Religious Question

[firebyrd]

I'm hoping I can get some insight from my friends of different beliefs. For some background, in my faith, we believe that everyone needs to be baptized in order to reach the highest levels of heaven. But there's a little problem-most people in the history of the world haven't had a chance to be baptized. Rather than automatically excluding them, we believe that they can learn of our beliefs after they die and choose to accept them at that point. However, they still need to be baptized, and that's something that needs to happen with a physical body. So we do proxy baptisms using names of dead people so that they're covered if they do choose to accept our beliefs, since we have no way of knowing who has and hasn't chosen to accept our beliefs. This does nothing under our beliefs unless they do make that choice. They don't become Mormon. They don't get put on our list of members. They just get put in a database saying it's been done so people don't do it over and over for the same people. And if we really are the nutjobs people think we are and everything we believe is wrong, obviously it does nothing in that case either.

Some people are apparently very, very offended by this. I've always had a very hard time understanding why. Obviously, if they're offended, they don't think our beliefs are correct, so why would they think it does anything? Some people have even recently made a website listing names of dead church leaders and declaring that they are now gay, apparently to try to make us see how offensive we are. I still don't get it. I'm not offended by that website, because I don't believe the people maintaining it have the power to make Joseph Smith and Brigham Young gay. So do these people really think we have the power to make dead people, who might not even exist anymore in any form, Mormon? If not, what's there to be offended about?

I'm genuinely trying to understand the problem here, because every time this becomes a controversy, I'm very confused. Now, I absolutely think the Church should follow the agreements it has made (and my understanding is they've revoked the privileges of doing proxy work for the guy responsible for the latest group of Holocaust victims who had work done). I just don't get why anyone cares at all. It seems to me if we're right, it means people have a chance to progress farther in the next life, and if we're wrong, then we've wasted our time with a meaningless prayer. What am I missing here?

Comments

[evilgrayson.livejournal.com]

Before I start, please forgive me. Religion is one of those topics never discussed in polite company in case offense is given; if I offend, it was in an attempt to explain. Your faith gives you strength and a particular worldview, and is just as valid as mine, however this comes across.

~~

The way I was raised - Church of England, which is quite close to Catholicism in some ways - a baptism is very much an indoctrination. A baby can't agree to be baptised, but it's done with the consent of the guardian so the child's soul will go to heaven if it dies. It's a very potent ritual if you actually look at and believe in the spiritual implications, it's usually performed on those unable to comprehend the ramifications, and in my view it is not something that should be done to an adult without that adult's express permission.

Seyrah made my point far eloquently than I can, not least because post-mortem baptism is a practice I find instinctively abhorrent. To me, you're interfering with someone's immortal soul because you think you know what's best for it, and even with the best of intentions, that comes off as a little arrogant.

Praying for me is something different, it's asking a favour of your deity on my behalf; that sort of thing is mildly embarrassing to me, but I'm always embarrassed when people ask favours of others on my behalf. The formal rituals of a church, however, are reordering the spiritual world to align something with the particular version of God that you follow - but I have my own version of the power known as 'deity', and I know that mine is 'right', in the same way you know yours is 'right'. I'm not going to get offended if someone prays for me, but if someone tries to directly intercede on my behalf and realign my soul to something that's not my deity when I haven't said they can, I'm going to get annoyed whether they can achieve it or not, and whether I'm alive or not.

I understand why you do it for those who died in ignorance of your faith, and who cannot consent because they're already dea - the intent of helping them to heaven is entirely laudable - but that doesn't mean I can agree with the practice. I see the belief that it's a contract between two willing parties that you're offering as intercession - if you have to do it, I believe that's the least abhorrent way to go about it - but one of the key tenets of my own personal faith is that I trust a truly loving God to have contingency plans for the massively overwhelming majority of souls who never got the chance to hear The Message, not just those who're related to Mormons.

[witteafval.livejournal.com]

You mention God's contingency plan for those who never had the chance to hear The Message, and for Mormons, baptisms for the dead is the contingency plan. The Bible is quite clear that those who don't believe and aren't baptized will be damned, with no qualifying exceptions. But how could a God who is just and fair allow so many billions of people to live on the earth without a chance to believe and be baptized? Baptism for the dead is the answer. Paul mentions it while teaching the universality of the resurrection; Peter said that Jesus taught the spirits in prison between the time of his crucifixion and resurrection. The practice is completely in harmony with Biblical doctrines.

Mormons also don't believe in infant baptism. It's an ordinance intended for those who are capable of believing and repenting; the minimum age has been set at eight years old. Certainly an infant isn't capable of consenting to baptism and all that comes with it, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from making that choice for their own children.

I wouldn't be offended if someone declared me to be a member of their church, posthumously or not. I don't think other churches have the divine authority to make binding priesthood ordinances, so my reaction to their attempts to include me would range from amusement to indifference.

[firebyrd.livejournal.com]

Thank you again. No offense has been taken, and I hope I have not given any in turn.

Thank you for the reminder about infant baptism. The idea is so abhorrent to what we believe I had forgotten about it when thinking about the issue, because we believe agency and choice is so important in this life. We don't baptize anyone without consent. In fact, for the mentally disabled who are judged unable to give that consent, we wait to do so until after they have died, when we believe they will have the ability to decide whether to accept it or not. As Eric stated, we believe this is the contingency plan set in place by God, because just as you state, we trust a loving God to ensure everyone has a chance for eternal happiness. The relatives policy in place now is due to people of other faiths being uncomfortable with the practice. We believe when Christ comes again and the Millenium begins that those sort of issues will be sorted out, as well as getting the information for those who existed before written records.

[seyrah.livejournal.com]

Eh, I was baptized as an infant and I'm still going to hell, for what it's worth. ;-)

This is why churches that practice infant baptism do generally have mechanisms in place for confirming or rejecting the sacrament later in life. So, I was baptized Catholic. I even got my first communion. But before it came time for me to confirm myself as a member of the church, I made use of my free will and got the heck out of there.