posted
It's all in the excuse. I mean, I imagine we can come up with something to make ANYTHING sound sensible.
All you have to do, in this case, is assume that God does not place as high a priority on individual agency, or else is willing to allow one person to hurt another person in order to facilitate the overall growth and betterment of the universe. *shrug* It's pretty easy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:'Well, he lead a good life and followed his religion's mandates. He died righteous, but now that he's been prayed for, God just won't take him. Sorry!'
There are a lot of religions that don't have a Heaven/Hell afterlife context.
He lived harmoniously with nature, but the Mormons baptized him, so now he'll be born as a Mormon cricket. Oh well!
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, Dags. I'm not entirely stupid. But without an afterlife, then who really cares if your relatives are being prayed for? I mean, yeah, as Tom points out, you can get upset because someone is saying 'we think your religion is wrong.', but again, this just seems like a, yes, silly thing to be upset about if you think your religion is true and understand that people have different opinions. It seems really silly if you don't even believe in an afterlife.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A question for those that believe that baptism for the dead may have a harmful effect on the deceased: would it alleviate your concern if the matter of choice in the baptism was made explicit in the ritual? I.e. that instead of "I hereby baptize you (the proxy) on behalf of X" the ritual went something like "if X is willing, I hereby baptize you (the proxy) on behalf of X" or something along those lines? That way, since acording to e.g. the jewish faith the dead are unable to agree to anything, the ritual would have no effect on them regardless of whether the mormon belief that the dead has agency is true or not.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we going to start listing silly hypothetical religious beliefs, now?
Um, actually, there are people who sincerely hold that belief, and Rivka's post made it a decidedly un-silly POV. IMHO.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know, Dags. I'm not entirely stupid. But without an afterlife, then who really cares if your relatives are being prayed for?
I didn't say these religions had no afterlife - I said they had no Heaven/Hell afterlife context.
And in some of these it seems reasonable to assume that the actions of people on earth can affect them there, especially when the action is intended to affect them there. And, given humanity's history with technology, it doesn't seem hard to imagine that the effect of the action would be different than the intended effect.
posted
There are a lot of things that seem reasonable in this world, but when it comes to religion, anything can be reasonable since you're not dealing with physical cause and effect, but spiritual cause and effect. However, unless a religion has codified something into its framework, then I don't think it spiritually exists? That is, I don't deny that praying might nt have an effect. As I mentioned before, though, I know of no religion that does allows the prayers of non-believers to have an effect on the spiritual state of any of its followers. Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Storm, what about Voodoo rituals? It wouldn't surprise me if people who believe in such would find it reasonable to think that what the mormons do in this case is similar to casting the evil eye...
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I am replying to the general attitude that seems prevalant that know one could possibly have a rational reason to object to the practice.
Here are the facts: People object. Some object very strongly on the basis of the implied statement about their faith. Others object because they think it can have an undesired effect on people in the afterlife.
As far as I can tell, know one is advocating legal prohibitions on the practice. Given that, vociferous objections are exactly as valid as the practice itself.
quote: As far as I can tell, know one is advocating legal prohibitions on the practice. Given that, vociferous objections are exactly as valid as the practice itself.
posted
Wow. I leave and there are a bunch of new pages! Sheesh, this thread is hard to keep up with!
quote: if you mean actual effects, no I wouldn't be offended by it, or worried about the eternal consequences since I don't believe that the doctor would have the power to baptize my child.
While Beren alluded to it earlier, I would like to point more clearly that if anything, other religions are more tolerant and respectful than LDS for that very reason. To me, what that statement says is, "Your silly voodoo has no effect, so why should I care?" At least the Jews are willing to admit the possibility that your views are valid enough to have consequences.
quote: A question for those that believe that baptism for the dead may have a harmful effect on the deceased: would it alleviate your concern if the matter of choice in the baptism was made explicit in the ritual? I.e. that instead of "I hereby baptize you (the proxy) on behalf of X" the ritual went something like "if X is willing, I hereby baptize you (the proxy) on behalf of X" or something along those lines? That way, since according to e.g. the Jewish faith the dead are unable to agree to anything, the ritual would have no effect on them regardless of whether the Mormon belief that the dead has agency is true or not.
How about y'all stop proxy baptism and start with proxy tracting? Find someone to be a proxy for the dead that you want to convert and give them the spiel. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I simply meant that given no one is trying to coerce anyone, then the proxy baptisms, the offense at the proxy baptisms, and the offense at the offense at the proxy baptisms are all legitimate acts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm, I simply meant that given no one is trying to coerce anyone, then the proxy baptisms, the offense at the proxy baptisms, and the offense at the offense at the proxy baptisms are all legitimate acts.
O.K., I agree. If I implied otherwise, then I wasn't communicating clearly.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about y'all stop proxy baptism and start with proxy tracting? Find someone to be a proxy for the dead that you want to convert and give them the spiel.
I suppose this would only work if the dead have some manner to communicate that they've been convinced of the rightness of the mormon faith and are ready to be baptized... And just to be clear, I'm not baptizing anyone. I'm not LDS, only playing mediator.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Catholics for example may light a candle to shorten a loved ones stay in pergatory,...
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but the lighting of the candle isn't what helps the soul in purgatory, it's the prayer accompanying the lighting of the candle, of which the lit candle is merely a symbol (perhaps to comfort the living person offering the prayer). The act of lighting the candle itself has no significance/effect on the soul in Purgatory. (According to Catholic teaching.)
Sorry, I just can't help correcting misconceptions about Catholics.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about y'all stop proxy baptism and start with proxy tracting? Find someone to be a proxy for the dead that you want to convert and give them the spiel.
1. This is happening, and not by proxy. There is missionary work going in in spirit prison in the next life.
2. Power of attorney is one thing, but would anyone seriously want to give up their personal jurisdiction of their soul to ANYONE? To state the obvious, what if that person is converted, signs you up, signs up everybody, and you wouldn't have?
And...
Isn't that sort of what happens, minus the lack of choice? Since there are so many Mormons who are converts than are born into it, and they sign up their dead relatives, isn't "tracting" also "proxy tracting"? The way it is currently set up, with the individual still having jurisdiction over their own soul and choices?
However, if there is tracting going on in the next world, why can't they be doing the baptism? Is the proxy baptism like calling up convert prospects in this world and asking if it's okay to send missionaries to their home? But instead of a phone, you use baptism and instead of living missionaries, you use dead ones?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2. Power of attorney is one thing, but would anyone seriously want to give up their personal jurisdiction of their soul to ANYONE? To state the obvious, what if that person is converted, signs you up, signs up everybody, and you wouldn't have?
Whoa, isn't that what you are doing now? How is proxy baptism any different?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To echo what someone said before, this thread is very hard to keep up with.I'm gonna try and clear up a misconception that some people have. Some people have said things to the effect that anyone who lived in the past 2000 years and didn't get baptized has already made their choice and so shouldn't be considered for proxy baptism. I just want to point something about how Mormons view this.
We don't consider all Christian baptisms to be valid. Only a baptism into the LDS church is truly binding. You can think that's arrogant all you want, but that's our story and we're sticking to it. So that means that everyone who lived between about 100 AD and 1830 did not have the chance to choose, as well as everyone who lived afterwards that never heard of the Mormon church.
As far as my opinion on the matter, I don't really have any problem with respecting a "do not baptize" list, like it's been said before, there's a heck of a lot of people we'er not going to get to immediately, I don't see any problem with waiting until we can ask those people after they actually have died.
Edit to answer Kayla's post: Proxy baptism is different because we believe people have a choice whether they want to accept or reject the baptism. I thought that had been repeated already enough in this thread but I guess not.
And baptisms can't be done in the spirit world because it is a temporal ordinance. The physical act of immersing a body in water is important, and you can't really do that top someone who has no body.
posted
I have been trying so hard to catch up to one individual on posts so we could reach 1000 on the same time, and here the proxy debate (which is much younger then I on this forum, is going to get there first...Grrrrr. There is no Speed in this at all.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, perhaps you could sprinkle water on one guy here on earth and then proclaim him stand in for whoever the mormon missionaries in heaven have convinced to let them to baptize!
I am full of useful ideas today, aren't I?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I don't understand why you can't proselytize by proxy. But it doesn't matter. I was joking about it in the first place.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will tell you the truth if you promise not to be too offended.
I have no spiritual qualms about getting a second chance. However, the whole thing just seems kind of creepy. It is a reminder that we are different, and while I can accept and celebrate that difference, I know deep down inside you do not feel the same.
I know it is done out of love. As someone else has pointed out, it is like having a relative say something really critical of you, which gives you a dark reminder that you will never measure up to some invisible standard (that you don't believe in). Sometimes that makes me a little sad, to know that there will always be a fundamental division between us. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that a serious question, Kayla? 'Cause I really don't see how it would work. Is someone supposed to serve a two-year mission for someone who's dead, and all the people they preach to in real life are also stand-ins for people who are dead?
quote:Hey, perhaps you could sprinkle water on one guy here on earth and then proclaim him stand in for whoever the mormon missionaries in heaven have convinced to let them to baptize!
But we don't know who in the spirit world is accepting the gospel. It's not like there's word coming back to us, saying, "So-and-so just accepted the gospel in the spirit world, so you can do his baptism now."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I was saying was that I don't understand why using a stand-in for baptism works but not for proselytizing. (But it was supposed to be funny!)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the idea was that the dead mormon missionaries would perform the baptisms and the living only providing the part of which the spirits presumably are incapable, i.e. the (proxy) sprinkling.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tristan, I don't know about that. I have never heard that dead missionaries are "going through the motions of baptism."
Edit: BTW, just so you know, the baptism is by immersion, not sprinkling. Sorry, enough people have said "sprinkling" that I thought I ought to speak up.
posted
Two points: 1) Annual growth rate of the Church is around 250,000 convert baptisms (living, that is...) plus the number of child of record baptisms (ie LDS kids turninmg 8). Proxy baptisms are not included in Church membership numbers 2) If Tom died you could NOT have his proxy work done after a year. You're not related to him, and even if you were his cousin, say, you would have to get permission from his immediate family first.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Bev and others for making me feel comfortable enough to say those things out loud.
I hope the Mormons here don't feel like they are always under attack on Hatrack. The reason why you get criticized a lot is because, well, there are a lot of Mormons here. In a weird way, because you are not a minority here, I am more willing to openly criticize you.
I'm also tough on you because I'm attracted to many aspects of your faith, and I guess it frustrates me sometimes when I find one thing I don't like. Sort of like Faramir in ROTK.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m pretty sure I’m going to regret this . . . but I’m going to do it anyway.
The following post is addressed to the LDS members of Hatrack. “You” is general and plural, not any specific poster.
As one of the people who has stated that she is offended by this practice, I’d like to point out a couple of things. First, I never said you should stop doing it (except in cases where your church leadership entered into an agreement to do so). Obviously if you believe you are commanded by God to do something, my offense doesn’t take precedence over that. Like, duh.
However, we’re not writing church policy on Hatrack. We’re discussing things with friends. Thus the purpose, from my perspective, is to understand one another better. I posted my explanation on the assumption that there might be other Hatrackers who share that perspective. And I posted it because I have been troubled by the perception some LDS Hatrackers seem to have regarding non-LDS beliefs about baptism. I know you don’t consider other baptisms valid, and that’s fine. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about mischaracterizing other people’s beliefs.
This is complicated, of course, by the fact that there is no one “non-LDS-Christian” view of baptism. Belle has said that she objects, but doesn’t consider baptism as important as you all do. I object because I consider baptism of central importance. We disagree about many things, and we’re not going to get around that. You believe that when non-LDS Christians perform baptisms we don’t really have the authority to act for God, which means we’re basically just play-acting. I know that. I, obviously, disagree. And the fact is, I have similar beliefs about a lot of what you do. But I would fully expect to be called on the carpet if I ever posted an explanation of how the LDS aren’t really acting under authority from God when they do their temple work but are just playing around. Well intentioned, and God will give them credit for that, but not really doing what they think they’re doing. Can you see how condescending that would be?
And please don’t come back with “other Christians say worse things about the LDS all the time.” I’m talking about how we discuss things on Hatrack, and we all know that has never been considered acceptable here. Non-LDS Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics have all been quick to stomp on anti-LDS trolling. And even if that wasn’t true, “someone else is rude to us so we can be rude to you” makes no sense.
I think the part that bothers me the most – the thing that really makes me think that some people aren’t even trying to see this from anyone else’s perspective – is the sheer number of times, on this thread and others, that an LDS Hatracker has explained to me that the reason the LDS don’t consider other baptisms valid is that the people performing them have no authority from God, and seemed to think this would make me feel better about the LDS position! Now I know that is the LDS belief. And if I didn’t know it before, after two years on Hatrack I’d certainly know it by now, since it’s earnestly explained to me at least twice every time this topic comes up. But I’m completely flabbergasted by the idea that anyone could think this explanation would make anything less offensive.
At first I thought that I was offended by this just because of the insult to my own baptism, which is central to my life and identity. And that is a big part of it. But not the whole. Because I am also called by God to the ministry of Word, Order, and Sacrament in the United Methodist Church. And the two Sacraments included in that are Eucharist and Baptism. As sure as I know that God exists (and I do know it) I know that God has called and commissioned me to baptize. Let me say that one more time: God has spoken to me, personally, and called me to this ministry. I normally qualify my statements on religion threads with “I believe” or “my church teaches” or “some of us understand it this way.” That is not because I lack assurance, but because I recognize that there are people with different beliefs on this forum, and in order to talk about the areas in which our fundamental beliefs differ we need to acknowledge that, and not speak as if even our most central and solid beliefs are universally accepted truth. It is a courtesy that I also appreciate from others. (And, in the main, receive. Thank you for that.)
Again, I am not asking you for anything, other than perhaps fresh understanding. With a few notable (and mostly short-lived) exceptions, LDS Hatrackers have seemed to me to be models of generosity and faithfulness. I consider many of you to be my friends. Please accept this in the spirit of love and conciliation in which it is offered.
posted
That was a very beautiful post Dana. I have seen Mormons be open minded on Hatrack and closed minded, but overall, I think they are trying to understand.
quote: the thing that really makes me think that some people aren’t even trying to see this from anyone else’s perspective – is the sheer number of times, on this thread and others, that an LDS Hatracker has explained to me that the reason the LDS don’t consider other baptisms valid is that the people performing them have no authority from God, and seemed to think this would make me feel better about the LDS position!
I don't know if I ever said this, doesn't sound like me. I can say that when Mormons talk about authority, it is not to make you feel better, it is just to defend their personal reasons for performing the ordinances. It is an attempt to be understood.
I think the biggest problem is when people who feel under attack feel a need to defend themselves so strongly. It is hard to be defensive and understanding. Defensiveness is not a sure sign of faith for me.
One reason I like your post is it is an attempt at understanding..not attacking or defending. I respect that.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I would fully expect to be called on the carpet if I ever posted an explanation of how the LDS aren’t really acting under authority from God when they do their temple work but are just playing around. Well intentioned, and God will give them credit for that, but not really doing what they think they’re doing. Can you see how condescending that would be?
Actually, no I don't. I am an LDS, and knowing what I know about you, I would expect you to think that. Of *course* you don't think that our temple work has any validity. Why should I be offended at that? After all, if you *did* believe in the validity of our temple work, I'd expect you to become LDS yoursef.
posted
I have a sincere question for you, dkw: If you were Mormon, how would you defend baptism for the dead? How would you explain its necessity? How would you counter arguments like "So-and-so already made a religious choice, and they were even baptized"?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, to clarify, you’re asking me to play devil’s advocate and defend something that is, according to my belief, indefensible? I’m going to have to think about that for a bit.
Porter, I think my point might be that there is a difference between acknowledging differences in beliefs and explaining to another person, using absolute language, that they are wrong, without recognizing that the other person’s perspective may be different.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not entirely stupid. But without an afterlife, then who really cares if your relatives are being prayed for? I mean, yeah, as Tom points out, you can get upset because someone is saying 'we think your religion is wrong.', but again, this just seems like a, yes, silly thing to be upset about if you think your religion is true and understand that people have different opinions. It seems really silly if you don't even believe in an afterlife.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
