NationStates Jolt Archive

1) It doesn't matter. You shouldn't be doing it against peoples will

2) It doesn't matter. You shouldn't be doing it against peoples willYou know what people who never learned to speak or are dead want? :|

I know what alot of them don't want.

I know what alot of them don't want.For one, of course they don't want it; they've never even heard of it. For two, I don't think so.

I know what alot of them don't want.For one, of course they don't want it; they've never even heard of it. For two, I don't think so.

Oh...really? And if they had heard of it, would they all agree with what you're doing?

For two: Pfff...You don't think so? So consent just isn't an issue for you guys?

baptising someone is not giving them a choice, you make the choice to do it not whether you accept it after the event has ocured, its like shooting yourself and then deciding wether or not you want to die. plus it makes for messy paperwork, and the mormons of all people should better manage theur graveyards and burial records, which they dont do at all, (well not well). its hypocritical and its that, that annoys me.

Oh...really?Yes.
And if they had heard of it, would they all agree with what you're doing?All of them? I doubt it.
You don't think so?No, I do not.
So consent just isn't an issue for you guys?Are you considering me part of "you guys", and is "you guys" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Oh...really?Yes.
And if they had heard of it, would they all agree with what you're doing?All of them? I doubt it.
You don't think so?No, I do not.
So consent just isn't an issue for you guys?Are you considering me part of "you guys", and is "you guys" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Most people don't agree with what you're doing, they have religions of their own.
I wonder if the reason the mormons don't ask anyone is that they allready know the answer they would get.
I assumed you were a mormon, if you aren't I apologize.

If the Mormons are right in this belief, that this practice has some power, then it might as well be accepted as a good thing.

If they're wrong, then it is ineffectual and nothing has been changed so why fight about it?

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...

So, would it be ok for me to lead a religion into unbaptizing dead Mormons? Since, if I am wrong, it makes no real difference, but if i'm right, I'm doing them a favor?

So, would it be ok for me to lead a religion into unbaptizing dead Mormons? Since, if I am wrong, it makes no real difference, but if i'm right, I'm doing them a favor?umm, I guess.

Sure, I'd be offended by it, but not to the point of taking action..

Do you know how many religions already have "save the mormons" programs initiated? :)

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?Iyou can't find anyone to ask, you shouldný be doing it.

So, would it be ok for me to lead a religion into unbaptizing dead Mormons? Since, if I am wrong, it makes no real difference, but if i'm right, I'm doing them a favor?umm, I guess.

Sure, I'd be offended by it, but not to the point of taking action..

Do you know how many religions already have "save the mormons" programs initiated? :)

"Save the mormons"?
I didn't know they were endangered...

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

Ok, look at it this way:
Many people object to babtising infants because the infant itself cannot give consent. But since the infant is unable to make that decision it is up to the parents or legal guardians to decide wether or not the infant will be babtised.
It is NOT up to the church!!!

Do you know how many religions already have "save the mormons" programs initiated? :)

But the Save the Mormons Foundation is there to help you.. Do you know how many missionaries in third world countries go without books and new shoes? Thats what my 8 cents a day is for.. :cry: :wink:

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

Ok, look at it this way:
Many people object to babtising infants because the infant itself cannot give consent. But since the infant is unable to make that decision it is up to the parents or legal guardians to decide wether or not the infant will be babtised.
It is NOT up to the church!!!We do not baptize until age 8. That is when they have the ability to make the choice to take the covenants.

Baptisms for the dead work the same way, only in reverse. Instead of covenants first, then baptism; proxy baptism is performed first, and then the dead choose whether or not to take the covenants.

Again, if they choose not to, it is as if it never happened.

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

Ok, look at it this way:
Many people object to babtising infants because the infant itself cannot give consent. But since the infant is unable to make that decision it is up to the parents or legal guardians to decide wether or not the infant will be babtised.
It is NOT up to the church!!!We do not baptize until age 8. That is when they have the ability to make the choice to take the covenants.

Baptisms for the dead work the same way, only in reverse. Instead of covenants first, then baptism; proxy baptism is performed first, and then the dead choose whether or not to take the covenants.

Again, if they choose not to, it is as if it never happened.But, it did.

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

Ok, look at it this way:
Many people object to babtising infants because the infant itself cannot give consent. But since the infant is unable to make that decision it is up to the parents or legal guardians to decide wether or not the infant will be babtised.
It is NOT up to the church!!!We do not baptize until age 8. That is when they have the ability to make the choice to take the covenants.

Baptisms for the dead work the same way, only in reverse. Instead of covenants first, then baptism; proxy baptism is performed first, and then the dead choose whether or not to take the covenants.

Again, if they choose not to, it is as if it never happened.

You don't understand: I don't care how it works, I don't care what YOU believe, you're still doing rituals that nobody has given consent for.

Besides, you can't even prove to a non-mormon that it's not something foul or awful that you're doing, because it's all goes on behind locked doors, right?

They did it to both Adolf Hitler and Anne Frank. How's that for sick humour?

Are you serious?

Hitler?

Quite serious.

They also baptised Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Josef Stalin and Buddha

Now I know you're kidding. There is no freaking way...

*shudders to think that her ex-girlfriend was and is a Mormon - and a conservative, Republican, Dubya-loving one at that*

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?

I heard somewhere that like a hundred years ago, in massachussets you would be allowed to shoot mormons, and it wouldn't be against the law. the good old days. lol j/k

I heard somewhere that like a hundred years ago, in massachussets you would be allowed to shoot mormons, and it wouldn't be against the law. the good old days. lol j/kI suppose you equally miss the days when lynching gays and blacks was cool too... *roll*

just kidding...

I heard somewhere that like a hundred years ago, in massachussets you would be allowed to shoot mormons, and it wouldn't be against the law. the good old days. lol j/kI suppose you equally miss the days when lynching gays and blacks was cool too... *roll*

just kidding...

the bottom line is we don't want even an invitation. jews and such believe they will be going to 'heaven' when they die, and its like someone asking if you want to go to heaven when you're already in heaven

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.

I think its a very hard thing to criticize something that you do not fully understand. Indeed, if someone has asked that a certain group not be included then the religion should respect the current wish, but all of the bad mouthing serves no purpose. Calling a group of people arogant and self serving without attempting to learn why and where the practice comes from is ignorant. Besides, if the religion is so phony, what they do with the name should make no difference in life. If the religion is false, the baptism is null and void. People just get scared at the idea that this may be a valid possibility. No one would care if they knew for sure it didn't matter.

Maybe this certain group of people should ask before doing it...ask who, exactly?

Ok, look at it this way:
Many people object to babtising infants because the infant itself cannot give consent. But since the infant is unable to make that decision it is up to the parents or legal guardians to decide wether or not the infant will be babtised.
It is NOT up to the church!!!We do not baptize until age 8. That is when they have the ability to make the choice to take the covenants.

Baptisms for the dead work the same way, only in reverse. Instead of covenants first, then baptism; proxy baptism is performed first, and then the dead choose whether or not to take the covenants.

Again, if they choose not to, it is as if it never happened.

You don't understand: I don't care how it works, I don't care what YOU believe, you're still doing rituals that nobody has given consent for.

Besides, you can't even prove to a non-mormon that it's not something foul or awful that you're doing, because it's all goes on behind locked doors, right?

No answer?

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No answer?...no consent for the rituals... why on earth do i need consent to get dunked under water

No answer?...no consent for the rituals... why on earth do i need consent to get dunked under water

That's where the name&identity part comes into it...

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No, most of us are maintaining that we consider it as disrespectful at the very least, and that some of us believe that far from saving a soul, it places it in immortal peril.

You speak as if you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, your church doctrine specifically states that no baptism other than one performed by the LDS Church is valid, and that therefore no Christians other than Mormons can enter into heaven.

If indeed LDS is so perfect, then why is it that it has changed its teachings? As the true church, following the doctrine given directly to the prophet, should the teachings have not remained the same?

Before you state that the teachings have not changed in the past two hundred or so years, why has there been a schism in the church -- and which group are the followers of the true faith?

Why has the church in the past advocated polygamy, and now "officially" does not endorse it? Is that "official" discouragement treated with the same reverence as the "official" agreement to stop baptising Holocaust victims?

If in fact the policies of the LDS' churches' relatively recent past were "incorrect," then I fail to see how you can be so certain that the present day policies, which older sects like Roman Catholicism see as heretical, can be the one true way.

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?

thats my thoughts exactly. im glad i dont have to write more then a 1 liner.

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

Pardon? I've followed this from the beginning and aside from a few one-liners from folks who've dropped out, I do not see any Mormon-bashing.

Were you referring to the questions I just asked of you?

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

Pardon? I've followed this from the beginning and aside from a few one-liners from folks who've dropped out, I do not see any Mormon-bashing.

Were you referring to the questions I just asked of you?Everything Tuumania said, and now you.

Stick to the issue, which is not the validity of the mormon faith.

The issue is simply whether or not anything should be done about these harmless rituals that mean nothing for anyone but mormons in this life.

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No, most of us are maintaining that we consider it as disrespectful at the very least, and that some of us believe that far from saving a soul, it places it in immortal peril.

You speak as if you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, your church doctrine specifically states that no baptism other than one performed by the LDS Church is valid, and that therefore no Christians other than Mormons can enter into heaven.

If indeed LDS is so perfect, then why is it that it has changed its teachings? As the true church, following the doctrine given directly to the prophet, should the teachings have not remained the same?

Before you state that the teachings have not changed in the past two hundred or so years, why has there been a schism in the church -- and which group are the followers of the true faith?

Why has the church in the past advocated polygamy, and now "officially" does not endorse it? Is that "official" discouragement treated with the same reverence as the "official" agreement to stop baptising Holocaust victims?

If in fact the policies of the LDS' churches' relatively recent past were "incorrect," then I fail to see how you can be so certain that the present day policies, which older sects like Roman Catholicism see as heretical, can be the one true way.

If we're going into that: And the founder actually claimed that black people were the inferior descendants of Kain...

If we're going into that: we aren't. Stick to the topic.

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

Pardon? I've followed this from the beginning and aside from a few one-liners from folks who've dropped out, I do not see any Mormon-bashing.

Were you referring to the questions I just asked of you?Everything Tuumania said, and now you.

Stick to the issue, which is not the validity of the mormon faith.

The issue is simply whether or not anything should be done about these harmless rituals that mean nothing for anyone but mormons in this life.

Wait....Everything I said was "mormon-bashing" ?

Please elaborate.

Ok, I'm tired of this thread....Ray can't take the heat. And Basically the mormoms don't care what any of us think. They will continue to do whatever they want to do.

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

Pardon? I've followed this from the beginning and aside from a few one-liners from folks who've dropped out, I do not see any Mormon-bashing.

Were you referring to the questions I just asked of you?Everything Tuumania said, and now you.

Stick to the issue, which is not the validity of the mormon faith.

The issue is simply whether or not anything should be done about these harmless rituals that mean nothing for anyone but mormons in this life.

I beg your pardon, but the validity of your faith is the crux of the matter. Your faith states categorically that my faith is incorrect, that my baptism is not valid, and this is why you perform this valuable service for non-Mormons. I imagine you understand how I feel about this dismissal of my beliefs.

Secondly, if you believe this is a harmless ritual that means nothing, then why do it?

If you believe that it is no one's concern but Mormons', then I'm sorry to disagree with you. I should think that being concerned about the state of one's soul, and the respect given to one's choices in life, would be of concern to the individual, his family, and his chosen faith.

If indeed you believe that Mormon missionaries will continue their work in the afterlife, then why could they not baptize and convert whatever souls are interested then? Surely then it would truly be between the soul and God, and not an action performed without any clear understanding whether the person 'saved' objects or not.

I wonder why it is when serious questions are asked in a respectful manner, 'you're persecuting me' is the response. Curious.

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No, most of us are maintaining that we consider it as disrespectful at the very least, and that some of us believe that far from saving a soul, it places it in immortal peril.

You speak as if you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, your church doctrine specifically states that no baptism other than one performed by the LDS Church is valid, and that therefore no Christians other than Mormons can enter into heaven.

If indeed LDS is so perfect, then why is it that it has changed its teachings? As the true church, following the doctrine given directly to the prophet, should the teachings have not remained the same?

Before you state that the teachings have not changed in the past two hundred or so years, why has there been a schism in the church -- and which group are the followers of the true faith?

Why has the church in the past advocated polygamy, and now "officially" does not endorse it? Is that "official" discouragement treated with the same reverence as the "official" agreement to stop baptising Holocaust victims?

If in fact the policies of the LDS' churches' relatively recent past were "incorrect," then I fail to see how you can be so certain that the present day policies, which older sects like Roman Catholicism see as heretical, can be the one true way.

If we're going into that: And the founder actually claimed that black people were the inferior descendants of Kain...

The thing about African Americans is a rumor, one I must inform you is not true.

And yes, we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth because it is the only church with God leading it through His prophets. It is not that other churches are invalid, but there is only one set of eternal laws that is true, so there can only be one church that is altogether true, either that or multiple churches that are basically identical (this is not saying what the church is but a hypothetical statement of what must logically be).

As for being perfect, the church isn't. We don't have all truth and nor are the members of the church perfect. That is one of the three main missions of the church, to perfect its members.

As for changes in doctrine, there have been no changes in the doctrine of the church. Your citation of polygamy does not account for a passage in the Book of Mormon (translated before polygamy was ended) which condemns polygamy. The changes occur because men need different laws, just as the Law of Moses is said to be fulfilled in the New Testament. If changes in law could not occur we would be polygamous ever since... the Old Testament, what with Jacob having four wives and not being condemned. We still believe that when the time is right the Lord allows polygamy, but the time is not always right (and it isn't now).

The split in the church? Well, certain individuals wanted control of the church after Joseph Smith's martyrdom and split off the church to become leaders. Most of these have become mainstream Christian churches, the only one that remains the same is the one that Brigham Young led by inspiration.

Actually, I haven't seen an official statement that Holocaust victims would not have work done for them. It seems unlikely that such a thing would be done. That's one thing I doubted about this whole thread from the start, I kinda want to see the church's original statement. And, yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stopped practising polygamy over a hundred years ago (I don't remember the date).

OK, now this has really turned into just a mormon bashing thread.

Pardon? I've followed this from the beginning and aside from a few one-liners from folks who've dropped out, I do not see any Mormon-bashing.

Were you referring to the questions I just asked of you?Everything Tuumania said, and now you.

Stick to the issue, which is not the validity of the mormon faith.

The issue is simply whether or not anything should be done about these harmless rituals that mean nothing for anyone but mormons in this life.

I beg your pardon, but the validity of your faith is the crux of the matter. Your faith states categorically that my faith is incorrect, that my baptism is not valid, and this is why you perform this valuable service for non-Mormons. I imagine you understand how I feel about this dismissal of my beliefs.

Secondly, if you believe this is a harmless ritual that means nothing, then why do it?

If you believe that it is no one's concern but Mormons', then I'm sorry to disagree with you. I should think that being concerned about the state of one's soul, and the respect given to one's choices in life, would be of concern to the individual, his family, and his chosen faith.

If indeed you believe that Mormon missionaries will continue their work in the afterlife, then why could they not baptize and convert whatever souls are interested then? Surely then it would truly be between the soul and God, and not an action performed without any clear understanding whether the person 'saved' objects or not.

I wonder why it is when serious questions are asked in a respectful manner, 'you're persecuting me' is the response. Curious.

I'd like to see Raysia answer that one...

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No, most of us are maintaining that we consider it as disrespectful at the very least, and that some of us believe that far from saving a soul, it places it in immortal peril.

You speak as if you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, your church doctrine specifically states that no baptism other than one performed by the LDS Church is valid, and that therefore no Christians other than Mormons can enter into heaven.

If indeed LDS is so perfect, then why is it that it has changed its teachings? As the true church, following the doctrine given directly to the prophet, should the teachings have not remained the same?

Before you state that the teachings have not changed in the past two hundred or so years, why has there been a schism in the church -- and which group are the followers of the true faith?

Why has the church in the past advocated polygamy, and now "officially" does not endorse it? Is that "official" discouragement treated with the same reverence as the "official" agreement to stop baptising Holocaust victims?

If in fact the policies of the LDS' churches' relatively recent past were "incorrect," then I fail to see how you can be so certain that the present day policies, which older sects like Roman Catholicism see as heretical, can be the one true way.

If we're going into that: And the founder actually claimed that black people were the inferior descendants of Kain...

The thing about African Americans is a rumor, one I must inform you is not true.

And yes, we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth because it is the only church with God leading it through His prophets. It is not that other churches are invalid, but there is only one set of eternal laws that is true, so there can only be one church that is altogether true, either that or multiple churches that are basically identical (this is not saying what the church is but a hypothetical statement of what must logically be).

As for being perfect, the church isn't. We don't have all truth and nor are the members of the church perfect. That is one of the three main missions of the church, to perfect its members.

As for changes in doctrine, there have been no changes in the doctrine of the church. Your citation of polygamy does not account for a passage in the Book of Mormon (translated before polygamy was ended) which condemns polygamy. The changes occur because men need different laws, just as the Law of Moses is said to be fulfilled in the New Testament. If changes in law could not occur we would be polygamous ever since... the Old Testament, what with Jacob having four wives and not being condemned. We still believe that when the time is right the Lord allows polygamy, but the time is not always right (and it isn't now).

The split in the church? Well, certain individuals wanted control of the church after Joseph Smith's martyrdom and split off the church to become leaders. Most of these have become mainstream Christian churches, the only one that remains the same is the one that Brigham Young led by inspiration.

Actually, I haven't seen an official statement that Holocaust victims would not have work done for them. It seems unlikely that such a thing would be done. That's one thing I doubted about this whole thread from the start, I kinda want to see the church's original statement. And, yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stopped practising polygamy over a hundred years ago (I don't remember the date).
Check the last couple of pages in ur D&C ... it was in 1890

Most of the time singling out a religion as contradicting itself is considered bashing that religion.

A couple days when I posted I said something particularly addressing the current topic (it was a bit different) and analyzed it logically. While noone addressed any of the thinking behind it they disputed the conclusion. This is a sign that noone was actually paying attention to what I was saying. That adds to the mormon bashing aspect.

Sorry, it's now 10:45 and I've got to get up at 5:00 and write an essay.

Most of the time singling out a religion as contradicting itself is considered bashing that religion.

A couple days when I posted I said something particularly addressing the current topic (it was a bit different) and analyzed it logically. While noone addressed any of the thinking behind it they disputed the conclusion. This is a sign that noone was actually paying attention to what I was saying. That adds to the mormon bashing aspect.

Sorry, it's now 10:45 and I've got to get up at 5:00 and write an essay.

So you claim there is a logical chain of reason that can actually prove that the garden of eden is a parking lot in missouri?

pretty sick isn't. Baptising people that can not say anything for themselves. I myself would not want them to baptise me and I am a christian which a mormon is not at least not my style. And yes the poor atheists. Very poor practice they are even doing this to jews!

pretty sick isn't. Baptising people that can not say anything for themselves. I myself would not want them to baptise me and I am a christian which a mormon is not at least not my style. And yes the poor atheists. Very poor practice they are even doing this to jews!
no disrespect intended, but you don't understand what the practice actually is or what it is for and why it is found to be very important

I have an immence respect for the Mormon religion, even moreso than the Christian religion. I think, in practice, Mormonism is much less hypocritical and there are less politics involved, keeping it pure and and ethical.

Having said that, I do feel that babtising the dead is wrong. I understand the reasoning, however. Over a choir tour last year, I engaged in several discussions with a mormon friend of mine, who was trying to convert me, to be quite honest, but I was receptive to it. I remain agnostic this day, but my understanding has grown and my ignorance is less because of his attempts.

He gave me this situation. God won't let you into the highest level of heaven unless you the requirements. There are seven total, I think, but I might be wrong. Basically, the more of the requirements you fufill and the better you do them, the higher level of heaven you can get into, sort of like your grades, your SAT score and your extracurricular activities will dictate which college you get into. So, if there was a good, great man who spent his life in anicent China, living a fair and happy life and spent his years spreading good deeds and such until he ultimately dies. Well, he is waiting at this celestial bus-stop until the end of the world, when everybody is devided into one of the heavens or into the darkness. Well, the dead Mormons are at this bus-stop, still trying to hand out celestial bus-passes to heaven, doing their mormon thing. Back on Earth, the Mormons see it as a good deed to hand out brownie points by baptising the dead and giving them a better chance of getting into one of the heavens, such as Old Hundred Names, the Chinese man.

Well, in theory, this is good and all, but other churches complicate this normally good deed. In the Mormon religion, you still have time to decide if you want the baptism or not, while waiting for the celestial bus to come pick you up. In other religions, once you're dead your judgement is there, no more, no less. So, one cannot decline a baptism in other religions, but in the Mormon religion, it's still a matter of choice, it's like an option they're offering. I think it's wrong to do it to random people whos name they dig up, but it's out of love. The Mormons arn't saying that they're right, they're saying that IN CASE THEY ARE, they want you to be right with them.

THEY ARE GIVEN A CHOICE TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE. This ruse has been exposed on this very thread!...?

They Batised Buddah. That shoots down the 'our posthumous baptism is all about letting the soul DECIDE' line as Buddah is in a state of Nirvana and is thus devoid of any decesion-making capacities.[/quote]

SEE? They DON'T CARE weather a spirit can or cannot decide! :twisted:

I know the church pretty well. I know many mormons. My town is largely mormon. I've been to the church and was well introduced. Read the book of mormon also. And make no mistake politics and business are still big with the church they have business magazines and rule the business around here and politics, better than anti business types or liberals but still they hold a great deal of power and if you aren't one of them good luck with prospering.

Backwoods, would you be offended if I, tonight, in my evening Prayer, asked God to Bless you personally?

As an Athiest....yes I would.Really?

In that case, I would simply have to say that you get offended way too easily to care about.

Really?

I would say that you belong to a quack religion, and it is conducting unwanted religious ceremonies, for people who wanted nothing to do with you, or that particular cult.Unwanted rituals. How can you use that word unwanted? Who are you to speak for the will of those in the spirit world?

It is no more presumptuous for us to speak for the dead than it is for you.

Feel happy know that you will also be baptised in proxy when you pass away also. (assuming you don't get baptised while still alive, which I wouldn't throw away the possibility)

Not likely. Based on conversations I've had with you people, I now intend to leave detailed instructions for my family and the church saying, specifically, that I DO NOT WANT YOUR "GIFT". If I get baptised against my will, you fuck-heads get sued.

This is the most rediculous argument I have ever heard. Just because it is being done for them doesn't mean they have to accept it. They can reject what is done from them and say that they want nothing to do with it if they want. It is THEIR choice. The church is not forcing aything upon anyone, they are simply giving everyone that ever lived the opportunity to accept it, if they already heard the message or not. Get over it, man o man.

That's what YOU believe.
Most people don't want that crap. Have you ever heard of the REAL power of voodoo? It's psychological.Umm, yeah, what does it matter what you believe? how exactly does it affect you if we are wrong about the afterlife?

My concern is not the afterlife..my concern is the here and now.
My problem is that you are attempting to recruit people who very likely already told you "no!"Umm... we already try to recruit people who tell us no.. haven't you seen those guys riding on bikes wearing name tags? Surely you find them equally offensive, no? Cuz to tell you the truth, They actually try harder. All we do in the temple is offer a blessing really, those guys go out and knock on your door and talk to you and try to pursuade you.

Seriously man, aren't the missionaries more offensive?

I find anyone that prostelitizes to be offensive. I find your proxy baptisms to be offensive and disgusting.

I find anyone that prostelitizes to be offensive. I find your proxy baptisms to be offensive and disgusting.In which case I would have to say that you need to learn a little tolerance, or at least learn to not be offended so easily.

Umm, yeah, what does it matter what you believe? how exactly does it affect you if we are wrong about the afterlife?

To simplify it even more:
Don't you get it? People don't want you doing weird things with their names, isn't that enough for you?

And this system of "someone having to contact you" to ban you from doing it...That's absolute crap. Do you think someone in Russia even knows what you're doing with their dead husbands name?
You are being ignorant, closed minded, and making conclusions about things that you have never witnessed and know nothing about. Just chill, you will thank someone later for it.

Excuse me... that statement is INCREDIBLY ignorant and closed-minded. Not only that, you are talking about something you have certainly never witnessed (the afterlife) and also know nothing about. (In order to know something about the afterlife, you have to have died. You have not, and therefore only have an opinion.)

You, in short, are a hypocrite.

I find anyone that prostelitizes to be offensive. I find your proxy baptisms to be offensive and disgusting.In which case I would have to say that you need to learn a little tolerance, or at least learn to not be offended so easily.

Excuse me, but isn't it you who was complaining about "tolerance" a few days ago? Saying that it was unfair for people to expect you not to assert your opinion about homosexuality, by saying YOU needed to be more tolerant?

If you're "allowed" to think and say what you like about gays and what THEY do, I'm certainly entitled to my opinion about Mormons and what THEY do.

I can have any opinion about you I like. Tolerance is an entirely different matter. I am not advocating anyone hurting you or your church. I AM expressing my opinion about something you are doing which I have a problem with. I fail to see what "tolerance" has to do with it at all.

And I'll be offended about whatever the hell I please. You are free to do the same.

Man, next thing you people are going to demand express written consent for the use of Ouija Boards.

This thread is officially one of the dumbest I have ever seen.

And yet you keep participating. Interesting.

On "cult" or "cultist" references: All religions are technically cults.*
On apparent lack of consent in particular cases: Perhaps another relative gave consent before dying.
On changing one's mind in the afterlife: Regardless of the faiths they held on Earth, I imagine most people would love the opportunity to accept a baptism by proxy if they found out that they needed to be baptized to have an enjoyable time after death.

*Assuming I'm any good at reading dictionaries.A cult is, by simple definition, any unorthodox or unusual religion.

In a sense, we are a cult. But with 11 million members, which is more than many christian sects, I'd say we passed the definition of "unusual" a long time ago.

You can be a sect without being a cult. A sect is any group within a larger group that sees only themselves as being heaven-bound. By that definition, Mormons are indeed a Christian sect, in the same way that ultra-orthodox Jews are a Jewish sect. Size does not determine one's sectarian-ness; ideology does.

I have a question then. There is a verse in the Bible(can't remember the address righ this second) but it says if there is anything that you do that cause another to stumble, or cause another one trouble, heartache than you are to stop.

So if this Baptism for the Dead is causing people trouble...you guys should stop right!?! Or don't you believe in that verse. Is that one of the verse you guys omitted...or is that just one you wrote in your other book...THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE...where you change verses to fit how you guys live.It by no means causes people trouble, especially not the ones we are doing the baptisms for.

If anyone is troubled by this, it is out of fear and ignorance, to which the onyl thing we can do is have open discussions like this and hope they understand.

Yeah, it doesn't cause anyone trouble, which must be why all these Jewish (and some Christian) groups are protesting the proxy baptisms. :roll:

And once again, your statement is indicative of your mindset. "All you can do" is have more one-way conversations where you tell people why they're stupid and wrong, and refuse to consider anything they're saying. "Hope they understand"- what crap. You're totally unwilling to consider anything besides your own viewpoint.

You continue to miss the point Raysia.
That is why the thread goes for 30 + pages.
Nobody except fellow Mormons appreciate your justifications for this practice.
Non Mormons find it objectionable, presumptious, arrogant and offensive.
Surely their objections are as important (or more important) than your "justifications".Funny, I'm pretty well convinced that the few ignorant people who are offended by this harmless ritual are in the minority.

There are MILLIONS of Jews, Armenian Christians, and others, who are deeply offended by this practice. What constitutes "few"?

Raysia, once again, what if your baptisming causes my soul to be thrown out of my Heaven? How would you feel about that?

Feel happy know that you will also be baptised in proxy when you pass away also. (assuming you don't get baptised while still alive, which I wouldn't throw away the possibility)

Not likely. Based on conversations I've had with you people, I now intend to leave detailed instructions for my family and the church saying, specifically, that I DO NOT WANT YOUR "GIFT". If I get baptised against my will, you f----heads get sued.

Same here...

Could someone that knows more about this than me clarify this? If someone doesn't accept, is it as if it never happened, or does nothing happen until you accept?
In order to know something about the afterlife, you have to have died.What if God tells you about it?

As someone who was raised athiest, can someone explain to me what exactly a Baptism really means anyway? How is this supposed to be a ticket to heaven?

I am a good person, i believe in something, I don't really know what, but I believe in a higher power. I'm a good person, I am kinda, I say hello to elderly people on the street, and hold doors open for people. Just because I am not Baptized I won't go to heaven (if there is one)? That seems a little unfair to me...

Could someone that knows more about this than me clarify this? If someone doesn't accept, is it as if it never happened, or does nothing happen until you accept?
In order to know something about the afterlife, you have to have died.What if God tells you about it?

What if god tells someone else something different?

What if god tells someone else something different?Then you search for how they complement each other.

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?You may well feel that. However as a Catholic I am reminded of the Enlgish Priest who was dug up and baptised Prodestant after living his entire life a Catholic. He was thrown straight from Pergatory into Hell.First off, how do you know he was thrown from pergatory to hell? Second, we aren't digging up bodies.

For crap's sake, you guys are talking like we're digging up graves and raping corpses.

No, most of us are maintaining that we consider it as disrespectful at the very least, and that some of us believe that far from saving a soul, it places it in immortal peril.

You speak as if you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong. In fact, your church doctrine specifically states that no baptism other than one performed by the LDS Church is valid, and that therefore no Christians other than Mormons can enter into heaven.

If indeed LDS is so perfect, then why is it that it has changed its teachings? As the true church, following the doctrine given directly to the prophet, should the teachings have not remained the same?

Before you state that the teachings have not changed in the past two hundred or so years, why has there been a schism in the church -- and which group are the followers of the true faith?

Why has the church in the past advocated polygamy, and now "officially" does not endorse it? Is that "official" discouragement treated with the same reverence as the "official" agreement to stop baptising Holocaust victims?

If in fact the policies of the LDS' churches' relatively recent past were "incorrect," then I fail to see how you can be so certain that the present day policies, which older sects like Roman Catholicism see as heretical, can be the one true way.

If we're going into that: And the founder actually claimed that black people were the inferior descendants of Kain...

The thing about African Americans is a rumor, one I must inform you is not true.

And yes, we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth because it is the only church with God leading it through His prophets. It is not that other churches are invalid, but there is only one set of eternal laws that is true, so there can only be one church that is altogether true, either that or multiple churches that are basically identical (this is not saying what the church is but a hypothetical statement of what must logically be).

As for being perfect, the church isn't. We don't have all truth and nor are the members of the church perfect. That is one of the three main missions of the church, to perfect its members.

As for changes in doctrine, there have been no changes in the doctrine of the church. Your citation of polygamy does not account for a passage in the Book of Mormon (translated before polygamy was ended) which condemns polygamy. The changes occur because men need different laws, just as the Law of Moses is said to be fulfilled in the New Testament. If changes in law could not occur we would be polygamous ever since... the Old Testament, what with Jacob having four wives and not being condemned. We still believe that when the time is right the Lord allows polygamy, but the time is not always right (and it isn't now).

The split in the church? Well, certain individuals wanted control of the church after Joseph Smith's martyrdom and split off the church to become leaders. Most of these have become mainstream Christian churches, the only one that remains the same is the one that Brigham Young led by inspiration.

Actually, I haven't seen an official statement that Holocaust victims would not have work done for them. It seems unlikely that such a thing would be done. That's one thing I doubted about this whole thread from the start, I kinda want to see the church's original statement. And, yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints stopped practising polygamy over a hundred years ago (I don't remember the date).

Kiyama-Kyoto, thank you for your frank answer. After I finish reading the other posts that follow it, I may have more questions.

Most of the time singling out a religion as contradicting itself is considered bashing that religion.

;) Actually, Raysia referring to Catholics as cannibals for believing in the transubstantiation of the host and wine I thought qualified more for bashing than asking about contradictions.

Describing the Eucharist as "Cannibalism" has nothing to do with this anyways.
Heck, you could talk about the Amazons and their tradition of those closer to the deceased having the honor of eating it, and it still wouldnt apply.
Why?
Because those stay within their own religions. Those ceremonies are not done to those outside their way of life. o.O

Please, stay on the topic at hand

Describing the Eucharist as "Cannibalism" has nothing to do with this anyways.
Heck, you could talk about the Amazons and their tradition of those closer to the deceased having the honor of eating it, and it still wouldnt apply.
Why?
Because those stay within their own religions. Those ceremonies are not done to those outside their way of life. o.O

Please, stay on the topic at hand

I was answering specifically Kiyama-Kyoto's perception that the questions were mormon bashing with the observation that comparing the transubstantiation to actual cannibalism is definitely Catholic bashing.

Please don't be condescending and try to ignore what's been stated before in the thread, as Raysia had tried to earlier when a point he made was specifically answered.

my appologies.. :oops:

The fact of the matter is that you should be thanking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints rather than hating it. If someone believed something so much and loved me enough to want to insure that I would have an opportunity to "be saved" rather than "go to hell" because they believed so I would be thankful that they cared enough about me to want that for me.

you see, other religions believe you are completly wrong, and this 'baptism offering' is offensive and might even get them kicked out of heavenWhy? If we are wrong, then this has no spiritual affect on them, it's just a bunch of crazy people dunking themselves in water. Why would some "cult"'s practices have an effect on you if in fact we are wrong?

Ah, but what if you're not only wrong that being baptized leads into salvation, BUT you're also wrong that the soul has a choice? Or that it has "no spiritual effect"? For all you know, your ritual could be condemning everyone who is baptized to hell. You BELIEVE you're right. But that doesn't mean it's accurate- ANY of it. You're acting as if there's some sort of "either/or" paradigm existing here: either it works or it doesn't. What if it just doesn't work the way you THINK it does? What then? How the hell do you know if the soul has a choice?

DUde, unless you can show defamation or something, the Moromons have every right to use your name in a ritual.

Who gave them the right?

but what if someone *couldnt* write a letter?

That's not how this thing works, buddy.
Step by Step
1) You die (unbaptized)
2) You float around
3) Mormons do their ritual, and ask you
"Hey, do you want to be baptized a Mormon?"
a) You say 'OK' and that's that, they've just done you a favour
b) You say 'Screw you, you crazy freaks!' and you don't get baptized.

You can spiritually opt out! You don't automatically become a Mormon!
So they'd just say no, and no one is in any way, shape, or form worse off.

That's only how it works if the Mormon theology is accurate. Obviously, none of us non-Mormons believe in Mormon theology. Why then would we believe in this stuff about the soul having "options" after the baptism? For all we- and they- know, the baptism send everyone straight to Hell.

oh yea and, "recruit" is not the right word. The purpose isn't just to add to the massive number of Mormons in the world, its simply to give everyone the same opportunity to go to heaven. Don't you want that, I sure do.

If Heaven is populated by people like Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, and Mormons who baptise the dead and tell people that complain to fuck off (which is basically what you're saying)...

No, I don't.

I think it may be a bit much to call the Mormons arrogent and bigoted for doing this, but I can understand why. It is sopposed to be an act of kindness, with good intention. They may be less arrogent and more unsensitive, or perhaps, ignorant. On the other hand, it may be the Cathloics and Jews that are ignorant and unsensitive, as they're getting angry as something that is sopposed to be a good deed. Just a gesture of kindness to all who never had the chance.

There's no clear cut solution to this one. I feel that it's wrong for the Mormons to baptise random people, but I feel that it's wrong to look down on the Mormons for making a general offer of kindness.

It's times like this when I wish my Mormon friend was still around, so I could talk to him and get a deeper insight on his concepts. I could see that his faith was tearing at him though. He realized that there were stances that he was obligated to take as a Mormon that he didn't like. Like, he didn't want to think that Gay people where unholy (unable to marry and reproduce), but he was obligated to say that they should change. Actually, I had to admire his faith, able to go against his human judgement and general kindness and loving of all, and have to say that someone is wrong. I do miss that fellow.

I think that not only is this practice questionable in its validity.. Validity? Umm, yeah... that means: If we're right, we're helping, if we're wrong, we're crazy...

And either way, you're incredibly disrespectful. Not that you care.

it also is a slap in the face of the deceased persons faith, or lack thereof, and an insult to the persons living descendants. A slap in the face? Howso? All it is is another missionary effort...

Many people see ALL missionary efforts as a slap in the face.

Raysia, why don't we stop going in circles for just a few minutes, and I'd like to ask you a NEW question:

Do you feel like there's ANY validity to our side of this issue? Can you at least UNDERSTAND why we're upset, even if you think we're completly wrong?

I'm very interested in your response to this.

It is sopposed to be an act of kindness, with good intention. They may be less arrogent and more unsensitive, or perhaps, ignorant. On the other hand, it may be the Cathloics and Jews that are ignorant and unsensitive, as they're getting angry as something that is sopposed to be a good deed. Just a gesture of kindness to all who never had the chance.

Hitler thought he was doing the world a good deed....

Baptised INTO your churches? I would be offended.

but we are not baptizing them as mormons, merely giving them the option to be.

Holy crap, READ!

however, to some people, being baptized is the same as being placed INTO the church. I know that your personal opinion is that you're giving them the option. But my personal opinion is being baptized is the same thing as entering a religion.

VERY well-said. And indeed, that is the problem many people, particularly Jews, have with this ceremony, is that they don't see it as giving people an "option"; they see it as, "Well, now my grandfather's been baptized a Mormon."

In the case of people who were killed specifically because they were Jews, you can imagine how upsetting this can be to relatives or others.

QahJoh, in the future, would you please condense your thoughts into one post?

It is sopposed to be an act of kindness, with good intention. They may be less arrogent and more unsensitive, or perhaps, ignorant. On the other hand, it may be the Cathloics and Jews that are ignorant and unsensitive, as they're getting angry as something that is sopposed to be a good deed. Just a gesture of kindness to all who never had the chance.

Hitler thought he was doing the world a good deed....

Ouch, touche! Very very true, I'm not arguing for any one side though. I'm merely presenting the point that this was not meant as malice. I highly doubt there's a circle of mormon leaders sitting around a big fire saying "Oh crap, we've got to boost our numbers... let's... say! I've got an idea! Let's start listing the dead as our own! They can't fight back!"

You're right, it's a disrespectful and insensitive act on their part. But not intentional. Give them that much, they're not evil people.

Basically, it looks to me like people are offended because the Mormons are behaving as if their belief system is right and everyone else's is wrong. What's new -- or even unique to the Mormons -- about that? I've had enough Christians tell me I was going to hell for not believing in some version or other of Jesus.

My problem is not that they're behaving as if their BELIEF system is right. They can BELIEVE whatever the hell they like about me and my post-death destination. I object to the ACTIONS being performed.

On the plus side, the Mormons are providing a valuable database of records for historians and genealogists. If only all religions could be so practical and useful. Baptise away, Mormons -- you're wasting your time, but you're not alone there either. Why anyone cares is a mystery to me.

As a genealogist, I can tell you that one has nothing to do with the other. The Mormons don't need to baptize people to collect records, and indeed, on familysearch.org, there are a variety of databases containing that are quite useful and which did not involve proxy baptisms.

QahJoh, in the future, would you please condense your thoughts into one post?

Generally, I do. Because I didn't check the thread at all today, I'm still in the process of going through it (currently on page 36), and answering as I go.

That said, I see your point. I'll make more of an effort to condense more in subsequent posts.

[Edit: See, I'm trying! :wink: ]

But, it did.
WHAT did? All that happened was some mormon kid got dunked underwater while some other guy said a dead guy's name.

Who freaking cares anyway?

Um, read the article from the opening post. A lot of people care. Just because you keep saying they have "no right" to care doesn't change the fact that they do. Take off your blinders, man.

The issue is simply whether or not anything should be done about these harmless rituals that mean nothing for anyone but mormons in this life.

1- Not everyone believes they are harmless rituals. Hence this thread.
2- Obviously, if someone doesn't believe it's harmless, they also don't believe it means "nothing".

Actually, I haven't seen an official statement that Holocaust victims would not have work done for them. It seems unlikely that such a thing would be done. That's one thing I doubted about this whole thread from the start, I kinda want to see the church's original statement.

I don't have access to their statement, but according to this: http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

The LDS Agreement
April 28, 1995
News Release -- Salt Lake City, Utah and New York, New York
Joint News Release by The Church of The Latter-day Saints and The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors have reached an agreement over the issue of the posthumous baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The final agreement will be signed at the New York Office of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, at which time a press conference will be held by the leaders of both groups.

"The issue came to the attention of the Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors as a result of an article in a Jewish newspaper which stated, correctly that a Jewish Holocaust victim who was killed in Gurs (France) concentration camp was posthumously baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," said Ernest Michel, Chairman of the World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and an authorized representative of the American Gathering.

As a result of this article, Mr. Michel in behalf of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, initiated discussions with the Church which extended over a period of several months.

"From the very beginning these discussions were conducted in a positive and friendly manner," Michel said. "They concluded in today's agreement between the Church and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors," he added.

In a statement issue today, the Church agreed, among other actions to be taken, to remove from the next issue of its International Genealogical Index the names of all known Jewish Holocaust victims who are not ancestors of living members of the Church. The American Gathering agreed to communicate with and inform major Jewish organizations as to its agreement with the Church. Four other major Jewish organizations have also approved this agreement.

"For more than a century the First Presidency of the Church has taught that members of the Church have a solemn responsibility to identify their deceased forebears and to provide temple ordinances for them regardless of ethnic background or origin," said Elder Monte J. Brough of the Church's Presidency of the Seventy and executive director of its Family History Department.

"However, in violation of Church policy, lists of Jewish Holocaust victims and other non-related groups and individuals have been submitted for temple ordinances. The First Presidency directed in March 1991 that temple ordinances for Jewish Holocaust victims be discontinued," Elder Brough said.

"Unfortunately, subsequent submissions of lists of Jewish Holocaust victims were made by certain individuals and posthumous baptisms in contravention of Church policy occurred," he added.

As a consequence of these discussions and the First Presidency's directive, the Church has agreed to:

- Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.

- Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.

- Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.

- Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.

- Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.

- Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.

The First Presidency reaffirmed that the Church, in accordance with past policy, will continue to make its family history records available to the public regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation.

It's been almost ten years. The Church has not followed its agreement.

... So, educate me, please. What's the Mormon position on lying?

*bump* :D