DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:33 pm

No, I don’t think so. Triggering past trauma without intending to do so is not harm.

That’s an incredible statement. Of course it is. Most people causing car accidents don’t intend to cause harm to others, but their victims certainly are harmed.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 2:30 am

It feels as though critics of LDS temple work are saying that because some people are offended by temple work the LDS Church just ought not to do it at all on the grounds that causing offense or upset is causing harm. Moreover, I think the implication is that failing to stop when the knowledge of some upset has been revealed is tantamount to deliberate intent to cause harm. I am not sure I completely agree with any of this. The grounds for disagreement are complex. Religious freedom is at issue. Some people are upset by the very thought of Mormons and might say they are harmed if one is allowed to knock on their door.

Religious freedom is the freedom to practice one’s religion for oneself. It’s not the right to practice your religion on others not of your faith. It’s not the right, for instance, to harvest the names and details of holocaust victims in order to conduct a ritualistic baptism into Mormonism on their behalf. That’s an abuse of freedom of religion and it’s also disrespectful to other religions.

The Church could make some very simple changes to avoid causing harm to others (and the Church knows for sure it causes harm to others because that harm has been well documented). One change is for members to only do vicarious rituals for members of their own personal ancestry. I believe the Church is trying to go down this path, with limited success because a. Individual members aren’t respecting that process and are still chucking names in willy nilly, and b. because it doesn’t create enough names to keep the members busy at the temple (which is, in my opinion, the purpose of temple work now).

Edit to add: Current church policy is that vicarious ordinances can be done for names that have been submitted by a direct relative, or submitted with the consent of a direct relative, or with no consent whatsoever from anyone if the deceased person has reached a point 110 years or longer after their birth date.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... ang=eng#p1

The other solution is to generalise the vicarious ritual, so that it can be “an offer” to all who are dead, without using their specific names and details. I know this is possible because I’ve seen instances where the ritual has been performed with virtually no details available, just a single name.

The dilemma, it seems, is that the Church wants to keep members busy at the temple. You can draw your own conclusions as to why that might be.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:54 am

That’s an incredible statement. Of course it is. Most people causing car accidents don’t intend to cause harm to others, but their victims certainly are harmed.

Yeah, I understand that. But causing a car accident is quite different from inadvertently hurting someone’s feelings.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 7:50 am

Religious freedom is the freedom to practice one’s religion for oneself. It’s not the right to practice their religion on others not of your faith. It’s not the right, for instance, to harvest the names and details of holocaust victims in order to conduct a ritualistic baptism into Mormonism on their behalf. That’s an abuse of freedom of religion and it’s also disrespectful to other religions.

You mean, it would not be right to do things out of Christian charity because it would be wrong to practice your religion on others? What’s the problem here? Mormons are not practicing their religion “on” others in the temple. They are providing boats for the flood, as it were. Those in danger of drowning are free not to use them.

Let me be clear, I agree that it is counterproductive for Mormons to do vicarious ordinances for Holocaust victims (Holocaust should be capitalized, by the way) simply because it is offensive to the sensibilities of many, but I don’t agree that harm was being done, unless that harm was to Jewish-Mormon relations. I think the root of the problem is in a misunderstanding. The antidote for misunderstanding is communication that leads to mutual understanding.

Maybe one day the situation will change for the better. In the meantime, I don’t think such ordinances should be done on behalf of Holocaust victims.

One change is for members to only do vicarious rituals for members of their own personal ancestry. I believe the Church is trying to go down this path, with limited success because a. Individual members aren’t respecting that process and are still chucking names in willy nilly, and b. because it doesn’t create enough names to keep the members busy at the temple (which is, in my opinion, the purpose of temple work now).

Although I do not agree with your expansive idea of what harm is, I agree with this completely. Work for the dead should be for one’s own ancestors. Mind you, some people will still be unhappy because they share those ancestors and don’t like Mormonism. I knew we agreed on some important basics and that this would come out in the discussion.

The other solution is to generalise the vicarious ritual, so that it can be “an offer” to all who are dead, without using their specific names and details. I know this is possible because I’ve seen instances where the ritual has been performed with virtually no details available, just a single name.

Interesting idea, and who knows? Maybe something like that will happen. I am a little doubtful because the recording of names is such a foundational big deal in Mormonism. You know, names recorded in the Book of Life and all that.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 12:14 pm

The other solution is to generalise the vicarious ritual, so that it can be “an offer” to all who are dead, without using their specific names and details. I know this is possible because I’ve seen instances where the ritual has been performed with virtually no details available, just a single name.

Interesting idea, and who knows? Maybe something like that will happen. I am a little doubtful because the recording of names is such a foundational big deal in Mormonism. You know, names recorded in the Book of Life and all that.

And that’s where the idea that temple rituals must be done on earth for all those who are dead flounders. Because there are people who have been born, lived, and died, without any record of their existence. To facilitate those people there must needs be another way. And if there’s another way, then the practice in temples of vicarious rituals isn’t essential.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 12:14 pm

Although I do not agree with your expansive idea of what harm is…

I haven’t put forward an idea of what harm is or is not. I’ve simply pointed out where people say they’ve been harmed. It’s not about me defining harm, it’s not about you defining harm. It’s about acknowledging that people are saying they are harmed by Mormons doing vicarious rituals where their ancestors are symbolically baptised into Mormonism without anyone granting permission for that to be done. People are saying it’s disrespectful, therefore it is disrespectful regardless of what we think. Because they get to decide for themselves what is harmful, what is disrespectful. You can disagree with their determination of that, I can disagree with their determination of that, but our stance is irrelevant. It’s their stance that matters. Now, the question is whether or not the Church should respect their determination, and stop doing vicarious rituals for names for which they haven’t been granted permission by a relative?

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 12:14 pm

You mean, it would not be right to do things out of Christian charity because it would be wrong to practice your religion on others? What’s the problem here? Mormons are not practicing their religion “on” others in the temple. They are providing boats for the flood, as it were. Those in danger of drowning are free not to use them.

Mormons are practicing their religion on others when they get baptised as a proxy for someone who hasn’t requested it. If the Church wants to advertise the service, that’s fine. Let people sign their ancestors up voluntarily before the fact, rather than it being involuntary and after the fact.

Provide a web portal for people to request vicarious rituals for their loved ones. Don’t do it behind their living relatives' backs. In secret.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 1:05 pm

And that’s where the idea that temple rituals must be done on earth for all those who are dead flounders. Because there are people who have been born, lived, and died, without any record of their existence. To facilitate those people there must needs be another way. And if there’s another way, then the practice in temples of vicarious rituals isn’t essential.

Yeah, I don't agree. Sure, records are not going to be complete and perfect, but Mormon doctrine views the effort to emulate the order of heaven as crucial to salvation and exaltation. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 1:12 pm

I haven’t put forward an idea of what harm is or is not. I’ve simply pointed out where people say they’ve been harmed. It’s not about me defining harm, it’s not about you defining harm. It’s about acknowledging that people are saying they are harmed by Mormons doing vicarious rituals where their ancestors are symbolically baptised into Mormonism without anyone granting permission for that to be done. People are saying it’s disrespectful, therefore it is disrespectful regardless of what we think. Because they get to decide for themselves what is harmful, what is disrespectful. You can disagree with their determination of that, I can disagree with their determination of that, but our stance is irrelevant. It’s their stance that matters. Now, the question is whether or not the Church should respect their determination, and stop doing vicarious rituals for names for which they haven’t been granted permission by a relative?

Sure, anyone can say anything. You think that any claim has to be honored on its face. I don't. To act on that standard would result in absurd outcomes. I have tried to point that out, but you have ignored these attempts for the most part. There is no way to operate in this world to the satisfaction of everyone with an opinion. You do the best you can, but there comes a point where you have to be true to yourself and not just cede ground anytime someone demands that you do.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2024 1:19 pm

Mormons are practicing their religion on others when they get baptised as a proxy for someone who hasn’t requested it. If the Church wants to advertise the service, that’s fine. Let people sign their ancestors up voluntarily before the fact, rather than it being involuntary and after the fact.

Provide a web portal for people to request vicarious rituals for their loved ones. Don’t do it behind their living relatives' backs. In secret.

I don't agree. Nothing is done to the person whose vicarious work is done. They remain completely untouched by the ordinance until they elect to use it. Let's leave this with our point of agreement. I agree with you that only the ancestors of members should have vicarious work done. I note that distant relatives might still object, and we would then find ourselves in the same position yet again, but I think there comes a point where you just have to accept your inability to make everyone happy. People will be offended. They will say you have hurt them. And yet life has to go on.

Look, we have a whole movement of Trump fans who feel aggrieved by Trump's loss in the 2020 election to the point that they simply refuse to believe it. They felt harmed by Pence. They felt harmed by the electoral process. They are absolutely convinced that Joe Biden is harming them, even though they are living in one of the hottest economies in global history. They feel harmed if someone out there has the right to elect to end a pregnancy. Why? Because they are convinced that God's wrath will rain down on us all, and probably already is, since some women are choosing to end pregnancies or perhaps a lab worker somewhere accidentally dropped a frozen embryo. Talk about harm!

And they will take their grievance all the way to establishing a dictatorship, if given the chance. For them, it is better to lose the republic than to have God angry with them. If you believe as they do, then you would probably have to agree with them. All of these things are coming out of their cherished beliefs about what is good for them and what is harming them. And, frankly, I have precious little patience for their delusions.

I do think we need to be very careful and consistent. Maybe the more prudent course of action is to decide that the standard for what constitutes harm needs to be a little more rigorous than "someone claims to be harmed." Perhaps we don't need to cave in whenever someone claims they were harmed. I know I am not ready to let Donald Trump establish a Christo-fascist regime because a bunch of his fans feel harmed by Joe Biden.

By comparison, I find LDS vicarious ordinances in the temple to be almost humorously benign. Let's stick with worrying about more substantive harms than a bunch of religious people doing rituals you don't believe in behind the closed doors of their religious buildings. Rituals that cause no injury and have no efficacy if you don't believe in them.