Eternal marriage & temple endowment handshakes, tokens, signs & passwords

[Kishkumen]

One of the significant challenges to being a consistent skeptic is to apply the same approach to things that you wish were true to things you wish weren’t.

Agreed. Skepticism has its place, and in that place it should be applied equally/evenly.

[I Have Questions]

The temple ordinances were the system that developed long before everyone became pathologically paranoid about large organizations that have lots of money. People who believed in the system invested in the system. I say let them carry on causing no harm until they wake up and realize they don't want to do it anymore. Then they will stop.

Why do you keep asserting that temple ordinances cause no harm? One only need research the situation where Mormons were doing vicarious rituals for holocaust victims to see that very real harm certainly is caused.

[Kishkumen]

Why do you keep asserting that temple ordinances cause no harm? One only need research the situation where Mormons were doing vicarious rituals for holocaust victims to see that very real harm certainly is caused.

I don’t see how a vicarious ordinance that is not accepted by the dead person does anything to that person at all. I look at harm as something that causes real injury. This seems to me to be too abstract to be real harm. If I visit a living Jewish person and present them the opportunity to convert to Mormonism, is that anti-Semitic? Are Jewish converts to Christianity non-Jews? Are they anti-Semites for becoming Christian? I never thought they were, but perhaps all missionaries teaching Jewish people are anti-Semites and they don’t know it.

What’s your view? Do you think converting to another religion implies hatred of the people who do not similarly convert? Should missionaries be prosecuted for hate crimes when they preach to people who belong to minority faith groups? Should anti-Mormonism be a hate crime?

Presumably there have been holocaust survivors who left Judaism. Were they sought out by missionaries? Were they horrified when missionaries knock on their door? Deeply offended.

You see, a vicarious ordinance is not an ordinance until it is accepted by the person on whose behalf it was done. Until such time it is kinda like leaving a Book of Mormon on someone’s doorstep. If the book is never read, nothing comes of it.

[I Have Questions]

Why do you keep asserting that temple ordinances cause no harm? One only need research the situation where Mormons were doing vicarious rituals for holocaust victims to see that very real harm certainly is caused.

I don’t see how a vicarious ordinance that is not accepted by the dead person does anything to that person at all. I look at harm as something that causes real injury. This seems to me to be too abstract to be real harm. If I visit a living Jewish person and present them the opportunity to convert to Mormonism, is that anti-Semitic? Are Jewish converts to Christianity non-Jews? Are they anti-Semites for becoming Christian? I never thought they were, but perhaps all missionaries teaching Jewish people are anti-Semites and they don’t know it.

What’s your view? Do you think converting to another religion implies hatred of the people among those who do not similarly convert? Should missionaries be prosecuted for hate crimes when they preach to people who belong to minority faith groups? Should anti-Mormonism be a hate crime?

The ceremonies first drew public attention in the 1990s, when it was discovered they were performed on hundreds of thousands of Holocaust victims. Such baptisms reopen wounds from Jews being forced in the past to convert to Christianity or face death or deportation, Jewish genealogist Gary Mokotoff said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... nce%20then.

In 2012, Radkey discovered a baptism performed on Anne Frank. The church apologised, sent a letter to members reiterating its guidelines and announced the creation of a firewall aimed at preventing the inappropriate use of proxy baptisms.

There was a new attempt to baptise the Holocaust survivor and “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal, which LDS officials flagged as needing permission. Hawkins said that showed the safeguards were working.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center previously asked that its namesake, who died in 2005, be removed from the database, said Rabbi Marvin Hier, its founder and dean. Hier said he planned to repeat the request.

“They may mean well but it’s insulting to Jews and it would be insulting to Mr Wiesenthal,” Hier said. “He lived a life of good deeds, and he doesn’t need any assistance in getting to heaven.”

Real harm, regardless of you not being able to see it nor acknowledge it.

[Kishkumen]

No, I don’t think so. Triggering past trauma without intending to do so is not harm. No one knows what might trigger someone’s trauma, and when they do so without intending harm they are not harming that person, in my opinion.

Now, I think it is absolutely the right thing to do to respect the wishes of the community asking that such vicarious ordinances not be performed, but I do not agree that vicarious ordinances are an assault on Jewish identity or an attempt to erase it. It is the fulfillment of a Christian commandment to bring the gospel to all people.

By the way, no baptism was performed “on” Anne Frank. There was a vicarious ordinance performed on her behalf that she likely declined.

[Res Ipsa]

No, I don’t think so. Triggering past trauma without intending to do so is not harm. No one knows what might trigger someone’s trauma, and when they do so without intending harm they are not harming that person, in my opinion.

Now, I think it is absolutely the right thing to do to respect the wishes of the community asking that such vicarious ordinances not be performed, but I do not agree that vicarious ordinances are an assault on Jewish identity or an attempt to erase it. It is the fulfillment of a Christian commandment to bring the gospel to all people.

By the way, no baptism was performed “on” Anne Frank. There was a vicarious ordinance performed on her behalf that she likely declined.

I think you're confusing the concept of harm with the concept of intent. I can harm you by transmitting COVID to you even though I was unaware I was contagious. That I lack intent to harm is not relevant to the question of whether harm occurred.

[IWMP]

No, I don’t think so. Triggering past trauma without intending to do so is not harm. No one knows what might trigger someone’s trauma, and when they do so without intending harm they are not harming that person, in my opinion.

Now, I think it is absolutely the right thing to do to respect the wishes of the community asking that such vicarious ordinances not be performed, but I do not agree that vicarious ordinances are an assault on Jewish identity or an attempt to erase it. It is the fulfillment of a Christian commandment to bring the gospel to all people.

By the way, no baptism was performed “on” Anne Frank. There was a vicarious ordinance performed on her behalf that she likely declined.

I think you're confusing the concept of harm with the concept of intent. I can harm you by transmitting COVID to you even though I was unaware I was contagious. That I lack intent to harm is not relevant to the question of whether harm occurred.

Triggering past trauma can harm a person but the person isn't harmed by the person who triggered them, they are harmed by the unresolved trauma. If the trauma was resolved the trigger wouldn't be there anymore.

Anyway, not really relevant to what you are talking about....

I kinda see both sides. You can't hurt a dead person if the church isn't "true" and the ordinances are just a part of the dance of their play and the dead person doesn't see or feel it. Maybe it could hurt their families but unless their families are church members they probably wouldn't know.

But at the same time, the intent and the energy being sent to the universe is there coming from the souls of the people practicing these activities and if this type of magic is real and the prayers don't specify that it's the receivers choice and no one gives permission then it feels a bit, I don't know the appropriate word, a bit like voodoo on a milder scale. Kinda odd.

Edit: however... If it turned out that the church is "true" and the ordinances are real and the people need to be saved, then it would be pretty crappy to be a soul on the other side without the opportunity to be baptised wouldn't it. It's a double edged sword. Personally I doubt God would give a message to one set of people and I doubt Mormons are better should than say budhists (as a general population).

[Jersey Girl]

Okay so it looks like the exchanges are back to the subject of vicarious baptism and possible harm. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Stay with me...

Some of my growing up church girlfriends and I have a small Facebook messenger group where we share news with and of each other. One "friend" isn't in the group though others have Facebook access to her. I wrote about the one friend some years back (5?) down in Paradise where I disclosed how she was crossing boundaries with me, how I chose to stop replying to her, how she then started writing um psycho posts alluding to me on her Facebook trying to guilt a response out of me. I stood my ground. So anyway...there's a reason she's not in the group on Facebook and it's behavioral.

Three weeks ago I got a group message telling us that one of our girlfriends since childhood had passed away from cancer. She had been a friend of mine since at least first grade through teens, through adulthood and then I moved away. Not my closest friend, but my very good friend nonetheless. Church together, school together, scouts together, beach together. That sort of thing.

The girl (I still think of them as girls) who sent the message cautioned us that the family had not made anything public on social media so best not to post condolences on our friend's Facebook page. Most of us wouldn't have done that but I think she was wise to mention it.

Enter the other one...

On the thread of a post dated October of last year I see the following: RIP my dear childhood friend! See you in heaven!!



Here's the problem. The family nor her boyfriend of many years posted anything anywhere on her Facebook about her passing away. Full stop. And yet, she blows in there and plasters what could amount to a death notice on the now deceased friend's page.

1. Where the friend is no longer alive to change it.
2. Where the Facebook friends might not even know she passed.
3. Where the boyfriend nor any family member is able to change it.
4. Where not one single person mentioned her health struggles nor had she on her social media.
5. Where if the family or boyfriend wanted to say something publicly they would have.

And now it sits there as the boundary crossing intrusion that it is.

So if her boyfriend, family, or friends would like to copy her photos for safe keeping of memories, they know that intrusion is sitting there unattended to because it CAN'T be attended to until someone figures out how to close out her Facebook and they might not want to close out her Facebook because of all the memories collected there. They might not be ready to face the fact of her death and their loss. It's like someone just intruded on their grief.

Because she did. She did when she took control away from our friend's loved ones and plastered that post on her Facebook.

(And as an aside can I just tell you this? All through her teen years and into adulthood and even after she herself got married, she ripped our friend to shreds behind her back because when they were of dating age they both liked the same young man and our now deceased friend married the guy.)

Hear me out. I am NOT saying that LDS perform vicarious baptism to hurt folks. I am NOT saying that LDS performing vicarious baptism would hurt me. It means virtually nothing to me and I expect it to happen to myself, all of my loved ones and all of my friends and acquaintances who are not LDS.

I get it.

But what about the family who are wrestling with the trauma of grief who learns that someone has gone through the obituary or the grave site of a loved one? Who in their grief wants to wrestle with that? Who wants to wrestle with that level of intrusion when one is at their most vulnerable? What grieving person wants to know that their Christian loved one was vicariously and religiously intruded upon by one of another faith tradition and their name recorded by the same?

Much like the Facebook post I just used as an example that symbolizes the same hurtful effect on a grieving family?

Food for thought.

[Kishkumen]

I think you're confusing the concept of harm with the concept of intent. I can harm you by transmitting COVID to you even though I was unaware I was contagious. That I lack intent to harm is not relevant to the question of whether harm occurred.

Yes, I conflated the two because I think the whole discussion has proceeded as though intent is part of the issue. Surely my actions can inadvertently cause harm, and no doubt they have. Sometimes it is unavoidable and completely without moral implications.

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.

As I have said before, perhaps a handful of times, I am all for people respecting the feelings of others, but there are times, and I don’t think there is an absolute standard here, that people are so sensitive that they get needlessly wound up over little things. Concerns about the Holocaust are obviously not little things, but trying to horribilize temple work by using the Holocaust example as though it sets an absolute standard on the issue doesn’t work, at least for me.

What would work is more communication and mutual understanding. The habitual mischaracterization of these vicarious ordinances contributes to the erroneous idea that there is harm, or perhaps ignorance is itself the source of the harm. Like that poorly written article that claimed a baptism was performed “on” Anne Frank. That kinds of sloppiness is unfortunate and all too frequent, and one could argue that its author caused harm more than LDS people did by performing a vicarious baptism on her behalf that she may have declined or was not around to do anything with.

If a Mormon can imagine Anne Frank accepting the LDS Gospel, surely you can imagine her not doing so. One thing no one needs to imagine is that performing a vicarious ordinance on her behalf magically transformed her into a Mormon or erased her Jewish identity because neither of those things is or can be true, and that is assuming Mormonism is true in the sense that a well-informed TBM believes.

[Kishkumen]

Okay so it looks like the exchanges are back to the subject of vicarious baptism and possible harm. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Stay with me...

Some of my growing up church girlfriends and I have a small Facebook messenger group where we share news with and of each other. One "friend" isn't in the group though others have Facebook access to her. I wrote about the one friend some years back (5?) down in Paradise where I disclosed how she was crossing boundaries with me, how I chose to stop replying to her, how she then started writing um psycho posts alluding to me on her Facebook trying to guilt a response out of me. I stood my ground. So anyway...there's a reason she's not in the group on Facebook and it's behavioral.

Three weeks ago I got a group message telling us that one of our girlfriends since childhood had passed away from cancer. She had been a friend of mine since at least first grade through teens, through adulthood and then I moved away. Not my closest friend, but my very good friend nonetheless. Church together, school together, scouts together, beach together. That sort of thing.

The girl (I still think of them as girls) who sent the message cautioned us that the family had not made anything public on social media so best not to post condolences on our friend's Facebook page. Most of us wouldn't have done that but I think she was wise to mention it.

Enter the other one...

On the thread of a post dated October of last year I see the following: RIP my dear childhood friend! See you in heaven!!



Here's the problem. The family nor her boyfriend of many years posted anything anywhere on her Facebook about her passing away. Full stop. And yet, she blows in there and plasters what could amount to a death notice on the now deceased friend's page.

1. Where the friend is no longer alive to change it.
2. Where the Facebook friends might not even know she passed.
3. Where the boyfriend nor any family member is able to change it.
4. Where not one single person mentioned her health struggles nor had she on her social media.
5. Where if the family or boyfriend wanted to say something publicly they would have.

And now it sits there as the boundary crossing intrusion that it is.

So if her boyfriend, family, or friends would like to copy her photos for safe keeping of memories, they know that intrusion is sitting there unattended to because it CAN'T be attended to until someone figures out how to close out her Facebook and they might not want to close out her Facebook because of all the memories collected there. They might not be ready to face the fact of her death and their loss. It's like someone just intruded on their grief.

Because she did. She did when she took control away from our friend's loved ones and plastered that post on her Facebook.

(And as an aside can I just tell you this? All through her teen years and into adulthood and even after she herself got married, she ripped our friend to shreds behind her back because when they were of dating age they both liked the same young man and our now deceased friend married the guy.)

Hear me out. I am NOT saying that LDS perform vicarious baptism to hurt folks. I am NOT saying that LDS performing vicarious baptism would hurt me. It means virtually nothing to me and I expect it to happen to myself, all of my loved ones and all of my friends and acquaintances who are not LDS.

I get it.

But what about the family who are wrestling with the trauma of grief who learns that someone has gone through the obituary or the grave site of a loved one? Who in their grief wants to wrestle with that? Who wants to wrestle with that level of intrusion when one is at their most vulnerable? What grieving person wants to know that their Christian loved one was vicariously and religiously intruded upon by one of another faith tradition and their name recorded by the same?

Much like the Facebook post I just used as an example that symbolizes the same hurtful effect on a grieving family?

Food for thought.

My reaction to this is the thought that different people may respond differently to that post. Some may be touched by it. Others may be horrified. Maybe a difference of opinion exists among members of the bereaved family. Who gets to decide what ought to happen? Should they have a family conversation to work it out? Will they all want this friend to feel bad for having done that? Maybe some will. Perhaps others will not. What I have found to be the case is I have tripped all over myself worried that another person is offended by my actions only to find that they were not at all. Maybe we should not be afraid to confront issues as they arise by trying to anticipate and avoid every possibility of offense under the sun. I think that is contributing to mutual alienation due to a kind of social paralysis. I will work hard not to be upset by what other people say and do, try hard not to take things personally. The more I can stop spreading the noise and hurt by not reacting, the better.