For those of you who insist it’s not a big deal, let me try a non-religious example.
Let’s say that a direct descendent of Abraham Lincoln were to say “If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be a Democrat.”
Let’s further say that the Democratic-controlled Illinois legislature then passes a bill that says “Henceforth all official state records will identify Abraham Lincoln as a Democrat.” And furthermore that the governor signs the bill into law.
People in the other 49 states laugh it off, of course, because Lincoln was not just a Republican, he is a cornerstone of the Republican party. Furthermore, he affected the political balance of the United States for a century. To say Lincoln would choose to be a Democrat given today’s party platforms is an insult, not just to Republicans, but to historians.
Back in Illinois, generations of schoolchildren to come are taught that Lincoln, although “born” a Republican, was actually a Democrat.
How about some other options? Charles Darwin would have decided evolution is a crackpot theory? Neil Armstrong a member of the Flat Earth Society? Henry Ford a Communist?
Sorry, kunilou, but that example doesn’t cut it at all. Nobody in the Mormon Church is going around saying, “My great-grandpa Henry, who was a Baptist all his life, is now a Mormon.” We don’t really know what Henry’s thoughts on the subject are. If he chose to accept the baptism, then it is valid on his behalf. If he chose to ignore it, nothing has changed in Henry’s life (or death). We’re not forcing baptism on anybody, but just making it available if they want it.
We are not equally unbelievers. You do not believe in the sacrament at all. I believe in it, and do not appreciate having it attempted on my behalf or on the behalf of anyone not first choosing it. And despite my spirited defense, I’m not angry about it; I would not go so far as to say “some of my best friends are Mormons,” but only because as a factual matter, they aren’t – but there’s no reason they could not be. I respect the right of the LDS to believe as they do but I find this practice offensive. What that means, as a practical matter, is that it would not be on the list of things I would probably discuss with my Mormon acquaintances.
Well, I dont’ think anyone said YOU were offended. Certainly I never did.
Again, I find this hugely artificial. A young couple are standing before a Christian altar, going through a ceremony where water is put on their baby’s head and he or she is welcomed into the family of Christ and given a name. What do you call that? Because apparently you personally would not have enough information to hazard a guess as to what was going on.
Your analogy fails because “turning the car on” is not the name for both the result – the car starts – and the process. A better analogy would be “trying to turn the car on,” which you have inarguably done regardless of whether the car starts or not.
Respectfully, I don’t think you’re at all qualified to say what is or is not the ritual of baptism. Aside from your lack of spiritual authority over me (or anyone), I find the distinction you’re drawing to be hugely artificial for reasons already set forth. Even an non-Christian layperson knows what we are talking about when we talk about “baptism,” and what they would identify is the ritual that is done. And their definition or understanding would not be dependent on some inquiry as to its ultimate sucess or the authority of those undertaking it. Just because you have such a specialized understanding of what the term means doesn’t mean your understanding is persuasive or even necessarily correct.
This again completely ignores the fact that you are going beyond offering the sacrament (baptizing those dead who ring up to say they want it) to actually baptizing them by proxy. To say you are just “making it available if they want it” misstates what is, as a factual matter, being done, which is performance of the rite of baptism on/for persons whose feelings about the rite cannot be known.
So, are you saying that that baby made a “prior voluntary choice” to be baptized? Or are the parents doing exactly the same thing to the baby that you are accusing the Mormons of doing?
Yeah, but that’s kind of silly, because from an LDS standpoint, who wouldn’t want it? I mean, lets say Grandpa Henry dies goes to the afterlife. There, he learn for sure that Mormonism is the right religion, and his Baptist beliefs were just silly and wrong. You mean to say that there’s anything approaching a reasonable chance that when they come to him and say, “Hey, Henry, you’ve been baptized by proxy! You can be a Mormon if you want.”, he’s going to say, “Sorry, guys, I know Mormonism is the only true faith and all, but I’m going to stick with my false, corrupt religion.”
I mean, who’s going to do that? Grandpa Henry can’t be that dumb.
You believe it is possible to have sacraments, sure, but you don’t believe in the sacredness of the LDS baptism ritual, do you? You don’t believe that what is occurring is a holy ritual, right? We differ as to whether the ritual counts as a baptism, but I wouldn’t have thought we’d be in disagreement about whether it is sacred or not.
And I apologise for assuming you were angry.
You were suggesting I couldn’t even understand the offense of others. Me bringing that up was an attempt to show that yes, I can understand it. Not as a rebuttal to you or anyone claiming I was offended, just that I can see how someone, and even I, could be.
I would call it a baptism. Mainly because i’m polite enough that i’m not going to point out “Hey, how’s the ritual-that-I-don’t-believe-is-really-it going?” at the font. But no, I don’t consider it a baptism, because I don’t believe the rules for the ritual are being met.
Were I to come up with a good term to use, I suspect it might be an “attempted baptism”. Might I ask as to what you mean by artificiality? I’m afraid i’m not sure what meaning to take, other than that my reasoning is fake.
Fair enough. But “trying to turn the car on” isn’t, either.
But this suggests i’m getting bogged down in semantics. As I understand it, you consider that baptism as defined as the process is being performed, whilst baptism as defined as the result is not, right? I’m saying that baptism both as a process and as a result are not peformed. Would you agree with that as a summary?
Merely because we use “baptism” as shorthand for the attempted process and not the process proves nothing beyond that we’re generally not douches to baptisers (or that when we are, we’re not friends for long) and that we tend to skip philosophical conversations in casual conversation.
Obviously my undertanding isn’t persuasive, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 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.
You’ve used the argument up above of coming across two parents with a font and priest - and saying based on that we may say it is a baptism. Alright. But if the spiritual components are as equally required as the physical ones, then wouldn’t you also have to say that we should call the spiritual process part alone baptism as well as the physical process alone it?
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).
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?
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.
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?
No argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The uproar, I think is that, by doing the baptisms of the dead, the Mormons are saying, basically, “Your belief that Grandpa Henry can go to heaven as a good Baptist is wrong. Only by being a Mormon and getting baptized can Grandpa Henry be in heaven.” In other words, it’s telling people that their beliefs are false, and that Mormonism is true, and while most people can intellectually accept that members of another religion think that their belief is false, they still get insulted when they’re reminded of it.
The parents have the parental authority to make that choice on behalf of their child, just as they have the authority to make all necessary choices for the good of a child lacking capacity to choose. On whose authority do Mormons baptize the dead, other than their own? They are not in loco parentis to the dead. If, if you assert, the dead have the capacity to freely choose to accept baptism or not (unlike babies), then surely they have the right to exercise the choice before the sacrament is done. And if they have that capacity for free will and free choice, you must also accept that some of them, perhaps many of them, will not even appreciate your attempt.
I don’t have a belief as to its sacredness or holiness either way; I’m not required to. But then, I don’t have to believe in a rite to treat it as if it is sacred or holy. I respect it just as I respect many religious rituals that are not my own, and would not treat it as anything other than sacred or holy to those who believe in it.
Well we do, to the extent you think I have, or am required to have, an opinion as to its sacredness either way. I do not limit the sacred to those things that are sacred to me.
Which rules are that? Whose definition of baptism are you operating under, other than your own?
“Fake” is too pejorative for what I mean. It’s more like defining something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is generally understood to be a duck, and usually identified as a duck, as something other than a duck. You want to define baptism in an IMO excessively narrow and prescriptive way, ignoring the descriptive reality of how the term is generally understood. I’m not going to join you.
I don’t separate baptism into process and result; that is your artificial – again, using the word advisedly but not insultingly – distinction. I’m not following you down that particular rabbit hole.
No. Why? What is the “spiritual process” of baptism or any other sacrament without the ritual? Despite your repeated assertions, they are not divisible. And again, and importantly IMO in the defense of the LDS, they certainly do not assert that they are divisible or that they are performing a spiritually empty act that is independent from the God they invoke in performing the rite.
Then you are defining “by proxy” to mean something other than what it means in every other use. My understanding is that the proxy is NOT being baptized, because the proxy has already been baptized and the church does not admit of multiple baptism. Rather, the person they are proxy for is baptized. This isn’t religion; it’s logic: It’s either one or the other. The ritual does not attach to the proxy any more than the effects of anything ever attach to the proxy, the substitute, the stand-in, the agent who is deputized to do one thing on behalf of someone else.
So you are now arguing that no one is baptized by the baptism by proxy? That rather begs the question of why you bother to do it.
Fulfill what requirement? I’d like you to be be specific, please, because I think what you are conceding here is that it is not merely an offer made.
Again, under simple human understanding, either (1) the proxy is baptized; (2) the dead person is baptized; or (3) no one is baptized. You have conceded “one” is is not accurate. “Three” also wrong (or you wouldn’t do it). That leaves us with “two.” And right back where we started.
But if you were convinced it wasn’t his choice – firmly, 100% convinced – you might have felt a little differently.
I think there’s a difference between finding something offensive and finding it important. I also think that you don’t get to decide for me whether the practice is insulting, and neither does the LDS. I’m not insisting that anyone else in this thread (or anywhere) hold that same view, but I find it hard to believe many people could seriously say they simply cannot imagine why anyone would have a problem with the practice.
Why are you asking me? Why aren’t you asking them? Are they baptizing people, or not? And are you seriously arguing that they aren’t? Because that’s the point at which the argument gets really silly to me: “We’re baptizing people by proxy! Except we’re not really baptizing anyone!”
It obviously doesn’t, since they’re not there but the church is doing it anyway. Why is this contingent on my understanding of it? ISTM that I at least credit them with doing that they assert they are doing; your defense boils down to “well, that’s not really what they’re doing even though they say it is.” If you want people to understand that you are doing something othe that baptisms, you’d better start calling it something else.
Again, ignoring the reality of the ritual which is in fact performed. It is not a contingent ritual. Even if it were, many would not choose to submit to the ritual because it is antithetical to their beliefs. The choice comes after and is therefore irrelevant; it is the ritual itself which is the problem.
No.
This “no harm, no foul” brush-off really bugs me. As if you can inject your religion not just into a person’s present but into their eternity, by performing rites in their name to which they no longer have the power to object and, hey, if you’re wrong, no prob. By this logic you should be performing every possible ritual for every possible faith, because if one particular faith is correct you’ll be covered but if they aren’t, hey! No harm, no foul. I don’t see the LDS planning their eternties on the contingency that they may be wrong; why would they expect others to do so? There is an insult inherent in “we’re just covering your bases for you!” If a faithful person lives and dies in the belief that their faith is true, they would not appreciate you hedging their bets for them.
Let’s be clear on this: I do not have to plan for when the the Mormon afterlife unfolds because I don’t believe it ever will. In fact, I affirmatively reject that it ever will, just as I reject every faith that claims that theirs is the only path to salvation or eternal life (or the best level of heaven therein). My faith requires me to believe that such a narrow and unforgiving version of salvation and/or eternity is – must be – incorrect. I don’t want this ritual done to me, now or ever. Not after I’m dead, not a thousand years after I’m dead, not if I burn in hell as the alternative. My God asks for my faith in His goodness and His ability and willingness to extend salvation to all who seek it or deserve it, without the intercession of men. AND my faith requires that I stand firm in that belief, without hedging my bets against some other alternative, which is a species of unbelief and doubt.
And I’m sure the LDS would agree. Except – whoops! – even they concede the potential insult, which is why they directed as early as 1991 that baptisms by proxy not be done for Jews.
That’s some definition of charity you’ve got there. Intent is all, huh? Nevermind the damage done, so long as the giver meant well.
Then they’re not as smart as I think they are. And honestly, I don’t think this is true; I think the the LDS are perfectly aware of why some would find it offensive – it’s not like it’s that hard to grasp – but they do it anyway because they believe they are supposed to.
Question: how do you baptize someone who is not physically present? It is all well and goodto pretend, but since the subject isn’t there, I doubt very much that this “baptism” means much of anything.
Really? Saying that their ancestors died for nothing, and if they had just been informed of what our new religionist knows to be true they wouldn’t have been so foolish as to been Mormons?
The rules that God made, I assume. I must admit that this is standard Christian nonsense - God has to sentence the unsaved but virtuous to hell because, well, because he has to. Feeble God you got there.
I agree that they don’t mean to be insulting, but they are anyway. The 60 year old woman gets to decide what she wants. If they start to baptize her without her consent, then there will be hell to pay. If they can show a signed consent from from the diseased person giving permission for the baptism, I’m fine with it. Until then, they can keep their hands off of our ancestors.
Gee. I’m going to go out and make some rolls of toilet paper with pictures of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and the Angel Moroni on the sheets. They’re all dead (or nonexistent) so they won’t care. You guys couldn’t possibly get offended by my action, could you?
Please get it through your head that this has nothing to do with the deceased, and everything to do with the lack of respect to their memories and your arrogance in thinking that no one could possibly care about you insulting the beliefs they had when alive.
This is a textbook example of why I dislike so much about religion.
Certainly you are not required to believe in something one way or the other. I know nothing of your beliefs other than that you are a Protestant. But in general Protestants follow a monotheistic religion, which would tend to mean a belief in one particular god and further imply disbelief in the LDS God. Whether you believe it to be sacred or holy or not naturally flows from that, I would have thought; either you believe your God makes LDS baptism sacred, you have no belief either way, or you believe he does not. If you think he does, then you probably wouldn’t be having this argument. If he doesn’t, then it isn’t sacred.
No, you don’t have to believe in a rite to treat it as if was holy. That’s just politeness. But that doesn’t mean you think it is holy.
I’m not talking about the more recent development of sacred as being something that is highly meaningful to you or me or someone in general. I’m taking the religious meaning - sacred is that which pertains positively to a religion or deity. I do rather tend to limit the sacred to those things which I believe truly pertain to an true religion or deity.
Well, like i’ve said, the one baptism i’ve been to in person specifically mentioned that the deed was being done in the name of God (well, the trinity). I suppose the idea that spiritual matters are a highly important, even required, part of baptism is an idea I seem to have picked up somewhere; I honestly couldn’t tell you where for certain. If any believers in the thread would care to jump in one way or the other, that’d be appreciated.
I went to have a look to see if I could see who officially agree with me.
Then I suppose therein lies the difference, because I feel to remove the spiritual aspects from a baptism is akin to calling a pigeon a duck. I do not feel that to remove the spiritual aspects is a shallow change; if anything, I would imagine it is the physical aspects that are the shallower points. The words the priest may use may be different, the water used may be different, the church it is held in may be different, but the spiritual effects, as I understand them, are meant to be the same for everyone.
Ok. I feel the difference between baptism as a ritual and the effects of baptism are very worthy of differentiating, but as you say that’s entirely my distinction.
You’re the one that’s been saying that baptism is baptism regardless of whether there is a spiritual aspect to it. You’ve divided it yourself, by accepting, as you yourself say at the beginning of this post, that you do not have a belief one way or the other as to it’s sacredness yet are willing to accept it as being baptism. You say yourself here that while you are willing to consider the physical part without the spiritual baptism, apparently a perfectly reasonable seperation, the idea of the spiritual without the physical is not something you have knowledge of. You’ve divised the spiritual aspect of baptism quite thoroughly from the general idea of baptism as entirely unrequired. So if that’s a black mark against me, it’s a black mark against you.
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.