KitKat wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
Pittakos wrote:
Marylb wrote:
I think what is clear is we are not communicating so I'll try something different by way of communication. To a person who is Mormon doing this may seem perfectly fine but for the outside world it is not fine. The reason it is not fine is most people select their affiliation in life. A Catholic, Jew, Agnostic, Protestant or Muslim believes just as strongly as you do in their faith or lack of faith. It is a very important final record of who they are and who they were in life. There will never be a time when anyone will be pleased with any group rewriting their wishes. It just is. I do understand that if you are taught that it is ok you may not understand the horror of making my Catholic mom into a Mormon as it goes against who she was. So what you take lightly is extremely offensive to those who are not of the same faith. I respect that you follow your faith but dig in if anyone no matter the faith plays with my history and steals my true life when I am gone. You may not understand that but it may explain why so many get upset when there is even a hint that someone would dare to baptize someone who would never allow that in life. Hope that makes sense to you because in reality a nonchalant view of this is mind boggling. I can tell you that my mom and every relative with her and those who remain on this planet would come undone. She was quite a woman and she did not accidentally pick her religion anymore than Mormon's do. Hopefully you will understand how upsetting this is to non-Mormons.
And again, Marylb, you completely ignore what I have been saying to you. A Mormon baptism for someone who is dead does not make that dead person a Mormon for reasons already explained. If you were truly listening to what we have been saying, you wouldn't take offense. All you would see is an option that has been offered; an option which the individual can embrace or laugh at and walk away from.

I did listen to you but your explanation was unacceptable to me. I think I understand what you were trying to say now but initially it appeared you were more focused on justifying a right you don't have. See: Joseph Smith discussion early on. I don't think it is a good enough excuse to say the deceased can accept or reject. I'm sorry that is a bogus justification. What is important to me though is that it is on everyone to respect their distant relatives by not doing this without great thought, if ever. I may have misunderstood you but I think it was because you were so nonchalant as if you had no idea why an outsider would be dismayed over the concept. I can't say I like it now but we all learn from what we do and if you are doing wrong, it comes back in life in the form of a karma more often than not. It is on all of us to protect some semblance of respect before we destroy it completely. I can only hope everyone thinks before doing because losing your heritage by converting the reality is something lost.

Your still not getting it, Your still making comments like "your making them mormon" and "your making them lose their heritage" and "your converting them"

Lady, read more, type less.

Since you mentioned it, that is a good idea for you to start practicing. I have read your rude and disrespectful posts that pretend you are God but honestly you do more damage than good toward understanding. Perhaps YOU should read more and type less. It would offer up a golden opportunity for you to see how those Mormons and non-Mormons you attack do more good toward understanding the differences in a positive way than you have ever done while you are busy attacking other Mormons. You are not very bright though you are intent on celebrating every passing thought you have. Lighten up and start thinking for a change.


It is obvious that you still don't get it, even after many have tried to explain it to you. You are the one that is not very bright, it is clear from your lack of comprehension on this topic you have a serious problem. This site is a dumping ground for everything negative about the church, always has been, you are merely one of the many who do so. Get's old, get a new hobby.

This woman has every right to voice her concerns about an issue which she believes could adversely affect people who cannot speak for themselves.

REGARDLESS of whether her concerns concur with YOUR religious beliefs.
Dubs views and beliefs trumps those of everyone else, or so it seems. You think?

No. But HE obviously does.

Marylb said it very well to Dumbya: "You are not equipped..."

We, as members of the church, don't see anything wrong or disrespectful about baptisms for the dead as we have a testimony (understanding) of this ordinance. However, Marylb doesn't and that's OK. Here's my analogy. . .I am introduced to Marylb (someone tells her about baptisms for the dead). I speak to her in a language she's never heard before and certainly doesn't understand (the ordinance of baptisms for the dead is a foreign concept to her). I try to help her understand my words, but she can't because she doesn't have a deeper knowledge of my language, only what she's hearing from my mouth (everything posted here on this forum about baptisms for the dead is confusing and upsetting). Until Marylb goes to school and learns everything about my language, she will not understand (if Marylb was a member of the LDS church, been taught about proxy baptism, and had received a testimony of said ordinance, she would not be disheartened about having or doing temple work for her family or others).

Marylb, most of us here mean you no harm. We have strong testimonies about proxy temple ordinances, and just want you to have the same. Just to reassure you, if temple work has been done for any in your family from submitted names, please remember they DO have the choice to accept or deny the work. It's all good.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
We, as members of the church, don't see anything wrong or disrespectful about baptisms for the dead as we have a testimony (understanding) of this ordinance. However, Marylb doesn't and that's OK. Here's my analogy. . .I am introduced to Marylb (someone tells her about baptisms for the dead). I speak to her in a language she's never heard before and certainly doesn't understand (the ordinance of baptisms for the dead is a foreign concept to her). I try to help her understand my words, but she can't because she doesn't have a deeper knowledge of my language, only what she's hearing from my mouth (everything posted here on this forum about baptisms for the dead is confusing and upsetting). Until Marylb goes to school and learns everything about my language, she will not understand (if Marylb was a member of the LDS church, been taught about proxy baptism, and had received a testimony of said ordinance, she would not be disheartened about having or doing temple work for her family or others).

Marylb, most of us here mean you no harm. We have strong testimonies about proxy temple ordinances, and just want you to have the same. Just to reassure you, if temple work has been done for any in your family from submitted names, please remember they DO have the choice to accept or deny the work. It's all good.

Great post ...and one that is CLEAR....

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
We, as members of the church, don't see anything wrong or disrespectful about baptisms for the dead as we have a testimony (understanding) of this ordinance. However, Marylb doesn't and that's OK. Here's my analogy. . .I am introduced to Marylb (someone tells her about baptisms for the dead). I speak to her in a language she's never heard before and certainly doesn't understand (the ordinance of baptisms for the dead is a foreign concept to her). I try to help her understand my words, but she can't because she doesn't have a deeper knowledge of my language, only what she's hearing from my mouth (everything posted here on this forum about baptisms for the dead is confusing and upsetting). Until Marylb goes to school and learns everything about my language, she will not understand (if Marylb was a member of the LDS church, been taught about proxy baptism, and had received a testimony of said ordinance, she would not be disheartened about having or doing temple work for her family or others).

Marylb, most of us here mean you no harm. We have strong testimonies about proxy temple ordinances, and just want you to have the same. Just to reassure you, if temple work has been done for any in your family from submitted names, please remember they DO have the choice to accept or deny the work. It's all good.

I think that may be the bottom line mainly because we're talking past each other. What is true is I don't understand. If there were a way for people to come together in this it would take a lot of frustration out of the conversations. I may never understand not being Mormon but having a Catholic mom who was very clear on what she believed. I can't change the world but I can hope that anyone who does submit her name understand the serious belief she held. It's ok to disagree and it is ok not to understand but nobody fools with a Catholic mom! (humor)

Thanks for nailing the communication problem before us. I think in whole something was achieved as a baby step. And that "ain't" bad.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
We, as members of the church, don't see anything wrong or disrespectful about baptisms for the dead as we have a testimony (understanding) of this ordinance. However, Marylb doesn't and that's OK. Here's my analogy. . .I am introduced to Marylb (someone tells her about baptisms for the dead). I speak to her in a language she's never heard before and certainly doesn't understand (the ordinance of baptisms for the dead is a foreign concept to her). I try to help her understand my words, but she can't because she doesn't have a deeper knowledge of my language, only what she's hearing from my mouth (everything posted here on this forum about baptisms for the dead is confusing and upsetting). Until Marylb goes to school and learns everything about my language, she will not understand (if Marylb was a member of the LDS church, been taught about proxy baptism, and had received a testimony of said ordinance, she would not be disheartened about having or doing temple work for her family or others).

Marylb, most of us here mean you no harm. We have strong testimonies about proxy temple ordinances, and just want you to have the same. Just to reassure you, if temple work has been done for any in your family from submitted names, please remember they DO have the choice to accept or deny the work. It's all good.


We, as members of the church, don't see anything wrong or disrespectful about baptisms for the dead

OK, because of your beliefs you don't see anything "wrong or disrespectful" about it. Ever considered that because of someone else's beliefs they might and, also that they might feel as strongly about their beliefs as you do?