They certainly cannot reject the ceremony from beyond the grave can they? What is arrogant and presumptious is that one tenet of your faith holds that you have the right to interfere between an individual and their own relationship with God, without their consent.
Yes they can reject the ceremony from beyond the grave (which would not stop the physical ceremony, but would nullify any validity). That’s what I was saying above. Now, it’s true that AFAIK, no one’s come back and said, “Hey, I’m not interested, don’t perform that proxy baptism.” However, I would think if that were their sentiment, they simply wouldn’t care. Furthermore, since we can’t ask them whether they’re interested or not, it complicates matters.
That’s simply not the case. Let’s look at it analytically:
[list=1]
[li]The beliefs about the LDS afterlife are incorrect, and proxy baptisms have no validity.[/li][li]The beliefs are true, but the person does not wish to receive baptism.[/li][li]The beliefs are true, and the person does wish to receive baptism.[/li][/list=1]
In case 1, the baptism is of no value and there is no interference between LDS members and a person’s reltaionship with God.
In case 2, the person will effectively tell God, “Nope, that wasn’t what I wanted.” Again, no interference.
In case 3, the person will be aided in his relationship with God.
So what’s the problem? Where’s the interference?
MrWhipple: Why are you apologizing for something that evidently did not happen? (BTW: the story now takes its fourth form.)
PepperlandGirl,
I hope this topic has not been covered (I’ve not been able to read the entire thread).
About 15 years ago, the Mormon Church, or some affiliated group opened a center in Jerusalem, on Mount Scopus. At the time, a huge controversy erupted. Religious groups in Israel insisted that the center was a missionary center (or a front for one). The Mormons insisted that it was nothing of the sort - that they were not intending to recruit new members in Israel.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there’s anything wrong with such a center in any event, what would be your take on the dispute? I am under the impression that proseletyzing occupies a more important place in the Mormon religion than in other Christian denominations. When a Mormon group opens a center in a place such as Jerusalem, where they have very few members, are they intending to recruit new members from the surrounding communities?
emarkp, so if I put it in my will that, since I find it unconstructive to cater to people’s superstitions, I don’t want any religious ceremonies performed using my body or name, that will just be disregarded, eh? Nice religion, there.
pepperlandgirl, why does an all-powerful God need your assistance? Can’t he ask me himself?
**
In other words, no matter what they say, you feel justified in performing a ritual that the person doesn’t want performed.
**
Continuing the list:
4. The LDS beliefs are partly true in that they have an effect, but the individual cannot reject it.
5. The LDS ritual does have an effect, but it is an affront to God, and damages the recipient’s standing.
6. The LDS ritual is a bunch of empty words, but has the effect of hurting the departed’s loved ones with regards to their religious beliefs.
In case 4, the LDS church has robbed the departed of their free will.
In case 5, the LDS has interposed themselves between God and the departed.
In case 6, nothing happens to the departed, just as in case 1, but you have hurt real, living people.
**
You really don’t see this as interference? How about if I were to baptise your children, or your departed grandma, or you even, to Satan, Lord of All Creation? The interference is that these people who have not been baptised into your church have chosen that for themselves. They have their own beliefs which your church wantonly disregards. Baptism is seen by many branches of Christianity as a very meaningful ceremony, and it is hardly unreasonable of them to expect you to keep your baptism to yourselves.
Forgot this bit above:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by emarkp *
**
That is an assumption on your part, and one which you’ve no right to make.
Ptahlis, you want to turn this into a debate? Great, but DON’T hijack my thread. This a Q and A session, you want something else, you start your own thread. You asked about the baptism, you received an honest answer. If you want to extend that with emarkp, go for it. But not in this thread.
Phil, I could try to explain everything to you, but you don’t want to hear. You want to take a few small points, warp them beyond recgonition, and than throw it back in our faces as a “nice religion”. God can ask you himself, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to have the oridances performed. Everybody, even God, has to follow the rules he has set.
IzzyR: MrWhipple or emarkp is going to have to tackle your question, cuz I don’t know what you are referring to. The only thing I can think of is BYU Jerusalem…but I was under the impression that, like BYU Hawaii, is just a place of higher education.
Actually, I never asked for any information at all. That was pldennison and smilingjaws. Having read the answers given, I responded to them, and will continue to respond to anything else that warrants a response. The OP is yours, but the thread is not. Once you put it out there it becomes community property pepperlandgirl, and threads take detours all the time when tangents come up. Sorry if you don’t like the direction this one took, but them’s the breaks.
IzzyR, yes proselytizing is very important in the LDS faith. However, in countries that put restrictions on such behavior, we follow those restrictions. If there was an agreement made or impression left not to actively proselytize, then I’m confident that the LDS church would hold to that agreement–we’d expect God to open up the way to preaching the Gospel openly sometime in the future. I know that in Romania, for instance, the missionaries were not allowed to approach people, but could only present the church if a person approached them. It was difficult for the missionaries, but they did hold to that rule. I don’t know if the rule has changed.
I can say that I knew someone who attended the Jerusalem Center for a semester (from BYU). It’s essentially a study-abroad program, and AFAIK, there is no missionary presence there. I’m sure there’s probably a visitors’ center with information about the LDS church.
Mr. Whipple,
My hat is off to you. You are amazing! Thanks so much for your apology. I can’t tell you how much it means to have at least one Mormon who can actually apologise and admit that someone could have erred in polluting my grandfather’s death bed. I appreciate your kindness, your courtesy, and your integrity in apologising for this event. If I had received responsed like yours from Mormons before, I might not have been so enraged 20+ years after the event. It is refreshing to find a Mormon who can actually admit that there might be some flaws in the carrying out of your religious rites. It shows you have a great deal of integrity and a refreshing sense of responsibility and that you are an independent thinker.
Thank you sincerely.
I will coyly refrain from pointing out the irony of the italicized words leaving a religious person’s lips . . .
In any case, answer this: Do the LDS use the names of deceased persons in baptism rituals, despite the person’s explicit refusal of consent in documents left after their death?
AFAIK, there is left up to the individual submitting the names. Since that should be a descendant of the deceased, they should know the wishes of their ancestors best.
There was a discussion here quite some time ago about a gay Mormon man who killed himself because he could not reconcile his faith and his sexual orientation, and from what I remember he very explicitly said he did not wish to be baptized after his death… and was baptized anyway (I cannot remember if it was the family’s wish or not). There were two different discussions of two different suicides, but I can only find the one where we didn’t talk about baptism. If I find the article, I’ll post the link.
Esprix