quote:People in life ignore objective truth all the time.
Look at Phillip Morris' bankroll for good examples.
Actually, this doesn't necessarily represent ignoring objective truth. A decision to do something is NEVER based solely on objectively confirmable truth.
"Cigarettes are harmful to those who smoke them" does not automatically lead to "Therefore I shouldn't smoke" without an implied intermediate step of "One shouldn't do things that are harmful to oneself."
Any journey from "These are the physical facts of the world" to "Person X ought to take action Y" requires making a value judgment assumption somewhere along the way.
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.
…reminds me of when I was a wee kid. I learned about heaven and hell and was crying for my dad. My dad was a bad man. He left my mom, refused child support, cheated, neglected his kids, and was...well…more weak then bad. So I said, "Mommy, daddy won't go to heaven?"
Her response was, "People who end up not going to heaven wouldn't like it there anyway. We all will go to the place we will be most happy in."
I am reminded of CS Lewis's “Great Divorce.” Quite frankly, if Heaven is ANYTHING like BYU (which I did attend briefly), I would not go. That is not to say that BYU cannot be a good heaven to someone else, just not me.
However, I don't care what religion you are, the after-life has got to be a huge culture shock. Since most of our identity is tied to a response from limited resources, health, ignorance to whether there is an after-life, finances, and a list of other physical factors many assume are not part of the after-life, we will all be shocked--and yet, if Mormonism is true, it will be strangely familiar (assuming we lived before earth life in a similar environment).
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ).
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
*shakes head* Not that simple.
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I am trying to explore the offensiveness factor a little more in my own mind.
I start with the thought that everybody who holds a sincere belief necessarily believes that those who hold contrary beliefs are wrong. This is readily seen in organized religion. If you believe that your religion is true, you also believe that all others are not, or are "less true." This is universal, and Mormons certainly don't have a monopoly on it.
The second though is that there are plenty of religions/religious people who, in essence, say to the world, "I believe you are wrong, and that someday you will come to realize it, and I wouldn't do anything about it even if I could." There are others who say, "I believe you are wrong, and that someday you will come to realize it, so I urge you to do something about that today, while there's still time." Mormons say "I believe you are wrong, and that someday you will come to realize it, and I hope that when you do you will want to do something about it, and in case you do, I want to help."
I'm not sure why the last of these is more offensive than the others. Perhaps they are all offensive together, but in that case a large chunk of the world's population is guilty of the offense. Certainly, nobody's going to apologize for the fact that they think they are right and others are wrong.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well put Rivka...this is the best argument I heard against proxy baptism. It will be interesting if Mormons ever put up a do not baptize list.
How do you feel about al the genealogy work that the LDS church has done? beneficial? irrelevant? bad?
I wonder if it would be possible for America to make anti-proxy-baptism laws. Would the church do just genealogy work? Go to other countries for saving ordinances? My views are the world is for the living. Laws should be enacted that deal with how the living are treated. If it causes harm to the dead, that is between the dead and God and the spirits of temple workers who have passed on.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, are you saying that you believe that the dead are (or can be) aware of the goings-on in the world of the living, and can have either positive or negative feelings about what they see?
If so, I definitely agree. I also think it would be good to avoid deliberately doing things that would grieve the souls of the dead.
However, since there is precious little communication between the two worlds, one might protest that it is not always easy to determine how they might feel about any particular action. In truth, I think that LDS proxy baptisms are a sincere attempt on the part of the participants to make those souls happier than they might otherwise be. If the baptisms themselves do not have this effect, I would hope that those souls might look kindly upon the intent, and have their hearts warmed at the thought that somebody is thinking so charitably of them.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
"I believe you are wrong, and that someday you will come to realize it, so I urge you to do something about that today and if you don't I will continue urging you to do someone about it after you die."
Is my afterlife going to be full of Mormon missionary spirits???
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes BOB, your afterlife wil be full of Mormon missionary spirits. During Christ's three days of death, He went to the spirit world and set up missionary work between Spirit Paradise (where the good souls who had their saving ordinances done went) and Spirit Prison (the rest of the departed souls).
There you will have a chance to re-evaluate your mortal decisions. LOL.....just give in and be baptized.
You will be assimilated. Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BtL:"Is my afterlife going to be full of Mormon missionary spirits???"
Your afterlife will be full of all kinds of spirits, and if some of them are "Mormons," and if the topics of conversation sometimes dwell on "religious" beliefs, I hope you won't mind. (And I used quotation marks because those terms won't have much meaning there)
Besides, that won't last forever. There will come a time when nobody will bother you about it any more, and then you'll have all eternity to do your own thing if you want.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok-Baptism for the dead is only mentioned in LDS scripture incident to the New Testament citation, by the way. It isn't mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon.
Alexa, we believe our priesthood and rites are the same as those of Abraham, on down to Israel and Joseph.
But in the Book of Mormon the Jews are honored for preserving the words of the Prophets, at the great hazard of their separateness over the years that has continually made them the target of extinction. Baptism for the dead is not about amalgamating them into our culture. It is about rites being finished with the priesthood authority.
Now we believe priesthood authority still resides in the Levite lineage. I don't really know all about that, but it's one of those odd footnotes that a Levite does not have to be ordained a high priest to preside over a congregation. I may not have that straight.
We already know that the same people who find this practice abominable find the elevated status of priesthood holders inexplicable. But I don't know of a "Do not baptize" list apart from the Shoah victims. Considering this trouble, I'd say it is now less likely there will ever be on.
Plenty of people already think the LDS church is one giant hate crime because we have fathers bless their infants and not the mothers. Etc. etc. (I'm still mainly talking to Alexa here) Our church will never be popular. And it shouldn't be. Throughout Genesis and Exodus it is always the younger/obscure who become the prophet, and not the oldest/strongest.
posted
I had a lot of answers in mind for you, Tom, but then I decided that a simple joke didn't really call for a lengthy exposition, as if I didn't get it.
For the record, I wouldn't look forward to an eternity of hypersincere twenty-year-olds knocking on my door every twenty minutes and interrupting my dinner or favorite reality show, either.
You know, I AM Mormon. Ooo, it almost sounded like I identified myself as "I Am," which I am most certainly not.
quote: Baptism for the dead is not about amalgamating them into our culture. It is about rites being finished with the priesthood authority.
The purpose of those rites is to guarantee salvation. What salvation? The salvation guaranteed through our submission to the gospel and saving ordinances restored to Joseph Smith.
Conversion, in this life or the next, is amalgamation.
As a temple holder who does temple work about every other month (usually we do "initiatory" or "baptisms for the dead" because of the genealogy we have researched), I do not feel the least bit sorry for what I do in the temple. We are organizing genealogy that will bless our family for generations to come. We are motivated by love. Once in a while we get a nice sweet spirit that lasts through-out the day.
Am I selfish because I am looking at the needs I see in my family and not worried if I am hurting someone in the next life? Maybe, I will consent to that. Am I arrogant because I am not looking at the deceased choices as valid reasons to NOT do temple work? Maybe, I will consent to that. Am I willing to accept the consequences of my actions done in the spirit of love, especially after so many sweet experiences me and my spouse have felt? Of course!!
When I die, I plan to die accepting full responsibility for my actions. I am not too bothered by offended people who have different values or application of values.
The assimilation remark was a joke. I thought it was funny. It IS funny! If I was not Mormon I may be furious at what goes on in the temples. Listening to others here on hatrack, I can understand their concerns and recognize the audacity of the church--but like I have said all along, the church has never pretended to be anything different.
When the church misleads members or the public, I GET SERIOUSLY WORRIED. My concern is not that Jews are offended, but rather that the church may have paid them lip-service. I see deception for the good of the departed as a real possibility that, if true, needs to be exposed.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you are LDS, Alexa. But I really don't believe the church in engaging in deception to secretly baptize people they agreed not to. If that were there intent, why would the information wind up where anyone with internet can see it?
Rivka, baptism is not tantamount to salvation (as Belle kept pointing out). It is a symbol of the Atonement of Jesus, which if you believe it happened has already imposed Christianity on all these people. According to our belief. If you don't believe in the atonement, the baptism doesn't mean anything. Even to us.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say that I've really enjoyed reading this thread and listening to all your views and thoughts. There were lots of times when I wanted to just jump in and post because I was really frustrated by a misunderstanding of the LDS practice of baptising for the dead, but someone else usually got there first.
Now I've praised you all I'd like to mention the one point thats been really bugging me and I don't think has been mentioned.
Just because when someone lived on the earth and during that time they belonged (i.e. were born into) to a religious group (i.e. Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) there is a huge assumption going on here that they had "deeply held religious convictions". Millions of people lived their lives accepting the status quo because they had no other choice or were forced to comply. I believe the further back in time you go the number of people who fit into this category increases.
I also don't agree that all Holocaust victims are less likely to accept the offer of baptism. Not everyone who died in the Holocaust was Jewish although they do make up a large majority. The Germans also didn't pick and choose between Jewish people with strong religious convictions and those who never set foot in a synagogue from one year to the next.
This is what the practice of redeeming the dead is there for - to give people a choice.
posted
So what you're saying, cochick, is that we shouldn't assume that people born into a religion, who consider themselves members, particularly believe it, accept it, and care about it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly wouldn't assume it, Tom. I have known a great many people who are technically members of a particular religion, and will tell you so if it comes up, but have no particular attachment to it other than sheer tradition or inertia. Certainly they have little to no belief in, or even knowledge of, the religion.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Tom. I mean, I can't imagine that every person who ever lived had the same level of conviction.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't go that far. Though there are millions who have been forcibly converted to one religion or another. I guess I would accept the charge that we conduct a crusade of the dead. Maybe if they don't accept the get reincarnated. Now that's what you call ironic.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, quit baiting. What cochick said is just common sense. How many people do you know who say they're Christian, but don't go to church except on Easter or Christmas, or something like that? Not everybody is going to have the same level of conviction. Especially when you take into account that throughout the world's history, freedom of religion has not been a reality in a lot of places. If you grow up in a place where they kill you if you're not a member of the state religion, then it's a pretty good guess that there are some people there who are not being completely factual when they say they believe in it.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, rivka, what do you say we grab a few more people and put together a "do not posthumous baptize" list, and have it submitted to the LDS Church? I could host it until it got really large, then we could create its own domain.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
I don't have a "church" -- and agreements with the State of Israel (that's who the 1995 agreement was with, AFAIK) are what STARTED this debate.
quote: 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.
*sigh* It's a problem, I agree. And yet I must request that me and mine (and I consider every Jew a brother/sister of mine in a pretty literal way) be "ignored as much as possible." If there are so many others "clamoring," why do we always seem to get special attention?
Why when I lived on a block that was at least 85% Orthodox Jews, did we get, on average, 6 missionary visits each year (not all from any one group, mind)? Even CAL-PIRG only comes twice a year! My parents, a few blocks away, on a block that's more like 20% Orthodox, rarely get any. Seriously, why?
quote: That's fine, rivka. Should I take the frowny face? It was an impulse...
No, kat, I think it's a legitimate expression of how you feel. That's fair enough. *hugs*
quote: How do you feel about al the genealogy work that the LDS church has done? beneficial? irrelevant? bad?
I first found out about the genealogy stuff a few years back (pre-1995, I think), when my then-spouse was doing a lot of family-genealogy research. He went to the archives at the Temple here in L.A. a number of times, and was very impressed with the resources there. I think the research is very useful, and the Church's willingness to share that information with all who want it is laudable.
As far as I understood it then, only family members were allowed to do rites for others. If a Jew joins the Church and wishes to do these things for their ancestors, I accept that there is nothing I can do about it (assuming the ancestors in question are not also close relatives of mine). However, I have since learned that many of the names for whom these rites are performed are NOT relatives of LDS members; sometimes they are gleaned out of books (as was the case with the Holocaust victims, I believe).
I understand the motivation is good; but I don't feel you have the right to do this. You disagree, I guess.
quote: I wonder if it would be possible for America to make anti-proxy-baptism laws.
For the record, I would be very much against any blanket law -- or even a law that required the Church to find and get permission from relatives. I'd like (although I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect it, granted) if the Church did that of its own accord, but would have serious issues with the government imposing such restrictions on a religious practice, whatever my personal feelings on it.
quote: Rivka, are you saying that you believe that the dead are (or can be) aware of the goings-on in the world of the living, and can have either positive or negative feelings about what they see?
Yes.
quote: However, since there is precious little communication between the two worlds, one might protest that it is not always easy to determine how they might feel about any particular action. In truth, I think that LDS proxy baptisms are a sincere attempt on the part of the participants to make those souls happier than they might otherwise be. If the baptisms themselves do not have this effect, I would hope that those souls might look kindly upon the intent, and have their hearts warmed at the thought that somebody is thinking so charitably of them.
Agreed; however, while I think intent matters, actions matter more. In the Jewish worldview, at least.
Additionally, when someone who clearly had the choice in this life, chose not to be baptized (and, IMO, that means all Jews who lived in the past 2000 years or so and chose not to convert (and some who did, but were forced/coerced to make that choice)) is then baptized after their death -- forgive me, but I consider a bit suspect the motivations of someone who feels that they have the right/obligation to override the deceased's wishes in that case.
But you believe you must do so --> impasse again.
quote: Rivka, baptism is not tantamount to salvation (as Belle kept pointing out). It is a symbol of the Atonement of Jesus, which if you believe it happened has already imposed Christianity on all these people. According to our belief. If you don't believe in the atonement, the baptism doesn't mean anything. Even to us.
Ok, I don't believe in it. But again, it's the ACTION of the baptism -- in my name, or the name of another Jew (we'll assume, for the sake of argument, not one with a descendant who is LDS) -- that I object to. If you don't believe it means anything (in the specific case you gave), then that would make it even more upsetting to me.
quote: Hey, rivka, what do you say we grab a few more people and put together a "do not posthumous baptize" list, and have it submitted to the LDS Church?
John, if the Church had one, I would request to be on it. Making one without them having agreed to use it seems like a good way to antagonize without much benefit. I really try (not succeed, but try) to only be antagonistic when I feel there is a necessity/gain.
Much like in the case of the proxy baptisms themselves, I understand (I think) your motivations, but don't agree with the action and/or its effects.
posted
According to the testimony of all the members of the church here, rivka, we could create a solid request statement first, get approval and possibly a contractual agreement, and getting signatures would be just fine.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why when I lived on a block that was at least 85% Orthodox Jews, did we get, on average, 6 missionary visits each year (not all from any one group, mind)? Even CAL-PIRG only comes twice a year! My parents, a few blocks away, on a block that's more like 20% Orthodox, rarely get any. Seriously, why?
Wow, coincidence or divine providence? I mostly meant that facetiously. But seriously, having been a missionary myself, I seriously doubt it was intentional.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Was it distinguished by anything from the neighborhoods surrounding? If there was something great and unusual about the neighborhood, or if there was something horrid about everywhere else, it could be that that was where the newbies went. Missionaries change out several times a year, so maybe that was it?
Having said that, they are supposed to keep records and not knock on a door more than once every six months.
posted
I've read this thread with fascination, since late last night, finishing all 14 pages this morning. As a Latter-day Saint I've been horrified that something that to most Mormons is one of the truly beautiful things about the gospel could cause so much hurt and bitterness. Rivka's post actually explaining the Jewish view of the afterlife was probably the most helpful thing on the whole thread to me. I can understand now at least a little why the feelings of others are so strong. I don't think I can fully understand though, as my ability to understand is coloured so much by what I believe, just as the attempts to explain baptism for the dead to those who object haven't been too successful. I don't think you can ever really understand someone else's beliefs if you're on the outside looking in, no matter how well intentioned you might be. Jan Shipps (noted non-Mormon expert on Mormonism) makes enough mistakes to prove that. I haven't seen anybody try to answer the question that was asked at least twice about waht other non-Mormon Christians believe about those who died without hearing about Christ. I came across a book in the public library a few years agoc alled "Answers to the most Puzzling Gospel Questions", written by a Protestant minister, can't remember his name. His answer to the above question was. after about 20 pages of discussion, that God has no contingency plan for those who have never had the chance to hear and make their own decision, and so it's damnation for them. Thats why I think baptism for the dead is such a beautiful idea, it's the manifestation of the overall fairness and love of God, to give all his children the chance to hear, accept or reject, without being condemned by circumstances outside their control, as othet churches believe. it's hard to see arrogance in that. It's also hard to see Paul using an incorrect practice in 1 Cor 15: 29 to justify the core belief of Christianity.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as we were able to tell, our block (and the one next to it) really did get targeted because of who lived there. And it wasn't all one group -- I don't think any one "flavor" of missionaries came more than once or twice a year. We just seemed to get all of 'em.
quote: forgive me, but I consider a bit suspect the motivations of someone who feels that they have the right/obligation to override the deceased's wishes in that case.
Once again, I would like to remind that offering one more time the chance to be baptized is not "overriding" anything. I stick with it being like a pre-approved credit card. Yeah, the subject may have hung up on the annoying telemarketer, "No! I don't want another 23% Credit Card!" But if they get a pre-approve package in the mail for that $7000 platinum car, it is not over-riding anything. Unless of course there was a company-wide "do-not-solicit" list.
JohnL,
Just out of curiosity of how the church would respond to a do-not-proxy list, I would love to see you start one. I bet your website would make the front page news before long. I love anything that encourages dialog.
posted
Missionaries are assigned to an area and are supposed to keep good records of where they have been. They also get moved around to different areas from time to time. If you were having different individuals showing up at your door so often, the problem was probably lack of good record-keeping. Either that, or they just don't have enough work to do, and they end up tracting the same areas over and over perhaps trying to catch someone home that wasn't before.
There's always the feeling of, "Yeah, she didn't listen to the last 5 sets of missionaries, but maybe she will listen to me?" It actually happened to me.
On my mission, there was a lady who's daughter was LDS but she wasn't. Many past missionaries offered to talk to her, she politely declined each time. When my companion and I came in, we had a "Family Home Evening" at their house with some members of the local church group. We had a lot of fun, and even had a brief, lovely, spiritual "lesson". After that, I asked her if she would like to listen to our message, and she said yes!! A few months later she and her husband were baptised and the family (later) sealed in the temple. It doesn't always happen, but hope springs eternal, eh?
posted
I'm sorry but I simply can't see a "do not proxy" list as anything other than a "respect our wishes above what you believe to be the commandments of God". What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I’m starting to have sympathy for John:
“I'm sorry but I simply can't see a "posthumous baptism" as anything other than a "respect our wishes above what you believe to be the commandments of God". What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((Rivka))) I am glad you posted, even though this has been painful for you.
quote: If you don't believe it means anything (in the specific case you gave), then that would make it even more upsetting to me.
This does make sense, it was on the fringe of my conscience when I was talking about that. And it's very hard to find words that don't make me seem like my belief is much "better" than yours. My belief is the one I believe in, but as we are equals it is not "better".
Agency after death (and before birth) is pivotal to all Mormons believe, and not just this question of baptism for the dead. Because we believe we will continue to work and grow in an eternal life. So I am sincerely curious how important the lack of choice after death is in your view. Sorry about the church thing as well. Again, I know it's my church that is very unusual in it's highly structured form. I have as much trouble understanding most other Christian churches.
You mentioned the use of lists of names for baptisms of those not related to church members. This is called extraction, and involves individuals who have a volunteer calling (church job) of collecting names, such as from a grave yard or census. The records are composed and concatenated to produce rolls for baptism by the youth of the church. Adults generally only do baptisms for relatives.
I actually believe that this dialogue (on the part of Hatch and Clinton) is probably going to result in the church getting more careful about its extraction effort. I think that extraction has been done on a volunteer non-calling basis. Meaning someone goes on vacation to France and while they are there they collect names from a graveyard and mail them in to the church genealogical department. At least, this seems to be how this works. I think the volunteer non-calling submissions, as the people gathering them may not be as trained, might need to be monitored more closely.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
again, or others sad, but I need to do what I believe, too.)![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
My parents, a few blocks away, on a block that's more like 20% Orthodox, rarely get any. Seriously, why?![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
]
