lezlers wrote:
It’s only the arrogance of those who believe that theirs is the one true religion. Since this belief is held by most members of most religions, it hardly seems fair to pick on Mormons for it.
Either you believe that Mormon theology is true, in which case it would be cruel to not offer the dead this last chance at salvation, or you believe that Mormon theology is false, in which case it doesn’t make a lick of difference to anyone, least of all the dead.
It’s the disrespect that bothers me; I’m with lezlers here.
No one really knows what happens after we die, after all. What if there isn’t One True God, but if all religions are true, and what the Mormons are doing is actually wreaking havoc in the afterlife? What then?
Or, more importantly, (and likely than Heavenly Havoc), what if it does make a difference to the dead?
The Mormons do this precisely because they believe that it makes a difference to the dead. In fact, they have specific beliefs about the difference it makes. Given these beliefs, wouldn’t it be cruel for them not to do this? The benefits they believe it incurs surely outweigh the descendents feeling disrespected. Feeling disrespected doesn’t endanger anyones immortal soul, while not performing this baptism ceremony does (according to their beliefs).
Well, that’s exactly what the Mormons believe: that it does make a difference to the dead. Since there’s exactly as much evidence for your after-life scenario as there is for the Mormon after-life scenario, how can you say that what they’re doing is wrong?
IIR Mormon Theology C (been a few years since I’ve been a Mormon), the person who is dead has the option to accept the conversion to Mormonism or not accept it as he/she sees fit.
And there is a Mormon hell - they call it “outer darkness” - the only people who will end up there are the Mormons who have “received a sure knowledge that Jesus is the Savior, and rejected Him.”
If I have made any errors, please correct me, Monty.
Well I wouldn’t want a ton of dead people pissed off at me for not respecting their choices in life… who knows what they might do!?
Given that my ancestors seem to have been a rather fierce and stubborn lot, including my grandmother who apparently became fed up with the Catholics and became a northern (English) Baptist, I wouldn’t put it past them to do their level best to haunt anyone who tried to baptize them after they’d died.
This is one aspect of the Church of Latter-Day Saints which bothers me. I, my father, my grandmother, and, I assume, the rest of my ancestors have arrived at positions with regard to religion which suit us. I respect the fact that others have arrived at different conclusions, and respect their right to do so. To me, baptizing me or anyone else into a religion we have not chosen, whether we heard of it or not, after we have died goes against that basic respect. I don’t know how much Dad or Granny know or knew about LDS; I do know that if either of them considered it appealing enough, they were perfectly capable of researching it and converting if they chose to. (Pardon the confusion – Dad’s alive; Granny isn’t, and the grammar’s interesting.) Attempts at conversion by coercion, which is what this strikes me as, I’m afraid, are likely to make us resistant to the religion the person’s trying to convert us to.
As for me, while I don’t plan on becoming anyone’s direct ancestor, let me go on record now as saying that anyone attempting to convert me after death may have a rather annoyed Ecto-palian to deal with! 
This is not intended to disrespect the beliefs of members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints on this board. It is, instead, a plea that you respect the beliefs of me and mine.
CJ
(Episcopalian, BTW)
If you look closely,I amnot Monty, but I believe someone who is totally evil is called a “son of perdition” and goes to the bad place.
You have to be really bad for this, though.
I would never have expected…
I humbly submit, meantime, that anyone who wished to baptize any of my extended family, in whatever state dead or alive, would most fully respect that dead relative’s wishes by asking first. Regardless of how well one believes someone who is not baptized [whatever faith] will do after death, it speaks to me personally of a lack of respect for the privacy of the dead not to leave them be in that regard. Do they mean well by baptizing dead people? Absolutely. But it isn’t about what they want but the wishes of the dead and those of their descendents.
It is curious, though, that evidently because of this doctrine (and someone will please correct me if I’m wrong:)) one does not have to want to be saved (or what LDS call it) to be baptized. I’m probably misunderstanding it, though. I mean, an atheist baptized Mormon after death … how exactly would that be worked out in the LDS theological system?
If any church, Mormon or not, tried to convert me after I died, I would definitely come back and eat some brains.
But that’s just me.
brains…BRAINS…
Active Mormon checking in. I’ll be responding to the questions people have raised, as well as to the erroneous responses given.
Oh and fetus? That was funny.
Exactly what Siege said.
Very well put, Siege, very well put.
From the article:
(Emphasis mine) Dunked in water? Yeah, that’s good objective reporting.
Oops. Over here we showed that Helen Radkey was a fraud. She’s trying to get as much publicity as possible so that she can sell her supposed list of objectionable baptisms to the LDS church, as a favor to the church–to help it out (for a tidy profit).
Given that, they did at least consult with an LDS representative who correctly stated:
It’s a shame so many people didn’t bother to read the article before they posted in the thread.
It’s also a shame that the spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t appear to understand things. I would think it would be his job to understand issues before commenting on them. At least he should have made the trivial effort to understand the error of his statement:
If we believed the practice is what the spokesman thinks it is, he would be right–it wouldn’t be religion, but rather magic. But as the LDS spokesman said, we do not believe that the practice is coercive. Indeed, that would be antithetical to our belief about agency, and the nature of God, and that Satan opposed God’s plan and intended to coerce our actions in this life.
As Dale Bills said, we believe proxy baptism to be an offer to those who have died. It is very similar to the work that missionaries do to share our beliefs with anyone who will listen, and offer baptism to those who desire it. When the ordinance is performed, the person is not listed as “baptized into the Mormon church.” Rather it is noted that the person has had the ordinance performed for him or her. It is very different than baptism of a live person where we can be sure of consent.
Oh and:
So Father Joseph just believes that people who aren’t baptized here on Earth are damned. That’s much better.
More in a bit.
What on Earth is wrong with the word “dunked”?
I guess you haven’t seen the humanitarian work the LDS church and many others do. Specifically giving out free lunches among other things.
The purpose of the records is to make the genealogical work easier for everyone. For LDS, that includes proxy ordiance work. It is not necessary however for the ordinance work for someone to be done if they’re in the records.
You dunk a doughnut or a basketball, not a person.
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: dunk
Pronunciation: 'd&[ng]k
Function: verb
Etymology: PaGerman dunke, from Middle High German dunken, from Old High German dunkOn
Date: 1919
transitive senses
1 : to dip (as a piece of bread) into a beverage while eating
2 : to dip or submerge temporarily in liquid
3 : to throw (a basketball) into the basket from above the rim
intransitive senses
1 : to submerge oneself in water
2 : to make a dunk shot in basketball
That cracks me up. They offer dead people an opportunity to accept their faith? What’s the deal? If they don’t hear from them they just assume they’ve accepted it?
Why don’t they offer them a nice tuna sandwich while they’re at it? Makes about as much sense to me.
Look in other dictionaries and some don’t list people as being dunked. Even in this case the primary definition has to do with food. A bit (if I can use the word) disrespectful of what we consider to be a sacred ordinance.
In order to be a shining example and good ambassador for their church, thereby gaining converts.