quote:Originally posted by Libbie: "Get over yourselves. Grow up."
"I want to puke all over the forum right now."
"This kind of behavior is exactly why I and many of my fellow atheists believe that the world would be better off without religion. A shame it's too late to erase it from the human consciousness. "
"Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?"
"I'm so disgusted with some of you right now I don't even want to see your screen names."
None of that was particularly respectful, either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone clear something up for me? What people are posthumously baptized?
Without knowing all the details, I lean towards Lisa's side. I think the idea of posthumous baptism, if the person being acted upon expressed no want of it, is sickening. It's assuming you know, and therefore have the right, to decide what God wanted for someone and take action. It makes me wonder how an LDS person would react if the situation were enacted on their relative by another religion.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my co-workers is a Rabbi. He has quite a few requirements that we try and work around every day. He has afternoon prayers. He cannot work after dark on Fridays. He can't eat the food we bring in (which is really sad for me, I always bring good food to the potluck and I'd love to share it, but I don't keep a Kosher kitchen [mmm... bacon]).
You know what, though? Out of respect for his beliefs, the company gives him some really, really flexible hours and, whenever the department or the company buys food, they pay extra to have a trusted Kosher catering service bring him food or one of the managers runs out to one of the few Kosher restaurants in town and gets him something.
It is done out of respect. Sure, those Famous Dave's ribs the company bought won't kill him (unless a lifetime pork-free will cause him to go into shock or something) and he can always just not eat them, but our company has decided that he, like all of us, is important and it's important to make him feel welcome and respected. So rules are bent and people go out of their way. Everyone's happy and no one is being ignored because their beliefs are different.
We also have a few Hindu members on the staff. They always get vegetarian food for them as well.
<guffaw> Right. And this is a cute quote from that page:
quote:"The eminent Jewish commentator and historian, Moses Maimonides --who lived in the 13th century--in a manuscript commentary on the Old Testament, reviews the blessings which Jacob pronounced upon his sons. He speaks of a certain Antenor, King of the Cimmerians, who lived 443 B.C. This Antenor he termed 'the chief Prince of Ephraim.'
That's just hilarious. As if Maimonides ever wrote any such thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Sort of, in that it's something offensive that has prompted a strong reaction.
However,the Danish papers didn't react along the lines of: "Sorry, we didn't realize it was bad. It's really hard to prevent, though, seeing as we have no editors, and it will probably happen again. We don't plan on hiring any editors, so we'll apologize when it happens next time, too."
quote:Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
Why would they think their beliefs might cause harm? Or why would they not realize that actions may have unintended consequences?
In my mind, those are two separate things.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
What kind of logical process is really all that useful in matters of faith? I don't get your confusion. When the premise is a matter of faith, then what kind of logical proofs are there that can show that one 'assumption' is worse than the next?
The thought process that has been put forth - several times by serveral people, some Mormons and some not - is that "if the Mormons are wrong, then it doesn't do anything."
It's not the belief that X does Y that's problematic, but the immediate leap from "if I'm wrong about this then it means nothing happens" rather than "if I'm wrong about this then I don't know what happens."
quote:If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
I am making no such point. I am asking why people have made the assumptions they have in the manner they have, in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with faith.
My opinion on posthomous baptism is pretty simple: 1) the Mormons should honor their agreement, and they seem to be doing so but could implement some technological means to do better. 2) I don't believe posthomous baptism does what Mormons believe it does. 3) I don't want it done for me. 4.) It is presumptiuous to do it against the recipient's wishes. 5.) If they truly believe God commanded them to do it, they should keep doing it (in accordance with 1 and while acknowledging 4). 6.) If done for me, I'll assume the person was trying to do something nice for me but that they did not, in fact, do so. 7.) Anyone who is more offended than 6 indicates is perfectly justified in being so.
None of this relies on the analysis I put forth in the generic logic example.
quote:Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
You were the first one to make this kind of claim, and you don't share their faith or their faith-based assumptions.
quote:To put it another way, why don't Jews consider that what the Mormons are doing might have positive unintended consequences?
You'd have to ask them, but I imagine because they believe they have additional information with which to choose between the assumptions. That's certainly consistent with my example and exactly the kind of thing that needs to be considered.
My whole example is not about what is true but why, when considering whether a given premise is true, only one alternative possible truth is considered.
quote:Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?
Apparently it's other atheists who know how to be civil and kind to fellow human beings. I see no evidence of this being true of you in your post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
posted
To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
That is also why every Mormon thus far has answered the question, to those who have paid attention, "what if others did that same thing to you when you were dead" has been "I wouldn't care." The person who did it didn't have the authority to do anything, so they actually didn't.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
First, Simon Weisenthal was a great man. He was a man who refused to be baptised when it might have saved him pain and death, and witnessed the deaths of countless others who also refused. When that pain passed, he did not forsake his beliefs or his God. Instead he strove to give what earthly punishment he could to those who murdered people of that faith. Why did the murderers commit those crimes? For many reasons, but included among them was out of a religious righteousness.
So when a headline screams out that he was given a post-mortem baptism, yes anger flares first.
Do we believe that a White Supremist group that conducted ceremonies enslaving Dr. Martin Luther Kings' soul should be ignored? Would you want a Satanist to perform rights selling you soul to Satan so that when Satan came to power, you'd be amongst his favorites?
Yeah, the whole idea has an immediate shcck value that urges outrage.
But then we go into it a bit more.
1) This is not a baptism, but an opportunity for the dead to be baptised if they wished.
2) This probably didn't even happen to Mr. Wisenthal. His name was only put on the waiting list/geneolgy list actually.
3) This was a mistake that could not be helped.
4) It was a mistake made out of love, not disrespect or anger.
Great. That is much better.
But it still leaves some questions.
1) Its not a baptism, its an invitation to be pestered beyond the grave with evangelists. From the unitiated its simple Death-Spam. And they say some names get on there multiple times. Gee, where do we go to sign up for the Afterlife Nocall List?
2) This has to be the lamest, most unispired way to evangelize I have ever heard of. You sit safely in your seat, typing away at a computer, and see how many dead people you can put on a list? This is non-evangelizing. Its not as bad as a bad evangelist, but it is kind of cowardly. The dead people don't reject you. Well, not yet.
3) We can't do better. Its amazing that the church says it could not keep track of who all goes on the list, but somebody was able to quickly track down when Mr. Wisenthal was put on it. If this last chance at redemption is a true commandment from God, somebody needs to be sure they are doing it right.
4) It was done out of love. So were many cruel and nasty things. This is far from the cruelest or nastiest, but the love is not a complete answer. Further, how do we know it was done out of love? Simon Wisenthal is a big name. To be able to sneak it into the list might just make a misguided LDS member a bit over-proud. Is there a secret hit list of famous folks that someone out of touch with the true faith, is trying to secret onto the list?
Paranoid? Ridiculous? Probably, except his name keeps repopping up on the list.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
I'm not talking about whether a baptism lacked authority, and neither are people raising the "If we're wrong, it doesn't have any effect" defense. That defense is an attempt to see this issue from the perspective of someone else's beliefs, not Mormon beliefs. My question is why did so many people - not all of them Mormons - jump straight to this false dichotomy of thinking that non-Mormons will believe the baptism to be effectless if it doesn't have the effect Mormons believe it to have?
P.S., there's no "r" in my name.
P.P.S, to elaborate a little, as soon as someone is asking "why does this bother you" they are no longer dealing with the subject as Mormons look at it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I don't know which bothers me more:
That my father is on that list,
or,
that his father is not.
FWIW, the part that truly disturbs me in all of this is the assumption implicit in rebaptism -- that the prior ones were somehow not valid. I know in brief what the LDS church believes about priestly authority, but for many reasons I find that spectacularly arrogant and offensive. Moreso than the mere act of proxy baptism -- which I can at least intellectually conceive of as being done out of love. It's the assumption that it'd be at all necessary for any baptized Christian to actually need it that really gets my goat.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess people will just have to be offended by Mormons. We are pretty much used to it
I was pretty much disgusted that the LDS Church even made the agreement. The first reason is that I believe the practice was given by God in no uncertain terms (i.e. if we don't do this the whole world would be wasted and probably destroyed). Second, I knew that the agreement would not resolve anything and those who hate the practice, or Mormons altogether, will continue to hate the practice with or without the agreement. They wouldn't see that as an agreeable pact, but a weapon.
Therefore, I don't care what Jews, Baptists, Muslims, etc. feel about this. I know what God commanded. I just chalk this up to the LDS Church continually trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
That is also why every Mormon thus far has answered the question, to those who have paid attention, "what if others did that same thing to you when you were dead" has been "I wouldn't care." The person who did it didn't have the authority to do anything, so they actually didn't.
Of course, if the Mormons are "wrong" is the premise (hypothetically) being assumed, then it seems a little weird to assume results of an action based on a statement already assumed false. Otherwise you aren't actually "wearing the other person's shoes", as it were.
This goes only one way; if the Mormon's are right (and therefore their ideas about authority are correct as well) then they can shrug off others' actions.
posted
I have decided that I am right and everyone else is wrong, so let's just end this thread now and all agree with me.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people in this thread seem to be working under the assumption that they're in possession of Absolute Truth.
That assumption is very much worth revisiting, at least for the sake of argument, as arguments are vastly more likely to remain civil in its absence.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob: You might find it interesting then that if a protestant becomes a catholic no rebaptism is necessary, but this is not so for Mormons.
Perhaps so much emphasis is placed on authority and process in regards to sacraments because without it people go off the deep end and just do whatever they please. We put alot of stock in the scriptures, "God's house is a house of order," "God is not the author of confusion," and "One God, one faith, and one baptism." I'm sorry it gauls you, it certainly is not our intent to come across as arrogant.
----
I keep hearing people say, "Do it without their permission," "Their" as in the dead. I feel like people keep missing the point. The dead cannot all visit us and GIVE consent one way or another so rather then assume none of them want it, which is also an option specifically condemned by God in our scriptures, we do it as much as possible.
I really think the church's agreement to in a limited extent not do work for those who are not related to the membership demonstrates a willingness to compromise rather then a rude stubbornness.
Pointing out that just because you do it out of love does not mean you are in the right is doubtlessly true, but when we are labeling an act as "desecration" and decrying it, respect for the rationale and execution SHOULD be made. You are not addressing Mormons who are torturing Jews all in the name of, "For your own good." Faulty comparisons to the inquisition do nothing but mess up the conversation.
I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place. Mormons are not saying to the person who is dead, "Glad I can save this heathens soul!" What would the dead say to us if in the end we all find out as Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ, "Well sorry, we didn't want your children mad at us."
The ordinance is not done in their name, it is done in the name of Christ for and in behalf of the person. In fact the member is addressed not the deceased.
If you had Catholic parents who baptized you as an infant and then you yourself decided down the road to convert to say Islam. Would you say to your parents, "I am sick that you would be so presumptuous as to assume that I would follow YOUR faith." No! If they graciously allowed you to decide on your own convictions you would respect their decision to follow theirs. The only difference in regards to the dead is that NOBODY can speak for them. You cannot even say, "They were SO pious in life there is no way they could change their mind" without doing them the disservice of describing them as stubborn and without respect for God.
Because thats really what you are doing. Jews are convinced that when I am dead I will find out Jesus was not really the messiah, if God wants to forgive me for this oversight I would be a fool to refuse it.
But I wonder if perhaps we as Mormons have plenty of work to do for our own ancestors without worrying about the ancestors of those who get angry when we do their work. I suppose I might concede that we easily have enough work to do until Jesus comes again and clarifies things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This has to be the lamest, most unispired way to evangelize I have ever heard of. You sit safely in your seat, typing away at a computer, and see how many dead people you can put on a list? This is non-evangelizing. Its not as bad as a bad evangelist, but it is kind of cowardly.
I think it's important to point out that Mormons believe every person who ever lived needs to be baptized in proxy if they were not in real life. (Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.) They believe baptism, and other ordinances, are required to be in God's presence. Spirit missionaries will evangelize to the dead and the proxy baptisms are not part of that evangelism. The baptisms allow people to choose to convert in death if they did not in life.
Is it arrogant? Sure, but no more so than any other religion that says you have to follow one certain path. Personally, I think the Mormon method of giving everybody a second chance is a lot nicer than faiths that say if you don't do whatever it is you have to do here and now, then you'll spend eternity in hell.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will someone please explain this baptism authority thing to me? Like, why is it that other faiths' baptisms don't count? I'm pretty sure I understand why Southern Baptists don't count Catholic baptisms - it's because the child was too young to consent to the baptism, and Southern Baptists believe that someone has to be of a certain age in order to be baptized (they also will not baptize children who don't demonstrate an understanding of what baptism is and what a profession of faith is).
quote:FWIW, the part that truly disturbs me in all of this is the assumption implicit in rebaptism -- that the prior ones were somehow not valid. I know in brief what the LDS church believes about priestly authority, but for many reasons I find that spectacularly arrogant and offensive. Moreso than the mere act of proxy baptism -- which I can at least intellectually conceive of as being done out of love. It's the assumption that it'd be at all necessary for any baptized Christian to actually need it that really gets my goat.
It definitely is arrogant, but it's an arrogance that's not unique to Mormons. Catholics won't accept a Mormon baptism (and they do accept baptisms from many other denominations). I believe Methodists do not accept a Mormon baptism, but do accept, for example, a Catholic one.
The distinction is doubly important because baptism cannot be conferred twice. Therefore, it's absolutely crucial to determine the validity of the baptism (although conditional baptism is available to accomodate uncertainty).
So it doesn't disturb me that someone believes that a particular baptism wasn't "good enough" and another is required, nor do I find it offensive. I do think the arrogance associated with that view should be acknowledged by Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, etc. who believe that some baptisms are not valid.
quote:I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place.
You should try very hard to see why, though, assuming you care about understanding others. You can do this and still disagree with them after you understand.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: But that was my point, I think I understand why the disagree with it, and why the result might be very undesirable. But I usually reserve the phrase, "That makes me sick." When somebody does something that is just so wrong that they must have done some serious work to reach a mindset where they could be foolish enough to believe its good."
Maybe some feel that way in regards to Mormons, I'd like to think we are a bit better then that.
But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you take your faith very seriously. Others take their (different) faiths very seriously. Which is how I can understand the use of that phrase.
posted
"I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place."
In the case of people who lived after 1900 or so, they knew the option was available, and chose not to be baptised as LDS. Baptizing them after their death is a way of "choosing" for people who have already chosen against you.
Looking at this from the perspective of someone who sees christians proclaim they believe that god gave us free will on a regular basis, I see LDS repabtism as working to undo the choices that people make while they are living.
Since, ultimately, what makes us who we are is the choices we make, when you undo an important choice a person made, and make a different one for him, you violate the memory of who that person was, as well as saying "The life he lived and the choices he made were wrong." When we're talking about something like faith, that seems to me to be ridiculously arrogant.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear a lot of people saying that a dead person can't give permission or say they don't want to be baptized after they die, because they're already dead. But doesn't the fact that they may have made their wishes explicitly clear while they're alive count for something?
Can I say, right now, that I do not wish to be baptized after my death? Because I'm saying it.
And I don't see why a simple filter couldn't be installed that if certain criteria were entered, the database would say that name couldn't be added.
It's been a long time (more than 8 years) since I was a database programmer, but I know I could have programmed something like that into my databases and software has only gotten better since, I know it's possible. And while it's being done, give people who care very much about things that are done in their names, even after they're gone, to put their own names on the filter.
Kind of a "do not call in the afterlife" list. And no, I'm not being flippant, I'm serious. I'm more than confident about my own set of beliefs, I will not require a Mormon baptism after my death, so do not desecrate my name after I'm gone, please.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I AM PROUD TO BE REDICULOUSLY ARROGANT. I DECLARE IT TO FROM THE ROOFTOPS. MY FAITH MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN YOURS. IF IT DIDN'T, I WOULD BE ANOTHER FAITH OR NO FAITH AT ALL.
Just thought I would get that out of my system. Like I said before, making an agreement that limits a religious practice that I feel God commanded to be done or be damned made me very uncomfortable. Not to mention, the agreement never made anything better between the two parties that made it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
It's a step in the right direction.
But someone is made sick by this (assuming she's not lying). You have a set of criteria for when you use the phrase "this makes me sick." There are two possibilities (assuming, again, the truth of the person being sick): 1) this act is so bad to her that, using your criteria, she has been made sick; or 2) she has different criteria for what types of acts make her sick.
The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is not the baptism - I've made my position on those as clear as possible at this point - but rather the inability (and, for some - not you - the unwillingness) to examine the issue from another perspective.
So take this as a given: a person is made sick by these baptisms. Work backwords from there: if she uses your criteria, then she thinks you "must have done some serious work to reach a mindset where they could be foolish enough to believe its good." Try to imagine other criteria that might support this conclusion. Ask - intending only to understand, not argue - if this supposition is correct.
Perhaps the sickening is based on a misunderstanding that you could correct. Perhaps you'll see a way in which the baptisms could be performed without giving offense (you won't, in this case, but it's certainly conceivable in a general sense with indeterminate participants).
You most likely won't come to such a conclusion. But you can at least disagree knowing the extent of the greivance in the others' eyes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure it does. But don't be surprised, if, at some point, this practice is outlawed, because your church refuses to be decent human beings about practicing its faith.
"Playing nicely with others," is a fundamental tenet of living in a multi-cultural society.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But don't be surprised, if, at some point, this practice is outlawed, because your church refuses to be decent human beings about practicing its faith.
As much as I dislike the practice, the Constitutional amendment that would be necessary to implement this would be so harmful as to spur to a lot of action.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this might count for little, but the phrase is "baptism FOR the dead," not "baptism OF the dead." It is like giving a gift that can be accepted or rejected.
BB, I commend the way your arguments have been presented. You too, Marlozhan.
For that matter I commend those with differing views who have presented their arguments logically and respectfully.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I AM PROUD TO BE REDICULOUSLY ARROGANT. I DECLARE IT TO FROM THE ROOFTOPS. MY FAITH MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN YOURS. IF IT DIDN'T, I WOULD BE ANOTHER FAITH OR NO FAITH AT ALL.
Just thought I would get that out of my system. Like I said before, making an agreement that limits a religious practice that I feel God commanded to be done or be damned made me very uncomfortable.
So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?
Hell, why don't we just baptize everyone, and their religious preference be damned?
You need to consider, for a moment, that those of us don't share your religious affiliation may find this just a little bit out of hand. You ave no more authority to push religious services on people who may not wish it than I to push it on to you. I doubt you'd like very much if I interrupted your funeral to perform, say, a posthumous conversion ritual to make sure you could get into Heaven.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I must say that, at least in the United States, making it illegal would be a violation of not only my freedom of religion, but freedom of speech. Sorry for so many commas.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?"
Well, at least in the United States, yes.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As much as I dislike the practice, the Constitutional amendment that would be necessary to implement this would be so harmful as to spur to a lot of action."
I agree. I don't think its likely that such a law would survive for long in the current climate in the US. I do think such laws might someday be passed on the local level, or even state level, and survive for a while before being struck down.
I do also think that we're not too far away from a serious alteration of the structure of the US government, but thats anotehr thread entirely
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think such laws might someday be passed on the local level, or even state level, and survive for a while before being struck down.
I bet such a law would be enjoined from being enforced the day it purported to become effective and would never be effective for a single day in this country.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
People will do what they can to stop the practice if it becomes prevalent and disruptive enough. Whether thats through legislative action to prevent it, suing people who perform the ceremonies, or less ethical approaches, groups of people tend to not tolerate for long behavior that gets them as riled up as this behavior makes some people.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?"
Well, at least in the United States, yes.
You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am fully aware that the LDS is not the only Christian church to deny the validity of other domination's baptisms. I find all of it arrogant.
Something about posthumus baptism feels like an order of magnitude different to me.
Posthumus baptismal rites, from what I understand, involve someone who is an LDS member, perhaps a relative of the deceased, perhaps not, invoking that persons name in a religious ceremony. To be honest, I think the geneological website should do a better job of conveying this information to potential users.
In fact, it ought to be in bold letters on every page of that website. Something like:
WARNING: Entry of names into this list may result in the person being named in a religious ceremony without the knowledge or consent of that persons nearest living relatives. We strongly advise the user to obtain such consent prior to entry of names into this site.
Just a suggestion. And I mean, this should be a pop-up warning every time you hit "ENTER" on that site. With an "Are you sure?" after each one. And maybe a "Are you REALLY acting with the consent of this person's closest living relatives?"
At least for people who died in the last 50 years or so.
Also, I should warn you all. My one grandmother who is on that list -- If there's such a thing as physical bodies in the afterlife, approach her with caution. She will hurt you. (I'm only joking a little bit.)
My other grandmother -- you're on your own. Even if there is no physical existence, she'll probably hurt you. She'll hurt you so bad it'll probably mess up your living descendants. Best just leave her alone. Seriously, walk away and don't break eye contact until you're out of range.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been avoiding this thread, but I feel compelled to say that LDS do -not- believe that performing a baptism by proxy automatically means the person in the Spirit World will accept it, and then qualify as a "member".
Agency is believed to extend to the afterlife, however certain ordinances need a body to be performed. But the person is still given a choice to accept or reject it.
That said, if the person specifically requests such work not be done, then yes, I believe their wishes should be respected.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
I can't tell if you're confusing the issue intentionally or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your legal conclusion is just wrong. You no more have the legal power to stop someone from baptizing you by proxy than you have the power to stop someone from praying for you. There might be a cause of action if the LDS church were saying that you had accepted it, but they're not saying that. They are reporting facts: on such and such a date, this ceremony was performed in the temple.
As for your comparison, I'm almost sure you see the difference between physical grave robbing and talking about someone. In case you don't, one is a crime (as is, most likely, interrupting a funeral to touch the body in some way) and the other is not. It's entirely consistent to ban one and not the other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People will do what they can to stop the practice if it becomes prevalent and disruptive enough. Whether thats through legislative action to prevent it, suing people who perform the ceremonies, or less ethical approaches, groups of people tend to not tolerate for long behavior that gets them as riled up as this behavior makes some people.
Yep. And I'd expect people who dislike the practice to still condemn such attempts as tyranical and violative of civil rights or risk being called hypocrites the next time they call on the First Amendment to prevent someone from stopping their desired forms of expression.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, if you sued the LDS church in a civil court for damages (mental anguish, presumably, since "They caused my mother to burn in hell for eternity" is rather hard to prove) over this practice, is there any chance you'd get a jury trial, or would it get thrown out?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, if you sued the LDS church in a civil court for damages (mental anguish, presumably, since "They caused my mother to burn in hell for eternity" is rather hard to prove) over this practice, is there any chance you'd get a jury trial, or would it get thrown out?
I'd be surprised if it went to a jury, but it would be possible. I would bet most of my life savings that it wouldn't survive appeal if the jury found against them, assuming no contractual violations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious, if I were to burn paper money or food with a dead person's name on it (Buddhist tradition) how offended would people be? For me, if my Buddhist relatives don't burn paper money for me, I would be offended (even though I believe their ideas of the afterlife are wrong).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
I can't tell if you're confusing the issue intentionally or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your legal conclusion is just wrong. You no more have the legal power to stop someone from baptizing you by proxy than you have the power to stop someone from praying for you. There might be a cause of action if the LDS church were saying that you had accepted it, but they're not saying that. They are reporting facts: on such and such a date, this ceremony was performed in the temple.
As for your comparison, I'm almost sure you see the difference between physical grave robbing and talking about someone. In case you don't, one is a crime (as is, most likely, interrupting a funeral to touch the body in some way) and the other is not. It's entirely consistent to ban one and not the other.
I was confused, as I got the impression is was more than reading off someone's name during the ceremony. I'll retract my comment about circumcision then, as that comparison is completely bogus.
Likewise, if it's an action that does not force acceptance but presents an option in the afterlife, than that too is different from what I thought it was, so I likewise retract my legal statement. Thank you for telling me more about it. I hate to spout stupid things.
However, I still believe it could be handled better. I appreciate the Church's intention, but why not contact the person's estate and get their ok? It would make the process slower, yes, but also much more agreeable. As it stands, though the ceremony is simple, it still seems somewhat rude, in the way that someone telling you that they'll pray you "come around" to their truth is rude.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise, if it's an action that does not force acceptance but presents an option in the afterlife, than that too is different from what I thought it was, so I likewise retract my legal statement.
Why would you accept what the Mormons say about the issue? The mere choice could be damaging, according to some superstitions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'd be surprised if it went to a jury, but it would be possible. I would bet most of my life savings that it wouldn't survive appeal if the jury found against them, assuming no contractual violations."
And, surprise, you just found a way that people could start suing to stop this practice without violating first amendment rights... contractual obligations.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, surprise, you just found a way that people could start suing to stop this practice without violating first amendment rights... contractual obligations.
That's not a surprise. I doubt they've even violated the contract, and there's a serious chance it's not even a legally enforceable contract.
But it's certainly no surprise, and the vast majority of people they perform these on are not covered by such a contract even if valid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read this whole thread (there aren't enough hours in the day), but I wanted to make sure a certain idea got out there ...
Mormons (like me) don't believe that we are actually baptizing the person whose name is used in the ceremony. It's more like we're performing a baptism that could be theirs if they want it, but it is entirely up to them whether or not to accept it.
For example, imagine I had a party with 100 guests, and I set out 100 platters of delicious pork rinds for everyone as a snack. Everyone has already eaten their main course, so no one NEEDS the snack. It's just put out for everyone, with little place cards on the platters, so that they can take one if they want it. (I might personally have a strong belief that pork rinds are the best snack EVER, and that EVERYONE should have some, but that belief is not enforced upon the guests.)
Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds? It doesn't seem like the same level of offense. Yes, it would be much more thoughtful to make a special provision for his dietary requirements, and if I were a more thoughtful host, I would try and find a way to do so. But that's a far cry from coercing him into breaking a serious religious conviction.
So I understand why this issue, in general, is distressing. But given the fact that no ordinances were performed in this case, AND even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it ... I don't think that the degree of panic and anger that I've seen in this thread is warranted.
Yes, this is an important warning sign to heed. There are still holes in our protections against these situations, and we need to repair them. But this is an accidental breakdown of the system that was caught before any real damage was done, NOT a malicious campaign to smear people's ancestors. It deserves an appropriate response.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it
Geoff, that's only reassuring to the people concerned about this if the Mormons are entirely right about the effect of these ordinances. So, while it would reassure a Mormon, it won't reassure anyone else. Therefore, their degree of upset is still appropriate based on their beliefs of what the ordinance does.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
