Just to be clear, I'm not bothered at all about the baptisms for the dead, I just saw the opportunity to make creepy supernatural threats and I had to take it.
Besides, I'm pretty sure you can't do it for me after I'm gone, because I did the discussions.
(I was going to say Ewan McGregor folk dancing naked, partly because I think he'd be game for the gig and partly because it seems like a dream I might have, but then inspiration struck. )
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead. The living stand-ins say the words and perform the appropriate motions for those who have already died.
At least, this is my understanding, and that helps me also understand why certain non-LDS members find this more troubling than just saying a prayer would be, or an old lady saying things aloud while alone in a room. It sounds more like a pageant or a play [with the main characters being those of the dead], but with ritually invested meaning to those who observe it.
---
My own preference would be to be on the "do not baptise" list, but I can understand that this is not something many members of the LDS Church might feel they could respect. I don't mind so much the actual practice of it, but I do find myself far more troubled by other aspects of culture that come out in discussions surrounding this practice.
---
Edited to add: On rereading, that last sentence sounds ominous and judgmental. I didn't mean for it to be. I just mean that there is an element of ... hmmmm ... no good way to say it, but perhaps just what seems to be a common habitual stance towards others that bothers me more than the ceremony itself. I think this is in large part because I was quite zealously meek ("fiercely submessive!" as the Prairie Muffins say ) at one time in my life, and I dislike that part of what I remember of myself back then. Whenever I read these discussions, I am reminded of that part of myself which I'd rather not claim anymore, regardless of whether it actually applies to those in front of me.
quote:It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead.
Sounds a bit like necromancy to me, come to think of it. Are you Mos sure you're not a witchy-type cult?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Bob -- you have shown a lot of distress that Mormons don't share your opinion about what your baptism means. Do you also feel offended that atheists and agnostics don't believe what you do about your baptism?
Not speaking for Bob, but it seems to me that an important difference is that no atheist or agnostic, to my knowledge, will attempt to 'overwrite' his baptism with one of their own, after his death.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead.
Sounds a bit like necromancy to me, come to think of it. Are you Mos sure you're not a witchy-type cult?
Well, of course not. There are no dead bodies there. Only live bodies acting out the possible future wishes of people who were once alive, but whose bodies are now dead.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it comes to pass that I remember that we are discussing this at Hatrack, and that our host has asked us to not be specific about details of the LDS faith, and that I know "temple matters" are things considered sacred (i.e., not to be spoken of in casual conversation), so ... I might well have been too specific above.
I am not going to edit or delete it myself just yet, but should there be a request from anyone to do so, I would comply immediately. The judgment of whether that is offensive is not mine to make (I haven't a good enough perspective, I think), but I'll abide by the wishes of those who might be offended.
Of course, if any mopderator chooses to edit/delete for me, I wouldn't complain -- far from it. Again, if it is bad, it should be dealt with. I do think we can't have the discussion sensibly without that level of detail (although that seems sufficient, to me) if we are to understand one another, but maybe that just means that the discussion shouldn't be had here.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Magical rituals involving the spirits of the dead, especially ancestors of the partakers in the rite, intended to aid those spirits in the afterlife as well as discharging a duty of the participant to his god. If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary.
Edit: I apparently cross-posted this while CT was writing. I should point out, perchance, that my original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in line with the usual baby-eating jokes. Even so, I think there is a point to consider, here, namely that a lot of Christian rituals would be considered rather disgusting if a Christian encountered them outside his own faith. Take Communion, for example; ritual cannibalism by proxy, giving the participant some of the qualities of the person being eaten - classic paganism, that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "necromancy" carries with it the general connotation of actually summoning the spirits of the dead to be present, usually for the reason of personal gain [of the living participants].
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
quote:Main Entry: nec·ro·man·cy Pronunciation: 'ne-kr&-"man(t)-sE Function: noun Etymology: alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events 2 : MAGIC, SORCERY - nec·ro·man·cer /-s&r/ noun - nec·ro·man·tic /"ne-kr&-'man-tik/ adjective - nec·ro·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
The LDS don't believe (AFAIK, which is limited, admittedly) that the spirits of the dead are actually present at the ceremony. There may be individual beliefs or faith-promoting rumors otherwise, but as I understand the official position, it is that the ceremony is done just to have those actions and words "recorded," as it were. The spirits don't have to be present for the record of the event to take place.
Using the word "necromancy" casts entirely unwarranted connotations on the practice, in my opinion.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although there have been some stories of spirits witnessing their baptism out of a sense of joy and anticipation, that isn't the majority of such stories. Far more are about spirits coming to someone and pretty much lambasting that person for not doing the work for them. Any and all of these stories are not official doctrine and represents personal experiences if anything at all. Just some thoughts on the topic.
"If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary."
One person's Miracle is another person's Magic.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would usually consider necromancy as being 'magic involving the spirits of the dead', but who am I to argue with a dictionary? On the other hand, what phrase would you use to describe the Mormon ceremony from the point of view of someone wanting to classify various Christian magics? (I realise that this presupposes a belief that Christian rituals are just another form of magic, no more or less effective than a shaman's rain-dance. Still, I would suggest that even a Christian might find this a useful thought experiment to do.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Right. Magical rituals involving the spirits of the dead, especially ancestors of the partakers in the rite, intended to aid those spirits in the afterlife as well as discharging a duty of the participant to his god. If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary.
Don't you dare presume to know what a Christian missionary would or would not do. There is nothing "magical" about them and your definition of what constitutes necromancy is ridiculous.
The Chinese have for thousands of years participated in rites that they believe "assist" their ancestors and even the spirits of strangers who are dead. In fact they believe if they do not do them the dead suffer. A small group of them actually attempt to become possessed by the spirits of the dead and THAT COULD be described as legitimate necromancy. The practice of proxy baptism and all proxy ordinances is not designed to be a medium of communication with the dead, or a means by which to obtain power from the dead.
The level of disrespect for which you treat religion galls even me sometimes KOM and that takes SOME doing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Edit: I apparently cross-posted this while CT was writing. I should point out, perchance, that my original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in line with the usual baby-eating jokes. Even so, I think there is a point to consider, here, namely that a lot of Christian rituals would be considered rather disgusting if a Christian encountered them outside his own faith. Take Communion, for example; ritual cannibalism by proxy, giving the participant some of the qualities of the person being eaten - classic paganism, that.
Oh, for sure. *nods
I am still astonished at how blase I was as a child at being reminded on every Sunday that I was consuming the Body of Christ. Of course, transubstantiation is much more complicated than "you're eating dead flesh, from a guy that died 2000 years ago," but at that age, this was my level of understanding. And because it was presented to me as something we all do, something very normal, just a part of Sunday like getting dressed up or wearing my patent leather shoes, then I was fine with it.
How odd, actually, looking back.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, BlackBlade, you have to understand that if you don't believe in the Christian god, then any Christian ritual commanded by that god is precisely and exactly 'magic' : An attempt to coerce reality by supernatural means. In this case, a reality in which I do not believe, but that's irrelevant. A shaman's dance to heal the sick by removing the daemon infesting the victim's spirit is likewise an attempt to change a reality in which I do not believe (the daemon, that is, not the sickness). I understand that you consider there to be a sharp division between evil magic and good ritual; but I'm not bound by your categories. Any attempt to influence the supernatural is magic as far as I'm concerned, including prayer.
As for missionaries, I don't need to presume anything at all, I can just point to the historical records of how they classified various pagan practices.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would venture to guess, however, that those rituals are done for the good of the participant's soul, such as (for example) confession and penance. Again, this is an attempt to change a supernatural reality, to wit, the destination of your soul. Magic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"KoM, just for the record, many Christian rites have nothing to do with influencing God or trying to get God to do something."
I have a hard time believing this. I suppose there is the idea of bringing things to memory, but even that is usually with the idea of pleasing God for our involvement.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
snorfle = would have been spewing liquid through my nose if I had been consuming a beverage at the time.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, BlackBlade, you have to understand that if you don't believe in the Christian god, then any Christian ritual commanded by that god is precisely and exactly 'magic' : An attempt to coerce reality by supernatural means. In this case, a reality in which I do not believe, but that's irrelevant. A shaman's dance to heal the sick by removing the daemon infesting the victim's spirit is likewise an attempt to change a reality in which I do not believe (the daemon, that is, not the sickness). I understand that you consider there to be a sharp division between evil magic and good ritual; but I'm not bound by your categories. Any attempt to influence the supernatural is magic as far as I'm concerned, including prayer.
As for missionaries, I don't need to presume anything at all, I can just point to the historical records of how they classified various pagan practices.
Start pointing then, you might start with Matteo Ricci,
But see I am pretty neutral in regards to the Chinese Daoists attempts to be possessed. Though I think the results are at best strange and at worse quite terrifying, and though the act involves self mutilation I would not say the men and women who undertake this rite are attempting to accomplish evil.
Not only that a daemon is arguably quite different from the dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I think "necromancy" carries with it the general connotation of actually summoning the spirits of the dead to be present, usually for the reason of personal gain [of the living participants].
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
quote:Main Entry: nec·ro·man·cy Pronunciation: 'ne-kr&-"man(t)-sE Function: noun Etymology: alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events 2 : MAGIC, SORCERY - nec·ro·man·cer /-s&r/ noun - nec·ro·man·tic /"ne-kr&-'man-tik/ adjective - nec·ro·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
I think a quick source of misunderstanding here is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the second definition. There's nothing even inherently "better" about the first definition rather than the second one.
It appears that KOM is working from a definition 80% from #2 and 20% from #1. That is magic and sorcery, that happens to be associated with dead people.
While BB is working from a definition 100% #1.
As a point of amusement, I may note that a Webster's definition where many people would shy away from definition #1 would be:
quote: Main Entry: 1gay Pronunciation: 'gA Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French gai, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gAhi quick, sudden 1 a : happily excited : MERRY <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song> 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color 3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS 4 a : HOMOSEXUAL <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar> synonym see LIVELY - gay adverb - gay·ness noun
quote:Not only that a daemon is arguably quite different from the dead.
Completely irrelevant. My shaman was another example of what I consider magic.
quote:But see I am pretty neutral in regards to the Chinese Daoists attempts to be possessed. Though I think the results are at best strange and at worse quite terrifying, and though the act involves self mutilation I would not say the men and women who undertake this rite are attempting to accomplish evil.
Completely irrelevant. I didn't say your necromancy was evil either. I just pointed out that it's magic.
quote:Start pointing then, you might start with Matteo Ricci.
quote:For Elmslie, anyone who deals with the spirit world is a 'witch-doctor'.
quote:To be sure, Elmslie does not claim that the local doctors, who are here treated in the single category of 'native doctors', are incapable of healing people. He argues instead that not only is their treatment based on false suppositions and religious beliefs, but also morally dangerous, dirty, 'obscene'.
This applies to medicine rather than religion, but no worries - priests were even less popular than healers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...actually attempt to become possessed by the spirits of the dead and THAT COULD be described as legitimate necromancy. The practice of proxy baptism and all proxy ordinances is not designed to be a medium of communication with the dead...
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Although there have been some stories of spirits witnessing their baptism out of a sense of joy and anticipation, that isn't the majority of such stories. Far more are about spirits coming to someone and pretty much lambasting that person for not doing the work for them.
It may not be *designed* as a medium of communication, but evidentially at least someone believes that the spirits do appear and communicate.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Bob -- you have shown a lot of distress that Mormons don't share your opinion about what your baptism means. Do you also feel offended that atheists and agnostics don't believe what you do about your baptism?
Not speaking for Bob, but it seems to me that an important difference is that no atheist or agnostic, to my knowledge, will attempt to 'overwrite' his baptism with one of their own, after his death.
I was replying to Bob's comments that only dealt with normal, in-the-flesh baptisms.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the idea of these posthumous baptisms has been bouncing around the old noggin for a while now, and I have to say, from a personal perspective, I love it.
I am an atheist to the core. Not a remotely spiritual bone in my body. I have absolutely no faith in any religion whatsoever.
According to nearly every religion, I'm pretty screwed. Oh well. I don't believe them anyway.
But according to Mormonism, after I die I won't be damned eternally! I'll only be damned temporarily, and I might be able to be saved via a posthumous baptism. Sweet! I say, bring it on! On the off-chance that I'm wrong, I will happily accept such a baptism and follow God's law from then unto the end of time. I think this is just about the coolest, and kindest, religious custom I've ever seen.
Is there somewhere the living can go to request a posthumous baptism, when the time comes? I know I sound a bit flippant, but I'm actually seriously asking.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, the description you gave for the temple ceremony is not a problem. There are aspects of the temple ceremony we don't talk about outside of the temple, but describing it in generalities is okay, and you did not step over the line. Thank you for your thoughtfulness, consideration, and willingness to delete if necessary. It isn't.
As for if the person's spirit is at the ceremony or not... It's not required, but we do believe that if the spirit accepted the gospel, they likely are there rejoicing as it's done. If the spirit didn't accept, then they'd have no reason to be there. Does that make sense?
And there are many, many people who say that they feel the spirit of the person they're doing the work for present at the time.
For the record, Belle, Eljay, and others, I do understand why you find it offensive. Of course I disagree with you based on my religious beliefs, but I can understand it anyway in my own limited way. I'm sorry it offends you. I wish it didn't. I don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better, short of not doing these ordinances at all, which would go against everything we believe in. There's no good way to win. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better."
Make an opt-out list. When proselytizing, let people know this list is available if they decline to convert. Then you leave out the people who make conscious decisions not to join your church.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better."
Make an opt-out list. When proselytizing, let people know this list is available if they decline to convert. Then you leave out the people who make conscious decisions not to join your church.
An opt-out list kind of goes against the whole LDS idea of posthumous baptism. If the church did such a thing, there would be many people who do not have a full understanding of the doctrine that choose to sign-up for this list. We believe everyone will be taught the doctrine in the spirit world to its fullest. We believe there may be some people who will reject it in this life, due to insufficient knowledge or other circumstances, who may change their minds once they learn the fullness of the doctrine. We would hate to say to them: "Sorry, but you signed that list in mortality, so I guess you're out of luck."
Of course, those of you who find posthumous baptism offensive will find this probably more offensive, which is fine. I am just explaining one possibility why the LDS church does not have an opt-out list.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:An opt-out list kind of goes against the whole LDS idea of posthumous baptism. If the church did such a thing, there would be many people who do not have a full understanding of the doctrine that choose to sign-up for this list. We believe everyone will be taught the doctrine in the spirit world to its fullest. We believe there may be some people who will reject it in this life, due to insufficient knowledge or other circumstances, who may change their minds once they learn the fullness of the doctrine. We would hate to say to them: "Sorry, but you signed that list in mortality, so I guess you're out of luck."
Then there isn't a clean solution. In such circumstances, shouldn't you privilege the decision one has made while living. If the LDS Church doesn't do this, isn't it tantamount to going against a person's dying wish? If the Rivka is correct, then you are torturing a dead person by giving them this choice.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But according to Mormonism, after I die I won't be damned eternally! I'll only be damned temporarily, and I might be able to be saved via a posthumous baptism. Sweet! I say, bring it on! On the off-chance that I'm wrong, I will happily accept such a baptism and follow God's law from then unto the end of time.
But this is just a variant of old Pascal, and suffers from the same problem: The chances are just as good that you're wrong in a different way, and that the baptism ceremony will actually add to your torments in the afterlife.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I have a question about arrogance and conviction. If you believe something so strongly that you have no doubts that it is true, i.e. you consider it factual knowledge, while respecting that other people have the right to worship and believe as they please, do you consider that arrogance or conviction?
I have heard the word arrogance used before in this thread, and am wondering if the two words get confused. Do you think it's bad to know that you're right (without going around saying it all the time and wholeheartedly respecting others' rights to believe as they please)?
Maybe Mormons are arrogant, because many of them, including myself, believe to have the fulness of the gospel of Christ. If so, then like Occasional said, I must settle for being arrogant.
But again, if I am, and I decide not to be arrogant, then I would be going against something I believe so fully that it would be to go against my very being. I could no sooner decide that posthumous baptism and other LDS doctrines are incorrect than I could deny that I currently exist. And I don't say this to flaunt that I have all truth. It's just that all of us have core beliefs so deep that to deny them would only be to lie to ourselves. And one of these core beliefs is allowing others to believe as they choose, because I believe God gave us the right to choose such things. And I don't believe posthumous baptism to go against rights, but we have already established it is not an issue of rights, but of respect, which brings us back to the same discussion we've been having for 10 pages.
So take this post as a discussion about arrogance and conviction, not necessarily about the baptism subject, since I can't think of anything new to say that hasn't already been said.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I actually mean the true sense of arrogance, to claim for oneself a rule that doesn't belong. In this case, in posthumous baptism, you are claiming authority over the mortal's live wishes. Whether it's yours to claim, I don't know, but at best, it is suspiciously paternal, and at worst you are setting yourself up as a god and in the process bringing pain upon the dead.
It's your decision, but we live in a religiously plural world, and taking the hard line on this is what causes holy wars, unless you expect Jews to be passive while you torture their dead.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know something... I don't like the posthumous baptism thing. I think it's disrespectful. I get that they're going to keep doing it despite that, and I hope that at the very least, they've learned that there's a reason why people find it disrespectful.
But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
The world to come is a world of Truth. It's a world where we will see the world in truth. Having someone offer baptism at that point is actually far less of a big deal than someone knocking on my door today and trying to talk to me about this stuff.
No one is "torturing our dead". For crying out loud. Yes, someone were to portray me as a Christian after I'm dead, that would probably cause me pain in the next world. But knocking on my grave (so to speak) and saying, "Here you go, just in case," while it's incredibly insensitive to those of us still alive, isn't anything to us once we're dead.
I'm tempted to delete this thread. Not that I ever would, but it's tempting.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: And I don't believe posthumous baptism to go against rights, but we have already established it is not an issue of rights, but of respect, which brings us back to the same discussion we've been having for 10 pages.
The thing is, Mormons can keep things to themselves. They did it with polygamy for a time. This should have been the same thing. And I think it wasn't because y'all simply didn't get how anyone could be offended by it.
Once it was pointed out to you that it was offensive, the proper thing to do would have been to say, "We're sorry it offends you", and made the entire process invisible to outside eyes. That this wasn't done smacks of more than just arrogance.
But whatever. It'd be nice to think that at least some of you get it now.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our defense, it isn't like the church puts our press releases, and the temples are closed to the public. It isn't meant to be done in public. That the IGI is public is both unavoidable and public service, since lots of people outside of the church use it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
I don't believe I ever said it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I made it clear the last go-round that it was my view. I have since discovered that while it is certainly not the majority view, it is one that has some backing. (Afraid I don't recall from whom -- I had that conversation with my rav at least a year ago.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In our defense, it isn't like the church puts our press releases, and the temples are closed to the public. It isn't meant to be done in public. That the IGI is public is both unavoidable and public service, since lots of people outside of the church use it.
I hear what you're saying, but the two can be kept separate. The genealogy information and the baptisms. I don't really think it's unavoidable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
I don't believe I ever said it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I made it clear the last go-round that it was my view. I have since discovered that while it is certainly not the majority view, it is one that has some backing. (Afraid I don't recall from whom -- I had that conversation with my rav at least a year ago.)
Okay. I only posted this because some people, like Irami, were assuming it to be global. It wasn't meant as an attack against you, and I hope you didn't take it that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this thing quite a lot, and I think I have an analogy that might work to explain a bit of what I've been feeling.
I was head of an organization when one of the early originators of that organization passed away. The board and I decided amongst ourselves that we should do something to honor his memory. My first thought after that was to ask the man's widow for permission and to ask her to approve the statement that would be used at our annual meeting and in the newsletter. I sought her approval even though I knew that the man was one of our founders and, at least up to his retirement a few years ago had been a tireless booster of the organization.
I made sure to talk directly to his widow before writing up anything, then I sent her the completed writeup and she approved it.
Now, see, I realize this may not be a perfect analogy, but it may serve to illustrate what I consider proper behavior when using the name of a person who has died in the recently-enough to have left surviving immediate kin such as a spouse or adult children.
In the situation I've described, we felt we were honoring the person, and we have assurances from those who knew the couple that both the deceased man and his wife would have been pleased with the memorial we planned.
Now, see, I wish that there was some way to convey a like sentiment to the folks who do the proxy baptisms without knowing for sure that they have the widowed spouse's approval, or barring a surviving spouse, then the approval of the deceased children. It's a courtesy, to be sure, but it is also something that does more than hit a raw and sour note if done without that personal contact. If I'd gone ahead and honored that man without ever talking to his wife, it would have been wrong. I hope, first, that everyone sees that and can at least understand that idea, if not actually agree with it.
I feel like my family has been wronged by the person who used my father's name in a ceremony. Not because it did or did not have meaning, but because it was simply the wrong thing to do from a basic standard of behavior point of view. Politeness and consideration.
See, that's sort of what surprises me most about this coming from LDS folk. I have never met an LDS person who was not scrupulously polite and considerate. But now I find out that on something I consider sort of basic, the general position is somewhere between "oh, gee, that shouldn't have happened, sorry" and "we answer to a higher power and we'll continue to do this."
I know a few (quidscribis most notably) at least see that there could be reason for upset on my part and (whether they agree or not) at least acknowledge a need for change.
I can honestly say that the other reactions disappointed and surprised me. In fact, I got downright angry, and took it out on someone (elsewhere) in a way that I regretted shortly thereafter. Suffice it to say I was not my usual nice self and got into some of the other things I dislike about the doctrine that backs up this particular practice. I'll not repeat any of it here as I have simply decided to go back to ignoring that aspect of the issue.
The part that still feels bad to me is the failure to contact surviving immediate family. I consider myself sort of a basic-level person when it comes to social graces. I figure if I know better than to do this, pretty much everyone should. It crosses a line that it seems to me is more than just obvious, but obviously basic.
And yet, I seem to gather that this problem gets more-or-less of a wink and a nod from the LDS hierarchy. A "tsk tsk, we told them not to, but oh well, what can you do with octogenerian grandmothers who're set in their ways" <insert tossed up hands here.>
And that, seems to me, just isn't enough.
It's sort of what I want to write to President Hinkley. That and the whole issue about not having adequate notices on the website of the purpose of the database.
But really, I think it's something that I'd like to present in the form of a heartfelt letter to those grandmothers. Not in anger -- I think I'm mostly past that -- but to let them know how it feels to have your father's name used without your knowledge. Even if it is for the purpose of a high honor or to meet a commitment from God.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I asked you earlier, but I guess you didn't see it, so I'll ask again.
You said (I'm paraphrasing here. If I get it wrong, I apologize) that you were deeply offended by LDS doctrine of (non-vicarious) baptism and what it ipmlies about your religion and the people who performed your baptism.
Are you similarly offended by what the beliefs of, say, atheists, Jews, and Muslims imply about your religion and the people who performed your baptism?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, but I can't discuss that without getting myself into trouble I don't really need. In truth, I ignore it in ALL other faiths, including LDS, unless it comes up in a way that is more "in your face" than normal.
Remember, however, that I am married to a clergy person and that implies that I have more than just a passing interest in this issue.
I can't really be objective about it, so I try to ignore it, when I can. And I end up apologizing in the aftermath when I can't. I'd rather stick to just ignoring it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for Bob, of course, but since I feel very close to what Bob has mentioned myself I can answer that for myself....
Not really.....unless they tried to posthumously convert me as well. Even in a "just in case" type of situation.
Part of what bothers me is the specificity of it. I don't care what people think of my religious views, but at least while I am alive I can express them, and disagree with anyone who says I believe otherwise.
It just feels like the Mormon Church is saying " Well, since they won't convert NOW, wait until they are dead and we will try it later.". If I wanted to baptized I would do it in life, but once I am dead the Mormon Church acts like they have a right to have a say in where I go and what I do in the afterlife, and that bothers me a lot.
I understand WHY they feel it is necessary, but it doesn't make it a lot less bothersome to me. Your religious views have nothing to do with mine, and I prefer to keep it that way.....and "offering" me a choice later doesn't make up for the impopriety of it in this world, IMO.
It's like signing me up for a book club against my will....if MY faith feels like a baptism matters, and my faith declares that only MY religion has the right/obligation to do so, you ARE violating my faith and religion when you perform your ritual. Even if I say "no" in the afterlife, the ritual has been done, possibly placing my soul at risk.
And involving yourselves in my faith, my religion, and my salvation without invitation is NOT OK with me, regardless of how noble your intentions were at the beginning.
posted
I'm not sure why our marriage implies anything about your level of interest. Opportunity for discussion of the relevant doctrine is, of course, greatly increased.
Speaking for myself, I feel similarly about the belief that my baptism is invalid/ineffective/a figment of my imagination no matter whose it is. The LDS are, as far as I know, the only religion who would make the presumption of doing something about it without my consent, so that's an extra layer of <something> over and above the general attitude of disregarding it.
I feel simililarly about, say, Baptists, who would require me to be re-baptized if I wanted to join their church. Which is one of the reasons that if the UMC were to dissolve for any reason and I needed to find a new denominational home Baptists would not be on the list of possibilities, even if I agreed with everything else in their doctrine.
I'm also offended by clergy in my own denomination who, when a young person who was previously baptized has a moving experience (for example at church camp) or witnesses another teenager or adult being baptized and wants to experience it for themselves re-baptize the person instead of explaining why we don't re-baptize. In that case, in addition to the offendedness there is a side helping of anger/frustration that the clergyperson is acting contrary to our own clearly stated doctrine. And if the clergyperson in question doesn't really believe the doctrine, but is closer doctrinally to another denomination but joined the UMC because of guarenteed appointments and the solvent pension plan, you can add extra anger and even disgust to the mix. (And yes, I have a few specific people in mind as I type this.)
So if your question was intended to get at whether this emotional reaction is an anti-LDS thing, it is not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) at one time in my life, and I dislike that part of what I remember of myself back then. Whenever I read these discussions, I am reminded of that part of myself which I'd rather not claim anymore, regardless of whether it actually applies to those in front of me.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Score one for lem!
