posted
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".
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.
Obedience is not the only motive—I contend it is all about attitude. The attitude of obedience to God for obedience-to-God sake is disturbing to me. You are right tho, the 10 commandments ARE about individual attitude (ie our heart). Since the individual attitude is what I believe we will be judged on, I see the necessity of most of God’s commandments.
You are right, I should not of got off on the marriage topic. It is what is on my mind the most, but it is unrelated to proxy baptism.
Mr._Potato_Head
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.
Katharina
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.
You are right, IN THIS LIFE they are still divisible, but what about when the divide has already happened? I guess I can have faith in God because He seems pretty correct on everything else I value in character development. Since my relationship to God is determined in large part to my understanding of God, and my understanding of God is largely shaped by my religion, scriptures, and living and dead prophets, I don’t feel my relationship is pure enough to take God’s word on others peoples/scripture’s merits. I feel ok about being bothered. I am sure God understands and will not judge me harshly for my skepticism.
Everyone else,
I don’t think the LDS church should have promised to stop doing proxy baptisms as there is no legal reason to stop, in my uneducated in law opinion. If they did promise for public relations to stop, they should stop—we have enough work to do in temples that we can still keep busy until Christ returns. But please, if it is happening, don’t blame rouge temple workers. It is a church run ordinance, and if the church can’t control it, they deserve the public humiliation and should aoplogize and take accountability.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Interesting. That is one of the most powerful stories in all scripture for me. I love that story, and it has helped me countless times.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
God know things that we don't. Sometimes He orders us to do things that don't make sense. Sometimes He will get around to explaining, like He did with Abraham. Maybe we won't understand it all until the next life.
I am amazed in the faith that Abraham showed. Abraham knew that God was good and would not command him to do anything wrong. Therefore what God commanded him must have been good, even though it didn't seem to be. He trusted the Lord's wisdom over his own.
And it wasn't blind faith. Somebody didn't come up to him and say "I am a priest, and God has told me that you should go do this." Abraham had already had many experiences where he came to know the reality and the goodness of God. He had already followed the truth that Christ said in John 7:17:
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.
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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All LDS converts are required to be baptized regardless of other baptism(s). I suppose that is also offensive.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
LDS converts (or eight-year-old children, for that matter) are confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, no proxy baptism for children who die under the age of 8. They are automatic citizens of heaven. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone's choosing to convert, the new religion would trump the old one.
And see, this is what the root of the issue is. LDS have a difficult time seeing why people object to this practive because we believe that there are people in the afterlife who are doing just that.
That idea is also offensive, no doubt. I'm just trying to highligh why this practice is so imporant to the LDS world view. We have such a different idea of what the next life is like.
----- I'm not offended by this. But I truly don't understand religions -- especially other Christian denominations -- who don't offer the dead who never had the chance to commit to Christ the opportunity to come unto him if they choose to do so in the next life. What's that all about? ------
Dana [and other Christians if they desire to answer]: Can I ask a difficult question? To put it bluntly, LDS belive that while your baptism may currently matter to you as a personal convenant with God and as a personal expression of faith in Christ, it wasn't done with authority and so on some -- how do I express this -- eternal, legalistic level (?) isn't *valid*.
What is your church's stance on LDS baptism. In what way is/isn't it *valid*?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm much more interested in helping out my fellow men than I am about stepping on a few toes.
I understand this sentiment, Dante, but I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
The way temple work for the dead is often presented in Mormon discourse is that there are those clamoring on the other side for this work to be done. I think that's the case. But I also don't think we should ignore the other part of the picture -- that is that from what we know it would seem that people who *convert* on the other side only do so as a result of preaching, of missionary work. I personally prefer that when the day comes that I get there, that any discussions I have with those of the Jewish faith be about our individual understanding of our current state and what we believe will happen and not be clouded by offenses created in this life.
I have no problem with being bold about my doctrine, but I also don't believe in creating stumbling blocks, and, unfortunately we do. Part of that is just the messiness of morta life. But where we can avoid it -- and still maintain our core beliefs and practices -- I think we should.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
And Zal, thank you for your careful phrasing. I know you don't recognize the authority that my baptism was performed with. But I appreciate that you're considerate of the fact that I do.
Edit to add: It isn’t just a personal covenant with God or expression of personal faith in Christ, either. My baptism was performed by someone who I believe has the authority to act for God in that ceremony. Baptism is God’s action, not a human one.
I certainly am not perfect in living out my faith, but I do try to make it a part of my everyday life and not something I only trot out on Sunday mornings.
I guess I wish the LDS members would take more of an effort to understand why this is offensive to us. I know in debates on homosexual marriage, I did my best to grasp how offensive my beliefs are to people like Karl Ed. Doesn't mean I changed my views, or that I compromised them in any way, it just means I cared enough about the people on the opposite side to try and understand them more.
Whereas I think with this topic and others like it, many (not all) of the LDS members of the board don't even try, they just say "It's what we do, and we don't care if you're offended and since you're dead it shouldn't matter."
Well, Dana and I aren't dead. We are alive and reading these things today. And today, as people who are living and breathing and reading these comments, 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 am not perfect in this, I can get dogmatic and stubborn and stand and scream "because it's just that way, that's why!" with the best of them so don't think I'm being critical of everyone but me.
That's just why this is bothersome to me, I don't feel like there is an effort being put forth to try and grasp what the other side is saying.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'm confused, then. Why would a Catholic need to be rebaptized, then?
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, what do most Christians believe about those who have lived and died without a knowledge of Christ?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
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.)
