Catholic Bishops to withhold Parish information from Mormons to prevent re-baptisms

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
i strongly suspect that you ought to be in a constant state of outrage, because I’ve been to many religious services, by many faiths, calling down blessings and favors upon all of, or large segments of humanity. It’s probably happening right now. There’s not a thing you can do about it, and it’s probably better if you don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
In the Christian religions, there is a huge, huge gulf of meaning in between calling down of blessings and favors and the conferring of sacraments. Calling down blessings and favors does not change the fundamental makeup of the person in question. Sacraments, on the other hand, must be entered into with full knowledge and consent of the person receiving them, because they DO fundamentally change the person (in the Catholic religion, the only exception to this is baptism, but strictly speaking, the parents should be consenting by proxy, and then the child decides to enter full communion with the Church through Confirmation, once the age of reason has been reached. Some Christian denominations do not agree with infant baptism, because they believe that a person must enter into the sacrament of their own accord.)

The thing about sacraments that Jodi has been explaining is that in the view of the RCC and the Protestant denominations, sacraments cannot be undone. The rite and the acceptance are together in one package, and once it’s done, it’s permanent. This is why, in the RCC, once you are married, you are married. Once you are a priest, you are a priest…even those priests who leave the priesthood are still priests in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God. (There are certain exceptions in these cases, but usually they involve a situation where it is discovered that the sacramental rite could not have been performed validly…such as if the person entered into the sacrament without full knowledge or consent for some reason. The sacrament is not “undone,” but in fact, declared never to have been done in the first place. This is what a Church anullment is, BTW.) The idea that a rite can be performed without the person’s consent goes 100% against the definition of sacrament as we know it and live it.

[mlees]

I couldn’t be baptised against my will when I’m alive, so I don’t know why it would be ok once I’m dead.

Once I’m dead, God & Jesus, or Shiva, have already looked deep into my little heart & soul, and judged worthy or unworthy, based on (as far as I know) my worldy actions.

I can’t conceive of a situation where God would judge me fit only for a certain type of existance (one of the levels of heaven), only to come back in a thousand years to tell me that some great-great-great-great-great…etc…grand-daughter performed an act which changed my status in the afterlife. Either I deserve heaven, or I don’t.

It seems to me that it is possible that there are some folks who are uncomfortable with the idea that some of their relatives may not be in heaven because they did not worship properly. The ceremony seems to offer those among the living some way to deal (emotionally) with the question of the status of those already in the afterlife, but not “saved”.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=dangermom]
Your article says that the policy was always in place, but that it was often violated by members. AFAIK this is completely accurate; it all works on the honor system and there isn’t a way of checking to make sure that everyone only submits names of their own ancestors. The LDS Church keeps saying it, but sometimes people disobey the rules–often out of naive enthusiasm. However, your article also states many times that Jews will be on record as converted Mormons, which is not the case. Since 1995, when the whole thing broke and the policy was re-affirmed, there have been cases of people wrongfully submitting names and also times when it seems that non-Mormons have submitted Jewish names solely in order to raise a ruckus. The LDS Church deals with them as they come up.
I hope I understand it; I have said that I sympathize. (And IIRC last time this came up, you were kind enough to say that I seemed to get it.) As it happens, I was dating a Jewish guy in 1994-5, so I certainly got a first-hand look at the issue. FTR I agree that people should not submit unrelated Jewish names for baptism.

I understand what you’re both saying and I respect your feelings.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I read it as saying that some people were still doing it after the agreement, and I don’t blame the church for that. I don’t think it was done out of malice, just out of lack of understanding.

Perhaps this analogy would help. What would you feel if some future religion had a ceremony offering deceased LDS members a chance to change their minds, including those who died in Navuoo or on the Trek to Salt Lake City. What it would come across as is the statement that these martyrs didn’t really know what they were doing, and with some more information they might change their minds.

We Jews have paid dearly for our “special treatment” in things like this, but, to go back to the point of the OP, I don’t see a basic difference if the object of the ceremony is Jewish, Catholic, atheist or pagan. But, all missionary work involved in conversion involves a “we know better” attitude, so it is pretty widespread.

BTW, do you have any idea of why this ceremony is necessary? Is there a lack of free will in heaven or something?

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I think you mean “descendent.”
[/QUOTE]

Correct as usual, King Friday. :smack:

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But you totally disregard their faith by disagreeing here, do you not? I mean, if there was ever a way in which you could disregard a faith, saying “Do not even give me the option; I am insulted you would even think of trying to give it to me” is pretty much the prototypical example of it in my eyes.

[/QUOTE]

How so? How is saying, “Please, do not do this to my soul-I don’t believe in it, and I find it insulting that YOU CONSIDER MY FAITH NOT GOOD ENOUGH.” Not that you’re not giving me a choice-that I do not WANT that option, and I’m declining it right now.
IF someone offers to baptise me while I’m alive, well, I have the option of refusing. And they give ME the choice, whether or not to perform it. If they do it when I’m dead, well, I would prefer they do not. And in some cases, they know bloody well how the Jewish community feels about it.

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That’s true, but in this case I am comparing saying you’re doing something and actually doing it. You’re right, “just words” can be offensive. But i’m comparing doing a deed against saying you’re doing a deed but not, and I would say that just saying it is much less offensive. But as I understand baptism requires a divine hand.
[/quote]

Again, they are not SAYING they are baptizing people, they are ACTUALLY baptizing people. You concede this, so I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make that "just saying it is much less offensive. You concede they are not "just saying it.

They don’t deny they’re baptising, but then they believe they are. You don’t. You don’t believe in their faith. You don’t believe that their prophets are prophets. You don’t believe all the texts they consider holy are holy. You don’t consider their temples sacred ground. There is no baptism because baptism requires there be a divine force behind it, and you do not believe in the divine force that they invoke.

I certainly DO think they are baptizing by proxy; I see no basis for anyone to argue that they are not. THEY don’t even argue that they are not. But I am not using your definition of baptism, insofar as you appear to disregard the distinction between peforming a sacrament – a sacred rite – and determining whether or not the rite is ultimately successful. If it’s not successful, does that mean it was not done? How does that work? Who winds the clock back and pulls the water back off the proxy’s head? Performance of the rite of baptism is an intentional act that cannot be undone, and people are offended by the ritual itself because it is being peformed without the consent of the subject.

They are certainly performing the rituals which, if they are correct, would result in baptism. But you do not think they are.

See above re: not drawing your distinction between a purported act and an effective act.

I could sit here and say “Right; I arrest Jodi on behalf of the Revenant system of justice. She’s sentenced to 10 years of jail”. I can fill out whatever paperwork I deem necessary for your sentencing in my justice system; I can physically wear a wig, bang a gavel, and demand you be taken away. You cannot deny the factual truth of what I am doing. And yet, it is no arrest, it is no sentence, because the authority I claim over you that is necessary for the sentence to be carried out doesn’t exist.

If your system of justice is incompatible to my own and involves giving me the “choice” to disavow my own despite my lifelong belief in it – and surely I will, yours being the only true justice system and all! – then you should not be surprised to find you have insulted me by purporting to submit me to your justice.

Likewise, an LDS baptism is no baptism for you because you do not believe the authority required exists. An LDS baptism should for you hold as equal influence for you as does my sentencing; none.

You don’t get to tell me what a baptism is. Again, the rite itself is insulting. Let me ask again: Would you be okay with a babysitter who without the parents’ knowledge takes a Muslim baby to a church and has it baptized? Or would you see some justice to the parents taking offense?

I mean, I could be wrong. But surely you believe that your own baptism requires your God? To say that a baptism is a baptism with only the required ritual and not the required deity is as equally valid as saying that a baptism is one with only the required deity and not the required ritual.

I find this argument a little artificial, frankly. A “baptism” is a common and commonly understood Christian ritual. You cannot make it less understandable by saying that the rite of “baptism” is something other than the rite of baptism (like what?) unless God is there. If you see people standing at an altar with a priest pouring a little water on their baby’s head, do you think, “My God, what could they possibly be doing?” It is strange to me that you would make such an artificial argument on the LDS’s behalf, when they don’t even make it themselves. They are baptizing people. They concede that; it is apparent from anyone with even a layperson’s knowledge of the ritual; and you cannot make it into something else by arguing that we must peer into the hearts of the participants before deciding what’s going on. The ritual itself is offensive to those who do not believe in it.

You clearly don’t believe that the deity is enough alone to be baptised; what is needed is both deity* and* ritual. The ritual alone is not enough just as the deity alone is not enough.

Again, you don’t get to tell me what baptism means. You don’t get to tell me that the ritual alone is not offensive. It may not be to you but you don’t get to make that decision for me.

Even if it were a sacrament, you are being subjected to nothing.

Except a baptism! Seriously, WTF is so hard about this?

Seriously, the only thing, the only thing you would have to do is say “No, thanks”. That’s it.

Super! And I’ll be happy to do so, and on behalf of all my ancestors too, at any point before they baptize me . . . oh, wait. I’m not given that choice before they baptize me. It’s done without my consent.

And yes, I do consider it arrogance to not only say you reject that choice, but to reject even the idea that the choice might be offered. They, at least, have considered they might be wrong. You reject that ideal utterly. You can be open-minded and refuse one way in a choice, but you can’t be open minded and refuse even the very idea of that choice.

THERE IS NO CHOICE OFFERED! THE RITUAL IS DONE WITHOUT CONSENT! Pardon me for shouting but seriously, WTF is it that I am not conveying? I’m not sure where the communication breakdown is and I’m perfectly willing to admit it may be me, but I’m about ready to give up on it nonetheless. I’m not sure if you are disregarding what I’m saying or just not getting it, but I don’t have much interest in talking past you so we’ll see where we’re at after one more exchange and if it’s as productive as this one (i.e., not at all), I think I’ll be done.

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=mlees]

I can’t conceive of a situation where God would judge me fit only for a certain type of existance (one of the levels of heaven), only to come back in a thousand years to tell me that some great-great-great-great-great…etc…grand-daughter performed an act which changed my status in the afterlife. Either I deserve heaven, or I don’t.

It seems to me that it is possible that there are some folks who are uncomfortable with the idea that some of their relatives may not be in heaven because they did not worship properly. The ceremony seems to offer those among the living some way to deal (emotionally) with the question of the status of those already in the afterlife, but not “saved”.
[/QUOTE]

Well said.

And it’s not true that other religions don’t place an importance on being reunited with loved ones.

I’m not saying, “How DARE you offer me this-you are offending me!” More like, “Well, I appreciate the offer, but I’m going to decline now, before it’s done.”

And for those saying, “oh, well, it’s just an option-you don’t have to accept it, it’s just WORDS.” Well, then why bother in the first place?

[Voyager]

As an atheist, I certainly do not believe the baptism makes any difference at all to the dead. But it does make a difference to the living. If I called someone’s beloved deceased grandmother a nasty name, it won’t make any difference to her, but it would be offensive to her descendants. That’s the issue here - disrespect for the memory of the person being baptized.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Alright, apologies for not making myself clear enough. Given that you’re the more versed in Christian rituals it’s more likely that the problem is on my end, so let me try asking a couple of questions just to make sure I get where you’re coming from. I’ll answer yours to start off with; no, I would not be fine with that babysitter, because they’ve taken a child off out to do something without the parent’s permission. I would have no problem with the baptism itself, because as I do not believe in the authority in question, I believe nothing spiritual has been done. I can certainly understand the parent’s anger at the taking of the baby, just as they would be if it were taken anywhere. I believe there may be a difference in that a baby has little knowledge or ability to choose, whereas we upon death are assumed to have pretty damn good knowledge of what’s going on. A better analogy might be me going to a church for other reasons and someone suprise baptising me; with which I would have no trouble at all. Really. In fact, i’m willing to say i’m prepared to be baptised by anyone in this thread, should they so wish to do so and it does not leave me open to a hell if I wasn’t before. Go for it, and thanks, I would say.
Anyway; I was of the understanding that a baptism requires divine influence. That if a god doesn’t exist, or if it chooses not to take part, then a baptism though all the right words may be said and all the actions may be done is no baptism. That the god’s involvement is just as required as is a splash of water, or the correct terminology, or whichever mandatory requirements. I don’t know about your particular baptism, and i’ve only been to one myself, but I do recall it being done specifically in the name of God. And that the effects of the baptismal rituals are divine in nature. Thus, if the god isn’t present, there is no actual baptism - the priest has claimed there is, and certainly believes it himself, but the authority he claims does not exist and the effects will not occur.

You seem to be saying that actually, gods aren’t required. The physical rituals are baptism alone; once performed, the recipient is baptised, even if the god in question does not exist. Yet you define a sacrament as a sacred rite, and claim LDS baptism is a sacrament, yet deny the existence of the LDS God. How can something be sacred without spiritual backing?

You’ve questioned how something a baptism can be “taken back” if unsuccessful. I’m not claiming it’s unsuccesful. I’m claiming it has not happened. Their baptism requires the existence of their god. I don’t know what your baptism requires, and i’m sorry for telling you what it does and does not involve. But I thought the entire point of baptism was that it is not just a physical ritual, but a spiritual one. LDS people believe it is, as you’ve said, but that’s because they believe in that religion. You don’t. Now, if i’m wrong, and baptism to you is exactly the same thing that it is if your God exists and if he doesn’t, then I apologise, for certainly for you baptism has been performed, though I’d still disagree that it is a sacrament for you. But that was my general idea of the thing - that God was required, that God’s authority has been invoked, that what is occurring requires spiritual points just as much as it does physical ones. That to remove God is as equal if not more affecting as removing the priest, or removing the font, or removing the words. If i’m wrong, then I apologise for misunderstanding you. But that was honestly my idea of what baptism was all about.

[bjbrashier]

[QUOTE=mlees]
I couldn’t be baptised against my will when I’m alive, so I don’t know why it would be ok once I’m dead.

Once I’m dead, God & Jesus, or Shiva, have already looked deep into my little heart & soul, and judged worthy or unworthy, based on (as far as I know) my worldy actions.
[/quote]

Mormons believe not in a simple judgement at death and it’s over, but in a continual progression and learning even after death. They do believe in a final judgement, but do not believe it happens immediately after ending this life.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Perhaps this analogy would help. What would you feel if some future religion had a ceremony offering deceased LDS members a chance to change their minds, including those who died in Navuoo or on the Trek to Salt Lake City. What it would come across as is the statement that these martyrs didn’t really know what they were doing, and with some more information they might change their minds.
[/quote]

I am certain that most Mormons would have no difficulty with this. Some would, of course, but people are people.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
BTW, do you have any idea of why this ceremony is necessary? Is there a lack of free will in heaven or something?
[/quote]

As mentioned, according to the Mormons, even God follows rules. One rule is that living baptism is necessary to get to the highest levels of heaven. Without this, they would still have free will, but would be “barred access” to that “location”.

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
“Please, do not do this to my soul-I don’t believe in it, and I find it insulting that YOU CONSIDER MY FAITH NOT GOOD ENOUGH.”
[/quote]

What do you believe is being “done” to the soul, especially if you don’t believe the Mormons have any power? According to the Mormons, a ritual is being performed that your “soul” may either accept or not accept. And it’s not being done now, but after you are dead. At that later time, you may have changed your mind from what it is now. Did you grow up to be the sports player (or what-have-you) you promised you’d be as a kid? What part of this requires your faith to be “not good enough”?

I’m afraid I just don’t understand.

[QUOTE=Jodi]
THERE IS NO CHOICE OFFERED! THE RITUAL IS DONE WITHOUT CONSENT!
[/quote]

The ritual is done by proxy. This, by definition, is not being done to you (you aren’t even there). The choice comes in when the spirit of the person who the work is being done for decides whether or not they wish this service to count as an actual baptism or whether they prefer that it not be counted.

Again, you aren’t there. There is no ritual done with you.

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Would you be okay with a babysitter who without the parents’ knowledge takes a Muslim baby to a church and has it baptized? Or would you see some justice to the parents taking offense?
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure most Mormons would be disturbed by this. According to their doctrine, in life, the family unit is the most important grouping. As such, the babysitter has no right to interfere in family affairs. It is the parents’ duty to find the truth and teach it to the child.

However, it is never the child’s duty to decide for the parents. When a person has died, if either parent is still alive, the LDS church absolutely defers to the parents (not sure if you knew this). If not, the church assumes responsibility to give them an option because there is no one else more qualified to make the choice than the dead person themselves.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
As an atheist, I certainly do not believe the baptism makes any difference at all to the dead. But it does make a difference to the living. If I called someone’s beloved deceased grandmother a nasty name, it won’t make any difference to her, but it would be offensive to her descendants. That’s the issue here - disrespect for the memory of the person being baptized.
[/quote]

Well said. To the Mormons, though, they’re not being insulting, just proselytizing. They also don’t ask a 60-yr-old living woman’s children whether or not they can knock on her door.

[CalMeacham]

In the Christian religions, there is a huge, huge gulf of meaning in between calling down of blessings and favors and the conferring of sacraments. Calling down blessings and favors does not change the fundamental makeup of the person in question. Sacraments, on the other hand, must be entered into with full knowledge and consent of the person receiving them, because they DO fundamentally change the person (in the Catholic religion, the only exception to this is baptism, but strictly speaking, the parents should be consenting by proxy, and then the child decides to enter full communion with the Church through Confirmation, once the age of reason has been reached. Some Christian denominations do not agree with infant baptism, because they believe that a person must enter into the sacrament of their own accord.)

Yes, but the point is that the dead person for whom the baptism is taking place , by the Catholic viewpoint, is not entering into this sacrament, and so it does no harm and no insult. By the Mormon view, the person doesn’t paricipate unless they wish to. The Mormons are not, by anyione’s philosophy, causing the person to go through a life-changing (even after the life is over) event. It’s as non-participatory as having blessings called down on you.

[FatBaldGuy]

Thanks to dangermom and others for doing a good job of pointing out the LDS point of view on this subject.

As always in threads like this one, there’s a lot of rhetoric, but really it boils down to a choice of two things. Either the Mormon Church is wrong, or it is right. There really is no middle ground in the eyes of the believers (and the detractors). Lets examine each of these scenarios.

If the Mormons are wrong, they have no priestly authority and the baptisms are a meaningless (although well intentioned) gesture. Anything they do has no bearing on you or your ancestors. They will not be dragged kicking and screaming away from their place in heaven, and they will probably never even be aware that anything was attempted in their behalf. No harm, no foul.

But…let’s assume, just for a minute, that the Mormons do have the true restored Christian gospel like they claim. You go through your entire life as a Catholic / Protestant / Jew / Atheist / Buddhist / Whatever. You get to the other side and find out that you missed the boat. Even though you lived a good and honorable life, you were never baptized by someone that had the proper priestly authority. But wait. God wouldn’t treat you unfairly just because you didn’t know about it. Yes, it is a commandment to be baptized, but since you’re dead, someone else has to do it for you. Wouldn’t you want to be given that chance?

No one says you have to accept that baptism on your behalf, but at least it’s available if you want it.

To the members of the LDS Church, it’s not just something that we do for fun, it’s a commandment. We believe that at some point in time every single person who has ever lived on this earth will have the opportunity to be taught the gospel and either accept it or reject it. If they accept it, someone has to be baptized in their behalf.

[Miller]

So, the baptism here is basically a chance to proselytize to folks even after they’re dead. Well, that’s… charming.

Actually, I can see this as the setup to a great Twilight Zone style twist.

“Wow, I’m in heaven! I was such a sinner in my life, I never thought I’d end up here! What luck!”

Knock-knock

“Hello! We’d like to talk to you about the Church of Latter Day Saints!”

“NOOOOOOO!!!”

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
Yes, but the point is that the dead person for whom the baptism is taking place , by the Catholic viewpoint, is not entering into this sacrament, and so it does no harm and no insult. By the Mormon view, the person doesn’t paricipate unless they wish to. The Mormons are not, by anyione’s philosophy, causing the person to go through a life-changing (even after the life is over) event. It’s as non-participatory as having blessings called down on you.
[/QUOTE]
This makes no logical sense to me. The very fact that it’s non-participartory to the person involved is what makes it unacceptable, because the one receiving the sacrament is supposed to participate in the ritual. Taking that right of acceptance and participation away from them is where the problem lies.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=FatBaldGuy]
If the Mormons are wrong, they have no priestly authority and the baptisms are a meaningless (although well intentioned) gesture.
[/QUOTE]
I would add the adjectives “condescending” and “snarkily superior.”

I’m an atheist, so in my world there are no souls and there’s no afterlife to get huffy about, but this activity still feels obnoxiously patronizing to me.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
How so? How is saying, “Please, do not do this to my soul-I don’t believe in it, and I find it insulting that YOU CONSIDER MY FAITH NOT GOOD ENOUGH.” Not that you’re not giving me a choice-that I do not WANT that option, and I’m declining it right now.
[/quote]
Because they’re not enforcing baptism on you. They’re enforcing the choice of baptism on you. I don’t see the enforcing of a choice as a horrible insult to my own certainty of atheism. I could be wrong, after all. And I would say they’re saying your faith may not be good enough - and since they’re apparently willing (at least in some cases) to accept the same in reverse, they would appear to hold your certainty in your faith to be pretty equal to their own. On the contrary, it is you who declines even the option of the choice - you reject entirely the idea that you may ever want it. I would say it’s you who has the lower opinion of the other’s faith, not the other way around.

IF someone offers to baptise me while I’m alive, well, I have the option of refusing. And they give ME the choice, whether or not to perform it. If they do it when I’m dead, well, I would prefer they do not. And in some cases, they know bloody well how the Jewish community feels about it.

If I put myself in their shoes, I think if I were to weigh on one hand the pissing off of a pretty vast amount of people, and in the other hand the getting of more people into an eternal paradise or what-have-you - I think I might just consider it acceptable.

[CalMeacham]

This makes no logical sense to me. The very fact that it’s non-participartory to the person involved is what makes it unacceptable, because the one receiving the sacrament is supposed to participate in the ritual. Taking that right of acceptance and participation away from them is where the problem lies.

(shrug) It seems to me to be no more than an acknowledgement that there’s no way to know if the sacrament would be accepted, since the person is dead and incommunicado. If you’re going to have a sacrament like vicarious baptism of the dead, this seems the logical extension. There’s nothing l;ogical in assuming the sacrament is [i[forced* upon an unwlling victim. You seem to be visualizing this as some sort of baptismal rape.

[mlees]

[QUOTE=bjbrashier]
The ritual is done by proxy. This, by definition, is not being done to you (you aren’t even there). The choice comes in when the spirit of the person who the work is being done for decides whether or not they wish this service to count as an actual baptism or whether they prefer that it not be counted.

Again, you aren’t there. There is no ritual done with you.
[/quote]

First: It’s done on the behalf of the (soul of the) deceased, right? So, by definition, it is being done to me (or at least, what’s left of me… aka my soul), assuming that there is an afterlife.

No one (in this thread) expressed any worry about the physical body, which may have long since turned to dust.

Second: Some folks consider the ceremony itself to be a very sacred act, one that must be done only on the willing believer. We are not talking about murmuring some prayers for our dearly departed ancestors, but something wholely different, and much more profound than simple prayers.

It is not an act to be undertaken lightly, nor in jest, nor should it be done “just in case”. There are no “mulligans”, if God follows the rules like you say.

*Third:*You are not offering a choice to the soul (from which you can’t extract a permission), your making that choice for them. The ceremony is done. The ceremony itself cannot be taken back. Clearly, the Elder (?) performing the ritual thought it was a legitimate act, and assumed that the soul was (possibly) saved. It was more than “just words” to that Elder.

I realise that you don’t see it that way, but a lot of other people do.

You would not (I assume) think it to be a legitimate, and sacred, act to walk down the street in a city, sprinkle water on random passersby, and tell them if they wished, they may now consider themselves baptised into the LDS. (To me, that would seem to cheapen the whole meaning of a baptism ceremony.)

There should be no difference if those folks were already dead.

@bjbrashier

Well said. To the Mormons, though, they’re not being insulting, just proselytizing. They also don’t ask a 60-yr-old living woman’s children whether or not they can knock on her door.

You don’t get to choose for them what is or isn’t insulting.

You may not have meant to be insulting, but some folks will see it that way. Strongly.

Heck, might as well just baptise us all, and let God sort it out.

I still don’t understand why, when I am dead, my soul’s disposition is wholely dependent on the actions of a third party. If I literally lived as close to the tenants of Jesus as possible (but not baptised in LDS), why isn’t that the overriding factor in Judgement? Why does God need a Priest to say “Yup, mlees was a righteous dude.”?

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Alright, apologies for not making myself clear enough. Given that you’re the more versed in Christian rituals it’s more likely that the problem is on my end, so let me try asking a couple of questions just to make sure I get where you’re coming from. I’ll answer yours to start off with; no, I would not be fine with that babysitter, because they’ve taken a child off out to do something without the parent’s permission. I would have no problem with the baptism itself, because as I do not believe in the authority in question, I believe nothing spiritual has been done. I can certainly understand the parent’s anger at the taking of the baby, just as they would be if it were taken anywhere.
[/quote]

But can’t you at least see beyond your lack of belief to recognize why these sorts of things would be offensive to believers? Or are you truly unable to even recognize that as a legitimately-held point of view? YOU wouldn’t mind because you don’t believe; can you at least understand why THEY might mind because they do?

Anyway; I was of the understanding that a baptism requires divine influence. . . .

You aren’t saying anything new, you are merely restating (again) your refusal to differentiate between the rite of baptism and the efficacy of the rite, and your consequent refusal to see that one can be insulting without the other. I’ve reveiwed my posts and I’ve addressed this point no less than three times.

@bjbrashier

The ritual is done by proxy. This, by definition, is not being done to you (you aren’t even there).

I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally over-simplistic or not, so let me ask you this: Who is being baptized, if not the person represented by the proxy? Is it the proxy him- or herself? No. The proxy has already been baptized. If no one is being baptized, then they don’t use the words "I baptize you . . . ", right? Except you, as a Mormon – I assume you’re a Mormon – know they do.

The choice comes in when the spirit of the person who the work is being done for decides whether or not they wish this service to count as an actual baptism or whether they prefer that it not be counted.

But the people you are doing it to (and I do not say “for,” advisedly) may very well not share your belief that a sacrament must be “accepted” after the fact in order to “count.” For many (I believe most) who accept the idea of “sacraments,” a sacrament is a covenant with God that is to be sought and accepted BEFORE it is performed, and cannot easily be undone afterward. To invert the order from “choice, then sacrament reflecting choice” to “sacrament, then decide whether, gosh, it means anything or not” is for many Christians who believe in sacraments a desecration of the very idea of what a sacrament is, and they want no part of it. And that’s only a Christian objection, don’t even get me started on performing a Christian ritual in the name of people who were never even Christian.

I’m pretty sure most Mormons would be disturbed by this. According to their doctrine, in life, the family unit is the most important grouping. As such, the babysitter has no right to interfere in family affairs. It is the parents’ duty to find the truth and teach it to the child.

Oh, that disturbs you? Well, too bad. Because we are not going to be so short-sighted as to respect your beliefs about the sanctity and primacy of family if by disregarding them we can do an act of charity that we feel is in the best interests of the child.

If not, the church assumes responsibility to give them an option because there is no one else more qualified to make the choice than the dead person themselves.

Except the LDS church, of course. Because – for the 900th time – they are not merely extending the option, the choice of being baptized, they are going ahead and doing it. And they are not asking anyone’s permission beforehand.

@FatBaldGuy

If the Mormons are wrong, they have no priestly authority and the baptisms are a meaningless (although well intentioned) gesture.

Just because a gesture is ultimately meaningless does not mean it is not insulting or offensive. Signs, gestures, rites, and rituals have meaning. To those who believe (a) a sacrament should only be entered as the product of a prior voluntary choice; or (b) a sacrament should never be done because it is a pagan ritual incompatible with their faith, or any number of other legitimate objections, the rite itself is NOT meaningless. And I honestly don’t think Mormons think the rite is meaningless, or they wouldn’t insist on doing it. To me, it smacks of almost willful obtuseness: I’ve been offensive or insulting but, hey, “no harm, no foul.”

And the LDS, or at least their leadership, do at least concede how it is possible the practice can be offensive and insulting; that’s why they stopped doing it on behalf of Jews.

To the members of the LDS Church, it’s not just something that we do for fun, it’s a commandment. We believe that at some point in time every single person who has ever lived on this earth will have the opportunity to be taught the gospel and either accept it or reject it. If they accept it, someone has to be baptized in their behalf.

And for my part I believe that I have already been successfully baptized into what is the true faith for me. Your religion is not mine. I absolutely respect your right to follow it, but I would not accept it if it were offered to me. Nor would many others who are not LDS but who believe in our own sacraments and our own paths to Heaven. To us, to presume to put someone who has died through the sacrament of baptism is an offense to both the person and the sacrament. That is what we believe. Now, you may choose to elevate your beliefs over mine – indeed, it is undoutedly reasonable to expect that you will – but it is no less reasonable to discover that you have offended some people – maybe quite a lot of people – by doing so. Our beliefs are not compatible. For you to involve me in yours without my permission, on the assumption that I will drop mine and embrace yours, is grossly insulting. To find that you consider it a act of charity only adds insult to injury.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
But can’t you at least see beyond your lack of belief to recognize why these sorts of things would be offensive to believers? Or are you truly unable to even recognize that as a legitimately-held point of view? YOU wouldn’t mind because you don’t believe; can you at least understand why THEY might mind because they do?
[/quote]
For the purpose of LDS baptisms, we’re both unbelievers. But yes, I can certainly understand why people are angry at this. If I believed you were right, I too would be angry; the difference is that we think two different things are happening (or not, as the case may be). If people were being baptised against their will, or at the very least with no input from them? Yep, i’d be plenty pissed. I just don’t think that’s what occurring. To go back to your analogy earlier, I understand perfectly being (entirely justifiably) being pissed off at being called a whore, but if I didn’t think the insult was said then I wouldn’t be.

You aren’t saying anything new, you are merely restating (again) your refusal to differentiate between the rite of baptism and the efficacy of the rite, and your consequent refusal to see that one can be insulting without the other. I’ve reveiwed my posts and I’ve addressed this point no less than three times.

I do differentiate between them. I just don’t differentiate as you do.

The rite is the process, the ritual itself. The efficacy is the results. We may have a situation where both work; the ritual is performed correctly, and the desired results obtained. Compare to turning a key in a car ignition to the engine being turned on. Likewise you could have a situation where the rite itself is again followed correctly, but the results are not obtained; the ritual is performed correct in all regards, and yet the person in question is not saved (or what-have-you). The key is turned in the ignition, but for whatever reason the engine does not start. And then you have the case where the ritual is not performed correctly, and thus the results are not achieved, which is generally what i’m getting at; the existence of a deity is necessary not just for the results in question, but for the ritual to actually be that ritual. Analogous to putting the key in the lock but not turning it, or making the turning motion without the key, which also means the engine won’t start.

That’s the difference. I’m not saying that the nonexistence of the LDS God means the ritual doesn’t work. I’m saying the nonexistence of the LDS God means it is not that ritual. It is necessary, not just for the results, but for the baptism itself to be a baptism. So I think you’re misunderstanding my argument; you’re the one that seems to be taking my repeated argument that “the baptism is not a baptism” as “the baptism is a failed baptism”.