[QUOTE=mlees]
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.
[/quote]
Interesting viewpoint. By extension, then, do you believe prayer on your behalf to be done “to you”? Where is the difference, if not? If it’s with the severity of the ritual, that doesn’t make sense to me (but see next point).
[QUOTE=mlees]
Second: Some folks consider the ceremony itself to be a very sacred act, one that must be done only on the willing believer.
[/quote]
Sure. Different religions believe different things about ceremonies that are very similar, though obviously not the same. Mormons believe that the ceremony is sacred, and that in all cases other than proxy it must be done with the willing believer present and performing certain actions. With proxy, they believe that the ceremony must be done but that the person it’s being performed for is either willing and the ordinance “takes effect” or unwilling and the ordinance has no effect.
If the issue is, as it seems you and Jodi believe, that the ritual itself is “close to” the ritual that other churches believe in and that this ritual would therefore have some real effect based on that other religion and not the Mormon religion, that’s a different story. But if that’s the case, the fact that the willing believer isn’t partaking in the ordinance would invalidate it, correct?
[QUOTE=mlees]
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.
[/quote]
Agreed. Mormons do not undertake this lightly. A process of interviewing occurs in order to help determine if a member is even worthy to perform the ceremony.
[QUOTE=mlees]
*Third:*You are not offering a choice to the soul (from which you can’t extract a permission), your making that choice for them.
[/quote]
I completely miss this. Still. Again, if Mormon religion is correct, the service is a good one that is optional to the deceased. If Atheism is correct, no harm, no foul. If some other religion (Protestantism) is correct, the person needs to be there for anything real to occur. Where is the harm?
[QUOTE=mlees]
You don’t get to choose for them what is or isn’t insulting.
[/quote]
No argument.
[QUOTE=mlees]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I don’t understand this part, either. Again, my only comment is that I’ve been told that God must obey certain rules, and that this is one of them. If a person was baptized with the correct authority during life, they are not dependent in any fashion on a third party. If they were not, they are mostly free, but cannot access a given area, according to the laws God obeys.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/quote]
The proxy him- or herself is being baptized on behalf of someone else.
If they were to perform the ceremony and have a doll in that place, who would be baptized? No one. The ceremony does not necessarily have to have some metaphysical effect on a specific person. Now, baptizing a doll would be bad for other reasons, yes, but that’s not the point.
A baptism by proxy is, according to Mormons, a ritual that affects the person standing in proxy AND the person for whom it is performed. The effect on the departed is to fulfill a requirement and no more (it’s actually not even giving an offer). The effect on the person standing proxy is not baptism, but rather a better understanding of the ceremonies and promises involved, and the blessings that come with good works.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Except you, as a Mormon – I assume you’re a Mormon – know they do.
[/quote]
My parents are Mormon. They did temple work for my brother a few weeks ago, who died a little over a year ago. I was mildly disturbed, but not even a little insulted, since I know that in their view it’s his choice.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/quote]
Yes, but for these same people believing these same things, the person must be there, present, and willing, yes? If not, please tell me now so that we can get past this.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/quote]
Talking about a child is talking about someone living. It’s the kidnapping that bothers me most. If I didn’t believe the ritual was important, I wouldn’t care about that aspect.
If I found out that someone was performing voodoo ceremonies in their basement involving bits of my children’s hair, I’d be very disturbed, but it wouldn’t be because I thought the ritual was important… it’d be because I don’t know what else that person might do (such as kidnapping my children, or someone else’s).
Mormons don’t even use hair.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/quote]
And, for the 900th time, how can they be baptizing a person who isn’t present? How can they be “doing” any ritual “to” a person who isn’t present? Especially baptism? Doesn’t the nature of baptism require them to be present in your view?
They’re baptizing a proxy on behalf of someone else if they choose to receive it. I think the wording of the ritual is even something like that.
There’s a lot of mixed theology here. Let’s put this another way: the afterlife will be what the afterlife will be. What you “believe” will no longer be relevent once you see the reality of life that exists (or doesn’t) after death. Yes?
So if that’s true, and your current beliefs are right, then you’re all set, ritualistically speaking, and what the Mormons do won’t affect that. Correct? So no harm, no foul.
If, instead, the Mormon afterlife is what is real, then you’ll be wanting to change things a bit. Not a lot, I’m guessing, but a little. And this little would necessitate a living proxy to do work for you. And if that’s actually the case, you’ll be glad of their work at that time.
You’re free to find it insulting if you wish. But there is no logical nor theological reason that I have seen presented that should stop the Mormons from baptizing anyone and everyone. Heck, the only reason they shouldn’t baptize the living in proxy is that their own religion says they shouldn’t. I also don’t see why this shouldn’t be considered charity. “Useless”, perhaps, “wrong”, perhaps, but it’s clearly well-intentioned, which is the definition of charity.
But as for me being qualified? I don’t consider myself any authority, either. But I do consider myself a reasonable authority on logic (although not exactly a fantastic one), and it seems to me that if someone believes baptism as the process requires a god then logically if there is no such god then that ritual cannot take place. If baptism as a process may take place without a god? Hey, fine, I have no problem accepting it.