January 12, 2006 at 6:59 pm #102728
If I can just make one other point: right to believe, and right NOT to believe.
Was anyone else besides me a tad offended when they learned that the Mormons were “baptizing” dead Jews? It assumes that their faith and beliefs are the only correct beliefs. They didn’t actually “change” anything as far as I’m concerned, but can you imagine how the Jews feel about that act?
What if the Mormons held a ceremony converting your dead loved one to the Mormon faith?
The people who are being discussed, may not believe in psychic abilities, or have some objection to ADC, and they have that right. Just because we (and the psychics in question) believe in it, doesn’t give us the right to subject them (the family members or the victims) to it, without even asking them, or even knowing what their belief system is.January 12, 2006 at 7:51 pm #102730JudeParticipant
Well, slap me with a wet noodle! As I’m sitting here reading more in-depth, I’m realizing that my post should probably be in the other thread regarding the Larry King Show, and not in this one! :rolleyes: I was responding to Sarah’s post regarding Sylvia Browne and JVP’s appearance on Larry King and not to the main topic of this thread, “readings without permission.”
Naturally, I find it appalling for anyone to be doing readings or giving out unsolicited information, especially to the public, without regards to the family or the person who has crossed. It’s unspeakable. :(
Also, it had never occurred to me that a program like Court TV might use psychics and then broadcast the information without permission. :surprise:
And what’s this about Mormons “baptizing” Jews who have passed? :confused: Where have I been?? :shrug:
For more of my thoughts on SB, JVP, and the like, please see my earlier post (#5), higher up on this page! :lwink:January 12, 2006 at 9:03 pm #102733
You’re a moderator! You could move your post to the other thread. Or have you been so busy offline lately that you’ve forgotten your magic abilities here ….:tissue:January 12, 2006 at 9:18 pm #102734TXJUDE wrote:And what’s this about Mormons “baptizing” Jews who have passed? :confused: Where have I been?? :shrug:
This story is from 2002, but it gives a high level overview of what the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints) are doing out of the goodness of their hearts, but despite that, is still offending many people.
Here’s a more recent (12/31/05) piece on the Church of LDS also reaffirming baptizing dead non-Mormons so they have a chance to “convert”.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/religion/story/5442844p-4914216c.htmlJanuary 12, 2006 at 10:35 pm #102735LauraParticipant
Wow! I didn’t know stuff like that was happening! (The posthumous baptisms) Interesting…
I really don’t want to start an argument. It isn’t my intent. Just a discussion.:hearts: I personally think it is very odd.
But allow me to play devil’s advocate here. What would be the difference, say, in someone offering a prayer or petition for someone who may be agnostic? (Other than the listing of names in church records.) Or saying the Rosary for someone who isn’t Christian? (I don’t think they can actually call them Mormons in their records can they? Just that they were baptized by proxy?) Couldn’t a lot of things be characterized as presumptuous? If so, is it simply the public record of it that makes it so unacceptable?
Again, I’m not agreeing with the practice. Just wanting to discuss it.:)January 12, 2006 at 11:21 pm #102736CarolynBModerator
What would be the difference, say, in someone offering a prayer or petition for someone who may be agnostic? (Other than the listing of names in church records.) Or saying the Rosary for someone who isn’t Christian? (I don’t think they can actually call them Mormons in their records can they? Just that they were baptized by proxy?)
For me, I see a huge difference between prayer (a private act) and baptisms (a public act). Not only do I see a difference in the way the act is done, but also, (at least potentially) in the spirit in which it is done. Baptizing someone is a sectarian expression of one group of individuals beliefs and posthumously imposing onto another individual those beliefs. And I do believe that private prayers for an individual should be of a nonsectarian nature … but I’m not saying that you can’t use sectarian prayers (like praying the rosary) in a non-sectarian way. I believe as long as prayers are intending that God’s will be done, the beneficiary of the prayers, regarding of their beliefs, benefit from the intentional prayers of yours … and I believe if you’re praying in that manner, you’re not imposing a (sectarian) belief system since I believe God is not sectarian.
My initial 2 cents. I may come back and make it a nickel after more thought. :hearts:January 12, 2006 at 11:54 pm #102737
I agree Carolyn. There’s a big difference in intent and assumptionsyou’re making about the person you’re acting on behalf of.
Sending up prayers at the very least, is sending out good thoughts for someone’s best interest. The assumption is that they can benifit in some way from your prayer.
While they also pray during baptisms, the intent is to convert the soul over to Mormonism:
The denomination has been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust victims) and those of other faiths. Mormons believe individuals’ ability to choose a religion continues beyond the grave.
Asked about the practice, Hinckley said performing the baptisms only provides the option for non-Mormons to convert, “so there’s no injury done to anybody.” http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/religion/story/5442844p-4914216c.html
The latter assumes that the person being baptized isn’t “saved” or able to make it to heaven, for after all, what’s the purpose of being baptized?
Also among those baptized posthumously by the church, according to Radkey’s research: Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said the Mormon church needs to rein in its members if it is serious about its pledge to stop baptizing Holocaust victims.
“If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” Hier said. “With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.”
I agree with Hier.January 13, 2006 at 12:10 am #102738CarolynBModerator
“With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.”
I too agree very much with Hier … and he didn’t necessarily have to be speaking just of the Mormons.January 13, 2006 at 12:44 am #102739LADreamrParticipantQuote:I feel that if you’re going to serve a higher purpose of teaching, spreading awareness about the afterlife and ADC, it can and should be done without ignoring the family member’s right of refusal of a “reading” and the right to refuse to have your family business (and grief) put on display for the public’s perusal. The end does not justify the means.
What about the family members? Don’t they get a choice?
Yes, of course, you’re absolutely right. I just can see that they might be thinking they’re helping. Maybe some are more sincere in their efforts than others, but I’m not sure they mean to exploit the situation, you know? It’s certainly a matter of how it feels to people individually. I hope I never have to know how these families are feeling. I would just always hope that if I was talking about it in any capacity it would be apparent that it was out of love and concern.
SarahJanuary 13, 2006 at 12:53 am #102741
And my mother’s words are echoing in my ears: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Good intentions aren’t enough, and pale horribly in comparison of a family member whose grief and loss has been magnified by the media without their input. The helplessness is already beyond any compare. And then if you don’t believe in psychic abilities or mediumship in the first place, or worse, if it’s against your religion (no matter how “right” we think we are) it’s even more offensive.
Good intentions are nice, but not enough.January 14, 2006 at 12:07 pm #102773VTFlowerGirlParticipant
I can’t remember if I wrote this here or someplace else, but this question of ethics and intervening in situations of missing persons with information gathered from psychic – or intuitive – abilities – Oh this is near and dear to me.
At the ASD – Dowser’s Convention I had an argument with an instructor over this same subject. He was encouraging people to use their dowsing abilities to help with unsolved police cases, etc… I questioned him about “permissions”, as this is a big aspect of dowsing – (May I, Can I, Should I?) permission from the powers that be and the universe, permission of the persons here you are attempting to help, permissions of landowners or other involved parties. He had brought up a couple cases of missing persons, and I had asked him specifically if the family or police had asked him to become involved in the case, and he said no, he’d just acquired one of the “missing persons” posters that had been posted someplace and thought he’d try to help – and assumed the police wanted help to. To me this just wasn’t right, and I cautioned about doing more harm then good to further the cause for psychic/dowsing involvment in such things, especially delivering erratic information to the family or police.
Well, I was shot down pretty quickly (the audience groaned!), and I don’t think he understood my points – exactly what you are making here about belief systems, and that you can’t push your beliefs onto those who don’t want them. Long story made short – after class I ended up having a conversation with another Master Dowser whom I respect greatly, and he agreed with me that permissions from all are always necessary.
The best thing that spawned from this conversation with the other Master Dowser however, was the thought that maybe we should be offering more classes on ethics, and nothing but ethics. I had taken a few workshops where dowsing ethics had been discussed as a small part of the program, but my feeling is that there are many who have no clue as to what is ethical or not – just like in society in general.
Intention is everything.September 6, 2006 at 4:28 pm #108178daz ukParticipant
I feel awfull for sylvia the poor womans only trying to go through the alphabet in titles for her books, she has enough on her plate has it is with the letters q y z and x, i for one hopes she achieves her goal only last week i completed the wall papering of the back room of my home having removed the pages of all her books todate, and with future titles of sylvias to come i hope one day to complete decoration throughout the home .lol;) . on a serious note i agree with most of what has been posted we all suffer from ego at stages of our lives in various ways, for some mediums the ego and maybe pushy agents is in my opinion refering to pams original post, explains in part their knowingly being active in unethical mediumship practises, one can only hope the genuine ones among them learn to refrain from such practises as they go on through lifes journey.:wave:September 6, 2006 at 6:01 pm #108180LADreamrParticipant
But one can’t assume to know someone’s agenda. Maybe what one person sees as an ego problem is really just that person trying to help. I think it’s best not to assume we know what others’ motives are.September 6, 2006 at 6:37 pm #108182
Before embarking further into this discussion, I think it’s important to note for purposes of clarity and honesty, that Sarah, LADreamr has written and self-published a book of what she claims are channelled messages from 9/11 vicitms, without first seeking the permission of the vicitm’s families. Our guidelines against commercial ads (and other issues) prevent us from advertising that book here.
Let me go back to my original post.
I think that respect is probably the foundation of ethics
We’re here to discuss and exchange ideas, to express ourselves and hopefully learn from one another in the process. We’re here to find new ways of seeing and thinking, and by attempting to examine the intent of what some perceive as harmful actions, we are simply trying to understand our world and the people who live in it, a little more.
You’ve stepped into my virtual living room to take part in this conversation. I respectfully ask that you help me understand your point of view. Please answer my burning question:
What specifically makes your need to publish this information a higher priority or of higher value than the privacy of the individual and family members of the innocent victims, or more important than the emotional state of the surviving loved ones, who may not hold the same belief system? Are you respecting your own need to publish more than that the privacy, beliefs and emotional feelings of the surviviors?September 7, 2006 at 12:23 am #108208JBannisterParticipant
Well Pam, once again I am reminded why I have been coming around here for so long. You are a class act. It is both rare – and a pleasure to see and know someone with your ethics, and your willingness to stand by them.
As to some peoples motivation being only “to help” – well, I must say this. Some acts are just inexcusable for any reason. The insensitivity of anyone displaying such an act reeks of a self-serving motive, and claiming otherwise rings false with deafening loudness.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.