This is topic Hillary meets Hatch over posthumous baptisms in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023343

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
Not to reopen an old debate, but I read this in the newspaper this morning and thought it might be of some interest.

Apparently there are several Jewish groups that are up in arms over the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism, particularly with regards to Holocaust victims.

New York Times

Salt Lake Tribune

Jerusalem Post

1010 Wins (this is a little more complete article)

It seems there was an agreement in 1995 that the church would stop the practice with regards to Holocaust victims, but evidence has shown they have not.

It's getting to the point where the church may be sued, and Hillary Clinton went to have a private meeting with Orrin Hatch regarding the matter. (Though neither of them will comment on what was said)

[ April 11, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: StallingCow ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
The Church did agree to stop doing this in 95, and it's told its members not to, but you can't check all the names submitted to be sure that they aren't victims of the Holocust, and unfortunatly, some members are not following that directive and acting against the Church's instructions.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I know little about this issue, but what possible legal steps do they think they could take?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
So what happens, then, if a lawsuit happens?

Could the entire church be culpable for the actions of a few? I'm totally ignorant of the legal ramifications of this - it seems as though the church has discouraged the practice, though it hasn't guaranteed that it would stop.

What would it take for the church to pass some sort of edict prohibiting the posthumous baptism of any Jews killed in the Holocaust? And, if such a thing were passed, would it be accepted and followed?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

but you can't check all the names submitted to be sure that they aren't victims of the Holocust

---

Really? I'm no computer expert, but there are lists of names of Holocaust victims -- how hard would it be or long would it take to have a computer check all submitted names against such a list?

If it's so easy for Jewish groups to find Holocaust victims added to the proxy list, why is it so difficult for the Church to do so?

I hate to say this, but it feels like the Church has a lack of motivation to put in the effort. I don't necessarily see it as an issue of arrogance. But regardless of what the motivation is, it is a problem.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I'm not sure about the actual wording of the agreement, should there be a lawsuit I'm sure it would be over that. I sincerly hope that there is no way a real case could be made in which the Church was told to stop practicing proxy baptisms. I can understand the sentiment against the idea, but legally there's just no way that can hold water.

So like I said, should a case be brought, I'm rather sure it would be about a breach of contract, and the outcome would depend on the wording of the contract and on that... I'm factless.

The Church has already agreed to stop doing these particular baptisms, I hope that the reason the edict is not being followed is simple ignorance of it, or something like that. If the Prophet says something, the Church should follow. Certainly not all will, but normally when a member stops following the Prophet, they leave the Church (and once they do this of course they will not be doing any proxy baptisms).

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
(rivka get on aim)
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Rivka, I don't actually know this so don't take it as fact, but what I would assume is that after all this reasearch (like the type that sparked these articles) such a database check has been made, and those who were found were removed (as they said they would), but they aren't going to spend lots of effort and time making sure that every new name found from the Holocaust does not match a name on there database. In other words, that effort has been put in (it seems to be) but it's true, the Church will not spend excessive recources or time making sure they've taken every single name of the list.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I suspect that may be what it comes down to -- how much effort the Church feels is reasonable versus how much other groups do.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
It's quite possible, and I have to say that at that point there will be no agreement because the Church views each prozy baptism as the opporunity for someone to enter into a necessary covenant with God, and everyone else views it as at best, ineffectual.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Understood. But to some of us, it's quite a bit more problematic than "ineffectual."
 

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
Is there any legitimacy to the rights of the dead not to be baptised? I mean, there are laws against disturbing graves, but that's physical. Is there anything in the law regarding treatment of a dead person's name or reputation?

As in, can you slander someone who is already dead? Or take other legal action against them?

I know in France there was recently a posthumous marriage, and currently there's proceedings in New York regarding a posthumous divorce - all based on wishes stated while a person was living.

If a person wishes not to be baptised in life, I can't imagine it's legal to do so - it would be violating their rights. But, do these wishes carry on after death? I mean, a person can put into their will that they want to be cremated, and that is legally binding (or at least up to courts to decide). Can that same person declare that they do not want to be posthumously baptised?

The trouble is that this is a belief issue. The government can't just tell the Mormon's what they can and can't do when it comes to spiritual matters. This is an interesting case, though, because this particular practice is not centered on members of the Mormon faith, but on non-Members.

Is there some validity to the statement "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose"?

When does protecting one religion's practices infringe on the beliefs of another?

This is really sticky. Are there any lawyers that might be able to shed some light?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Frankly, the agreement does not sound legally enforceable. I can't seem to find the text of it anywhere, but gratuitous promises (promises not backed by some form of consideration) are generally not enforceable. Frankly, the idea of a court ordering someone to stop a religious ceremony where no physical harm exists gives me the heebie-jeebies.

That's not to say people shouldn't keep their word, including the LDS Church, but getting the law involved would be a hugely bad idea here for lots of reasons.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I know Rivka, that's why I said "at best". I have to admit to still having no understanding as to why it's an actual problem, as opposed to an annoyance (as in, why it really matters all that much). However, I remember all to well that last thread we had on this a year ago or so and so I'm not going to really ask I guess... if that makes sense...

SC, the Church forbids members to baptise by proxy anyone who specifcally forbids it in life. So though the hypothetical question itself is still valid, hoepfully it wont be a real issue in and of itself. (Not the use of the word "hopefully").

Hobbes

[ April 11, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
There is already an agreement, Hobbes, even though it's probably not legally enforceable.
The only question is: does the Church think its word is worth keeping.

And collating the two data sets is a matter of minutes in both programming and computer time.
Pleading difficulty is at best disingenuous.

[ April 11, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

There is already an agreement, Hobbes, the only question is whether the Church thinks its word is worth keeping.

---

When did I say there wasn't?

quote:

---

And collating the two data sets is a matter of minutes in both programming and computer time. Pleading difficulty is at best disingenuous.

---

I would be interested in hearing a more detailed account of the records are stored and what steps have been taking to remove the un-sanctioned ones. Until then I'd feel uneasy critizing either side.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, my (limited) understanding is that if a family member submits the name of an ancestor, that name will NOT be deleted from the list even if the person happens to be a Holocaust victim. Is that correct?

If so, collating the lists is NOT a matter of minutes.
In fact, anyone who's tried to match names across different databases will tell you it's never just a matter of minutes to do such collations.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to say "it's very important to us!" and yet also say "but why does it matter to you?"

My post in the thread a year ago (my first post ever on Hatrack) is still there. *checks* Um, no, it's fallen off the board.

So I'll repeat my main points regarding this issue, and then let it drop.

Many Jews over the last 2000 years have chosen death rather than be baptized. I believe that actions in this world do affect those in the next. So I do consider proxy baptisms harmful.

I also understand that LDS do not. Hence the impasse.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

It seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to say "it's very important to us!" and yet also say "but why does it matter to you?"

---

Rivka, what I meant was that I simply don't understand the why. Your response helped, but the point of my statment wasn't that it doesn't, or it shouldn't be taken into account, just that I simply didn't understand.

I don't really think that statment is inconisistent, I know it matters to me, and I do not know enough to understand why it matters to you.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Fair enough.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 

quote:

---

but they aren't going to spend lots of effort and time making sure that every new name found from the Holocaust does not match a name on there database. In other words, that effort has been put in (it seems to be) but it's true, the Church will not spend excessive recources or time making sure they've taken every single name of the list.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I recently read a biography of Alma Rosé, the Jewish woman who was conductor of the women's orchestra at Auschwitz. (She died in the camp.) Last night, I searched the IGI and found her name--twice. So is her mother Justine Mahler Rosenblum, the sister of the noted Austrian-Jewish composer, Gustav Mahler, who is also in the IGI. Either Alma Rosé was posthumously baptized after 1995...

---

quote:

---

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.

---

This is the root of the problem - it doesn't say who will do the identifying nor promise any particular effort in the identifying. Typical passive voice problem. Also, "if they are known to be improperly included" would seem to put the burden of proof on the person desiring removal, since someone would have to examine records to be sure they're name wasn't added by a descendent.

Dagonee
Edit: By the way, I don't want anyone thinking I'm taking sides - I'm a fairly disinterested outsider. I just don't want to see courts brought into religion any more than is necessary.

[ April 11, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Dag, that isn't the wording of the agreement - that's a summary I got from a website. I imagine that the actual agreement is more carefully worded - it's not like we Jews don't have any competent lawyers to represent us.

Also, the people to be removed have been murdered. This agreement was entered into by people acting for them. Why do they have any burden? They didn't put themselves on the index and nor did they ask to be put on the index or even consent to be put on.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But if a Holocaust victim was placed on the registry by a descendant who converted, then I don't think LDS would agree to remove their name. And judging by how seriously they take this, I would think they would err on the side of leaving someone on the list, not taking it off. That is, there would need to be a showing that the person who sponsored them (I don't know the correct term) did not have standing to do so.

Regardless, the threat of legal action strikes me as absurd in this situation.

Dagonee
Edit: And it's not a question of competent representation - it's a question of compromise. Which means the Jewish groups probably did not get everything they wanted.

[ April 11, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
I'm not sure I understand the POV of the LDS Church. If you believe that baptism is the difference between (eternal) life & death, why would you deny 6 million potential souls in order to appear politically correct?

In other news, voodoo artists are officially granted my permission to stab Richard dolls.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
Perhaps what the Jewish community finds most offensive about this is that when the LDS church baptizes someone posthumously, they have someone assume the identity of the deceased like a role in a play. That can be very offensive to people with strong family or ancestrally-related religious values. I assume Shintoists probably have even a worse beef with the LDS over this than the Jews.

[ April 11, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Richard,

There are billions of souls who either lived without any record or whose records were destroyed. In those cases where we are unable to baptise someone for whatever reason, we believe that there will be a chance during the Millenium when the communication between heaven and earth will be more direct. In that case, those people will be able to request the baptism. If they don't want it, it won't be performed.

As a result, Dagonee, the LDS would be more likely to take a name off the list than keep it on. There will be time and opportunity enough to accomplish all that we need, but we are required to do work this now, to the best of our ability and with respect to other people and religions.

[ April 11, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Richard, the church agreeing not to baptize certain people reminds me somewhat of the decision to stop polygamy or not try to build "Zion" in Independance Missouri. The belief is that all these things will be worked out eventually in their own due time. The leaders of the church are interested in living peacably with others enough to sacrifice things that are so important with the understanding that the proper time will come, if they are meant to be fulfilled.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
You must also remember that if Alma Rose has an LDS descendent, that could get her on the IGI. The descendent would do their geneology and put it in.

Also, being in the IGI, if I understand correctly, does not necessarily mean that one has been baptised. It is also considered a public service and is freely accessible by anyone so that anyone could search their own geneology. I'm not sure, but I believe you can enter in a request that the temple work not be done for a person.

And why is it Hillary talking to Orrin Hatch and not someone Jewish?

[ April 11, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
I think Clinton is representing her large Jewish constituency, and Hatch the LDS leadership in his state.

I'm curious what kind of "legal action" they're anticipating.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Here is the problem: I don't think the LDS church organization can be held responesible for the actions of members who disregard its directives. Just because there are commandments that Mormons do keep that seperate them from the general populace (Word of Wisdom, modest clothing) doesn't mean that they follow everything lockstep.

A good example is the numerous times we are told to only use church materials or something you yourself prepared when teaching in church. And yet I have personal experience of many times when other materials are used, and I know exactly where to get such materials. The biggest offenders are typically in the primary, where they like to use the cutesy pictures and canned object lessons. Or worse, Living Scripture cartoons have been shown in primary. No offense to our host, who wrote the script for the particular video, but I don't think he meant for this to happen.

The point: the directive against using materials other than those approved by the church curriculum is constantly broken either through ignorance, laziness, or just plain rebelliousness.

There are plenty of people who would rebel against such a directive, for the reasons Richard Berg stated. They may even consider themselves to be 'more righteous' by breaking such an order, because they are doing what God really intends. But this ignores two tenents in the statements of our belief called The Articles of Faith: that we believe men are free to worship how, where, or what they may and that we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Since we believe that everything evenutally will be taken care of, it also shows a lack of faith in God on the part of those who chose not to follow such a church directive. The religious offense to Jews is far more harmful that the baptism by proxy is beneficial to them.
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
I wonder if the Jewish lobby's complaints are limited to Holocaust victims, or will be expanded to Jews in general? Considering it wasn't the Mormons who staffed Auschwitz, I don't see a difference spiritual or otherwise. In other words, the arguments put forward in those articles seem to apply to everyone who died in the Jewish faith.

Offensiveness knows no bounds, it seems. Most athiests aren't bothered by street preachers telling them they're going to a [bad] place they don't believe in, yet guiding people to a [good] place their descendents don't believe in (thousands of miles away, without broadcasting said intention) is cause for lawsuits...

So yeah, I have no opinion on these matters. Humans are strange.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I do not intend the following to be a trolling post. This will probably come across as offensive. Again, not necessarily my intent.

If someone baptised me after I am dead, I would hope that my ghost comes back to seriously torment the self-centered jerk who baptised me.
That feeling would probably be multiplied by an order of magnitude for those who died for their beliefs, and I can imagine how painful it might be for surviving family members to hear that one of their relatives was baptised posthumously.
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
That reminds me of another discussion I was having. If you're in a POW camp, do you believe it's "torture" for them to tell you that your family is dead?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
It seems Mormons, as well as all other Christian faiths around the world, have yet to admit that they hold an extremely insulting and practically hateful view of the Jewish faith.

And before you start trying to defend it, let me explain why I'm calling this hateful instead of merely insulting.

As I've already pointed out in another thread discussing the Cross at Auschwitz, Christians use their own view of the godhead in their dealings with other faiths, to the point of refusing the point of view of others. However, this difference is more pointedly so when it comes to dealing with Judaism, because it's not just that Christians think that the Jewish faith is incorrect, but that they are incomplete. That they still have yet to see the proverbial light.

But that's not hateful, that's just religious bigotry.

The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry, when someone defiles the life of someone's faith by performing a rite that the dead person never agreed to in life. It's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves, claiming that this negates the dead person's faith. It's even more hateful when it's done "for their own good." When their deaths are made "right" according to belief that the dead did not follow. After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs.

And that's what this is, there is no excuse. No religion has the right to infringe on another in this way. It wasn't right when Mormons were treated in such an indignant fashion and driven away from their homes, and it's not right for the Mormon church, or any of those within it, to do the exact same thing to another faith. And that's what is happening. Either the Mormon Church should publically apologize for this transgression, or it must excommunicate those who are still performing this hateful act.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
There's that 'b' word again. When all else fails, and you don't agree with someone, call them a bigot. That's how things work at Hatrack.

quote:

---

It wasn't right when Mormons were treated in such an indignant fashion and driven away from their homes, and it's not right for the Mormon church, or any of those within it, to do the exact same thing to another faith. And that's what is happening.

---

quote:

---

It wasn't right when Mormons were treated in such an indignant fashion and driven away from their homes, and it's not right for the Mormon church, or any of those within it, to do the exact same thing to another faith.

---

quote:

---

Ahem. There's a big difference between driving someone from their home (violence), and performing silly voodoo rituals in the privacy of your own temple.

---

quote:

---

Ghandi claimed that Jesus, Allah, Shiva, etc. were all part of a beautiful global expression of faith. In other words, that being partial to Christianity alone was "incomplete." Should Americans be offended?

---

quote:

---

From the Jewish point of view, the souls of their ancestors are undisturbed, because they don't believe in the Mormon heaven. From the Mormon point of view, the souls are saved. From the law's point of view, nothing happened at all. Best of all worlds.

---

quote:

---

Apparently, it must also include an inherent ignorance of other faiths, if you truly feel you know what you're talking about with regard to Ghandi's words.

---

quote:

---

That wasn't my POV. It was my application of your logic onto Ghandi's words. I think you are perverting LDS theology in the same fashion.

---

quote:

---

You mean "Should Christians be offended?"

---

quote:

---

This is a forum owned, run, and majorly populated by those of the Mormon faith

---

quote:

---

And before you start trying to defend it...

---

Yes, I can't imagine why anyone would have a knee-jerk reaction to your post.

quote:

---

However, this difference is more pointedly so when it comes to dealing with Judaism, because it's not just that Christians think that the Jewish faith is incorrect, but that they are incomplete. That they still have yet to see the proverbial light.

But that's not hateful, that's just religious bigotry.

---

quote:

---

The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry, when someone defiles the life of someone's faith by performing a rite that the dead person never agreed to in life. It's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves, claiming that this negates the dead person's faith. It's even more hateful when it's done "for their own good." When their deaths are made "right" according to belief that the dead did not follow. After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs.

---

I don't think Mormons claim that posthumous baptisms 'negate' the deceased's faith. I think the belief is, they must voluntarily accept it either living or dead. The corporeal stand-in is, I think, a result of the belief that the physical rights of baptism must be performed for the baptism to have any spiritual 'oomph'. And it was nice of you to refrain from equating Mormons to Nazis for five whole paragraphs. Again, I can't imagine why anyone might have a knee-jerk reaction to your post.

My thoughts in this post hinge on my understanding that posthumous baptism are still voluntary; that is, Mormons believe that those who are dead are not forcibly baptized. I'm only a very new Mormon myself, though, so I can't be sure-I expect there are people here who know the answer to that question.

J4
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

I really don't want to debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice itself - we did that to death last year, and it got ugly. Talk of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, etc, etc, only serve to get people upset and angry.

---

quote:

---

In all these cases, the living wishes of the deceased are taken into account. Now, I know the Mormon church will not proxy baptize anyone with relatives who object, but they also don't seek out those relatives. Also, if a single member of the family is Mormon and decides to proxy baptize their entire lineage, what recourse do the other family members have?

---

quote:

---

Bull. Show me where I attempted to interpret LDS theology in this thread. You're backpedaling to cover your ignorance. I'm saying that the LDS church has no right to do this to the dead of those not of their faith. It's insulting, arrogant, and hateful. I've explained why. No one has yet to explain how it is not. Instead, you just personally attack me.

---

Well, I do know that Mormons believe good people of all faiths are pleasing to God, and that good non-Mormons can still return to God and, even if they never convert, still attain one level or another of heaven. While you certainly did not say those things aren't true, the spirit of your words certainly leads to that conclusion.

I'll admit the practice of posthumous baptism could be considered arrogant, ignorant, and / or insulting. But hateful? Maybe some people view Mormons who do this with hatred, but I would disagree that those Mormons doing it are doing so out of hatred.

I think you're spelling Gandhi wrong, though I've seen it both ways

And I really do think when you start equating people with Nazis, John, some people will take it personally and attack you. I think your surprise and indignation at that is disingenuous.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
I haven't called any single person a name. Like I already said, bigotry is defined as:

quote:

---

big·ot·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-tr)
n.
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

---

quote:

---

While you certainly did not say those things aren't true, the spirit of your words certainly leads to that conclusion.

---

quote:

---

And I really do think when you start equating people with Nazis, John, some people will take it personally and attack you. I think your surprise and indignation at that is disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry, when someone defiles the life of someone's faith by performing a rite that the dead person never agreed to in life. It's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves, claiming that this negates the dead person's faith. It's even more hateful when it's done "for their own good." When their deaths are made "right" according to belief that the dead did not follow. After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs.

---

quote:

---

You conveniently ignored my point about your religious stereotyping based on a single example, I noticed.

---

quote:

---

I'm currently doing working on a pseudo-academic essay/thesis (I'm not doing it for a grade, and I'm not a grad student... yet) discussing the ubiquitous attitudes that have indelibly influenced Western civilization, and how that influence has impacted relations not only with other cultures, both in the Western world and other regions of the world. It's going to mostly be based on historical information, but not the "old style" of listing separate dates and names in lieu of the "new style" of addressing whys and hows and putting them into some outward perspetive. It's an incredible task, and I wouldn't even be attempting it if I wasn't going to be doing it with some people far more qualified than I am. Still, I'll probably constantly be looking for more reference (for all of you lay theologians and religious historians).

One of the sources has me faccinated because of something that's been bumping around in my head on an unrelated subject. It has to do with something I read in James Carroll's Constantine's Sword, which is one of two books I'm currently grabbing some notes from. Here are some of the passages, beginning with some setting:

quote:

---

In 1979, Karol Wojtyla came home to nearby Krakow as Pope John Paul II. He celebrated Mass in an open field for a million of his countrymen, and on a makeshift altar this same cross had been mounted—hence its size, large enough to prompt obeisance from the farthest member of the throng. Visiting the death camp, the Pope prayed for and to Father Kolbe, who had voluntarily taken the place of a fellow inmate in the death bunker. The Pope prayed for and to Edith Stein, the convert who had also died in the camp, and whom he would declare a Catholic saint in 1998. She was a Carmelite nun known as Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, but the Nazis murdered her for being a Jew. In his sermon, the Pope called Auschwitz the “Golgotha of the modern world.” As he had at other times, John Paul II expressed the wish that a place of prayer and penance could be built at the site of the death camp to honor the Catholic martyrs and to atone for the murders...

---

That basically puts some context into the rest of what I'll be quoting.

quote:

---

I thought of the Pope’s designation of this place as Golgotha, and I recognized the ancient Christian impulse to associate extreme evil with the fate of Jesus, precisely as a way of refusing to be defeated by that evil. At the Golgotha of the crucifixion, death became the necessary mode of transcendence, first for Jesus and then, as Christians believe, for all. But I also thought of that banner, “Do Not Christianize Auschwitz and Shoah!” Can mechanized mass murder be a mode of transcendence? I could imagine the narrowed eyes of a Jewish protester as he detected in prayers offered before the cross at Auschwitz echoes of the old refrain “Jews out!”—only now was it Jewish anguish that was expected to yield before Christian hope? If Auschwitz must stand for Jews as the abyss in which meaning itself died, what happens when Auschwitz becomes the sanctuary of someone else’s recovered piety?

---

And this is the complications, where differing points of view start creating conflicts.

quote:

---

Perhaps the voice a troubled Christian most needs to hear is that of the Jew who says the Holocaust must be made to teach nothing. “What consequences, then, are to be drawn from the Holocaust?” asks the theologian Jacob Neuser. “I argue that none are to be drawn, none for the Jewish theology and none for the Jews with one another, which were not there before 1933. Jewish theologians do no good service to believers when they claim that ‘Auschwitz’ denotes a turning point.” That voice is useful because if Jewish responses to the Holocaust, which range from piety to nihilism, are complex and multifaceted, Christian interpretations of the near elimination of Jews from Europe, however respectfully put forth, must inevitably be more problematic. The cross signifies the problem: When suffering is seen to serve a universal plan for salvation, its particular character as tragic and evil is always diminished. The meaningless can be made to shimmer with an eschatological hope, and at Auschwitz this can seem like blasphemy.

But what about an effort less ambitious than the search for meaning or the imposition of theology? What if the cross at Auschwitz is an object before which Christians only want to kneel and pray? And, fully aware of what happened there, what if we Christians want to pray for the Jews? Why does that offend? How can prayers for the dead be a bad thing? But what if such prayers, offered with good intentions, effectively evangelize the dead? What if they imply that the Jews who died at Auschwitz are to be ushered into the presence of God by the Jesus whom they rejected? Are the Jews then expected to see at last the truth to which, all their lives, they had been blind? Seeing that truth in the beatific vision, are they then to bow down before Jesus the Messiah in an act of postmortem conversion? Shall the afterlife thus be judenrein too? Elie Wiesel tells “a joke which is not funny.” It concerns an SS officer whose torment of a Jew consisted in his pretending to shoot the Jew dead, firing a blank, while simultaneously knocking him unconscious. When the Jew regained consciousness, the Nazi told him, “You are dead, but you don’t know it. You think that you escaped us? We are your masters, even in the other world.” Wiesel comments, “What the Germans wanted to do to the Jewish people was to substitute themselves for the Jewish God.” Here is the question a Christian must ask: Does our assumption about redemptive meaning of suffering, tied to the triumph of Jesus Christ and applied to the Shoah, inevitably turn every effort to atone for the crimes of the Holocaust into a claim to be the masters of Jews in the other world?

---

Of course, the first answer (for that final question) to spring to mind is an emphatic "of course not!" However, what if it's not an overt or even intentional effort? What if it's the result of centuries upon centuries of pointed doctrine, starting with the separation of Paul from traditional Hebrew law? However, it isn't individuals like Paul or Luther that are what Carroll is directly referring to here. Instead, he's talking about how tragedy and grief is both viewed and handled by each faith, and how it addresses them differently.

quote:

---

Even when the cross of Jesus Christ is planted at Auschwitz as a sign of Christian atonement for that hatred, and not anti–Jewish accusation, the problem remains. By associating the Jewish dead with a Christian notion of redemption, are the desperate and despised victims of the Nazis thus transformed into martyrs whose fate could seem not only meaningful but privileged? What Jew would not be suspicious of a Christian impulse to introduce that category, martyrdom, into the story of the genocide? Jews as figures of suffering—negation, denial, hatred, guilt—are at the center of this long history, although always, until now, their suffering was proof of God’s rejection of them. Is Jewish suffering now to be taken as a sign of God’s approval? Golgotha of the modern world—does that mean real Jews have replaced Jesus as the sacrificial offering, their deaths as the source of universal salvation? Does this Jew-friendly soteriology turn full circle into the new rationale for a Final Solution?

Uneasiness with such association has prompted some Jews to reject the very word “holocaust” as applied to the genocide, since in Greek it means “burnt offering.” The notion that God would accept such an offering is deeply troubling. When the genocide is instead referred to as Shoah, a Hebrew word meaning “catastrophe,” a wall is being erected against consolations and insults of a redemptive, sacrificial theology of salvation. Shoah, in its biblical usage, points to the absence of God’s creative hovering, the opposite of which is rendered as “ruach.” Ruach is the breath of God, which in Genesis drew order out of chaos. Shoah is its undoing.

---

Not counting things like belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, this has to be an incredible difference in outlook between the faiths that is rarely, if ever, properly addressed. It's a common Christian motif to turn tragedy, even when performed by the worst of evil, into the benevolent and intentional plan of the creator. It's the most regular part of apologetics that is taught even the young or budding Christian: why do bad things happen to good people? The thing is, such a view partially marginalizes the significance of the evil performed, as well as the tragedy of the victims. Granted, it is intellectually possible to have both the "God's plan" view and still sympathize greatly with the victims and recognize the evil for what it is. However, the honest truth is that the great majority of people—even smart people—do not. It's not even that the views that he describes some Jewish theologians or groups as having are that incomprehensible. In fact, I'd say they are generally easy to sympathize with. It's that this is generally viewed as something one doesn't want to do, instead choosing to turn it into a triumph of sorts, when taken in the Christian point of view.

quote:

---

What is the relationship of ancient Christian hatred of Jews to the twentieth century murderous hatred that produced the death camps? The cross need not be labeled as the cause of the Holocaust for the link to be felt. When can that link be seen for what it is? What does it mean when Christians as well as Jews are jolted by the imposition, across two thousand years, of the name “Golgotha” on the place called Auschwitz? What is going on here? I asked myself that November day, standing before the cross. And I ask it still.

---

I actually found myself asking similar questions after watching "The Passion of the Christ" this past Sunday. The movie, while I don't think is meant to be outwardly antisemitic, definitely embraces some of those ideas and misconceptions regarding the points of view of the different cultures involved in what can easily be argued as the single most pivotal incident in the last two millenia. And while this situation with the cross at Auschwitz is based more on the Roman Catholic church, other Christian faiths are not exempt from inclusion. The Eastern Orthodox church has had its own share of pogroms. All of the antisemitic groups that exist today in the US (and some abroad) embrace various Protestant doctrines. There is no group in the history of the last two thousand years that has experienced more adversity and hardship at the hands of so many other cultures than the Jews, and yet there is still far too little done to actually understand them outside of the context of "descendants of people who killed Jesus." It's really astounding.

And this isn't meant so much as an accusation as it is a "Why? How? What (things) caused this?" These are the adequate questions to work toward a solution (and a better understanding).

---

quote:

---

No, you didn't say, "They're like the Nazis!" But your indignation at people being offended by those words...well, I think it's unreasonable. People get upset when you equate them or a part of their beliefs to Nazi-ism, which is what you've done.

---

quote:

---

And I still don't think posthumous baptism is intolerant. Unless Mormons believe the dead person is forcibly baptized, even if they don't want it, then I will continue to disagree.

---

quote:

---

I still don't see how that definition fits into LDS/Christian disagreement with Jewish theology.

As said before, the proxy baptism is seen as presenting a choice. Not forcing anything.

---

quote:

---

This is not a single incident, nor is it even a single incident from a single Christian church. It's been going on for centuries, and the LDS Church is just chiming in right along with all the rest. This is just yet another example of it. Weren't you the one who pulled the whole "read my other posts!" card with me? How ironic.

---

quote:

---

Yet Christianity has a zero tolerance for it. Apparently, it must also include an inherent ignorance of other faiths, if you truly feel you know what you're talking about with regard to Ghandi's words.

---

quote:

---

In other words, we've already rejected baptism. Someone said "Its not forced, presumably the dead can walk away from it." Well, great, can I cirucmsize you? I mean, we can get you on the table and start the ceremony, and we'll go through with it, so you'll have to fight to get away...

---

quote:

---

No, Cow. It's not. If the agreement is as all of the articles seem to say, it's a breach of contract.

---

quote:

---

Not what I asked.
CAn we do it now? Not by proxy?

---

quote:

---

Dag, we're getting back on topic.

Please don't drag this off into the sunset again.

---

quote:

---

Even religious practices which infringe on the religions of others? Because that's what this is, an act that infringes on the religion of others without even asking the relatives of those it infringes upon. It breaks its own contract while it infringes upon people without ever asking for their acceptance.

---

quote:

---

Even religious practices which infringe on the religions of others? Because that's what this is, an act that infringes on the religion of others without even asking the relatives of those it infringes upon.

---

Religions do this all the time, though. Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved? What if my religion says that no one should have the right to do that? Tough. I'm not being hurt by it, and if I take offense, it's my fault for being offended where no offense was intended.
 

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
(Dag, you don't have to, and I didn't ask you to. Just trying to focus on the topic at hand.)

I'm curious, outside of this agreement, if a case could be made in general, with regards to posthumous rights.

It was mentioned that proving living wishes is problematic and damn near impossible, unless it was written somewhere. But, if it *is* written somewhere by the deceased, might that not be a legal barrier against this practice?

I know last year it was discussed that your living wishes don't matter to the Mormon church, for a number of reasons. First, it's not a forced thing, so you can always reject it again. But mainly because you might change your mind after death, in their belief.

But, from a legal standpoint, I'd think there's more of an issue regarding living wishes. The government can't make a statement like "you can change your mind after you're dead". It has to go on living wishes.

And, even if it's not in his will, I can't imagine someone like Elie Weisel would take kindly to the thought of being baptised by proxy after death.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Well since this argument already had gotten heated I'm going to ask my question and hope it doesn't get worse. :-/

In the Jewish faith, does the actual act of proxy baptism make any difference at all to the deceased? I'm not asking if it's offensive, clearly plenty of people think it is, I mean, does it actually change what happens to that person in the after life? I admit to being rather ignorant of the Jewish concept of after life so I can't really get more specific.

I guess what I don't get is that it seems to me that the Jewish faith would certainly say that those preforming the proxy baptism have no power that other men (and women) don't have when it comes to influencing the afterlife, nor do the words spoken nor the actions preformed. What is it about the ceremony that would cause someone's soul to be negativly affected after death?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Hey, Jon, can I say that your faith was wrong and irrelevant in life, and that now you must make a choice after death according to rules my belief sets forth, not by what yours do? Is it okay if hundreds, thousands, or more people do this to LDS dead on a regular basis? Is it okay if we do it to your ancestors?

---

quote:

---

And if so, does that mean you expect every other faith in the world to abide by your decision? Does that mean you expect other faiths of the world decide according to your faith, and not their own? Because that's what proxy baptisms do to non-Mormon dead.

---

quote:

---

And even more of an insult is that there are curches of the LDS faith that are defying a contract made by its leaders to stop such behavior, which means not just a philosophical insult, but a legal insult as well.

---

quote:

---

Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved?

---

quote:

---

Out of Mormonism
Tools for reaching LDS (Mormons) with the true Christian Gospel.

---

I'm amused.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

Religions do this all the time, though. Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved? What if my religion says that no one should have the right to do that? Tough. I'm not being hurt by it, and if I take offense, it's my fault for being offended where no offense was intended.

---

quote:

---

I'm comparing the disregard to Jewish life during the Holocaust to the disregard to the dead of the proxy baptisms. That you continue to read between some nonexistant lines is indicative of your own problem, not what I'm actually saying.

---

quote:

---

And that completely disregards the point of view of those who are not Mormons, and do not want their lives, nor the lives of their ancestors, toyed with without consideration for the faith and lives of people after they are dead, no matter what decisions are made by the dead. As far as Judaism is concerned there is no afterlife in the sense that the LDS do, so it's a slap in the proverbial face from the start.

---

quote:

---

It's forcing those of other faiths to abide by theological "rules" of afterlife, when the different faith has a completely different outlook of death than the LDS church does. It is forcing in that it is putting the life and death of a person in a perspective and role outside of the faith to which they belonged, disregarding that life and faith in lieu of the LDS point of view. It's not just arrogant, it's demanding the dead make a choice they should not have to, because their faith in life did not work according to LDS theology.

---

What nonsense is this? If the Jews are right, posthumous baptisms don't even reach the dead*! If the Jews are right, then Mormons are just chanting some rites in temples with some actors and some genealogical records!

Why can't people say, "They're wrong, what do I care what they do?" and have done with it? That's what I would do. If I die, and someone from the Nation-of-Islam or a Shinto-ist performs some rites for me, using a stand-in and my full name, why would I be upset? I don't think they're right about where I go when I die, I don't think that their rites will in any way forcibly affect my posthumous destiny, and in fact I'm doubtful as to whether or not I'll even hear them.

Let me reiterate, though, that since the LDS Church has promised not to do this, it should institute rapid and effective preventative reforms, as well as punishing any and all who continue posthumous baptism of Holocaust Jews-or anyone to whom the LDS Church has made such a promise.

-----

Paul,

quote:

---

In other words, we've already rejected baptism. Someone said "Its not forced, presumably the dead can walk away from it." Well, great, can I cirucmsize you? I mean, we can get you on the table and start the ceremony, and we'll go through with it, so you'll have to fight to get away...

---

quote:

---

Presumably, we've made our choices during life. We shouldn't be forced into making those choices again by self-centered jerks who think that its going to make me happy to be forced into a baptism ceremony, even if I'm not "forced" to take baptism. I'm still part of the ceremony.

---

quote:

---

The point is, I doubt a living person would have legal standing to stop a religion from "baptizing" them via proxy, especially if any publication of the event was clear that it was a proxy (so there's no libel issue).

---

quote:

---

And what makes this a legal wronging is that the LDS Church already agreed by contract to stop doing this to Holocaust victims, yet it persists in doing so and has said they will do nothing to end the insult. This may mean nothing to you, but all this is doing is perpetrating the same sins which have been put upon the LDS church in the past.

---

quote:

---

And what makes this a legal wronging is that the LDS Church already agreed by contract to stop doing this to Holocaust victims, yet it persists in doing so and has said they will do nothing to end the insult.
...
The case is clear, it's just a clear civil suit, not a criminal one.

---

Again, you're leaping to conclusions here. We don't know if there's a legally enforceable contract. We don't know if they are actually violating the contract. If this issue is litigated on contractual grounds, it will not be a clear-cut case by any means.

Dagonee

[ April 11, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"And it's ironic that you admit an ignorance of the importance of posthumous baptism to Mormons, but go on to say those Mormons don't actually care about the dead being baptized."

Because the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Its important to THEM to baptize ME, for example? Well, the action being taken is being done to me. If I don't want it, and its important to me that they DON'T and still DO it, then they are acting in exactly the way I said...self centered, and without compassion.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Richard Berg gets my vote for Funniest and Most Sensible Post.

Seriously, if you believe it isn't true, what do you care? It isn't like the names are published in some sort of keeping score column. No one is forced. No one's remains are disturbed. If it isn't true, then that means the Mormons are spending a whole lot of resources on a fruitless endevor instead of, say, missionary work. If you're really that opposed to people that aren't you possibly embracing a gospel you don't believe in, you should be GLAD.

And if it is true, isn't it wonderful?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

Here's the thing: ultimately, I don't regard living people as arbiters for the dead. When I die, I don't want my family or anyone else telling other people what to do or not to do with regards to my soul. I'll worry about that.

---

quote:

---

What nonsense is this? If the Jews are right, posthumous baptisms don't even reach the dead*! If the Jews are right, then Mormons are just chanting some rites in temples with some actors and some genealogical records!

---

quote:

---

What if it's just some wrongheaded nincompoops in a phony temple, performing some ignorant superstitious rites that have no spiritual power whatsoever, and they throw your name in the mix?

---

quote:

---

Sorry I'm derailing...I just don't think there'd be any legal issues at all, unless an actual binding contract was ever printed up and signed.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, if you believe it isn't true, what do you care?

---

quote:

---

Adrian,

What, then, do you think are the requirements necessary to get into Heaven? (Since you mentioned it).

---

Jeff, see John 3:16

Seriously, I am of the opinion that salvation is very easy. He who believes in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life. I believe it is entirely faith-based, not by works.

Some people read certain passages in the Bible and interpet them as baptism being necessary for salvation. I disagree. I think it's an act of obedience. Certainly Jesus didn't get baptized to be saved - he did it out of obedience and love for his father, and his father recognized that by saying "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."

My baptist relatives and I hash this out every now and then, but when it all comes down to it, it's no big deal. Although it did throw me for a loop the day one Southern Baptist told me I'd better pray my children grow up, join a Baptist church and get Baptized so they don't go to hell because we only had them sprinkled as infants.

The way I look at it - the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, right? And, if a man stops in the street and says "Lord, I believe. Forgive my sins, I accept you as my savior" and then gets hit by a bus a second later I expect to meet that man in heaven. I don't think he's hell bound just because he never had the chance to get dunked.

And for the record, it doesn't upset me all that much that my relatives think my children need to be re-baptized, I see it as a doctrinal difference. What would upset me though, is if those same relatives baptised my children or me by proxy against my will. See, there is a difference between just disagreement, and with taking action in someone elses' name.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them."

It is my contention that anyone who didn't take baptism in life, and had the knowledge of baptism, by default did not want to be baptised and does not want to in death.

To assume otherwise is self-centered jerkishness.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Jon:

quote:

---

Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them.

---

quote:

---

The LDS do not even allow non-LDS in their temples in order to keep blasphemy and insult from their institution, and yet the very act of proxy baptism does that very same thing to other faiths. It's called a double-standard. It's called arrogance. It's called justified bigotry (intolerance to other faiths to be allowed the same respect demanded)

---

quote:

---

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

---

quote:

---

I really don't see any double standard here. Other religions frequently practice beliefs that Mormons feel to be blasphemous or incorrect, but do we try to stop them because we feel insulted by it? Of course not. It's their beliefs, and it's their right to practice those beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone.

---

What religions are compiling a list of people of other religions, stating openly that those individuals' religions are insufficient, and recording the ritual where this happens? It may not sound like that's what is happening from your POV, but from the outside, that's definitely what it looks like. That's infinging.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Adrian,

I would not posthumously baptize you, unless sometime in the future you mentioned a change of heart on the issue.

I'm not sure what the Church's stance is on this. (Baptizing people who have clearly said, "Don't do this to me after I'm dead!") But even if the Church's position is, "It's OK even if they say don't," I would not, as a new member, do so.

Now, a relative that's been dead for a long time and has no expressed opinion on the matter? I'm not so sure. I'm going to pose a potentially tangly question. Let's suppose you and I are related. You're not LDS, I am. We've got numerous deceased relations who have expressed no opinion, one way or another, on posthumous baptism. So I do so-what would you do?

J4
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There are entire industries devoted to insulting and "hating on" my religion. For proof, check the bottom of the thread. And their targets are LIVING people. I'm not freaking out because (1) they're wrong, and (2) it's a free country.

According to your logic, John, should I threaten to sue everyone who doesn't believe I'm as right in my religion as I am for disrespecting me?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Jeff, I would voice my protest loudly. Because I don't think one does religious acts in another person's name. Period.

I wouldn't be able to stop you from doing this to our mutual ancestors, obviously, but I would protest it and I would let you know I disagreed with you.

Then we'd have sweet tea and cookies together.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Sweet tea? Not if he's Mormon you wouldn't.

Hobbes

[ April 11, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

I would not posthumously baptize you,

---

quote:

---

Because I don't think one does religious acts in another person's name.

---

quote:

---

has completely disregarded their agreement to cease infringing upon the Jews

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure what the Church's stance is on this.

---

quote:

---

John, do you honestly not see the difference between someone entering our temple illegally and someone preaching against our temple in their own church?

---

quote:

---

You mean the proxy baptisms are just the LDS way to preach against other faiths?

---

John, are you just being contrary for the heck of it? Because you're too smart to think I was saying that.

[ April 11, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think libel applies to dead people.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
It's like they've got on teflon. It keeps slipping off.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
But I think it should

And I don't know if it does. But probably if there's a legal representative, it does. After all, can you really write untrue things about Walt Disney in the papers?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
But we're not saying anything untrue about dead people. We're saying that we've offered them the chance to accept a Mormon baptism in the afterlife.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not libel. But is it okay?

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think libel applies to dead people.

---

quote:

---

I personally make a strong delineation between praying for someone's salvation and standing forth as a proxy to baptize someone against their wishes.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Kat they are not the same thing and I've illustrated why.

---

You've explained why you think they are not the same, and I've explained why I think they are. Apparently neither explanation was definitive.
 

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
Thank you Dag, you've been very helpful with regards to the legal impact of all of this. It's looking more and more to me like this is going to become a political headache, rather than a legal one.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
You do proxy baptisms against people's express wishes, Jon Boy.

There have been people who've said "I do not wish this done after my death" and it was done. The last time we discussed this on hatrack someone posted on the thread that that had happened with their grandmother, IIRC.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
I think one viable legal claim is negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the dead person's close relatives. Of course, if the relatives are the ones requesting it...

For the record, feel free to perform this ceremony for me. I like to hedge my bets.

[ April 12, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Jon Boy: Is it 100% alright for the dog-meat scenario? In what cases? With full permission, without permission, no permission needed for dead folks, relatives grant permission...

I didn't say Baptisms are libel. But I'm trying to draw out the characteristics that are most problematic. For me, part of that is having it written down for posterity. I could be less offended by prayer because it's done on a one-time basis in someone's head or aloud but not recorded. And not public.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No problem. The ramifications are endless and fascinating. It shouldn't be much of a political problem - the people who made the agreement the first time are still in charge, aren't they? I think LDS needs to reinforce their directive, and I think both sides need to set up a repeatable process for reviewing and removing names. And both sides need to acknowledge the others' good intentions. After all, they didn't have to sign the 1995 agreement.

I'd be happy to help set up such a process. Sounds like what my old company used to do.

As a side note, it looks like LDS has the most up-to-date IT infrastructure of any religious institution.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Kat, let's break down your statements and see if they're the same thing.

quote:

---

I baptize you for and in behalf of [blank]."
"I'll pray for you. I'll pray on your behalf."

---

quote:

---

I think one viable legal claim is negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the dead person's close relatives...

---

First, negligent infliction of emotional distress, accept in Hawaii, requires some contempraneous viewing of the death/serious injury of a loved one or reasonable fear for one's own safety. So it won't apply here.

Second, there might be a facial case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. LDS have ample warning this upsets people, given the 1995 agreement. However, as I posted above, the constitutional considerations are very important here. Free speech has been used to limit the right to recover for libel; it seems reasonable that free exercise of religion will limit IIED recovery as well.

Consider this scenario: a preacher on television says all Catholics are going to hell. He's received complaints detailing how these statements are terribly upsetting to certain people (especially children). Assume the sermons are accompanied by brutal images of hell.

Would a Catholic have a cause of action under this scenario? Doubtful. What if Jack Chick followers kept leaving pamphlets under the windshield wipers of cars parked near the local Catholic Church (which implies targeted behavior)?

I think injunctions or damages for such actions are incredibly problematic.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
OH, and goodnight all. Hope you all had a nice Easter weekend/Passover/spring day.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Happy Easter Belle. ((((Belle))))

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Dag, if I were still in law school I would ask to copy your outline. (That's a compliment, for I only copy from the best!)

You are right down to the last detail. The only thing I could add is that there are some cases involving funeral homes that may be used by an enterprising lawyer to make a NIED case.

In Phillip Blackwell v. Dykes Funeral Homes, Inc, the Indiana Supreme Court opened the door to claims of emotional damages in virtually any context where one family member has observed an injury to another family member … even if that family member has been dead for nearly 12 years. some site, not lexis/westlaw. In Dykes, the funeral home misplaced the remains of the plaintiff's son and the plaintiff did not discover this until 12 years after the burial.

I'm not saying a lawyer could win, but he might have enough to survive summary judgment and create enough bad publicity for the church to force a settlement.

Lawyers suck.

[ April 12, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Belle, you are asking God to interfere when John has clearly expressed that he not only does not want God to interfere, he doesn't want you to treat him like he needs it.

Just to clear it up, they are not baptized. The Lord does not consider them baptized. The church does not consider them baptized. It's like... a lawyer entering a plea agreement for someone in prison. The lawyer's doing the filing, but they don't make the decision of what to plea.

---

I know that is going to make someone act like they are offended, but the reason religions have historically conflicted is because they often believe mutually exclusive things.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
It think the LDS Church's making the agreement was wrong. It was done in good faith, and the Jews are not showing any good faith other than using it to hit the LDS Church on its head. This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews -- and I consider the dislike of them a sin.

Frankly, I think the Church should say "agreement is OFF!," and everyone will be happy. At least, there won't be a "legal" reason to hate the Mormons. Knowing the leadership of the Church, however, they will try to find some kind of a solution to accomodate the Jews. They will, eventually, shoot themselves in the foot trying to be accomodating. Its the way of charity in today's world.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews -- and I consider the dislike of them a sin.

---

Just as the unathorized baptism done by certain rogue Mormons should not be used to condemn the entire Monrmon church, the complaints lodged by some of the Jews should not affect your charitable opinion of them.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
One more note to those who might not understand. The proxy work is more than a whim of fancy to Mormons. If they aren't done than the whole purpose of this Earth has been wasted. Our not doing them will bring swift and sure destruction of the whole World. Not to mention a huge and painful "lash" on the backs of the Mormons by God before that happens.

[ April 12, 2004, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Hear hear! Otherwise Sharon would have doomed my opinion of myself, or something.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Thus, I have kept my sanity against emotional feelings.

That reminds me, exactly what "Jews" made the agreement? I mean, if the LDS Church made an agreement with the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, I wouldn't imagine it would count for all Protestants, much less all Baptist Conventions. Maybe the Jews making the complaints are not the same that signed (if that really happened) the agreements.

[ April 12, 2004, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not saying a lawyer could win, but he might have enough to survive summary judgment and create enough bad publicity for the church to force a settlement.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I think the Church should say "agreement is OFF!," and everyone will be happy. At least, there won't be a "legal" reason to hate the Mormons. Knowing the leadership of the Church, however, they will try to find some kind of a solution to accomodate the Jews. They will, eventually, shoot themselves in the foot trying to be accomodating. Its the way of charity in today's world.

---

quote:

---

What I want to know is, what kind of God is making decisions about who to save (or any decsions, for that matter) based on whether or not some other totally unrelated people decide to perform a ceremony in their name long after they are dead?

---

quote:

---

It was done in good faith, and the Jews are not showing any good faith other than using it to hit the LDS Church on its head.

---

quote:

---

This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews

---

quote:

---

and I consider the dislike of them a sin.

---

quote:

---

why do we need the ceremony in the first place?

---

Alexa, Jesus Christ was baptized. Baptism isn't only about washing away sin (since he had none) it is also about obedience.

There is a lot of emphasis on what the baptisms do or do not do for the dead. Another element is what they accomplish for those performing them. Much like this meeting between Clinton and Hatch. Neither of them is empowered in any way to act for the parties involved (Please, Please no one think that the rubbish that spills Hatch represents the church anymore than anything I might say) but it makes them feel better to do it.

Edit: Spelling, but while I'm here, whoever originally wrote these quotes about the Jews realize you are objectifying them. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read all of pages one and four. I actually set myself an hour timer for internet this morning and it already went off.

[ April 12, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
First of all thank you Dagonee for your educated legal opinion.

I'm fairly neutral on the whole proxy baptism idea. But I think even if I hated it, I would still support their free speech rights. I can't see this in any way being nearly as harmful as KKK rallies.

Having said that, I think recently I've come to understand more of the Jewish perspective. I'm not claiming an infinite knowledge just a recent epiphany on my own part on the subject after attending a Jewish funeral.

From what I have observed, how a person lived their life is very important to them. The memory of a persons life is very important. To do actions for the person that are contrary to how that person lived their life is disrespectfull.

Though having thought about it (Jewish jatraqueros please feel free to jump all over me) I find myself drawing a similarity between two things. At a Jewish funeral it is considered a mitzvoh to put earth on the grave, because it is a kindness that the dead cannot repay. Yes it is in keeping with the tradition they lived their life in. But on the flip side could not the LDS proxy baptism be looked at the same way? It is viewed a kindness for the dead that the dead can not repay. The difference though is that this is outside of the religious tradition (regardless of religion) that the person lived in life.

Argh, so I guess I see both sides. And I can't come up with a conclusion myself, other than what has already been stated. 1)Legally I think they have a right to do it under free exercise and 2)if the LDS church has specifically stated something they ought to go the extra mile in keeping their word. Especially because how non believers view their "testimony" as a whole is so important to them.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
pooka,

I understand it is about obedience, but ordinances aside, I can think of no commandment that has obedience as its' only reason/motive. There are ramifications that are not arbitrary to breaking any of God's commandments. If you steal you are shaping your character to disregard others--it is an offense to love. It seems to me commandments are there to remind us of what is both physically and spiritually damming to our soul OR to point us in a direction of blessings.

Ordinances in themselves do not do anything once you are dead--other then doing it for the sake of obedience. That seems strange to me. It is like eternal marriage. What does that do?

Unless you are married in the temple, will God put you on different worlds and not let you visit? Marriage boils down to a ceremony to show commitment, a life of proving commitment, and then some tax ramifications. Does eternal marriage DO SOMETHING that make it possible to still feel and portray commitment?

I don't get what it does besides blind obedience. I still think Mormons should be allowed to do proxy temple work for Jews tho.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Alexa, that's a good question.

Why is baptism so essential? Why the physical ordinance? Why do we have to do it?

I'm not sure, but I'll tell you the way it makes sense in my head. While I'm not sure what the physical elements of ordinances do, the Lord is consistent in commanding that we do them.

For every ordinance, there is a physical and spiritual element. (I have a theory that it is that way for most things in life - a form and a substance, if you will allow me. Yes, I'm aware that Plato also used those terms, but I'm not using them in the same way.)

For the sacrament, there is the act of taking the bread and water, and there is the inward resolve to renew the covenants. For baptism, there is the dunking, and there is the mighty change of heart. For the gift of the Holy Ghost, there is the laying on of hands, and there is recieving the Holy spirit. For priesthood ordination, there is the ordination, but if a man does not live up to the responsibilities and spirit of the calling, the priesthood isn't there. For endowment, there is the endowment, there are the covenants, and then there is the inner resolve to keep the covenants.

And for eternal marriage, there is the ceremony, and then there is being sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is not automatic.

So, it's consistent. The physical ordinance of baptism means nothing without the inner change of heart, but we still have to do it. It's important enough the Lord commands temples for it. Why?

<turns skirt around, which means she's now going into Katie theory. Do not take as either representative of all LDS or as official doctrine>

You know that part in the Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord says the spirit and the body is the soul of man? Well, when we're resurrected, the spirit and the body will come together to never be separated again, but in this life, they are still...divisible. So, the eternal acts and decisions that we do need to have both a spiritual and physical element to them.

On the other hand, maybe the Lord just knows us, and knows that what we do with our bodies DOES affect our thoughts and our spirits, and so commanded the physical ordinances to make the spiritual decisions so much easier to remember, and then made it mandatory for everyone so its fair. I'm not sure, though.

Pray about it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
(edit: This is for Alexa, not kat)
Why are you questioning eternal marriage in particular? It's kind of off topic. Trying to prove your point on that premise is not coming from a place of shared understanding, apparently. By the way, I don't think you are not LDS anymore, just having a difficult time with it.

Ordinances only have a benefit if you believe in them. We aren't given "signs" with definite benefits attached because it would defeat agency.

quote:

---

I can think of no commandment that has obedience as its' only reason/motive.

---

quote:

---

I can think of no commandment that has obedience as its' only reason/motive.

---

quote:

---

then they have an obligation to ensure that its members abide by that agreement.

---

quote:

---

I maintain that the ultimate difference for me is the physical presence of the name on official documents in the Church.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to say "it's very important to us!" and yet also say "but why does it matter to you?"

---

quote:

---

We should have control over our own names as symbols of who we are, even after death.

---

quote:

---

That is kind of an impossible expectation, don't you think? This is a church with nearly 12 million members. You can't control the actions of every individual.

---

quote:

---

Do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is responsible for the criminal actions of every single member?

---

quote:

---

It is potentially offensive, but does no actual harm.

---

quote:

---

Unless you think that the Jewish God is actually going to hold it against those people who were baptized by proxy.

---

quote:

---

Can you explain how to maintain control over one's name from beyond the grave?

---

quote:

---

Re: Suneun's dog meat example
Dagonee might know if that is legal.

---

The reason I didn't comment is because when I read Suneun's post with that example, I interpreted it that she didn't think the dog-meat example would (or should) be illegal, just something that shouldn't be done.

There might be some commercial implications if it's interpeted as advertising. Commercial speech has less protection. But in general, the sign as described would not seem to be illegal.

But it would still be rude.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I don't know how the Le' Cafe du Dog-Meat relates to the LDS church's practice of proxy ordinances; it's not like we've got a list on www.lds.org saying:

"Look at the famous people who've converted! Elvis Presley! Mahatma Gandhi! Josef Stalin!"
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Agreed, Dag.

For use of the name after death, I think the courts should err conservately. Unless it can be proven the named person would have been fine with such use, it's not fine. That is, if anyone brings it up to court. Like relatives. In cases where the dead pass on rights to their living relatives, their living relatives can make such judgment calls.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Sun: How do you feel about unsolicited visits from missionaries?

EDIT: You should also realize that much of the proxy work is done by the relatives. . .

[ April 12, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I know I am late coming into this discussion.

Dan, I would like to believe that such a thing would not bother me. I believe in fairness. So since I am fine with doing proxy ordinances for another, it reall ought not to bother me if someone turned it around on me. But it is hard to say. I can pretend to put myself in those shoes, but can I really?

For those of you bothered by this practice, I think I understand why it upsets you, but then again, I may not be capable of truly understanding. For those of you not of my faith who say you are not offended by this, I thank you for your understanding.

Many good things have been said here. Alexa, I relate to your confusion about the necessity of these ordinances, and I think that you are not alone as an LDS who wonders what the significance is. I know I have wondered. But because of my faith, a sense of trust strong enough to keep me confidently acting according to my beliefs, I have come upon some possible answers. First, I found what Katherina said very interesting, something I had not considered before.

Here is what I have come up with: I think that after this life at some point, perhaps at the resurrection, perhaps in part before that, we will somehow become aware of our sins in a way that is not currently possible. We will become perfectly aware of the power of our agency, the pain we caused others, the ways we worked against God. I believe that this vision will be unbearable for any human without faith in Christ's salvation. And even with that faith, it will be very hard to accept that "it really is OK", that His sacrifice is enough. I think that having an ordinance, like baptism, a moment of obedience to a concrete mortal rite, will give us something to hold onto. God said we needed to be baptized to enter heaven. God said that if we were baptized with real intent that Christ's salvation covers us. It will be a comfort in that moment of stark reality, a physical grip on faith that will strengthen us in that moment.

Now God is all about keeping every word. He told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit, they would die. Now if they had trotted right over to the tree of life and eaten of the fruit they would have lived forever thus "making God a liar". (See Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 12) That is why God had to put "cherubim and a flaming sword" betweent them and the tree of life. God is not a liar, He is perfect, and there are no loopholes. God said all His children (of age, children do not count) needed baptizm to enter heaven. No loopholes there either.

As for the marriage thing, this gets into major "Mormon speculation" as well. I am of the understanding that married sex exists in the Celestial kingdom, no other sex exists. Now what the nature of "sex in heaven" may be, I don't claim to know. But there will be something between those married for eternity that will not exist between other beings. Other couples married on earth but not for eternity will not be physically separated from each other, but they will not have (perhaps will not be capable of having) a married relationship. I feel very uncomfortable speaking so openly about something so sacred that God has not chosen to speak directly to us on the subject. Please do not look on this as something vulgar.

Some things you just need to accept on faith because we are not quite ready to understand the "big picture".

[ April 12, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Pooka

quote:

---

A lot of the 10 commandments are mainly about attitude. Honor your parents, Take not the name of the Lord in vain, make nothing and idol.

---

quote:

---

How about the Lord's commandment for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

---

quote:

---

but in this life, they are still...divisible. So, the eternal acts and decisions that we do need to have both a spiritual and physical element to them.

---

quote:

---

rouge temple workers

---

OOC thread anyone?


AJ
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

How about the Lord's commandment for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

---

You are right, and that commandment has always filled me with yuckie chills not love.

---

quote:

---

We will become perfectly aware of the power of our agency, the pain we caused others,... I think that having an ordinance, like baptism, a moment of obedience to a concrete mortal rite, will give us something to hold onto.

---

Beverly,

I never thought of that. I always felt it is silly that you need to have faith in unknown consequences of sin in order to have faith in the salvation of those said consequences.

I can see how it is not silly to think we don't know all of the ramifications of our actions. I must sit and muse a while.

btw...what does OOC mean?

m_p_h

can you tell me why that is powerful for you? I need a different perspective on the Isaac story.

[ April 12, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
OOC => Out Of Context.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 

quote:

---

some members are not following that directive and acting against the Church's instructions.

---

Sounds like "rogue temple workers" to me....I think my statement is in context.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Well there's 45 minutes or so I'll never get back.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Here's another 3 seconds Icky.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

How about the Lord's commandment for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

---

Among many things, it's also viewed by Christians as being a 'type' (or 'foreshadowing'/prescedent) of the sacrifice of God's Only Begotten Son. Abraham's obedience and Faith was an important example in this case as well.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, BTW, just for accuracy's sake, there are plenty of LDS who are no more allowed into the temples than those who are not LDS at all. You have to have an interview to help you determine your "worthiness" to enter. Many LDS, if honest in such an interview, could not be admitted. Conceivably, a person could lie their way through such interviews and get in. I understand that God does not look very kindly on this.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Alexa -- let me see if I can hammer out an explanation that makes sense.

I agree with you that almost all of the other commandments make good sense.

But this one doesn't. It wasn't about sacrificing Isaac -- it was about Abraham following a commandment of the Lord that made absolutely no sense.

This commandment that he was given must have gone against so much of what he knew to be right and good, including the promises he had received concerning his prodgeny through Isaac.

It's like this quote from Isiah 55 :

quote:

---

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

---

quote:

---

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

---

 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Taalcon,

I know that analogy, but I always thought it would work better if Isaac had the faith be be sacrificed. Also, God and Jesus both knew what was going to happen, unlike Abraham and Isaac.

I make this story work for me by saying Abraham had teh kind of relationship with God to know he was doing the right thing, but I think this story sets a bad precedent that if you have a good enough relationship with a religious leader, you should do what he/she says without question.

I can see the Abraham justification being used bu a bad person to command obedience to an unrighteous cause (like killing) without reason.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Alexa -- I understand that concern. To me the important part is that Abraham knew *for himself* that this command came from God, and not from another man.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I’m another Christian who finds the practice of proxy baptism offensive. I acknowledge that there is no legal reason for it to stop, and that what LDS folk chose to do in the privacy of their temples is really none of my business. But personally, after I’m dead, I’d much rather you spat on my grave. My grave is not a sacred thing, and has little to do with me after I’m gone. But performing a proxy baptism would be spitting on my baptism, and that is a sacred thing as well as an eternal one.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
You know, even Catholicism acknowledges the validity of other baptisms. If you were baptized in another Church, you aren't baptized again if you convert to Catholicism.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I was going to bring that up, mac, but decided to stick with the legal aspects of the discussion.

The interesting question is, would denominations that practice exclusively adult baptism want to re-baptize someone who converted from Catholicism?

Dagonee

[ April 12, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Yes, they do.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
All LDS converts are required to be baptized regardless of other baptism(s). I suppose that is also offensive.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Yes, what dana said.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I have a bunch of shoulds that may be offensive to some and probably won't happen, but I will still list them...

1. The Church made an agreement. It should keep it. And it should take greater pains to enforce it.

2. If the Church does show some signs of better enforcing the agreement, the critcs/watchdogs should give the Church some breathing room. Any solution will cost time and money -- both of which are donated by the membership of the Church. It is a cost that should be paid. But a little understanding that it is a cost would be nice.

3. I understand, but am still a little dismayed by how offended we [and I am including Mormons in this as well] all seem to get by the outspoken (or even not-so-outspoken) practice of belief in modern society. The current theme seems to be to set strict boundaries on the practice of belief. That is, you do your own thing as long as it doesn't impact or offend me, and I'll do mine. It's a sort of arms-length diversity. While there is a certain virtue to that -- I don't like that we're all so easy to take offense and spend so much energy on the taking of offense. To me it's much more interesting to see how a religion's practices and doctrines parallel, intersect, or diverge from mine in an illumanating way. We should be quicker to inquire and slower to accuse or defend.

4. Mormons on this board, and in general, (and I'm one of the worst offenders in this regard) should spend more time asking questions and reacting to those questions in the terms of those discussing them than to always, quickly say "This is how *we* do it -- or -- what *we* believe."

5. I have learned much from Belle's reaction to this topic [not from this thread, but from threads past]. I think that people of strong religious beliefs can't help but encroach on the other person's sense of the sacred. I think we should be sensitive to such encroachments, but at the same time that shouldn't stop anyone from expressing themselves on this or any other them. However: I think that it would be nice if we all could develop a strong sense of wonderment, of appreciation, of love, even, for the fact of those beliefs. What I'm trying to get at is that even though I know that Belle and I *have* to fundamentally disagree about some things, I have come to appreciate the fact of her faith and how she chooses to live and express it.

-------
Finally -- to John:

You use strong terms. I can understand how you see things and why you use the discursive modes that you do. And in fact, I admire and appreciate the fact that you apply your sense of justice and fairness in an equal opportunity way.

EDIT: missing 'I'

[ April 12, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

All LDS converts are required to be baptized regardless of other baptism(s). I suppose that is also offensive.

---

That's not offensive at all. If someone's choosing to convert, the new religion would trump the old one.

As far as I know, neither LDS nor other adult-baptism denominations have confirmation, which is the Catholic sacrament where a person makes an adult commitment to the church and is "sealed in the Holy Spirit." So baptism means something very different to these denominations that is not accomplished by the Catholic baptism.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
LDS converts (or eight-year-old children, for that matter) are confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
LDS has infant baptism, right?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Completely wrong. Eight is the minimum age for baptism.

[ April 12, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
No, no infant baptism.

For more, see Moroni 8.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Also, no proxy baptism for children who die under the age of 8. They are automatic citizens of heaven.
 

---

Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
 
I would just like to state publicly that any of you non-LDS folks can perform whatever sort of vicarious religious ceremonies for me that you'd like after my death. I don't believe in their validity, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest if you do so.

However, it also doesn't bother me if people are offended if we do temple work for the dead. I'm much more interested in helping out my fellow men than I am about stepping on a few toes.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 

quote:

---

If someone's choosing to convert, the new religion would trump the old one.

---

quote:

---

I'm much more interested in helping out my fellow men than I am about stepping on a few toes.

---

quote:

---

I don't know enough specifics about LDS baptism to know the answer. If (as I think it is) it is baptism with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it is valid. If that is true, and a former LDS person wanted to join one of the churches I serve, they would not be re-baptized.

---

quote:

---

can you tell me why that is powerful for you? I need a different perspective on the Isaac story.

---

Alexa, I come from a similar perspective as you regarding the story of Abraham and Isaac, but may I say thanks for your phrasing above? It's a topic I have a lot of questions about, but you've given me a better way to go about asking them.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Dag, you wouldn’t. I’m not a member of a faith that practices only adult baptism. The earlier post was an answer to your question, not an expression of my belief.

Clarification: the “they” in my earlier post was those denominations who practice adults-only baptism. The UMC is not one of these denominations, we do not re-baptize.

[ April 12, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I find it amazing that even knowing how offensive this practice is, still do it. It is possible for an "immediate" family member to do a proxy baptism for me, even if I refused to even speak to them in life because I found them to be abhorrent and I wanted nothing to do with them, and I even refused baptism in life and said I didn't want it done in death. But, because this person is an LDS member and The Church has written permission from them, I'm just ****ed. Right?

It also amazes me that people believe a rotting corpse has enough reverence that it deserves laws forbidding the "improper" treatment of it, but the only thing that really matters, the soul, can get ass ****ed in the hereafter and it's cool with everybody. I don't see the difference between proxy baptism and rape. Although you do have the authorization of a family member. Somehow, I don't think that actually constitutes consent, does it? I mean, the family member thinks it's okay, but it seems to me, you all are so blinded by your "rightness" that even if a person, in life, didn't want to be baptized, as soon as they were dead, it would give you the "opportunity" you'd been hoping for. I just can't convey how disturbing I find it that the LDS church would play a part in such a deplorable act. But I know about getting ****ed even without consent, and trust me, this is the closest thing to it I've ever seen.

To me, there is no difference between me coming out to the grave of someone you love, digging them up and defiling nine ways from Sunday, and what you are doing in the privacy of your own church. dkw said she'd rather you spit on her grave. It is my belief that the body has no value after life. Do whatever the hell you want to the body after life. Just don't mess with the soul. The absolute arrogance of it all just galls me.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Because for Mormons it has to be by one holding the "authority" or priesthood, which is only in our church by our belief (and here we get even weirder) because resurrected apostles (Peter, James and John) conferred the priesthood to Joseph Smith. All priesthood holders in the church received it through someone who traces back to that event.

But I wanted to mention a couple I knew where the man was Lutheran and the woman Mormon, and when they joined the Baptist church the man's baptism was accepted and the woman's wasn't. No, wait- in one congregation he had to be rebaptized because he hadn't been immersed, but she didn't. But in the next congregation, after they moved, the minister didn't agree that her baptism was okay. So she just lived with it (didn't get rebaptized).

P.S. Since there were a few postings since I replied, this is to Dag.

[ April 12, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Kayla- you are being ridiculous and more than a little melodramatic.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Dana, I was baptized into the LDS church when I was 9. It was in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as near as I recall. The baptism, however, was not valid, as I know my mind at the time, and the baptism had more to do with church membership than it was a declaration of my faith in Jesus. I did not become a Christian until I was 30. By that I mean that I didn't ask Christ into my heart, and I did not admit my sins, and I did not ask to be reborn in the Spirit until I was 30. I thought for a long while that I didn't need to be rebaptized, but realizing that baptism has more to do with being a public declaration of my faith than it does in the actual washing away of my sins, I was baptized just a few months ago. Just after my 10 year old son.

So yeah, I think it's a matter of the heart on rebaptism after an LDS baptism. Were you baptized to join the church? Or was it a declaration of faith?

(That said, at a gut level I find baptism for the dead offensive, but in thinking mode, I look on it like Paul did about eating the meat of animals sacrificed to idols. It doesn't mean anything, because the idols aren't gods, so the meat is just meat. It's not really a sacrifice. Same with the proxy baptisms...it's not a real baptism, so you might as well just be singing in the tub. That the bather thinks he's doing something spiritual has no bearing on my perception of reality.)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks Dana. All clear now.

Dagonee
Edit: and thanks for the additional info, pooka.

[ April 12, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 

quote:

---

the only thing that really matters, the soul

---

I can understand that, Kayla. [See my posts above].

But I also can't.

Because when it really comes right down to it -- we believe in different souls. That's a huge part of the problem here. We use the same language and so that's part of what makes it so difficult and so offensive. We, in some ways, seem to be part of the same Christian tradition, but I really think that we are talking about two different afterlives, two different souls and two different baptisms here. That doesn't make it any less squicky for you. I'm just trying to emphasize that there are people who can believe in this doctrine and feel it as passionately in a positive way as you feel it negatively.

To us, to not do it is to deprive our ancestors of blessings.

Would it be less offensive if Mormons believe that the souls of your ancestors inhabited a grove of trees that we held religious ceremonies in and our priests blessed? Maybe, maybe not. But your reaction probably wouldn't be quite so visceral.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I don't see how you can compare proxy work with rape, Kayla, since according to Mormon theology all parties must be acting of their own accord for the work to valid.

While I respect the wishes of those who've requested not to be baptised after their death, I view proxy work as similar to missionary work. I don't go knocking on doors that say, 'No soliciting,'-- but I'm certainly not going to stop preaching the truth.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*shrug* I think Kayla's mad and using the most shocking and offensive language possible, whether or not it is accurate.

I recognize that she's sincere in being angry, but the specific words are just the handiest and sharpest expression of it.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I have always wanted to ask a non-mormon christian this question: If you don't believe in baptism for the dead and Christ says you need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God, what do you think happens to everyone who couldn't get baptized?

How do you interpret the New Testiment when it says, "Why do we baptize for the dead if the dead rise not?" (paraphrasing).

I am not preaching in a round-about way, I am truly curious. I have a problem with baptism itself, but if baptism is so important, I am not sure why Christianity has not embraced baptism for the dead. But of course, I was raised to think like a Mormon and I enjoy trying to expand how I think.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
I don't know where it says that baptism is required to enter the kingdom of heaven, and I don't know how it could be. The thief on the cross couldn't possibly have been baptised, yet in his repentence next to Jesus, Christ told him "Today you'll be in Paradise with Me."

Baptism is an outward sign of faith. I think of it like a marriage ceremony -- the real marriage is of the heart, but the ceremony is the public declaration of the commitment. You don't have to have a public ceremony to be married. You just have to make the commitment.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Alexa, this link has the most accurate account of what I was taught in my Catholic youth lessons; i.e., that this was a reference to the pagan ritual, emphasizing that even the pagans understood there was a life after death.

Unfortunately, this might come off as equating LDS beliefs with paganism. My apologies for this, as I do not mean to make that claim. (I am no longer a believer in the religious sense, but I understand that this could be a touchy point.)
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
Kayla?

I still love you. Even if I gall the hell out of you.



Dang it! I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread.

Ahem...

carry on.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Out of curiosity, what do most Christians believe about those who have lived and died without a knowledge of Christ?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I'm a little confused about your link, CT. It doesn't say that these pagans were baptized for dead people. It sounds pretty much like regular baptism to me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"? He may have even been baptized by John and then afterwards not heard of Christ, then converted after sharing that very traumatic experience with him. No one ever said the man wasn't baptized.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Jon Boy, I've excerpted the relevant text below. Mind you, I don't speak to its veracity, as this is merely what I remember being told at an uncritical stage of my life. It could very well be hogwash. I'd stake a muffin on dkw knowing the answer, tho.

quote:

---

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention[ed] by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.

Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead? [emphases added]

---

quote:

---

Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

---

quote:

---

I don't see how you can compare proxy work with rape, Kayla, since according to Mormon theology all parties must be acting of their own accord for the work to valid.

---

quote:

---

Kayla- you are being ridiculous and more than a little melodramatic.

---

quote:

---

Kayla?

I still love you. Even if I gall the hell out of you.

---

Eh. You don't gall me. I'm way too scared of you for you to gall me.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
pooka, I remember a lot of little factoids I memorized as a wide-eyed youth. *grin I think some of them may have been accurate, even.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
I don't know if the Mormons would take this as an insult or if the non-Mormons would take this as a compliment....

But outside of these religious threads, I really can't tell who is Mormon around Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

If you don't believe in baptism for the dead and Christ says you need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God, what do you think happens to everyone who couldn't get baptized?

---

quote:

---

How do you interpret the New Testiment when it says, "Why do we baptize for the dead if the dead rise not?" (paraphrasing).

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, what do most Christians believe about those who have lived and died without a knowledge of Christ?

---

quote:

---

On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"?

---

Do you know what religion Jesus Christ was? I mean, do you really have an understanding of what his religion was? Here's a hint: he wasn't a Christian.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
beverly, That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

We should also look at Acts 10, where we see that the Holy Spirit comes on the new believers. *Then* they are baptized. Not the other way around. This is important because it came on Gentiles too, which could we agree means that they were going to Heaven? I mean, it wouldn't make much sense that the Holy Spirit could indwell these people yet they would still be headed for hell, does it? The baptism was still important -- I don't want to sound like it isn't -- but it seems to me to show that it's not a requirement for salvation.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
No one who tells people to "bugger off" has any right in this world or the next to declare something offensive.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 

quote:

---

No one who tells people to "bugger off" has any right in this world or the next to declare something offensive

---

quote:

---

The important part, being Mormon theology, right? Do you know what the theology of the dead being baptized is?

---

quote:

---

So you believe that we have the power to defile your soul by dunking someone in water in your name?

---

quote:

---

Look at it this way: I believe that a soul can't go to heaven unless the body is mutilated at age 30, regardless of life or death status. Since I sincerely believe this, I go around and drug people, hack of the pinky on each hand.

---

quote:

---

On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"? He may have even been baptized by John and then afterwards not heard of Christ, then converted after sharing that very traumatic experience with him. No one ever said the man wasn't baptized.

---

quote:

---

Some religions do. According to many, including Judaism, there is power in reciting names and words.

---

quote:

---

But if you baptise me after I'm dead, and my theology states that I can no longer make choices, then I have been baptised into your religion by my theological views.

---

Really? Your theology says that people can change you after you're dead, and that you're powerless to do anything about it? It was my understanding that most people believed that changes like that don't even happen in the afterlife.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
1 Cor 15:29: 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

I didn't have it memorized. I just did a search on lds.org

I'm not sure why it is such a stretch to think that man *might* have been baptized. We believe that baptism had been going on since the days of Adam and had been done in any gathering that had the full gospel before and after Christ that had not fallen away into apostacy. We believe that what John the Baptist was doing was not so foreign to the Jews of the day. (Sorry to anyone Jewish who might take offense to that.) I realize that is LDS theology, though. I don't expect anyone else here to believe it. Look at the people in the Book of Mormon. They were practicing baptism hundreds of years before Christ came. (Again LDS theology, not anyone else's.)

[ April 12, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
So, you're saying it's a Pascal's Wager deal with the proxy baptisms, Kat? I find that difficult to swallow. Also, you're still completely ignoring the outright insult and spiritual damage other faiths are claiming you're doing. This means that it's not harmless, it just doesn't matter according to your faith (as you proclaim it).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The entire concept of Christianity rests on a belief that the religions that came before are missing something.

Are you offended by this? Are you offended by all Christians?

---

For the question beverly is on, I have a different understanding. Paradise equally the spirit world before the Resurrection/Final Sorting, and the dividing line is not baptized/non-baptized. Personal opinion, it is heart changed/heart not-yet-changed, in which case he could be there in Paradise.

[ April 12, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

The Jesus I believe in is not that capricious.

---

quote:

---

Also, you're still completely ignoring the outright insult and spiritual damage other faiths are claiming you're doing.

---

Religions insult each other all the time, though. It's not a valid argument to say "this insults me, so you have to stop doing it." And I still don't see any spiritual damage, either. Please explain how we're damaging people's spirits.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Beverly, as has already been pointed out, that phrase was Paul speaking out against Gentile non-Christians who were performing a rite in competition with Christian baptism of the time.

Jon, it's not a matter of what is happening to the Mormon who stands in proxy, but of what is happening to the dead of another faith. I'm not going to turn this into a Jew vs LDS Ecumenical Battle of the Soul. What the proxy baptism is doing, according to other faiths, is meddling directly in the affairs of the soul to a faith which it doesn't belong, causing insult and damage without consent or choice. No matter how much love with which it is being performed, damage is being done according to non-LDS faith. What has been said in this thread is that it doesn't matter, according to LDS members who have stated so here. It does matter to those of faiths not LDS who believe otherwise.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Belle, I understand that there may not be enough evidence in the Bible to support the belief of the necessity of baptism. But the Book of Mormon makes it pretty clear. When Christ visited the people on the American continent he said the following: 3 Nephi 11:37-41

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and abecome• as a blittle• child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my adoctrine•, and whoso bbuildeth• upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the cgates• of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall adeclare• more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a bsandy• foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

So for us, this is pretty serious stuff.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

And I still don't see any spiritual damage, either. Please explain how we're damaging people's spirits.

---

quote:

---

Jon, it's not a matter of what is happening to the Mormon who stands in proxy, but of what is happening to the dead of another faith.

---

quote:

---

It's been explained, from more than one perspective. You refuse to accept it as valid.

---

If the damage is nothing more than being insulted, then no, I don't accept it as valid.

[ April 12, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
psst...beverly...there's no E in katharina
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oops! Sorry. I better just call ya "kat". Easier to spell correctly.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Because something is insulting, should it be illegal? Should we not do it? Those protesters outside the Conference Center believed what they were doing was right and good, but I find it insulting. Does that mean they should be restricted?
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
EDIT: Others have been quick to post the same question. And I see John's response -- it's been explained that others feel that way. And perhaps that feeling should be enough. But I'm looking for an explanation that goes beyond that.

Thus:

----
While I understand why the practice is considered offensive, I'm still not getting the "spiritual damage" part.

I realize that this is simply a reiteration of things other LDS Jatraqueros have said, but if you don't believe in the authority and doctrine of those performing the proxy baptism, how can it impact your soul in a way that damages the sacredness of it?

I think I understand the historical argument made by Jews -- it's a painful reminder of forced baptisms that were done.

And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians? I want to understand this. I get that it's an offensive idea. But I still don't quite understand how it affects someone else's faith in such a profound way as to feel like your soul is being violated. How can something you don't believe in violate your soul? If you don't believe in it -- it has now power and efficacy for you?

[ April 12, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, Dana and I aren't dead.... we are offended by the practice and the thought of it.

I think it's always a good exercise for people who hold strong beliefs to examine how those beliefs affect other people. I think it serves to help you understand your faith more, and to make you a better witness for your faith.

---

I think your suggestion, Belle, is worthwhile. After thinking it over, I came up with the following example which sort of fits and explains my point of view.

As Christians you and I believe that we must believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follow Him in order to be "saved." In fact (and I hope I'm not misstating this, please forgive me if I am) we believe that Jesus is the ONLY way by which we can be saved.

Now, of course, this attitude is EXTREMELY offensive to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and others.

But we're not going to change, are we? We're not going to EVER deny The Savior, are we?

Now, baptism for the dead (while it is an EXTREMELY important tenet of my faith) is not nearly on the level of actually holding Jesus as the Christ. It's up there, but not quite.

If I believe that baptism is essential for salvation;

And, I believe that that baptism must be done with proper authority in the proper manner;

And, I believe that my church is the only one which possesses that proper authority;

And, I believe that many many people throughout the history of the world haven't even heard the name of Jesus Christ, let alone come anywhere near a baptismal font;

And, I believe that some of them are hearing about Him now (after their death) and want to receive this baptism;

And I believe that I can give it to them;

But I don't have a clue who they are, so I pretty much just have to be proxy baptized for everyone just to make sure I get the ones that want it;

And the ones that don't want it can tell me to bugger off;

And I believe that God has commanded me to do as much as I can to get these baptisms completed;

Then, I pretty much need to obey Him even if it makes Bell, Kayla, and a cast of thousands mad at me.

Now, as far as the 400,000 holocaust survivors are concerned: Perhaps by baptizing them during such an uproar, I would cause the entire baptism for the dead process to be slowed in its progress.

So, unfortunately, I have to compromise in this one area, so the work can go forward in other areas. These 400,000 people have to wait awhile longer, unfortunately.

FWIW, if some family member instructed me not to perform a proxy baptism for them after they died, I would absolutely comply. I would also use my influence within my family to make sure that other LDS family members complied with those wishes.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Does this remind anyone of the Piggies?

"Can we plant him now?"

Suneun, we're not just atheists, we're potential Mormons.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians? I want to understand this.

---

The condemning part is no more offensive. The keeping of a list makes it more offensive. And as I already pointed out, those faiths who put power in written words (example: once again, the Jewish idea of names written down) take even more insult to the point of spiritual injury at the practice.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Yup. I can still put 8 of these things in one post.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
So you're saying that if someone is sufficiently offended, their spirit is permanently damaged?
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
For all of the animosity on this thread, and I feel a lot from JohnL, I would like to state that I never knew such deep emotions existed about proxy baptism. I would like to thank everyone for participation in the thread as it has helped me understand another viewpoint more clearly.

The scripture JohnL is 1 Cor 15:29: 29, but like you said it has already been explained to speak againt baptism for the dead. I disagree (and stated why), and there is room for disagreement without getting so agitated.

I never knew so many people were so agitated. I thought most non-members found it a little silly but were grateful that the LDS church has pioneerd so much in geneology. As a LDS, I always liked the verse in Malachi about turning the hearts of the childrens to their fathers and vice versa.

To me it seems beautiful, but I am Mormon. So I will step back and try to imagine it akin to rape. I must admit, I don't think I can, but I will ponder and pray for a time and see if I can think along those lines. Obviously people are upset.

Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms. Curious curious.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Wow. What Alexa said.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms.

---

quote:

---

example: once again, the Jewish idea of names written down

---

quote:

---

4. The proxy baptisms of the Mormons affect the dead, but not in the way intended by the Mormons.

#4 can be harmful. Paul insists the same earlier on this page. The Mormon Church believes the dead have the choice to accept the proxy baptism. What if they don't? What if your proxy baptism changes the dead? Kind of like expelling a poltergeist? Then harm is done.

---

quote:

---

And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians?

---

quote:

---

The scripture JohnL is 1 Cor 15:29: 29, but like you said it has already been explained to speak againt baptism for the dead. I disagree (and stated why), and there is room for disagreement without getting so agitated.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms. Curious curious.

---

quote:

---

my dead grandfather

---

quote:

---

Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

my dead grandfather

---

What if it was your brother?

Submission can only be done for family members. What if you brother was LDS and wanted to do it? Would you still consider it theft? *honestly curious*

---

Yep. Theft is theft, insult is insult, damage is damage, and it's still insulting and damaging the family name. It would be even more of a betrayal if a family member was taking part in it. As far as these Holocaust victims, it is not saying whether family members are a part of it (in fact, it implies they are not being told at all). A sheister is a sheister is a sheister.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Dana, it looks to me like he was telling them that what they were doing was not in accordance to his (Paul's) church or teachings, which is what I mean by "against." According to their own beliefs, I'm pretty sure they were justified.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You have to be a family member to submit names. If Holocaust names are still being submitted, it is either someone who shouldn't even been near a temple because they are rebelling against the church, or else it is a family member.

Really? You'd be that mad at your brother? Why does your opinion of this take precedence over his? In his eyes, you'd be deliberately withholding something infinitely precious from your grandfather. Not even a hearing with your brother?

The theft part is confusing. If you mean theft of the name from you, if its your brother, isn't it as much his already as yours?

[ April 12, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 
All right, so I admit I haven't read all the other posts; I haven't the time. But I've run into this basic issue before, and while I understand it is sensitive, it seems to me an emotional rather than a logical issue. It seems that there are, basically, two choices.

A) The LDS Church is true and its rites effectual.
In this case, one can, for obvious reasons, hardly be upset about the proxy baptisms, especially in light of the doctrine that the dead have the option to either accept or reject the rite.

B) The LDS Church is not true and its rites *in*effectual. In this case, nothing is really being done when you get right down to it, is it? No *real* injury is being done. So while it may be offensive to some parties, there isn't much done or said in this world that is not.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yank, sweetie, I think you'd like the last couple of posts on page six. (That means it's been covered.)

Edit: D'oh! I thought we were on page four. Edited the page number.

[ April 12, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Welcome back Yank!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

It seems that there are, basically, two choices.

---

quote:

---

You have to be a family member to submit names. If Holocaust names are still being submitted, it is either someone who shouldn't even been near a temple because they are rebelling against the church, or else it is a family member.

---

quote:

---

family member rule has, according to the articles, only been in effect since 1995. What about all those people before it?

---

quote:

---

Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it

---

quote:

---

Yank, I mean this in the nicest possible way (which I acknowledge isn’t very nice), but your post perfectly illustrates the attitude that many of the non-LDS folk are finding troubling. It basically boils down to, “I haven’t read/listened to your actual concerns, but here’s what I think you think and why it’s wrong.”

---

To be honest, my post mostly reflects the fact that I'm on a public library computer and don't have *time* to read the thread, or I certainly would. I am deeply sorry if I have given the impression that I don't care what others think, or that I do not want to listen to their concerns.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Yank ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
"Equal right to not be disparaged? Absolutely"

Some may consider changing people's religion without consulting them is somewhat disparaging.

The type of "equality" you describe is based on an uneasy truce, where you tolerate other religions only in exchange for their toleration of yours. This type of "fair weather" equality is illusory.

While these baptisms are an act of kindness from your POV, they are a reminder to the Jewish people that their religious freedom is merely tolerated as a necessary evil.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
No one's religion is being forcibly changed. At all.

--------

I'm not sure what you want, then. Different belief systems mean you don't believe the same thing. Often, those things are mutually exclusive. What are you asking for?
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
 
I think mostly what people are asking for (at least, as far as the original question in this thread is concerned) is that the LDS church honor the agreement into which they voluntarily entered.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
And the follow up has been LDS defending against accusations that they're hateful and rape the dead.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Actually, I'd be a lot more offended by the REAL view, rather than the "forcibly change religion" view.

I think the idea of baptism for the dead benefits mostly those who would have embraced it if they heard it, to give everyone a chance. Since we are the same people after as we were before, I suspect those who reject in this life will reject it in the next. For those that had a chance on earth and rejected it, I think the baptism would be a largely fruitless exercise. A nice thought, but you know? Probably ineffective.

Wouldn't someone be more offended by that? I know when my brother explained it to me (when we did the work for my grandmother), I was irritated as all get out because he wasn't holding out a lot of hope for its effectualness. I think the conversation ended with something like, "For crying out loud, don't say that to Mom!"

[ April 12, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Taal, you're being intentionally ignorant. Why don't you show the separate translations of the whole chapter for each one? Paul is clearly pointing out the error of the practice with regard to the teaching of Christ's resurrection and baptism itself. Thanks for showing just how stupid using a single verse out of context is.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
*sighs* The text of the complete chapter in context in all those translations.

Verse 58 seems appropriate somehow.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Different beliefs are fine, as long as you apply those unique beliefs to yourself and not to others who do not subscribe to your faith. Would you like it if a follower of the ancient Egyptian faith took out your organs after you died?

The baptism gives off the impression that if Mormons were in charge, we would all be baptized, whether we like it or not, dead or alive.

*before you kill me*

Hey, at least the Mormons have shown enough restraint to wait until we're dead. Other religions have not been as kind.

Edited to squeeze in more evil.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Are people intentionally choosing to ignore the concept that the LDS are just offering a service that can be just as easily be DENIED in the afterlife?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
How the HELL does it seem appropriate, when he's talking about resurrection and how baptising the dead does not resurrect them? Why don't you educate me, since my own two years of study, as well as the years of study on the subject of others, including those mentioned by others in this thread, don't seem to get it?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
vwiggin, I really, really don't think we are talking about the same thing. From your posts, it sounds like you are talking about something that can be done against an individual's will. Since LDS baptism for the dead doesn't work like that and never has (the only-family-members thing is newish, but not the general principle), that can't be what you're talking about.

If someone's soul could be redirected by a third party - not the person, not the Lord - I agree that would be crappy. Who's doing that?

[ April 12, 2004, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
It's also been interpreted that Paul's discussing their lack of belief in a resurrection in general, and that the acts they're doing would be POINTLESS if there wasn't a resurrection.

Like saying that "Why do you keep putting food out for the dog to eat if you don't even own a dog? Why then do you put food out?"

In this case, he's telling them that they DO own a Dog, and that's the purpose why they're putting the food out.

That's one interpretation, and is just as valid as any others.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
 
Are the dead taught about the LDS religion before their are baptized? How are they supposed to make an educated decision?

Is there a way that you can ensure that your name is on the never-ever-to-be-baptized list?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
I want to say something. I'm going to take a page from Tom Davidson's book.

If the god that someone believes in would really, truly, punish a person or allow harm to come to a person because an LDS baptism by proxy was done to them after they were dead, then it is not a god worth my worship. That is capricous and that god doesn't really care about the people who so carefully followed all of their rules in life.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
How many times do I have to declare this?

quote:

---

No one's religion is being forcibly changed. At all.

---

quote:

---

But if you baptise me after I'm dead, and my theology states that I can no longer make choices, then I have been baptised into your religion by my theological views... regardless of what you believe about the ceremony.

---

quote:

---

but the only thing that really matters, the soul, can get ass ****ed in the hereafter... It is my belief that the body has no value after life. Do whatever the hell you want to the body after life. Just don't mess with the soul.

---

quote:

---

What if your proxy baptism changes the dead? Kind of like expelling a poltergeist? Then harm is done.

---

quote:

---

Taal, you're being intentionally ignorant. Why don't you show the separate translations of the whole chapter for each one? Paul is clearly pointing out the error of the practice with regard to the teaching of Christ's resurrection and baptism itself. Thanks for showing just how stupid using a single verse out of context is.

---

quote:

---

Are the dead taught about the LDS religion before their are baptized? How are they supposed to make an educated decision?

---

quote:

---

Is there a way that you can ensure that your name is on the never-ever-to-be-baptized list?

---

I've never heard of it, but I'll bet if you wrote to Salt Lake City and asked for it, that would be accomodated.


 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
It isn't that I wouldn't believe in the god. I'm saying that If that particular god is the one that existed, and that I found that out after I died, I don't think I would even worship that god.

This is part of my own tautalogy. There are three possibilities:

1. God doesn't exist.

2. God exists but doesn't care or is capricious.

3. God exists and cares.

If 1 or 2, then it doesn't matter what I do.

If 3, then it does matter.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Hehe. Write science fiction and science fiction book club are part of the google ad here at this point of the page.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Question for Mormons.... going from very dim memory....is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Suneun, I have to ask, if someone believes an act can have consequences that those performing it do not believe, that isn't even concievable, how do you protect against it happening all over the place?

I mean, we use names constantly. What if...writing a book detailing someone's sins (Bloody Mary, for instance) meant those sins could NEVER be forgiven? I mean, there's no record that Mary believed that, and the writers of the book don't intend it, but I guess it is concievable that someone could believe that. Does that mean no books about historical figures?

Or, what about giving someone their great-grandfather's name. What if giving someone their name means...the great-grandfather's soul is in now his great-grandson's, which messes up the life that he was going to go to otherwise. No one that I'm aware of believes that, but does that mean no naming a baby after anyone, in case it may be true?

quote:

---

is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.

---

quote:

---

Question for Mormons.... going from very dim memory....is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.

---

All essential ordinances are done for the dead. Baptism just happens to be the one over which this particular battle is fought, since if that's bad, so are the rest, and if it's not, neither are they.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
well in your first example, the person who believes that would be following their beliefs by requesting that their sins not be mentioned. And they might be able to follow up legally on that to some extent.

It's not that all beliefs have to be taken into account at all times. It's that an individual's beliefs have to be taken into account when involved. Now for prayer, I'm certainly willing to make an exception since it's transient and generally private. But for written text, I think it's within someone's rights to insist on their name's removal.

In this case, a segment of the Jewish community is doing what they can to preserve the assumed right of their ancestors. And the LDS agreed. But now they don't seem to be working very hard to keep their end.

It's less that people want the LDS to stop all baptism for the dead. We just never want it done to us, and would prefer that it never get done for someone who most likely didn't want it.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Yes, but at what point will we be so nieghborly that we reject the fundimentals of our faith?

[ April 12, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Are the church leaders inspired, or not?

---

On a completely different note, what do you think about the cessation of polygamy?

[ April 12, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Yank, thanks for answering. What's the Biblical basis for such ordinances by proxy?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Did someone just hear a can of worms being opened?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. This might be a case of them not, or maybe are. Its a hard call.

As I don't think that Polygamy is an essential principal, as much as part of one, than no problems. However, Temple work IS an essential principal that was proclaimed as almost the first Revelation.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Taal:

I do have to go, though. I can't grab the worms at the moment. Maybe later.

Occ: Then pray about it. No one else can make the call for you.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
dkw -- Do you believe all Mormons will go to heaven?
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 

quote:

---

Yank, thanks for answering. What's the Biblical basis for such ordinances by proxy?

---

There is none. The LDS church is not a Bible-based religion. It is defined by revelation, of which the Bible constitutes only a part. That's why I always think it so silly when people try to Bible-bash Mormons. Some Mormons are game, but it's still a pointless exercise.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Pat: I think that's an unfairly loaded question. I doubt dkw even believes that all who profess to be Methodists will go to heaven.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Pat, I don’t believe I know who is going where. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if I get to heaven, the people I least expected to see there are going to be seated next to me at the banquet.

Edit: not to imply that Mormons are the people I least expect to see there. Didn't notice that possible interpretation until after I posted.

[ April 12, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"That's what so weird. If we're wrong, nothing happened!"

That's why, in my old Armageddon comic, the Mormons are in fact unknowingly performing baptisms with irresistible coercive power on behalf of Satan, and come close -- through their exhaustive efforts -- to actually giving him enough souls to "win." *wry laugh* Like I said, it's equally offensive to all sects and creeds.

--------

Seriously, though, I don't think posthumous baptism does any actual soul-stealing harm. It's clearly offensive and in remarkably poor taste, but it's like somebody who believes his religion compels him to dress up funny and stand on a streetcorner yelling about the end of the world; the rest of us don't want to think about how weird and improper it is, and it might tick us off if we're living too close, but it's not something that's actually going to do any DAMAGE.

It's just a more concrete version of the insult inherent in ALL Christianity: the idea that you know better, and will help us despite ourselves.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

see that no one has given a real answer to my question: What do most Christians believe will happen to those who lived and died without a knowledge of Christ? (Cop-outs don't count)

---

If you consider the "We don't know" answer to be a cop-out, then I think that's being hypocritical when it comes to many tenents of LDS doctrine. There are many points where the only official answer is that it's "just not known/revealed". I think non-LDS Christians deserve to be able to give the same answer, neh?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Jeniwren, if there is any Biblical reference for those ordinances, it is very much indirect. But as indirect goes, they exist. Keep in mind, in the LDS faith Biblical proof is not necessary with all the other scripture taken into account.

I see that no one has given a real answer to my question: What do most Christians believe will happen to those who lived and died without a knowledge of Christ? (Cop-outs don't count)

We hold 1 Peter 3:18-21 important also to the doctrine of baptism for the dead and in connection with 1 Cor 15:29

1 Peter 3:18-21

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a prepareing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the ressurrection of Jesus Christ:

So, here we have information that Christ preached the gospel to spirits. Specifically, to those who died in the flood. Noah's family being "saved by water" is being compared to the effects of baptism.

We have received further scripture specifying that while Christ was dead, he was quite busy. He was organizing the righteous spirits of the dead who believed in Him years before to preach the gospel to those who had no knowledge of the gospel. We believe that work is going on until now and that when we die, we will join the missionary efforts. Those who accept the gospel, will still need baptism. This ordinance is to be provided by the faithful still living on the earth.

Just some more insight on our perspective.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think this might be new information on this thread, I apologize if it is not:

quote:

---

Why should Mormons even care what others think? We should be more worried about what God thinks than some PC "warm fuzzies" for our nieghbors.

---

I believe the agreement that created all this contention (not baptizing Shoah victims) was a concession granted in order to get the right to build the BYU Jerusalem center. Which has not been operating for a while due to instability. Also, while a Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon was made, it is not printed and as far as I know and can't be obtained. And believe me, if it were reasonably possible my husband would have one. Odd that I think I've posted on nearly every page of this thread and just now recalled this. Someone just needed to ask the question in the right way. My opinion of post-a-minute threads is temporarily redeemed. And Tom!

P.S. And I think our baptizing of the dead, generally without qualification, simply shows that we are serious about forgiving everyone. It's not a completely self aggrandizing exercise.

Though Tom's caveat that he doesn't need forgiving would stand.

Do you think the ad at the bottom of this page will soon be offering a Cliff Notes edition of this thread?

[ April 12, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
Thanks, dkw. I appreciate the response to a question that on second reading did sound loaded.

I'm having trouble communicating today.


 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I wish a mormon member here would address my example about the deathbed conversion without a baptism being possible.

Is that person going to hell? I can't wrap my beliefs around a God that requires a certain type of ceremony before that person is acceptable for heaven.

John 3:16 - mentions nothing of baptism. I can go and pull out dozens of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of baptism.

The Bible can be ambiguous in places, and much is left for us to interpret. But I think it's pretty clear on the important stuff. The ten commandments aren't hard to understand. And, I think that salvation is also very clear.

Some samples:

Jn 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...

In response to the question "What must we do? Jesus responds The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. Jn 6:29

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40

Jesus sole purpose in coming down to Earth was salvation. That being the case, I would expect him to be very clear as to the requirements of it. In John chapter 6 he mentions salvation and eternal life numerous times, and not once does he say baptism MUST accompany it.

I trust God. I don't think Jesus would mislead us. If baptism were necessary for eternal life, in other words if he required something other than belief in Him, he would have stated so, and clearly.

I don't find that statement clearly found in the Bible, and references to the Book of Mormon of course cannot convince me, since I don't accept it as scripture.

However, I respect that people like Beverly do accept those writings as scripture, so I understand where you are coming from - you think it's necessary. So do many of my friends and relatives. I respect that you feel that way, and I get upset when that respect is not reciprocal.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Taalcon, "I believe it hasn't been revealed" is a valid answer. Thank you.

"How presumptuous of anyone to even presume to think such a thing!" is not.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I seldom do this in life, but...

quote:

---

have yet to admit that they hold an extremely insulting and practically hateful view of the Jewish faith....The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry,...
t's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves... After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs....You're backpedaling to cover your ignorance....It's insulting, arrogant, and hateful....Dammit people, "bigot" does not equal "racist." Stop reacting like it does. Bigotry is an attitude of intolerance, and this qualifies completely. Seriously, you people need to get over your misconceptions of the word....I think your direct ignoring of that is rather disingenuous.... It's not just arrogant, it's demanding the dead make a choice they should not have to...once again showing that you are incorrect and assuming shit about me or my words without accurately weighing what is said....It makes you look like an ass. I was addressing Berg's ignorance on Gandhi's views. Get off your high horse.

---

quote:

---

Whole separations from religious institutions have occurred over such distinctions, so I find your dismissal of the agitation a bit insulting.

---

quote:

---

Considering the known inconsistencies of KJV

---

quote:

---

Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it...

---

quote:

---

You mean personally for you

---

quote:

---

cheating for personal gain

---

quote:

---

I would equate it to identity theft

---

What is being stolen? What is being changed? The only thing I do agree is that if the church broke a promise they should take public responsibility.

I have thought some about the "VIOLATIONS" mentioned, I was particularly fascinated by the rape analogy. Rape, identity theft, and defecating on graves all involve emotional abuse and overpowering someone against their will. However, names are a part of public record. I can keep a list of any public name and say anything I want to around those names and I have not violated a law or person. The church should be more respectful of wishes, we certainly have enough names to keep us busy, but I am prone to think there are no violations. I would love someone to tell me what/how reputation is being hurt or what/how emotional abuse is resulting from proxy work.

[edit] I am only disregarding your discussion on this thread as I am sure you have other insights I will find valuable.

[ April 12, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Belle, I think your question was addressed. There were two options given:

1. The man indeed had been baptized. He "fell away", sinned, and suffered for it. In his heart he repented and his faith was acceptable to God as enough to enter him into heaven.

2. The term "paradise" refers to the state of the spirit after death but not to the "heaven" after resurrection. He would still need to be properly baptized (by proxy in his case) to enter the Celestial Kingdom. But, hey, the Terrestrial Kingdom is not a bad place to be in LDS theology. It is pretty much exactly what most Christians believe heaven to be.

Do you have any other questions on this particular topic? Let me know and if I have an answer I would gladly share it.

Edit: We believe baptism is not a requirement of the Terrestrial Kingdom, but a belief in Christ is.

Second Edit: Actually, I could be wrong at that. I'm not sure a belief in Christ is necesary for the TerrK.

[ April 12, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

I can go and pull out dozens of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of baptism.

---

quote:

---

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven

---

quote:

---

But if you take that approach, couldn't you find lots of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of [insert commandment here]?

---

quote:

---

19.By which he (Christ during his three days of death according to Mormon Doctrine) went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

---

D&C138 is a great perspective on those who die without knowing Christ. One thing I want to clear up is those who were good but still did not/could not accept saving ordinances will go to Spirit Prison---Not Paradise. D&C138:32. Just wanted to clarify....those in Prison (according to Mormonism) will have the chance to accept proxy work--from Christ's atonement to proxy baptism
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 
I'm (finally) leaving the library, and I'd like to say one last thing. I just finished an LDS mission in the American South. I had this kind of discussion almost every day. They were pointless. When the discussion gets to this point, the people involved have already taken positions, and have absolutely no intention of changing them. When that's happened, what's the point of continuing? To hear yourself talk? I admit to greatly enjoying such discussions at times, so perhaps I do like the sound of my own voice a bit too much. But, to use an overused phrase about overuse, I think we are quite simply beating a dead horse here.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
And a common interpretation of John 3:5 for those who don't believe in the necessity of baptism is that born of water refers only to physical birth, to flesh, and born of the spirit doesn't refer necessarily to baptism by water, but to baptism by the Holy Spirit. (baptism by the Holy Spirit is accomplished when someone accepts Christ, it does not require an outward baptism of the body by water)

The very next sentence is "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit gives birth to spirit." Jn 3:7

I think Jesus was clearly delineating the world of the flesh from the world of the spirit to Nicodemus, and so to me, accepting "born of water" as meaning physical birth makes the most sense.

Several verses down, Jesus is speaking again after rebuking Nicodemus for not understanding him, and he again restates what is necessary for salvation:

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son." Jn 3:17-18

So, he restates the position for Nicodemus but fails to mention baptism? I don't buy it. I think he would have been much, much clearer about it than just leaving us the one verse that can be interpreted several different ways, and as I see it - the interpretation that doesn't require baptism for salvation makes the most sense.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Belle, the Book of Mormon addresses the idea of "deathbed" repentance in two different places:

Alma 34:35
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected• to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal• you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

Helaman 13:38

38 But behold, your days• of probation are past; ye have procrastinated• the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness• in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary• to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.

*BUT* these are both cases where the person clearly "procrastinated" following what they already knew was right and good. I think the man on the cross is an excellent example that in some circumstances deathbed repentance is acceptable before God. This is between the person and God, and I could never speak for individual circumstances.

I am thinking there is a parable in the Doctrine & Covenants that talks about laborers coming to work in the fields of God at different times of day, one coming in the morning, one the afternoon, one the evening, and they all receive the same wage at the end of the day. I can't seem to find the passage though.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
The issue really stems from a difference in believe in the afterlife. To a Evangelical Christian death is the final moment. From there you are sent to Heaven or Hell. From that perspective a posthumous baptism would be rather superflous.

Beyond that I think it's somewhat insensitive of the LDS church not to respect the other systems of belief.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I don't know it is a dead horse. I have never looked at John 3:5 that way before, and as my testimony in modern day prophets is fragil at best, I love Belle's explanation. I am by no means opposed to change. When I read what Belle just said, I must admit, there was a calming feeling I felt that put some of my agitation at ease.

[EDIT] Yeah, I have said what I feel I needed to say and I have read what I have needed to read. What a great thread it's been. Thanks to everyone for their support in my religious issues. I do love God and and try to love people and so religious issues are very significant to me. Thank you.

[ April 12, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Thanks for that response, Yank. That was helpful. With that, I'm bowing out of the conversation, as it could not possibly be fruitful.

(Thanks also, Alexa. Best of luck with resolving your ceremony importance issues -- I mean that genuinely.)
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 

quote:

---

don't know it is a dead horse. I have never looked at John 3:5 that way before, and as my testimony in modern day prophets is fragil at best, I love Belle's explanation. I am by no means opposed to change. When I read what Belle just said, I must admit, there was a calming feeling I felt that put some of my agitation at ease.

---

I'm sorry, I seem to have Patrick's same bad-communication bug today. I intended to direct that post towards the nastier argumentative side of this thread, not Belle's very insightful posts.
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 
And speaking of having an excessive fondness for the sound of my own typing, I'm now late for dinner. ¡Adios!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
As long as there is an air of mutual respect, I enjoy these discussions greatly. It's not about "converting" someone to our way of thinking, it is about mutual understanding. I want to understand how other's view things and I want to be understood by others. If I were discussing this topic with someone who had no interest in understanding me (resisting the tempation to name names) the conversation would cease to be fruitful.

Edit: Whoops, the word "our" was meant to be general, but it sounds like I am talking about "me and those of like-mind".

[ April 12, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Yank, I hope that when you have a chance to read the whole thread, and maybe read some of the religion threads that you missed while you were gone (or at least participate in some more of them now that you’re back), you’ll agree that this is not in fact, like the hundreds of discussions you’ve had over the last two years. Hatrack is different.

It’s true that people don’t change what they believe very often as a result of threads (though it has happened), but we do learn more about one another’s beliefs, which is a good thing on it’s own. And we become better at articulating our own beliefs, and avoiding misconceptions and miscommunications.

And, I think we’re learning how to talk about our differences. I think of Hatrack partially as a living laboratory for inter-religious discussion. It bodes well for the world.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
And I should say that I have had this argument many times like Yank, because I have friends and relatives that are southern baptist. After my babies were baptized my grandmother asked me how old they would be when they were baptized again, because infant baptisms didn't "take". I told her they would never be baptized again, unless they personally chose to, and that if they did I would hope it wasn't because they felt like the one they had was no good.

And, for those of you that believe baptism is necessary and you get baptized - great! I mean, as long as the belief accompanies the baptism, then we are on the same page.

Where we go on different pages is when you say my husband and children aren't saved - because they weren't baptized as adults. I disagree with that view, because I don't think it's necessary.

Unfortunately, people have said very hateful things to me, one person even wanted to know why I was willing to damn my kids to hell. I think that attitude is decidedly un-Christian and certainly isn't in the spirit of love that Christ wants us to demonstrate.

So to those that disagree with me, let me say my disagreement with you is offered with love, and as a way of all of us possibly examining our own beiefs. It's not so much about converting people to your point of view, as it is clarifying your own beliefs. That's why I don't think discussions like this are pointless. They're pointless only if your intention is to convert. I'm not expecting any mormons to say "You know, Belle, you're right! I'm leaving the LDS faith today, thanks for showing me the light!"

So long as we agree on who Christ was and the sacrifice he made for us, we are in harmony on the greater issue, after all.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Jon Boy, in Belle's belief system there is no [insert commandment here] That's why you won't find Jesus mentioning them.

In Belle's belief system it's all about belief in Christ. Accepting that he died for our sins. Belle doesn't think any thing is required beyond that.

---

quote:

---

Moses 6:58-59 : Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

---

At birth our spirits enter our bodies. It’s the reason we came to earth, the reason we shouted for joy at the chance of being born. We wanted to gain a body.

At death our spirits leave our bodies. Our bodies are buried beneath the earth. They will rise again in the Resurrection, when our spirits enter them again. This is, in a way, a second physical birth: the birth of our eternal, resurrected bodies.

So, the Resurrection overcomes physical death.

But there’s still spiritual death to account for. In order to live with God and Jesus Christ forever, we must overcome that second death. When we are baptized, we are completely immersed beneath the water, as though it were a grave, and then we leave the water, spiritually reborn. Baptism symbolizes both birth and the resurrection. After we are baptized we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That’s why baptism is the essential first step, the gateway to overcoming spiritual death–our Spirits must be cleansed from the effects of the Fall.

Birth happens to everyone. So will Resurrection. But baptism happens only to those who choose it. But for all who wish to “be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come,” baptism is an essential ordinance.

That’s why, in our theology, baptism isn’t optional. It’s part of the order of things – spirit enters body at birth, spirit needs cleansing because of the effects of the Fall, body dies because of the Fall, spirit is cleansed through baptism and the Holy Ghost, body is renewed in the Resurrection.

Seeing it this way helped me understand for the first time why baptism isn’t an arbitrary rule, but an essential element of salvation.

Again, this is only to help you see the LDS perspective. I know that your feelings are tender on this subject, and I do not want to offend in any way. Take care! –Emily

[Edit for clarifying outline format, which didn't work too well. How do you get it to indent when you need it to? Sorry!]

[ April 13, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Emily Milner ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Beverly-
The quotes about not procrastinating the day of your repentance don't meant death bed conversion isn't possible. They mean you shouldn't live a sinful life planning to convert at some latter date. I think this is something Belle would pretty much agree with.

I'm reminded of The Chamber . I don't know if it came across in the movie, but in the book the criminal really did seem to turn his life around as death approached. And he realized what he had done was terrible.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
hahahahaha. Constantine procrastinated JUST for that purpose.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
pooka, in my post I said that those examples were specific to those willingly putting off what they know is right and that the theif on the cross is a good example of it being possible. I was trying to find all the scriptural references I could on the subject. I also mentioned the parable in D&C that I couldn't find.
 

---

Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
 
What if the Jewish groups were willing to give some resources towards removing the names and ensuring that they stay removed?

I know that I would be willing to give almost anything to ensure that my grandparents are not baptized. Are they only baptizing people who were killed in the camps, or were they baptizing survivors too?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Jon Boy I'm still not thinking you understand me. When Jesus talks about salvation, he mentions belief in him, acceptance of him as the Son of the Father, etc. So, he IS stating what is necessary for salvation. What do you think he's leaving out? What other requirement is there?

My position is Jesus stated exactly what was required for salvation, and there is no ambiguity that belief in Him is a necessity. What I'm also certain of (and where we disagree) is that anything else is just superfluous - it's nice to do, it doesn't hurt anything to be baptized or to try and do good works for the church, but they aren't requirements and they can't earn you a spot in heaven. In fact, we are told specifically that we cannot earn our way into heaven, all our good deeds are like filthy rags.

Emily, thanks for the information. I'm afraid that it comes down to the exact same thing though - you are using sources to back up your belief that I don't believe are divinely inspired. Therefore, I cannot accept them as scripture, and they cannot help sway my position.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I have an ongoing project in my scriptures that someday I'll make a thread about. Go through the scriptures (or just the Bible), and mark every scripture that says, "Do this, and you'll be saved" or some variation thereof.

There are about five variations on "you'll be saved.", and so far I've found almost thirty version of "Do this."

I don't think we can pick one and say its the only one that counts.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Would any of you consider as valid the complaints of a Muslim in regards to the Christian belief that Christ enabled salvation for him, regardless of his particular religion?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would consider it a valid complaint if a Muslim complained about a Christian telling him, "You can be Muslim all you want in this world, because it won't really matter; we're going to baptize you after you die to fix that mistake, so it's no sweat."
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, seriously, have you not even read the explanation of what happens?

I agree. That would suck. Now, who's doing that?

[ April 13, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But that IS what happens.

Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant.

The issue is that people are TELLING him that his decision is neither final nor respected. It's like saying, "Sure, honey, I trust you to stay home alone. And just in case, I've arranged for a babysitter to drop by after dark in case you get lonely."

[ April 13, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, it isn't. If you think that is what happens, then you don't understand and you're not listening to the explanations.

I'm all for accomodating neighbors, but if someone is determined to be offended, there's not much anyone can do.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But that IS what happens.

Someone makes a religious choice.

The Mormons, second-guessing that religious choice, baptize that person after they die (assuming they have the right to do so, depending on circumstances).

Mormons believe that this person has the freedom to decide whether or not to accept the baptism after death. Nifty. But leaving aside the fact that refusing the baptism is a darn stupid thing to do (and would never in fact be done by anyone of more than rudimentary intelligence, in that situation), the issue is whether the Mormons have, in THIS world, respected that person's decision to belong to another faith.

Clearly, they have not. They do not. And, by their own scriptures, they CANNOT.

Now, I understand the dilemma. Inherently, by their very understanding of the universe, they HAVE to do these things. But they should then expect to routinely be called on the carpet for it, because these things are, by their very nature, offensive.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Belle, I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that you believe that Jesus gave one requirement for salvation, and that requirement is belief in him. I'm saying that throughout Jesus' entire ministry, he gave a lot more requirements than that. It's illogical to say that they aren't really requirements just because he didn't mention every requirement every time he talked about salvation.

But really, it's just coming down to our fundamental disagreement about what Jesus said. I believe that when he said that he was the only way to get to heaven, he didn't mean that belief in him was the only thing needed. In other words, no matter how many other commandments you keep, if you don't believe in Christ, it's all for naught.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
There are a lot of things offensive to others about the LDS faith. And yeah, most of us are pretty used to it.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Tom, I think you're assuming that the afterlife will be a distinctly and indisputably Mormon afterlife. If you have some sort of advanced knowledge about what the afterlife will be like, please share.

quote:

---

Someone makes a religious choice.

---

quote:

---

wish a mormon member here would address my example about the deathbed conversion without a baptism being possible.

---

quote:

---

I trust God. I don't think Jesus would mislead us. If baptism were necessary for eternal life, in other words if he required something other than belief in Him, he would have stated so, and clearly.

I don't find that statement clearly found in the Bible, and references to the Book of Mormon of course cannot convince me, since I don't accept it as scripture.

---

quote:

---

What happens to people who are baptized after death, but unable to make the decision about accepting it (dementia, mental illness, etc)?

---

quote:

---

But leaving aside the fact that refusing the baptism is a darn stupid thing to do (and would never in fact be done by anyone of more than rudimentary intelligence, in that situation)

---

quote:

---

with no more proof than I have about the nature of the universe

---

Perhaps this is the underlying assumption on which we disagree.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yep. Let me know when you get an autograph.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I tried to get Him to sign my Left Behind series but He thought it was too tacky.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I skimmed the last one the other day. Not to spoil it for anyone, but God wins.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So, is the consensus that there are religions that believe offering posthumous baptism does have a spiritual impact on the person it is offered to? I can understand that, and would not perform such an action to one who belonged to that religion. Nor would I do so to someone who says, "Don't do this when I'm dead." One of the primary reasons I joined up was because of an emphasis on Free Agency, and I'm stickin' to that.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*agrees with Rakeesh*
 

---

Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
 
Belle--You're welcome--I realize that I used scriptures not in your canon, and that this doesn't change your views. I wanted to help you understand ours better, and I hope I succeeded in that. Emily
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Cool, Rakeesh.

I think that's a good compromise.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
And please, will someone ask Jeff for just a little explanation of his last sentence? Somebody? Bueller? Bueller?

[ April 13, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Not until my funny gets acknolwedged, it only pokes its head out of the dark every few weeks and it would be nice if there were someone there to great it.

*gets his grumpy look going*

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Obviously, he's signed up for the NFL draft.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Ah. But it's rather a different type of choice, isn't it?

---

Tom, what does this mean? My post was explicitly not an attempt to justify posthemous baptism but rather an attempt to discuss your working assumption that someone with knowledge of what's coming will always choose heaven. So I'm not sure what your question means.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You know, baiting Katie could grow into a full-time diversion

I converted (from theism) to the LDS church partially due to an emphasis on Free Agency. I love the idea that we are responsible for our own choices, (though we get some help) even when we're wrong. It's just both more natural and more comforting to me-the blame is mine, and the credit is mine, for decisions I make.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Tom, what does this mean?"

It means that it's one thing to actively choose to rebel against God, and another thing to actively disobey Him, and another to decide to belong to another religion -- or no religion at all -- in the afterlife.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

To us it couldn't be clearer that baptism is required

---

To me it couldn't be clearer that he was delineating flesh from spirit, and that the very next verse confirms this when he clarifies that flesh can only give birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit. I think he's saying the first birth is of the flesh, but unless the man is born again of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom. Therefore, it's quite easy to accept "born of water" as meaning born of a woman, physical birth of the flesh. And born of spirit, refers to being born again, which happens when one accepts Christ. I've already explained my interpretation of this verse, and it hasn't changed from yesterday.

As for the statement in Peter's epistle, that one is much more ambiguous and I can easily see why many interpret it as baptism being necessary for salvation. It follows the verse about Christ preaching to the prisoners which is a cause of much debate also. Peter liked to keep commentators busy, I suppose.

Let me state that I don't deny the powerful symbol that baptism is and I hold it sacred. I don't think the process should be stopped and I think it's something every believer should do because it is a symbolic representation and a public declaration.

That said, I see the baptism referred to here by Peter as referring to the symbol. The flood symbolizes baptism, and the baptism symbolizes salvation. But it is not the baptism that saves - it is what the baptism symbolizes. The death and resurrection of Christ. Peter continues in the last part of the verse to say "It saves you in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The baptism alone cannot save you, it is only what the baptism symbolizes.

From this I contend that baptism cannot save you - if you are baptized and you do not do so as a symbolic representation of your faith in the resurrection, then you've accomplished nothing but getting your hair wet. From that, it logically flows that belief in the resurrection and Christ's forgiveness of our sins is what is necessary.

Some people interpret this verse as saying that baptism MUST accompany the belief in order for salvation to be achieved, I contend that it does not, and Peter is pointing out instead the symbology and then pointing the readers toward the truth - you are saved by the resurrection not the "removal of dirt from the body" The physical is downplayed here, the spiritual is emphasized. Baptism is a physical act. Peter seems to be stressing the spiritual baptism, that which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (the baptism of fire, which John the Baptist said Jesus would bring) when one is saved.

I just don't think an actual physical ritual is required.

quote:

---

However, as is always the case there are alternative readings and understanding of these same scriptures and so starting from a different point of view there is no real way to arrive at agreement by referring to scriptures.

---

quote:

---

It means that it's one thing to actively choose to rebel against God, and another thing to actively disobey Him, and another to decide to belong to another religion -- or no religion at all -- in the afterlife.

---

quote:

---

The baptism alone cannot save you, it is only what the baptism symbolizes.

From this I contend that baptism cannot save you - if you are baptized and you do not do so as a symbolic representation of your faith in the resurrection, then you've accomplished nothing but getting your hair wet. From that, it logically flows that belief in the resurrection and Christ's forgiveness of our sins is what is necessary.

---

quote:

---

I don't understand why this version of the Gospel is so disparaged and looked down upon. How does my view threaten you? I'm not saying that baptism prevents you from being saved, I'm just saying it's a great thing to do but not necessary.

---

quote:

---

The purpose of this life is to back up that claim by how you live and how you treat others.

---

quote:

---

For this life, we are only accountable for as much as we are able to understand. In other words, if you don't have the capacity to make the choice, free pass.

---

quote:

---

"The purpose of this life is to back up that claim by how you live and how you treat others. "
Where in my views do you find that I wouldn't support this statement?

---

quote:

---

My version of the Gospel is so simple and beautiful. Jesus is waiting for you, just believe in him. That's it. No hoops to jump through, no papers to sign no complicated ceremonies. Just believe, just follow John 3:16, the "Gospel in a Nutshell".

---

quote:

---

I maintain that there are two types of sin.

1: ignorance (non-evil)
2: delighting in suffering (evil)

While God can not create sin in regards to creating something evil, I do believe that God can withhold knowledge.

Adam and Eve had no desire to sin, infact, (assuming it is a true myth) until they partook of the tree of knowledge, they could not know the implications of their actions.

Working through experiences (i.e. ignorance and hence sin) to learn Godly attributes is not evil and can exist with an Omnipotent Good God.

I think the vast majority of sin in the world is due to ignorance since all of us (from a Mormon perspective) are still behind the veil.

In ignorance we can learn to delight in the suffering of others, and that is why we need an atonement. We need the atonement, not because we were too ignorant to know better, but because in our ignorance we can also learn evil attributes just as easy as we can learn good attributes. God created neither, but He does give His endorsements and judgments.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Scott, would God really deny entrance to your afterlife based on the fact that someone was born on the wrong continent at the wrong time? If you grew up in a part of the world 100 years ago and had never heard of LDS, would that person really be held accountable for his choices? Either you knew and your responsible for your choices or you didn't and shouldn't be.

---

Kayla, that's the whole point of the proxy baptisms, they did not get a chance to hear the gospel in life, so it wouldn't really be fair for them to be held accountable for not believeing it. However, they have to belief it an accept Jesus's attonment for their sins, or justice simply will not let them enter into Father's kingdom, for God can not be in the prescence of sin and only Jesus can wash that sin away. So the solution? They will have a chance to accept the gospel after their death and the apprpriate ordinances will be preformed here on Earth (proxy baptism) so that they can enter "into His rest."

One thing I've been thinking about, clearly when doing the proxy baptisms, all participants have it clearly in mind that they are only giving the person a chance to be baptisied, not actually forceably baptising them. It seems like any belief system in which other's works affected your after-life would also take into account what the works are, and the fact that the work itself is an offer, not a forcing seems like it should matter. I don't know though, just a thought.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Kayla, I'm afraid I used some confusing language when I said accountable.

For reference, I am pulling most of this from Moroni 8.

We are accountable for what we know. EVERYONE needs the baptism still (for my theory as to why, see the post to Alexa), but when it comes to "how did you do in this life", we will be judged according to the commandments we knew and could have known.

For instance, someone who never got a chance to hear of Christ will have their life judged by the commandments they knew, and then given a chance to accept Christ.

It's kind of a freaky concept, because it means the more you know, the more you are accountable for. That's right - the more you read the scriptures, the more ultimate trouble you can get into. Of course, the more you read, the more chance you get of getting to know Christ, so there's an upside.

This includes deliberately choosing to not listen. Someone who has an opportunity and chooses not to take it does not have the same accountability as someone who never had the opportunity.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

What kinda of person, assuming LDS theology is correct, would deny proxy baptism? I don't think anyone would, because all the people who already denied God's plan with full awareness are considered perdition.

The rest of us accepted the plan already and have now made choices due to ignorance. With all the data, we would all accept the plan. Hence, Tom's logic
quote:
"Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant."

on why this is ridiculous holds full sway for me--until someone can point put a different type of error.

---

Well, this all kind of depends on what people are like after they die, don't you think? If a person finds christianity distasteful in this life what makes you think that it will be suddenly palatable to them after they die? Really the points you and Tom raise depend very much on the idea that death is very much different from life, and that due to this difference there is a radical change caused in the beliefs of the person. When our core beliefs are challenged by new experiences would you say the tendency is to change those beliefs or to cling more tightly to the old ones?

Clear examples of this can be seen right here on this thread. When scriptural points are raised together with a challenge to one's beliefs, does the challenged person surrender their belief or do they find a way in which the challenge actually fits into their beliefs after all?

Edited to clarify my main point.

[ April 13, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Hobbes, thanks for the answer. I would think God could set up a better system than that. You know, "Orientation 101" for those who never heard the Gospel, that way, they could listen and decide, but seriously, at that point and time, is there really a need? Tea and cake or death. Duh. Tea and cake.

What kind of God would allow for someone never having heard the Gospel and then never been "lucky" enough to get his name submitted for proxy baptism? Do you really think that you have and/or could possibly [i]ever[i] have all the names of everyone who never heard the Gospel? I don't see how you could ever possibly think you could. What about those who aren't related to you? I mean, if you go back far enough, we're all related, right? But there are people who are forgotten completely. There are people who lived and died and don't have relatives that are LDS and never heard the gospel. I still don't get it. It seems to me that type of God would be what I'd consider uncaring and capricious.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Kayla, before Christ comes down again (the Second Coming) we're just trying to get as much of the work out of the way as possible. Technically we could just sit on our hands and hmm until the Lord returns (though that would mkae us pretty selfish) and His will would still be done. Once he arrives here all the names will be supplied. All people will have the option to accept the gospel and be baptisied.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you really think that you have and/or could possibly [i]ever[i] have all the names of everyone who never heard the Gospel? I don't see how you could ever possibly think you could. What about those who aren't related to you? I mean, if you go back far enough, we're all related, right? But there are people who are forgotten completely. There are people who lived and died and don't have relatives that are LDS and never heard the gospel.

---

That's the goal. Everybody. We believe a lot of the millenium will be spent doing this work.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Hmm.
 

---

Posted by DarthPaul (Member # 318) on :
 
While it is true that the LDS scriptures talk of everyone having a "perfect knowledge" in the afterlife (see 2 Nephi 9:14 in the Book of Mormon, for example), nothing I have seen seems to imply that such perfect knowledge will come to an individual until after his resurrection. And LDS doctrine, as I understand it, teaches explicitly that the opportunity for people to accept/reject Christ and His gospel (and any associated proxy ordinances) will be before said resurrection. Perhaps in the afterlife, there will be some of the same uncertainties we have now: other people trying to explain to us what everything is all about, preaching different doctrines. Maybe there will be many different explanations of why life-after-death is the way it is, some based on truth revealed from God and some just the best that men can come up with on their own. And we'll have to decide, again, what we believe.

Thus, I don't see it as automatic that everyone will get to the afterlife and immediately have "all the facts"--large amounts of evidence that the LDS teachings were right all along, for example. It could be that way, or it could not be that way, and LDS doctrine doesn't seem to definitively answer the question.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
"the millenium"

For those who don't know what Kat means, once Christ reveals Himself (physically) to the world for a second time, He will reign over the earth for a millenium (one of peace and prosperiety), and then all people who have lived will be ressurected and judged. That in-bewtween mellenium is called (obviously) the millenium, and that's what Kat's talking about.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Belle,

It is because the idea that people can go out and do horrible things their whole life and then, at their death, can simply ask Christ to forgive them. They spent their entire life refusing Christ because they would rather have the pleasure, and at the end realize "Oh, I'm going to die? What now? Oh yeah, hell. I can feel it already, the guilt for all the things I did. Damn, I don't want to go there. Please, Jesus, forgive me."

This doesn't seem proper, to me at least.

The theoretical "didn't know any better, but now I do, but now my life is over" is rare and I think it is wrongly used by many people who claim to be Christian to dismiss their wrong doings as already being taken care of by Christ, so that they can party, and then expect the bill to be paid by Him.

God is limited in saving us by our own limitations, psychological and physical.

There must be balance. While it is true that we cannot even hope to begin to repay all the blessings God has poured down upon us, neither can we hope to get it for free.

It requires, at the very, very least, a true belief in Christ. That is the beginning. Once you step on that path, your belief in Christ requires other things of you, and if you do not sincerely try to follow through on them, then you are rejecting Christ.

In the Bible, God always formalized things with his people using covenants. LDS people believe he did not change this pattern. Baptism is a formalized covenant between God and the person being baptized that they accept Christ, will be his witness, and will keep the commandments.

In return, we are saved and we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Being formalized makes us more likely to follow Christ, because in our sinful nature, such things make God more real to us. It is another way, another tool that God uses to help as many as possible accept Christ and KEEP Christ accepted in their lives.

Once you understand the impact of your actions in relation to Christ, you are that much more responsible if you harm others. Yes, Christ will atone for that too, but only if you keep your eye to Him. Formal ordinances help you do this.

Baptism is a requirement, yes, but only because it is a tool that will statistically help more people than if it didn't exist. But because God does not treat people differently, he doesn't change the requirements for everyone.

The other LDS ordinances are simply more tools to help us commit even more deeply to the path that God would have us take. We promise our entire life to pursue the goals of God: our riches, our talents, our muscle, our mind, our spirit are all offered to God to help build His kingdom. Some people view that as the Mormon church, but I believe it is more. The LDS organization is important even to the point of being pivotal and I will uphold it my entire life, but I think it is still another tool in God's hand to bring the world His peace. The more good anyone does, the closer they come to God. The closer anyone comes to God, the more joy and peace there is in the world and in heaven thereafter.

Is that such a horrible thing to add to the Gospel?
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Kayla

quote:

---

Your either baptising someone by proxy or your offering a baptism by proxy

---

quote:

---

Really the points you and Tom raise depend very much on the idea that death is very much different from life, and that due to this difference there is a radical change caused in the beliefs of the person.

---

No our point (well mine anyway) is that additional information will affect our decisions. If there is an afterlife and there is a Christ, you got to admit that is some pretty powerful information, so yeah, I think there will be dramtic changes in behavior and choices.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Munchausen Syndrom by proxy isn't a choice on the one being affected by the proxy part.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Well I agree that just knowing there's an afterlife can be a big help, but who said you'll know there's a Christ? Really, I don't think there's a garuntee anything will be told to you at all after your death. (By which I mean, you probably aren't going to die, go to class for a while, and then enter into the spirtual after-life).

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
It's not a horrible thing to add to the Gospel, it's just unnecessary.

You are making the claim that people can live a righteous life. When you judge the person who sees the light and gets converted on his deathbed and condemn him for living a horrible life you are asserting that you, who saw the light earlier, lived a better life and is more deserving of heaven.

I believe that you deserve hell. And so do I. And so does that last minute convert that did despicable things. God teaches us that no one is righteous, no not one. All our good deeds are as filthy rags. Nothing you can do can earn you heaven, so it's pretty presumptuous to believe you deserve it more than that man on his deathbed.

Christ's sacrifice covered all our filthy rags and unrighteousness. And to say it isn't enough, to say that more is required, belittles Calvary. It belittles what he did, it says "Christ shed his blood in atonement - but it's not enough. you also have to do these things that humans have decided should be added to the gospel, because we humans know better about what salvation requires.

Nothing I do will ever win me a spot in heaven. I don't care how righteous a life I live or how many people I lead to Christ or how many sacrifices I make or even whether I go to my death as a martyr for my faith. Nothing. No amount of works, baptism included, is worth more than the blood of Christ.

His blood, his atonement on the cross is enough for me. I don't want to exalt any physical act, any outward work, any rite or ceremony man came up with to the same level as his sacrifice for me.

I have been baptized out of obedience, out of respect, and out of a wish to make a public declaration of my faith. But that baptism didn't save me, no more than any of the good works I try to pile up in this lifetime can.

Nothing but the blood covers my sins, and I personally believe the blood is enough.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Every knee shall bow, every tounge shall confess--sounds like everyone will know (assuming it is true).
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I think the best illustration of this is Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard.

The 11th hour workers received the same pay as the ones that worked all day.

The ones who worked all day thought this wasn't fair and most of us would agree it isn't fair.

But grace is not about fairness, it's a gift. The murderer on his deathbed is the 11th hour worker - he received his pay for only one hour worked. We, on the other hand, if we have been believers most of our life, worked all day. We get the same pay.

Why? Because the giver can bestow the gift wherever he wishes. And he offers the gift of salvation to all who ask, yes even those who ask in the final moments. Is it unfair to us? No, we agreed to work for the pay, and we are given it. It is up to him if he wants to favor the 11th hour workers with the same payment. Why should we be jealous at his generosity?

It's grace, it's a gift, it's love. We can't earn it. It would mean a lot less if we could.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
I would just like to say that Belle is doing a very nice job of explaining what I believe also.

The only thing I want to add is that the person who sees the light earlier and devotes their life to good things, doing their best, giving to the poor and living as righteous a life as they are capable has their rewards when they get to heaven. The works of goodness didn't get them there, but the Bible says that by the lives they led will their crown and rewards be determined. The guy who has a deathbed conversion will be a pauper as he will have *nothing* to claim for goodness.

By grace we are saved, but by our works we are known. I would sure hate to be the guy who has no good works to show for the entirety of his life. I would prefer to be the one who Jesus calls, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

So works count for something...they just won't do the saving.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I have a whole new respect for Belle.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
To clarify:

Mormons do believe that we are saved by grace -- that it is only through the gift of Christ's atonement that we can be saved and that that is a free gift for all.

Our works do not save us. You do not 'earn' your way into 'Mormon heaven.'

And without being born again -- meaning not only being baptized, but in truly committing and re-committing to Christ, to having his image in our countenance -- we can not be saved.

Indeed, the very fact that we have a chance to be cleansed of sin and return to our Father is a gift.

The difference lies, then, not in concepts of works vs. faith or grace or when a person converts [Mormon theology allows for the 11th hour parable -- and indeed it is repeated in non-Biblical Mormon scripture (as someone mentioned earlier)]. Rather it lies in our view of the eventual state of the human soul.

It makes a lot of sense of discussing being saved in the terms Belle describes if you believe that after we die we are judged and we either go to heaven or not.

And in one way, Mormons believe this. We are saved from eternal damnation and the grave through and only through the grace of Christ. But because we also believe in the concept of eternal progression -- of acquiring the attributes of God, we also believe that it's crucial that you do those things i.e. live in such a way that you are able to acquire these attributes, knowledge and wisdom. And that is why we have the ordinances that we do [which are there to symbolize, formalize and motivate us in our attempts at progression -- and to point us always to Christ as the one to emulate and the only one who can give us the strentgh and grace and absolution needed to progress] and why we try and live in the way we do. But those actions can't be done, in the end, only in view of some reward. It has to be based in love -- love of God, love of Christ. Yes, because we are weak, we don't always have that attitude, but if we can't act -- can't serve others -- with that attitude at some point, then we are lost.

In terms of deathbed repentance. I understand those Mormons who see it as cop out. But here's the thing -- we believe that we have a chance in the next life to renew or make convenants, learn and progress etc. If Constantine, for example, truly accepted Christ and Christ's grace on his deathbed, then that means he died in a state of being pointed in the right direction and thus is 'saved' -- and has a chance to become perfected.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think it's true that our works don't make us righteous. But it's also true that our works keep us in a range of choices so we are less likely to commit adultery or murder. Or even to be offended. I've often wondered what is meant by offend in the New Testament. It's not one of those words that is broken down very much.

I think the worst sin we can commit is the one that tempts our brothers and sisters to not forgive us. Now I don't think that because some have found reason to be offended by posthumous baptism, that it is a sin. I mean adultery and murder. Those are tough to forgive. But neither am I offended at those who have said it is such a sin. Perhaps I made such sin by putting 8 smilies in one post on this thread.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Alexa:

I understand your thought that wrong choices are the result of insufficient information. And I certainly hope that people find it as clear as that in the next life.

But I don't think that's necessarily the case. The scriptures show time and time again that people with good information -- information beyond what most of us have been privy to, still make wrong choices. See for example, Laman and Lemuel.

The reason for that is, actually, linked to the fall of Lucifer and his becoming Satan. That is -- pride.

Also: from what I understand of the spirit world -- where our spirits go when our mortal bodies die -- it is a place not much different than this world. A place where people form relationships and societies. A place where a lot of talking goes on. A place where decisions are made. It is not the place where the Father is.

While the very fact that spirits discover that there body wasn't all -- that they do have an immortal element to their being -- is indeed a huge piece of information. I don't know that that will be enough to convince everyone that 'Mormonism' is the right way and they need to do those things that Joseph Smith et. al. is saying they need to do in order to qualify for the celestial kingdom at the time of the resurrection and final judgement.

And I still think that holds true even if -- as it seems to be to be the case -- heavenly messengers appear from time to time with messages, warnings, etc. Laman and Lemual, after all, saw an angel.

What's more, it's one thing to have a knowledge of something. It's quite another to humble yourself, to let go of your pride, and accept the will of the Lord. Conversely, it's also another thing to find the strength to take advantage of repentance and feel worthy of God's presence -- especially since we don't enter the spirit world as a blank slate. We enter with our experiences in mortal life engrained upon our spirit -- that matter more refined shaped by how we live our life and thus varying in its responsiveness to the Gospel message.

Does that make sense?

That said -- I think that some people will find it easier to believe and act on that belief. Some may find it more difficult.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
<ventures timidly into this thread>

The Catholic Church does NOT recognize LDS Baptisms. The vatican made an official pronouncement on that at some point after I was baptised LDS, and I was interested to hear that because of having been raised Catholic myself.

So it's definitely mutual, the not-recognizing-the-other-baptism thing. Just thought I'd mention that, because way back on page 3 or something, it was brought up.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
pooka: our works can make as righteous -- i.e. can make us a person who has godly attributes. But they don't save us. Christ saves us through his atoning sacrifice. He qualifies us. Because even if we repent, we still are not perfect, we still are weak. Even our final status -- our place in one of the three kingdoms -- comes because Christ is able to satisfy the demands of justice and allows us to partake of his mercy.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
I agree with the absolute necessity for Grace. It goes both ways though. Faith without works is dead.

The true Christian (and no one can judge who that is, they can only apply this principle to their own life) will be one with Christ. But this does not mean it is no longer an effort to extend the hand of service. It means simply that they understand the meanings of their works now, and understanding the spirit, they can serve better. I don't care when this happens.

I just don't think that anyone can PLAN to sin, knowing that Christ will forgive them. Such a planning doesn't need to be premeditated somehow. Just a lifestyle lived badly with the "But it is okay, because Christ will save me."

Part of believing on Christ is to actually have a contrite spirit. Every sin we commit is worthy of sorrow and seperates us from God. We are all at different points in our lives, where some sins are very easy to avoid, while others we struggle with our entire life. And that is the point: we must be struggling in Christ.

There is no point in your life where you can claim you are saved. Your belief in Christ will be reflected through the sum of your faith in Christ throughout your life. That could very well be the whore who tried to feed her children.

But you cannot say the tools are unecessary.

You are a writer, Belle, so I think you can understand the struggle with making sure the words mean exactly the message you are trying to convey. Jesus was far better at living than we ever can hope to be at writing. Do you not think that every single action he made was carefully calculated to give us exactly the example we needed? Do you think that God was just playing around when he used John the Baptist as a prophet to teach the saving ordinance of baptism and then Jesus approached him, Jesus who had no sin, and was baptized? And then God said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Unecessary symbolism? Would God EVER do anything unecessary?

We are human. We need our symbols. We need our covenants with God. I maintain that such formalized promises ARE necessary for the greater good. I maintain that such formalized promises increase not only our personal relationship with God, but also our ability to help others around us and cause more people to see the light and be saved in this world and the next.

You, yourself, believe that marriage is not simply moving in together, but requires a ceremony. And that is a less important step than accepting Christ.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Apart from this particular discussion with Belle, I agree with what Rakeesh said: I would never support causing anyone who, in their life, expressly forbid anyone to baptize them for the dead, or who was part of a religion that believed that it would cause harm to their spirit.

ak: I think it has something to do with our recognition of priesthood authority. We both believe in it, but who actually has it is at contention. Protestants are generally considered a descendant religion from catholicism, that considered itself descended from the ministry of the 12 apostles. As such, the priesthood never left the earth. We believe the priesthood was lost, and that a revelatory restoration was needed. As such, we both recognize that our priesthoods are different. The only question is, which one maintains the authority? So it is logical to extend that to not recognize the authority by which someone in the other church is baptized.
 

---

Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens to people who are baptized after death, but unable to make the decision about accepting it (dementia, mental illness, etc)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After death? I don't think those will be a factor.

For this life, we are only accountable for as much as we are able to understand. In other words, if you don't have the capacity to make the choice, free pass.

---

So these people, if not raised in an LDS family, are not baptized after death?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think the doctrine is that if someone is incapable of being accountable for their actions, as through dementia or mental illness, they do not require baptism. But seeing as we can't judge such a case, I think the general idea is better safe than sorry.

But with children, we have been very clearly told that under 8=not accountable. That is, children under 8 still may do "bad things", but because their minds are young, Christ's atonement covers whatever they might do. They are not held accountable. Children who died under the age of 8 are not posthumously baptized.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I wonder if anyone interested has done the math to discover just how many names you'd need to proxy baptism each day in order to come out even in 100 years.

It's probably Quite, Quite high. So high, that every LDS member writing down names 24/7 wouldn't be able to do it. But feel free to do the calculation and prove me wrong. I'm quite curious.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
What?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Belle, here is a "modern parable" that kinda describes LDS viewpoint on faith/works/salvation. It goes something like this:

A little boy wants a bicycle. He wants it really badly. The father says, no. He explains that a bike costs a lot of money, and the family can't afford it right now. The boy leaves, thoughtful. He returns with some coins in his hand. "This is all the money I have in my penny-bank. Is this enough to buy a bicycle?" The Dad is moved by this child's willingness to give all he has for the bicycle. But it is hopelessly short, it is little more than a dollar. But the father says, "Yes, son, that will be enough from you. It is not enough to pay for the bike, but I see how much you are willing to give for it, and I will make up the rest of the cost." The father takes the boy's money and buys the bicycle for the child.

Two passages from the Book of Mormon:

2 Ne. 10: 24

24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

2 Ne. 25: 23

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace• that we are saved, after all we can do•.

Since we believe faith and works go hand-in-hand, we believe the Lord requires an offering of both together. Faith, Repentance (part of repentance is bringing forth good fruits), Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. After that, we then need to do our best. We believe that someone can "fall from grace".

2 Ne. 31: 14

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny• me, it would have been better• for you that ye had not known me.

I look upon this as very simple and beautiful, and it makes sense to me. I also believe that this doctrine is in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. But as these things are not as clearly stated there, it is easier to come away with different interpretations, as we see amongst the many Christian denominations.

That is one of the reasons I love the Book of Mormon so much, when you join the words of it and the Bible together, it is a lot harder to come away with different interpretations on so many basic gospel principles.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Whoops, I posted without realizing that there were TEN pages in this thread. My bad

[ April 13, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Suneun, that's one of the reasons we need to convert as many people as possible. The more individuals working on it over a period of 1000 years, the more you can get done.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Ahh except by working over 1000 years, you're doing yourself a disservice. As the population of the world is undergoing quite a steep logarithmic curve (minus inevitable destruction because of resource problems), you're going to have to do much better on the writing side. It'll be tough to combat.

Easier to work now before it gets too high.

I'm working on a super rough estimate with friends. I'll get back to you when we have a number.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Given 37 billion people who have died, according to ads for Dawn of the Dead, it would require baptizing 1,013,004.79 per day to get them all in 100 years. That's counting leap years.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
are you taking into account all the new people to live in the next 100 years?
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I think the missionaries are on it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If I understand correctly, a LOT of people are going to die in the calamaties leading up to Christs return, and there will be a higher population of reproducing LDS not to mention all the missionary work going on. I think it will work out alright.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
[EDIT: wrong number of zeros, I'm recalculating]

Hobbes

[ April 13, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Don't forget to subtract out everyone younger than eight years old- that will lighten the load considerably.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Mkay. For anyone else foolish enough to be interested...

you could get a rough estimate (Rough!) by:

Plotting a line that estimates the number of people that can be proxy baptized if all LDS write down names for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week (giving time for sleep) while taking into account the already-done-baptisms-by-LDS and the current rate of growth of the LDS Church.

Seeing the intersection of that curve with a plotted line of the number of people that have ever lived. Start at (0, 37 billion) using Dag's discovered estimation, and use the current birth rate (which is 20 births/1000 living people per year).
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
[edit: thanks a lot, Hobbes. ]

[ April 13, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Also consider we will probably have a better idea of who definitely does not want to be baptized. Right now we try to cover everyone, but then, we will actually know and it will be according to their will.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I love Hatrack.

That's all my contribution. Just thought I'd mention that.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Oh, I totally forgot that it would take longer to baptize each person.

Can anyone estimate the length of time it would take to baptize someone by proxy? We'd also have to remember there's a limit because there's a limited number of Church officials who can perform the baptism...
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
No problem Frisco.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Suneun, since in the LDS church all worthy males may hold the priesthood, and so long as such a guy has also been deemed worthy to enter the temple, he can perform these baptisms, it isn't much of a problem.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
do you mean that any man in the church can automatically perform the baptism, or that they can become a priest and thereby be able to perform the baptism? two different things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
My husband was a decon at 12, a teacher at 14, a priest at 16 and an elder at 18. This is pretty typical for a male LDS. Help me out, guys, priests can baptize, right?

So, yeah, most men in the church could do it.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
For anyone interested in doing the calculations (which may include me), check out this article for world population.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Here's an article on this year's Curch statistics, and here is last year's report.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Hobbes, does the baptism have to take place in a temple? That could be another limiting factor.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Wow. This thread has moved a lot since I last posted this morning, but I want to respond to something Tom said.

quote:

---

Well, assuming the afterlife DOESN'T look like what any other major religion thinks it'll look like, I think it's highly likely that dead people are going to be taking stock of their situations. I'm acting under the assumption that most people, confronted with actual life after death, will have brains.

---

My question was, how do we know what the afterlife will look like? How do we know if it will be clearly anything? I can't imagine that spirits in the afterlife are going to say, "Hey, this isn't what I imagined. This looks like the Mormon afterlife instead. I guess I'll convert to Mormonism." And even if it were so simple to recognize what was going on and decide what should be done, that doesn't mean that those souls would be willing and able to follow the necessary commandments.

[ April 13, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
For the most part, in the temples is a necessity. That is why so much of church resources goes into building them all over the world, and especially among high concentrations of LDS. How many temples are in Utah? 8 or more?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
*giggles* i'm sorry but i think it's funny that I have to stare at that man's face every time I look at the stats page.

only 116 temples currently in place. That would likely be the rate limiting step.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
A brief comment:

While the bicycle story may work for beverly and I'm happy it helps her understand things...

It doesn't work for me. And I'm not fond of it.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
roughly 90,000 LDS members per temple seems a little wild.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Explaining growth rates is going to be a decent amount of work, if I have time to do this, chances are I'll just post it as a Cousin Hobbes instead of an add on here. But, if you'll note, the growth rate of the Church is significantly above that of the world population, so you'll probably want to make your estimates as if the Second Coming was coming now.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Sun, the reason his picture is up there is that these are typed recordings of the Annual confrence that the Church holds each year (it's broadcast by satelite and internet all over the world) and one of the "talks" given is the satistical summation of the Church for the preceeding year. Most talks are about bettering your life and important stuff like that, but there's always this summary and auditing report of all Church spending.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Factor in an increasing rate of temple building also

Zal, while I certainly don't think it is a perfect example, it was the first that came to mind. I am curious, acknowledging that the analogy is imperfect, why do you dislike it?

Edit: And for the record, I have a lot of respect for what you in that as far as I know, everything you have written in this thread I agree with and think was very well-put.

[ April 13, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know why Zal dislikes it. But it doesn't work for me because the kid doesn't need a bicycle, but we need salvation. And I can't really think of anything we need as much that would help someone understand. Sorry I keep disagreeing with you, by the way, beverly. It's not personal

quote:

---

So these people, if not raised in an LDS family, are not baptized after death?

---

quote:

---

But if there isn't a meeting house, a stream, pond, or the ocean can be used.

---

I went to the coolest baptism in a river once. It was quite a production.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Don't worry 'bout it, pooka.

I think that is a fine reason for the story not to work for you. That is a pretty important difference between bike/salvation. But if it were changed to be something more necessary/urgent, that would take all the cuteness out of it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"And even if it were so simple to recognize what was going on and decide what should be done, that doesn't mean that those souls would be willing and able to follow the necessary commandments."

What do you think would tempt people away from God in the afterlife, exactly?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Pride?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Simple unwillingness to follow the commandments (in other words, pride). I still like to think that many people, if presented the unequivocal truth, would decide to follow it. Of course, we believe that this essentially happened in the pre-mortal world, and a third of the host of heaven rejected the truth outright.

[ April 13, 2004, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Tom-
The drive to be independent is a fairly strong one, one that exists in tension with our need for nurture and protection throughout childhood. The drive to be independent underlies most of our growth and development. I think. I don't know. But I think it goes beyond Pride, since pride is generally considered a sin. I think maybe this drive for independence is like the drive to reproduce. It's essential to accomplishing God's purpose, but can also frustrate our ability to be part of those purposes.

Anyway, I don't know if that helps since I don't know if you really understand my perspective on the necessity, power, and danger of sex. Odd that sex/marriage keeps getting referred to by analogy in this baptism discussion. But I don't think it's a superficial resemblance.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Are you guys planning on taking over the world?

That was half a joke. Seriously, though: do you really think the world would be a better place if the whole world were the same religion? Or, is the goal to just become like the Catholic Church, and be the biggest one? I don't get it. What is the point of worrying about size at all? (those last two questions go out to all faiths)
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
It seems obvious to me that if a religion really thinks they're completely right, they want everyone else to follow it.

After all, many religious people see their religion as a solution to suffering.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Not all religions think that, Suneun. In fact, some even think that it's necessary for different faiths to exist.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Sure. But you can see that it would be a motivating goal for many religions, yes?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mwaahahahahahaha! World domination!

I guess it looks that way, eh?
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 

quote:

---

What is the point of worrying about size at all?

---

quote:

---

Sure. But you can see that it would be a motivating goal for many religions, yes?

---

That's an unsavory goal, no different than imperialism of old.

And yeah, it can be done with the most lovely of justification and still be a bad goal. Kinda like what I mean about the baptisms. There's a point where it just becomes just another manifest destiny, and there's nothing justifiable about that. No bickering about who did it first and what groups have done what to whom will justify it.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Wait—are you saying that even missionary work is unjustified?

[ April 13, 2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Is the missionary work to help others' lives physically, or convert them spiritually? If the latter or "both," then yes: it's spiritual imperialism. Lots of faiths do it, and it's just as unacceptable in each.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
And why exactly is it unacceptable to try to get someone to believe what you believe?
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
even though Christ said to 'Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel to every creature?'
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
On the parable of the boy and the bicycle:

The problem with the boy and the bicycle story is that it doesn't really say anything about Christ. It's a fine example of parent-child relationships. But that's all. None of the imagery really fits in with the atonement. It's completely reductive -- and not in a helpful way. It's something anyone would do who loves a kid. What Christ did is so much more than that. A few coins isn't a really good stand-in for a humble heart and a contrite spirit. A bicycle isn't a great analog for salvation and exaltation. While Christ wants us to give our all to him -- that *all* isn't, say, 1.5% of the price of salvation (like the little boys coins would be for the price of the bike). This reduces his grace to a transaction. I suppose you could view it like that. But I don't. I don't see why you need to view it like that. And then there's that part of his gift -- immortality -- comes to us even if we aren't willing to give up our coins.

This isn't to say that all parables are worthless.

True parables -- the ones in the New Testament, for example -- resist easy interpretation, indeed they cause an overflow, an abundance even of interpretation. They don't try to sum up like the modern ones I have heard/read do. Nor do they rely on sentimentality. While it's true that they have a 'message,' that message is always a little slippery, the imagery doesn't quite fit.

And the parables are better at relating to our practice of living the gospel -- not something as awesome and mysterious as the workings of the atonement.

Think for instance of the parable of the sower. One can try and extrapolate what each of the seeds and the ground they are cast on mean in some didactic way. But the parable works best as a suggestion of the difficulty and variation to reception of the gospel. Or the parable of the ten virgins. The imagery of the oil and the lamps and the virgins and the bridegroom and the wedding feast is much richer than that of the boy and the bicycle. This is not to say that just because the imagery is of that time it's superior and that one couldn't come up with a modern parable using 'modern' imagery that would be suggestive. But every one that I've read [outside of Kafka] fails. Of course, I plan to remedy that .

Part of this is probably a question of taste. But there you have it.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 

quote:

---

spiritual imperialism

---

quote:

---

Easy, tigers. I'm not just saying it's LDS in this case.

---

quote:

---

I can think of a few that actually promote this kind of self-testing, but for the most part, just about all faiths don't convert with the intent to test and see if others actually want or choose to convert, they go out to convince and coerce others to agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Are you willing to admit that it's the same type of techniques that corporations and governments and the like use?

---

quote:

---

Are you willing to accept that it's not some benign, divine purpose?

---

quote:

---

Are you willing to accept that you might not understand the whole picture and that your statements are incorrect and patently offensive?

---

quote:

---

I'm having trouble seeing the problem with it, John. Honestly.

---

quote:

---

Why did you go over there, Pat?

---

quote:

---

It's not offensive from my point of view, Jon. In fact, I'm just letting you know what I feel in my heart and mind and soul to be the truth. I'm not forcing you to believe it, but I have to offer it to you as an option, because if I didn't point it out to you, how would I know you ever became aware and made a proper decision on the matter?

---

Actually, if you spoke this way more often, I think a lot less people would get upset at what you say.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Saying "This is God's true church" always sounds arrogant to someone not of that church. Is it wrong to believe that? And what if it is true?
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Beverly, everything I say is how I feel and not just made up in some "what's the worst way I can put it?" mentality. Some people here get that, and some people here have issues with it. Are you saying that because some people find what I say offensive, I should change how I say it?

Careful, that's a logical trap I just set.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm just letting you know what I feel in my heart and mind and soul to be the truth.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing righteous about an institution's ecumenical pride getting in the way of not offending their brother or sister.

---

quote:

---

Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?

---

quote:

---

And who are you to judge who's proud and who's righteous?

---

quote:

---

Who are you to decide that it's "ecumenical pride" and not something else?

---

quote:

---

Who are they to judge whether people who they are not have made the choice?

---

quote:

---

Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it? Is it really only a few fringe churches continuing the insult? If so, why not cut them off and end the insult as coming from the LDS church?

---

Are you talking about the specific Holocaust victims situation in regards to proxy baptism, or all proxy baptism? I don't know why Holocaust victims have been on the list after the church said it wouldn't happen. I also don't know what the church will decide to do about it. I just try to not offend myself, it is the best I can do.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
The Holocaust victims is just a group that was large enough to ilicit an agreement from the Church. Are you seriously saying you've never heard from anywhere else the insult of proxy baptisms? If not, allow me to be the first to inform you that many more people than just Holocaust victims find it incredibly insulting.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
John, I speak in all honesty when I say that before reading this thread I had no idea that people found the practice so offensive. I just hadn't talked to anyone about it who thought it was. I had heard a bit about the Holocaust victims and remember wondering why it bothered them, and that was that. To my knowledge, I have never done proxy work for a Holocaust victim or for someone who specifically requested not to have the work done. I am concerned that it offends people so much.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you saying that because some people find what I say offensive, I should change how I say it?

---

quote:

---

Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it? Is it really only a few fringe churches continuing the insult? If so, why not cut them off and end the insult as coming from the LDS church?

---

quote:

---

Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?

---

quote:

---

I didn't go over to save any savage. Is it hard for you to understand that there might be people different from you who are actually looking for a message from God. A message that answers a lot of their questions?

---

This was certainly the case with me.
I was "found" by some sister missionaries tracting door to door.
I got baptized LDS 6 months later.
And I don't consider myself a savage, even though I do live in New Jersey.

( to Trogdor)
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Why is it okay for your religion to be "true to its beliefs," but not for me? I don't change who I am because this is who I am. If you don't like it, then ask me to leave or have me booted. It's really convenient that what I have to say is pretty much okay with those who agree with what I say, and a great deal of hemming and hawing—a whole page in this thread—when not. What I'm saying is that if you want to understand how other people feel about proxy baptisms, to think about how you feel after you read a post of mine that you disagree with. Then multiply it by about 200.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Disagreeing with you is fine. Lots of us disagree here. It is the delivery that becomes problematic. And I don't think you'd have to change yourself much to be a little more sensitive to others in that delivery.

Do you feel we should not do proxy baptisms at all? Or only for those who have requested it? Do you feel that we should not send out missionaries?

[ April 13, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that if you want to understand how other people feel about proxy baptisms, to think about how you feel after you read a post of mine that you disagree with. Then multiply it by about 200.

---

Oh, I know that. With proxy baptisms, it's a touchy subject that I'm not sure we can solve in a thread here at Hatrack. I hate the people who go against the church and make the rest of us look bad. (That doesn't mean that I disagree with proxy baptism).

These are some of the same reasons why my ancestors were driven out of their homes and forced to walk until their feet were bloody just to find more shelter. Sometimes your beliefs make you unpopular. I've faced that all my life.

Anyway...

Regarding truth.. I believe that God has one finite truth. I believe he knows that truth. I believe he shares that truth with those he chooses, like prophets and apostles. I believe I follow that truth as given through them. That's all.

Just like you're statement on your site says you're not going to apologize to anyone you think is a bigot, I'm not going to apologize for something that I believe in so strongly that I really have no doubt in my mind about its veracity.

Throw stones. I'm not gonna change.

[ April 13, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I have to ask a question. If Jewish leaders asked really nicely, again, for the LDS to stop the practice of posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims, is there anyone here who believes that the practice should continue? And that if it did continue, that's a good thing?

I'm also curious as to how a person can be baptized posthumously without someone who knows at least the significant details of their life putting their name forward in temple. In other words, it seems like a very deliberate act...picking this particular person and putting their name on the roles (or however it works).

I was led to believe by much of what was said last year when this came up in relation to my own (very very Catholic) ancestors in Italy and one particualr cousin who is an LDS convert -- that the selection of names is not random.

Was I mistaken? Are there people who just pull out lists of names from unverified sources and submit those for posthumous baptism in the LDS church?

Are there criteria that are used before a name is brought forward?
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
beverly, you're going to have to learn to deal with John as is. He's a great asset to Hatrack, and knowing him like I do, he's not going to change, nor does he need to.

Take heart in knowing that if his delivery pisses you off, he really doesn't mean it that way. Promise.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Eh, give me time, I'll come around.

I dare say, I am coming to like John.

[ April 13, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
 
John, much of the time I do agree with what you say, but wince when I hear you say it.

It's like listening to an album you like with the volume up so loud it hurts your ears. Turning down the intensity goes a long way toward making the message more easily received.

That said, let me use you as an example, if you don't mind.

John often says and does things on this board that ruffle feathers. People disagree both with what he says and how he says it - but I think the underlying root is that many people feel that his self-assured "I am right, you are not" attitude is offensive and grating. John doesn't see why he should change, because that's "who he is".

The Mormons perform proxy baptisms that ruffle feathers. People disagree both with the concept and how it's presented - but I think the underlying root is that many people feel that the self-assured "We are right, you just don't understand" attitude is offensive and grating. The LDS Church doesn't see how it can change, because it's a basic foundation stone of their religion.

BUT, flip side.

John *can* (I believe) take his opponent's point of view and see that he is being offensive and insulting (at times). Personally, I feel he doesn't care so much whether he is or not.

Many Mormons on this board have not been able to take a non-Mormon point of view and see that they are being offensive and insulting in their practice of proxy baptism. I hope this is not because they *can* but don't *care* to. I think it is possible [edit] for them to see the other side, though, because those same Mormons are intelligent, rational people who should be able to step out of themselves long enough to see the other side of things.

I think both John's attitude and Mormon proxy baptism are forces of nature, though, that likely won't go away. No matter how many people are offended.

[ April 13, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: StallingCow ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Oh, I care, Cow. A lot. It's how I handle it that people don't agree with. My own reasons and rules aren't the topic of debate, though. And if they were, I'd stay out of it and just watch the show. I'd warn against anyone who tried to make me sound overly benevolent, though.

I like you, too, bev.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Actually, John, I wouldn't mind your offensiveness nearly so much if you didn't get offended at others also. But, hey, that's just the way it is.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
(((((Leto)))))

I have to admit than whenever you get on my nerves I remember when you were playing that boy at Endercon, and then you're just a big, cuddly, teddy bear for about another 6 months.

Hobbes

[ April 13, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
It may also be that the Mormons who understand how the non-mormons feel have said their peace and the debate moved on to "is baptism for the dead offensive in general". What else is there to say?

Do people have to repeat it over and over again? What Mormons here have been defending is the general practice and not the specific instance with the Holocaust victims.

Survey to all the Mormons here:

A Jewish organization has requested that no Jewish Holocaust victims be baptized for the dead, and those that were, be taken off the list.

Should the church comply or not?

Do you think the church would comply?

My answers: yes and yes

The church really doesn't care about PC, but it does care about the religious views of others and their freedom of religion. Many times Mormons and Jews stood together against religious persecution, and they would do it again. The LDS church would defend anyone's right to practice their religion. I've seen articles in our church magazine praising the virtues of Islam right after 9-11.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes and Yes.

The "who are you to judge" thing is weird. To answer Bob's question, no, there isn't a selection of "this person needs it and this person doesn't." EVERYBODY gets it. Everyone. That's the goal. That's the opposite of judging among individuals.

As far as I can tell, the objections break down into two categories:

1. Those who do not believe in the rightness of the ceremony, but that it DOES or MAY have efficacy for the souls of those dead.
2. Those who don't like being thought to be wrong.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I went through the last time the proxy baptism thread, so I haven't kept up completely.

Has anyone questioned why the current Jewish leaders have the right to deny proxy baptism to victims of the Holocaust?

It keeps coming up how arrogant the Mormons are that they would baptize someone who has died when they can't consent, but aren't the Jewish leaders doing the same?

This isn't meant to be antagonistic. It's an honest question.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
It's an honest question, and I can only answer it this way - the Jewish people of today have a better cause to say what is right for thier deceased ancestors than do non-jews. Because Jews know more about their faith,and more about what is considered right and proper for people of that faith than you do. Just as mormons would have more authority to say what should be done or shouldn't be done for mormon dead, than jews would.

If you are not Jewish, and you do not have the understanding and viewpoint of someone of the Jewish faith, then I think you should respect what the Jewish people have to say on this matter. I dare say they have a better idea of what is offensive to them than you do.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And to be clear, they have not promised to baptize no Holocaust victims. They have promised not to baptize any Jewish people unless their surviving immediate family consents.

That means 2 things: 1) Some Holocaust victims can potentially be added to the database under this agreement. 2) Even Jewish people who were not Holocaust victims should not be added to the database barring the exception above.

The reason the Holocaust victims were removed is because their was a list of them that made it relatively easy. The reason Holocaust victims were the center of the controversy is because the circumstances of their death highlight the reasons for the practice casuses offense. However, the offense exists absent the Holocaust.

Dagonee

[ April 14, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Just as an aside, I was with my therapist yesterday, who along with being an MSW, LCSW holds a master's in theology and is at work on her PhD in theology.

I told her about these discussions,and then told her we also had a thread and discussion about Peter and what the Rock means and she laughed and said since we were busy covering all the oldest and best worn debates, we may as well take on the role of women in the church. Anyone game?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

the Jewish people of today have a better cause to say what is right for thier deceased ancestors than do non-jews

---

quote:

---

Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it?

---

quote:

---

The Holocaust victims is just a group that was large enough to ilicit an agreement from the Church. Are you seriously saying you've never heard from anywhere else the insult of proxy baptisms? If not, allow me to be the first to inform you that many more people than just Holocaust victims find it incredibly insulting.

---

quote:

---

I appreciate the well mannered, thoughtful posts of everyone on every side - jews, agnostics, athiests, mormons, protestants.

---

*sob* Belle doesn't like my posts.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I should model Belle's tone instead? Which one - the "shove them" statement or the proudly petty one?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Kat: Your disbelief at a person's personal opinion is what is irksome. It's the umpteenth time you've had that exact reaction to someone's post. Skepticism, disbelief, and scoffing are all considered rude when directed at someone's assessment of themselves.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
And to explain why family members wishes are more important, I think religious affiliation dies when the person does, but family ties do not.

I don't think there's any such thing as "LDS" after this life. That kind of distinction and division is here because it's a tool and it's useful, but it doesn't matter after. It's not a matter of offering a "Mormon" baptism, but baptism with the authority of God.

So, it's like giving power of attorney to a political party instead of your daughter, and then retiring to Bali. The political party is a distinction that just won't matter.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
AMKA,

quote:

---

Should the church comply or not?

Do you think the church would comply?

---

quote:

---

she has clearly tried to be polite througout this entire thread

---

quote:

---

I don't know about you, but my church IS my family

---

quote:

---

I think people are for the most part, not very nice to you around here -- and maybe that breeds more and more contempt all the way around.

---

quote:

---

Saying "I know better than you do, and do not respect your decisions in life" does real harm, even if it's harm that someone else can choose to ignore.

---

quote:

---

What real harm is done to a dead person? I honestly do not understand this. Does anyone here believe that a Mormon baptism for the dead causes some sort of torture to dead souls, or that it rips them from their family or from their heaven?

---

quote:

---

"Sir, you will be dead in a few hours, would it be all right if afterwards we baptised you posthumously into the Mormon faith?"

---

quote:

---

And after I die, someone comes to my grave and tells me that I'm now baptized.

---

quote:

---

I don't think there's a non-Mormon out there who would Ok this for themselves after death.

---

quote:

---

It works rather well, actually. If you believe that people after death can be hurt just as can people after life, and you don't want to hurt them, then you've got a problem with those practices of yours that would hurt them, given their beliefs and values insofar as they are known.

Its completely consistent and coherent[

---

You don't think if it all turns out to be true, they'd be more hurt by not having a choice?

"Hey! Check it out! Can I come to the party?"
"Nope. Sorry, Mithrite. You made the choice once already."
"But I'd never heard of this!"
"Hey, at least you still have your pride."

[ April 14, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No disagreement there, you can substitute emotional harm if you want (though a similar qualifier about it being possible for just about anything still applies).

I was showing that if you are going to proceed with proxy baptism, it must be with the understanding that no matter how much care is taken, some people up there are going to be emotionally harmed by it (under the assumptions operating along with proxy baptisms, such as that the afterlife is much like the current life), and that acting as if it is otherwise is deluding yourself.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I can count on a small number of fingers and toes those that are."

Hopefully, that includes me.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes Tom, it really, really does.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Bob:

Hey, it's offensive but it's our belief and that's just how it's gonna be, for the most part.

Except for the holocaust victims and people who threaten to haunt me if I do perform a proxy babtism (hey, there has been one).

I thought that was what we all were saying.

IMHO, the reason that we try to refrain from doing anything for the holocaust victims is that being that "in your face" about it would cause a general slowdown in all temple work. But that's just my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I totally understand that there are people who will be quite offended by it. I'm sure there are people sitting around in the afterlife spitting on the work that we've done for them. But I would rather extend the offer one last time, because I feel the alternative is infinitely worse.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Jon Boy: first, don't make assumptions about what dead people want because they're dead. (edit: okay, good, your latest post made it clear to me you did understand this.) They made decisions in life, and being dead does not void those decisions, or at least that is the Mormon belief as I understand it. If you're going to proceed, proceed without the assumption that upon dying people will come around to your viewpoint.

I don't think Mormons should stop the practice. I think the prospect of doing it to me offends me now, and that if Mormon assumptions of the afterlife are true, doing it to me would offend me at the time. I think Mormons should understand my position on it, and, understanding that position, take what course of action they wish to take, whether it be baptising me or not.

[ April 14, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

if Mormon assumptions of the afterlife are true, doing it to me would offend me at the time.

---

quote:

---

*softly* Did you know that includes you?

---

I didn't know that. Please enlighten me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I understand that the practice offends you, PG.

You're welcome to say, "No, thank you," just as you might to Mormon missionaries at your door.

EDIT (PG edited before I finished posting): If I understand what you're saying, PG, after a person dies, they make no choices. Can anything done in life affect them? Can you give examples in Jewish law, commentary, or in story?

What is the difference between a belief (Only those who accept Christ as their personal savior get to Heaven) and a belief with a ritual?

[ April 14, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"nobody goes to graves and says, 'Guess what, Grampa? You're a baptized Mormon now'"

But I suspect that they DO, or else people wouldn't've asked to baptise Elvis so many times. I think there's a fair bit of "we want X on our team" that goes around.

"What is the difference between a belief (Only those who accept Christ as their personal savior get to Heaven) and a belief with a ritual?"

Because the ritual, which occurs after death, is LITERALLY like standing up at the funeral and saying, "I believe Grandpa was wrong about the afterlife. Just in case, I'd like to announce that he now has the option to become a Jesuit, now that he knows better."

[ April 14, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Fugu:

You make a lot of sense.

It's hard for us (LDS people) to grasp how the ability to choose remains so strongly in effect after death. It does, though, somehow (IMHO).

People might be just as likely to reject what I believe on the other side as they are now.

Perhaps every single baptism I do may end up being for naught, and the person may STILL be mad at me. MAN is that a major viewpoint change.

The point is that a few of them might accept it, and actually WANT a baptism. But I don't know who they are, so I gotta do 'em all. I take the chance of pissing a billion people off just so I can make a hundred people happy.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

but you continue to insist it is ok because your theology says you are only offering a choice, rejecting our own choice to make decisions about what is correct and what is not correct.

---

quote:

---

Because the ritual, which occurs after death, is LITERALLY like standing up at the funeral and saying, "I believe Grandpa was wrong about the afterlife. Just in case, I'd like to announce that he now has the option to become a Jesuit, now that he knows better."

---

quote:

---

Because the ritual, which occurs after death, is LITERALLY like standing up at the funeral and saying, "I believe Grandpa was wrong about the afterlife. Just in case, I'd like to announce that he now has the option to become a Jesuit, now that he knows better."

---

quote:

---

My understanding of LDS theology is that if you made an informed rejection in this life, then even if a proxy baptism were performed for your behalf, you wouldn't be presented the chance in the afterlife because you already DID make that decision.

---

quote:

---

And after I die, someone comes to my grave and tells me that I'm now baptized.

---

quote:

---

(for instance, if my church believed that all dead persons should be formally excommunicated from their Living churches after death...)

---

quote:

---

It's a pretty huge assumption you're making, that the dead person didn't have enough sense or moral awareness or mental maturity or Whatever during life to see the truth of your religion.

---

quote:

---

Also, it seems to me it would be rather essential it would not be immediately obvious to everyone in the afterlife that every Mormon belief were right.

---

quote:

---

yes, even were all true I probably would not want it. There are many values that the Mormon God holds that I do not if Mormons are right, and I would rather not hang out with him a lot.

---

 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
And I think that's a perfectly valid response.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Not to derail, but does anyone else keep reading the title as "Hillary meets her match over..."?

<--*Has read all 13 pages with a distinct, and continually failing policy of non-involvment, but still hopes he's one of Kat's digits*

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

People in life ignore objective truth all the time.

Look at Phillip Morris' bankroll for good examples.

---

quote:

---

yes, even were all true I probably would not want it. There are many values that the Mormon God holds that I do not if Mormons are right, and I would rather not hang out with him a lot.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding of LDS theology is that if you made an informed rejection in this life, then even if a proxy baptism were performed for your behalf, you wouldn't be presented the chance in the afterlife because you already DID make that decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*nods* I think this is what my brother was trying to say. I'm not sure if it is that those who have already had a choice won't get a chance to choose again, or if those who made a choice will be the same person after, and it's so much harder to change there, so they WON'T choose this, but I understood the proxy baptism to be for those who would have chosen it, had they the opportunity.

---

See, this puts it in a whole new light for me. That makes a lot of sense, and makes me even more not-offended by the practice. Put this way, it doesn't seem at all like disrespecting the deceased's choices in life or trying to second guess.

But then, I was not offended in the first place, so...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Fishtail - all that assumes that what the LDS say happens when a posthomous baptism occurs is what actually occurs.

It's not just a question of their intentions.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
I guess I just think that intent has a lot to do with what goes on in the afterlife. Not that I have any more proof than anybody else what does go on, but the most vociferous protests seem to have been made about the meaning of the proxy baptisms as second-guessing the beliefs that the deceased established in life.

I personally don't believe the LDS attempts will have any effect, but I find the above-quoted reasoning much less potentially offensive than anything else that's been said so far.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Fugu, you mentioned that according to our beliefs in an afterlife being very much like this one means people there will be just as offended by this practice as people alive now.

Question for you: Which is more offensive: The offense of proxy baptism of the deceased ancestor of a living Jew (the living Jew being the offended one) or the offense to a deceased Jew when their living descendant converts to LDS? (now the deceased Jew being the offended one.) Are the living Jews more offended because they know for certain that their ancestor would not change his/her mind when given an option he/she had not before considered?

On a side note, I do think it is very likely that someone who knowingly rejects an LDS baptism in this life is not likely to accept it in the next. I do think that proxy baptisms are most important for those who have never heard of LDS or Christ. I think Holocaust victims are probably among the "less likely to accept", so I have no problem with leaving them out for now.

I also believe that the dead will be "dead" for a long time and have plenty of time to mull over their decisions. I imagine 1000 years is long enough to change some minds. How much has your mind changed in the years you have already lived?

According to our beliefs, during the "millenium" we will have better communication with the deceased and they can let us know if they want to be baptized or not. So what is the problem with letting the Holocaust victims wait a little longer considering they are probably not among those clamouring for proxy baptism? There isn't much urgency among those who are less likely to want it, is there? Let's focus our efforts where they are most wanted first.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Here's a flipside:

Many Christians could see Mormon proxy baptisms as non-Biblical (seeing as the Mormon canon, particularly talking about p-b is not general Christian canon). In fact, it could be construed as being witchcraft/paganism as described all over the place in the Bible as possible, but bad. As a result, it could be seen as actually endangering the soul of the deceased, by trying to convince it to lose the "True Way", and fall for, from that particular Christian POV , Satan.

I know no one has made this objection before, but there are certainly people who believe as strongly in their idea of an afterlife, as Mormons do. If THEY are right, then essentially the Mormons are daming thousands of souls to hell (the firey kind, not the Mormon kind, of course ).

-Bok
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

"If you find it offensive that we follow the commandments of God as we understand them, when doing so inflicts no real harm on anyone..."

Rabbit, you are in almost all ways more reasonable than this.

Saying "I know better than you do, and do not respect your decisions in life" does real harm, even if it's harm that someone else can choose to ignore.

It's true that someone, by choosing to be the bigger and nobler person, can overlook the slight -- but it's both disingenuous and selfish of you to pretend that no slight at all is inflicted.

---

I suppose it is a semantic issue. If you feel slighted by my actions but I felt nothing but love and respect for you as I performed the actions, was the act one of respect or disrespect? Who is right?

Perhaps "real harm" was not the right word but I do not know what the word might be. A baptism for the dead does not cause any physical harm to either the person, their family, or their property. It does not infringe on their right to freedom of conscience, movement, association, or ownership. It does not subject anyone to unpleasant sounds, sights or odors. Nothing which is done could be remotely construed as emotionally , psychologically or physically abusive. That is what I meant by "no real harm".

I fail to see how the slight inflicted by a "baptism for the dead" is in any substantial way different than the slight inflicted by persistently proclaiming that the LDS religion is arrogant and rude in performing this practice. In fact, I can't really imagine how anyone could call a Latter Day Saint arrogant and rude without feeling disrespect for the person. If this is not what individuals on this site intended, then I invite you to explain yourselves so that I no longer feel slighted.

Over the years I have had many face to face conversations with friends and acquaintances who found the idea of baptism for the dead offensive. In every case, I found it was due to a misunderstanding of the practice. After I explained our motivations and our beliefs, the people I have spoken with no longer found it offensive. I suspect that this experience is common among the LDS members of the board and is why there are so many here who are attempting to explain the belief rather than agreeing that it is inherently offensive.

Still I repeat, the bottom line is that we believe God has commanded us to do this. If after all my explaining, you are still offended by this practice, I am sorry but I will not disobey what I believe to be a commandment of God to placate you. If I had a grandmother who demanded on her deathbed that I never have her baptised for the dead out of respect. I would tell her "Grandma, as much as I respect you, I respect God more. I believe God has commanded me to do this thing, please do not ask me to choose between him and you, because if you do, I must choose God."

If you find that to disrespectful and offensive. Tough. It is you who needs to learn more tolerance for other peoples beliefs, not I.

[ April 14, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"As a result, it could be seen as actually endangering the soul of the deceased, by trying to convince it to lose the 'True Way,' and fall for, from that particular Christian POV, Satan."

Actually, that's EXACTLY the plot of that Armageddon comic I mentioned writing. Of course, the other joke there was that NONE of the churches claiming to be the One True Church were in fact the One True Church, the One True Church having been wiped out entirely during the Inquisition. In the vacuum, almost all religious rituals actually WORKED, albeit not necessarily in any detectable way.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Nothing which is done could be remotely construed as emotionally, psychologically or physically abusive."

Except, of course, the whole walking up to somebody and saying, "I'm going to second-guess your religious faith. But I'm only doing it because I love you so much."

People get offended when I occasionally refer to certain aspects of religion as dangerous superstition. I do so because I genuinely believe these aspects ARE dangerous superstitions, and think people should stop believing in them.

You, too, think that other religions constitute dangerous superstitions -- ones so dangerous, in fact, that they can impact the afterlife. But, like me, you continue to voice that opinion.

There's nothing WRONG with that, as far as I'm concerned, but you might as well admit that people have a genuine right to be offended by it -- and that you should expect that reaction.

[ April 14, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Tom, it's only abusive if you then pat them on their "pretty little head."
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
SW, I respect your opinion.

*pats pretty little head*

-Bok
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
First off, I'd like to register a complaint.

I come online to take a break from packing away the Passover stuff (I know, I know, dumb move, and I do know better) and discover that this thread -- which was still on page 1 and relatively calm the last time I saw it (Sunday afternoon) was at TWELVE PAGES!

Three hours later, I was done reading it, had not gotten any more packing away done (yeah, I know, I did know better), and collapsed. 'Course, my head was spinning in such circles that it took two hours to fall asleep.

Having now packed away everything, I'm back. *rolls up sleeves*

quote:

---

From the Jewish point of view, the souls of their ancestors are undisturbed, because they don't believe in the Mormon heaven.

---

quote:

---

In the Jewish faith, does the actual act of proxy baptism make any difference at all to the deceased? I'm not asking if it's offensive, clearly plenty of people think it is, I mean, does it actually change what happens to that person in the after life? I admit to being rather ignorant of the Jewish concept of after life so I can't really get more specific.

I guess what I don't get is that it seems to me that the Jewish faith would certainly say that those preforming the proxy baptism have no power that other men (and women) don't have when it comes to influencing the afterlife, nor do the words spoken nor the actions preformed. What is it about the ceremony that would cause someone's soul to be negatively affected after death?

---

Ok, I haven't asked about this specifically (and it occurred to me last night that I really should, rather than speculating, but that will likely take a week or so -- I have some more pressing RL stuff I have to deal with first), but in a nutshell: The Jewish belief of the afterlife (in my understanding and opinion) is that one can no longer act -- all choices and actions must be made in this world/life.

Moreover, the Next World is not a simple dichotomy between heaven/hell. (I discussed Jewish beliefs on the afterlife here a while back.) So it's not a question of "yanking someone out of heaven" -- but I believe it IS a question of causing someone in the World of Truth pain.

Given that in the World to Come, souls can no longer act, how do they change (um, this is a non-translatable, best rendering:) position/status? Two ways: time and actions of those in this world.

Time: each year, on the anniversary of the death (in Yiddish, yarzteit), the individual has an opportunity to come closer to God. Actions in this world: there are two kinds: ripples, and things done in my name.

Ripples: the actions I take now will have effects (both intended an un-) for quite some time. This continues after death. So, for example, if I save someone's life, and they do good things, while they the credit, I believe that their actions bring pleasure/honor/joy (sorry, non-translatable again) to me in the next world. Similarly for any negative actions I take now that have ripple-effects. (As far as negative consequences of good acts and v.v., I think those have effects too, just to be clear. However, the soul can have the reassurance, in the case where a life saved ends up being a life lived harming people, that the original action was positive -- to whatever degree it was.)

Accordingly, if there IS a list of "never-to-be-baptized," I respectfully request to be put on it. If I need to make this request through some sort of official channels, please tell me. (And I'm sorry if that makes kat again, or others sad, but I need to do what I believe, too.)

The second way that people in the World to Come can be affected by this world is through actions specifically credited to them by people here. Accordingly, people will often learn, do mitzvot, set up charitable foundations "li'zecher nishmas" -- for the sake of the soul of -- a deceased relative or friend. My 3000 landmark was about one such.

Jewish beliefs say that actions are most important -- more important than words, or even prayers. Only in this world can one act; but the effects are felt in this world and the next. And I don't mean that God punishes/rewards on the basis of these actions. The pain/pleasure to the soul of the deceased caused by someone doing something in their name or on their behalf is a direct effect.

And I believe that someone baptizing me by proxy would cause my soul pain because the actions in this world by the living affect the souls of the dead who can no longer act. I don't know any clearer way to say that. And since I don't believe the dead can choose, they cannot say, "Thanks, not interested," as I do when I am approached by missionaries.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Rivka: Your post came up while I was posting. I don't know of anyone on hatrack who has access to any kind of a "do not baptize list". But I certainly respect that you live your religion in a heartfelt way and I'm glad to hear the explanation of agency in the afterworld you believe in. I would suspect that the quickest way to request no baptism might be through your own church. When I mention "hypotheticals" below, I'm talking about arguments put forth by those who have generally professed to be agnostic.

If it is possible for harm to come to the dead that is other than what we intended, then how are we to know what would be for their best benefit? Sure one could assume that to just ignore them as much as possible is the correct course. But by these hypotheticals, which are supposed to overthrow what I actually believe, it seems likely that ignoring the dead is likely to cause them to cease to exist.

Maybe everytime my baby puts a penny in her mouth, somewhere Lincoln is getting licked by an infernal imp (because of the symbolic use of his image.) If that were true, though, I don't see why he'd be wasting his ghostly presence on trying to set fire to bedding in the white house.

[ April 14, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :