am some kind of idiot. Example:Do you know that Mormons Baptize for the Dead. Like some how I missed that or something and I will in horror change my mind.

I have never met a Wicken willing to die for their faith.

Fredd | 5:12 p.m. May 7, 2009

Just think if the LDS put this time and effort into good works? Instead of feeding the sick and helping build wells for clean drinking water they're giving secret passwords to dead people so they can go to heaven. I know you feed some people aand build some wells. But look at what you're not doing.

Wool puller | 8:01 p.m. May 7, 2009

After reading the comments on this post-- I would have to say that MORMONS are a very confused people, and most don't even know the history of the church they belong too. Oh well, it's not my problem because I DO KNOW the history--- thank you very much, but no thanks!

To: Wool Puller | 10:56 a.m. May 8, 2009

I've been a member of the LDS Church my entire life and I know more about its history than some do. The fact is that most of the so called books on Mormonism printed outside of the Church are false and misleading. I've stayed away from them because of their own outright lies that many have.

Go ahead and belittle the Church with what you have gained in books and phamphlets printed by many who have either left the Church who have an axe to grind or by those who have never been members but think they know it all.

The other part is there is no confusion as to what happens within the walls of the Temple. Baptism for the Dead is a practiced Christian Religion since the death of Jesus Christ. With all the so call translations of the Bible it is a wonder that some of the things there are not more confused than what is known.

To me and many members of the LDS Church baptisms conducted for the dead is a matter of prophesy being fulfilled and I really don't see that be changed any time soon.

To: Wool Puller | 11:49 a.m. May 8, 2009

It is my experience that, on average, an active member of the Mormon church know as much or more about the doctrines of their church as an active member of any other faith. Mormons who are born into the church typically have four years of seminary during high school, and the men all serve two year missions where they study and teach the doctrines of the church 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Anon 808 | 4:38 p.m. May 8, 2009

When we do Temple File we do it sometimes from Church Birth and Death Records, of other Faith Groups.

B.O.'s Mom is not exempt from the honor of having her work done. Because B.O. is Prisident. She was at best Social Churched.

B.O.'s steady Church attendence is somthing he got from his wife.

For some people this Work for the Dead scares them, mostly living people.

The living do not realize that someone is going through a lot of work and time in order to do somthing nice for their relative, who always has Free Choice. I understand that Religion and Free Choice is often an Oxymoron. However in the case of Temple Work for the Dead it is true.

Doing the Temple Work is never a shame, and should never be said sorry for. The living have no Say For The Dead. The Spirits of the Dead have Their Free Agency to say yes or no. That idea upsets some people on both sides.

One of the Reasons I joined the Church was Greater Hope, along with Organization, and The Concept of Free Agency. I get to Choose, I get to decide for me.

cmonkey | 11:24 p.m. May 8, 2009

I would be very angry to find that someone had done this to a member of my family-

Anonymous | 12:38 a.m. May 9, 2009

Here's a concept you might put in a pamphlet for your Mormon youths to learn and treasure.

BOUNDARIES

You don't cross my boundaries, I won't cross your boundaries.

think of it as a Golden Rule you co-dependant busy bodies need an INTERVENTION over.

Mr. Fredd... | 7:08 a.m. May 9, 2009

Could you please expound on what you're doing to help those in need? To suggest the Mormon church -- which donates millions of dollars in goods and services to everyone in need all over the world regardless of religious affiliation -- needs to focus more on what matters shows your utter and complete ignorance about the church humanitarian efforts world wide. Some people who post here are very entertaining -- if for no other reason than the fact they show their bigoted and ignorance in full bloom.

a million relatives | 8:32 a.m. May 9, 2009

Pres. Obama's mother has many many many relatives (like all of us), if one of them did temple work for her, than there is nothing wrong, it is a free country and we have a right to freedom of speech and worship. Pres. Obama, as great a person and great a politican and talent that he is, is not his mother's only relative. If this was done by someone not related to her, then I would guess it would be undone.

Anonymous | 10:29 a.m. May 9, 2009

Some of you fanatics think it is a badge of honor to state that you are "willing to die for" your faith.

That is the problem with the world today. Too many are willing to die for their faith, but not enough are willing to stop offending and contending and disagreeing and killing for their faith!

Religion is the source of more violence, contention, and bloodshed than any other factor!

Is there any better argument for atheism than that?

Policy of Respect | 10:34 a.m. May 9, 2009

"This applies to all but the Jews with whom, out of respect, the church has made a special accomodation."

I strongly suggest that, OUT OF RESPECT, the LDS Church stop baptizing the ancestors of anyone who is not a member.

Pay attention to what I am saying. I am not saying "it is OK to baptize if a descendant submits the name" because there are OTHER descendants who would be offended. Just because you are a descendant of someone does not give you exclusive rights to their name for religious rituals! Other descendants should have an equal right to OPPOSE and NULLIFY any work done for THEIR ancestors, too!

Therefore, the ONLY respectful policy the LDS Church can possibly adopt is to allow baptisms ONLY for deceased persons whose descendants are ALL members and who ALL approve!

It's About Service | 10:56 a.m. May 9, 2009

I am active LDS and strongly believe that when we meet the Lord after this life he will NOT ask us what church we belonged to. He will ask us if and how we loved and served those in our lives. How many thousands of hours do we spend with our heads down in a book thinking it is our religious obligation, or sitting in a room listening to the same lesson over and over because we have come to believe "activity" within our church is so vital? How much of these things could be substituted for actual service to those in need? I believe the LDS Church provides a huge amount of service opportunities for its members (as does many other churches). But I often wonder how much of what is asked of us is not service oriented but instead a part of just appearing to be an active member? I fear that sitting in Church every Sunday is the ultimate requirement to some members. Again, I highly doubt the Lord will pull out our attendance records or ask how many times we read the BofM when he reviews our lives. He will ask what we did for others.

SS | 1:38 p.m. May 9, 2009

The Church's policy will work if it is followed. Why certain members continue to try to circumvent the policy, I don't know.

As for the critics, I have several cousins who are not members of the church. If they want to do baptisms for the dead for our common ancestors for their church that is fine with me. But I do not need their permission or "blessing" to do baptisms for my own ancestors. That's not their call to make.

Re; Its about service | 12:29 a.m. May 10, 2009

Intellectually and beautifully put.

I 100% totally agree with what you said, and there are many others that feel the same way.

@ Policy of Respect | 9:15 a.m. May 10, 2009

That policy would immediately eliminate work for the dead. The temples would be for personal vows and renewing personal vows which I think would be a good thing for those making them.

I agree with you. I used to worry that my LDS family members would do "my" work after I die then I realized I won't care. I just hope for their own integrity they follow my wishes.

Phil | 11:49 a.m. May 10, 2009

Allowing descendants to do religious ordinance work for their ancestors without regard for the other descendants of those ancestors only creates contention and division.

I agree with Policy of Respect. So long as the Church claims to be an advocate of families, a policy that tears families apart is antithetical to their claims!

Re: Phil | 1:08 p.m. May 10, 2009

That's crazy. Are my ancestors any less MY ancestors than they are some distant cousin's? Why would I have to get their permission to do temple work for my own ancestors?

I don't know what everyone is so upset about. Being baptized for Grandpa means nothing unless he decides to accept it.

There's no "tearing families apart" - my relatives who aren't LDS are free to have Grandpa baptized by proxy in their church if they wish. And whatever distance there is between us now is by their choice, not mine. I'm not sure why my not wanting to drink at family events turned them against me. After all, drinking is such a positive, especially with kids there (eye roll) ... So much for "live and let live." Apparently, that only applies if I live the way they want me to.

Anonymous | 4:15 p.m. May 10, 2009

Cool picture of Obama's mom and dad..I didn't vote for him and abhor some of the things he's doing... but like some of them.
We need to remember that we don't own our ancestors and it would be a shame to limit their freedom to choose.

@ Anonymous 4:15 p.m. | 4:52 p.m. May 10, 2009

Are you implying that not doing proxy baptisms for ancestors limits their freedom to choose?

I'm just wondering if you people actually listen to what you say.

question | 5:27 p.m. May 10, 2009

I keep reading over and over again "If you don't believe in it, why would it matter?"
Doesn't the fact that people are offended by it show that it does matter, whether you understand why or not?
I believe that these ordinances are performed with the best of intentions, but the fact remains that this practice can be hurtful to people. At least have the honesty not to glibly dismiss their concerns, and then assume that because you think they should feel ok about it you have no further responsibility to them.

so tired of people! | 6:31 p.m. May 10, 2009

We have never said we are the "SPECIAL ONES" How come we get knocked down so many times for really no reason. Its our beliefs just like everyone else has their own and your right not all LDS people are religious. People in the after life have a right to accept it or deny it so why the heck does it bother you guys so much! We arnt trying to change your religion you have a choice. just like you do here on earth. And for the 11:04 person Thats how we are taught through our leaders and our scriptures. We are the second largest church in the world and the fastest growing so we must be doing something right. Everything we do is blown out of proportion EVERY SINGLE TIME. Explore our religion instead of hating on everything we do

Anonymous | 6:38 p.m. May 10, 2009

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If it is indeed true that you need to be baptized on Earth (even if by proxy) to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, why would you want to not give yourself or your ancestor that opportunity?

If it turns out that its not true, then no harm done, eh?

Much like the Savior | 7:46 p.m. May 10, 2009

Don't Christians believe that Christ paid an infinite price for all of humanity's sins, regardless of whether or not we accept Christ? How is that different than proxy baptisms for the dead?

By the way, baptisms for dead were performed anciently:
"Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all"? (1Cor 15:29)

Bill | 9:50 p.m. May 10, 2009

As a member of the LDS Church I feel obligated to give my ancestors the same choices I have here on earth. As the oldest of my fathers children I feel it is my right to baptize him, have him sealed to my mother and all of his brothers and sisters the same. As for my half brothers and sisters I don't feel I need to ask for their permission to do that for my parents, grandparents, great grandparents and etc. That is my right as a member of the LDS Church and my obligation to the Lord to do so.

The same can be said for the offsuits of my expanded relatives. However, I have not done my wife's family as she has requested me not to. Though I feel deep down I should I will hold to that wish until she decides otherwise which I'm sure she will in time. However, to make it clear this is not a religious deal on her part but a personal part as she didn't like some of her grandparents. The rest is up to me.

Anonymous | 10:12 p.m. May 10, 2009

Bill,

Those ancestors do not belong exclusively to YOU!

When are you Mormons going to get it through your thick heads that you are not the only people on the face of the earth!

Wake up! Open your eyes! Humble your arrogant selves! You are not the center of the universe!

rw | 11:11 p.m. May 10, 2009

I think God is less concerned about our views and practices, pro or con, concerning baptism for the dead, than he is about the contention that we bring to the discussion. We will never become the people we think we are and want to be until we learn how to share differing opinions with love and respect.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4

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.