Baptism by Proxy

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed May 06, 2009 4:39 pm

Does this practice at all sound WRONG to you guys on any level of morality?

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/307876/17/

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 06, 2009 5:01 pm

UHM seems a little late to me.

the whole point of a Baptism is to identify yourself as a follower of Christ while you are still alive.

I don't see so much of a Morality issue as I do a lack of biblical knowledge.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:17 pm

What would make it morally wrong? (other than the morality of breaking the rules which that article points out that a couple people broke the rules).

If you're referring to proxy baptisms on behalf of people who have died, I don't see anything wrong morally with that. It's not done to force a person (or anyone) to become Mormon after the person has died, the deceased person can do whatever a deceased person wants to. The act doesn't take away choices for the deceased person (assuming you believe a deceased person would still be able to make any choices).

Their beliefs (the Mormon's beliefs) suggest that Baptism is a physical act that ALL people need to do, if the person is to have any hope for salvation, and it can't be just any style of baptism (you know, the \"right\" way not any other way). They also believe that until the \"Judgment Day\" happens, the spirits of those who have died have to wait, and while waiting can be taught (if they want) by persons who have also died (and are also waiting). Thus, because there are many millions (billions?) who have died without baptism or never heard or never had the chance to hear the word of Christ (and thus never had the chance to be baptized). They consider that those persons might learn about Christ while they wait for the Judgment Day but not have any chance to be Baptized. Therefore, they work to do baptisms by proxy on behalf of those who have died that did not get the chance to be baptized. It is considered that the deceased person can accept or refuse it.

They consider it a very worthwhile effort for the sake of those who have died.

I don't know what lack of biblical knowledge that Cuda is referring to, but I do know that baptisms by proxy for the dead is mentioned in the New Testament (however very briefly) at 1 Cor. 15:29. Paul the Apostle was reasoning with his audience with regards to why some practices were being done. The record doesn't contain any additional information regarding that practice at that time.

That article you reference pointed out that the proxy baptism mentioned in that article was not done according to the rules the Mormons normally adhere to and that the persons who performed it broke the rules. The breaking of the rules is what I find objectionable.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:21 pm

I don't know, and I don't care. I'd only complain if it intruded on other's civil liberties, and clearly this has nothing to do with that

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:03 pm

There are a bunch of my ancestors in the LDS database; I'm not a Mormon, and it doesn't bother me a bit. It would be a lot harder to do genealogy without the Mormon databases and the filmed records in the Library.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 07, 2009 1:38 pm

I don't know guys. It just seems a little twisted and creepy. Baptizing the dead into a faith they're not part of, don't want to be associated with or don't believe in and even having to gall to baptize DEAD JEWISH Holocaust victims no less, at least up until 1995 AFTER a lot of complaints by Jewish family members! They obviously didn't approve of the practice!

I'm not Mormon, don't want anything to do with Mormonism or be 'baptized without my permission AFTER I'm dead. It's just the principle of the thing. Frankly, in my opinion, I think they're a cult and I really don't want to be part of their genealogy database. That little project should worry people as to why this 'religion' is tracking down everybody's genealogical history and creating a large database for 'who knows what' use for. Doesn't that bother anyone? Most people here don't want the government keeping track of us, so why let the Mormons dig around in our family history? Knowledge and information is power.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu May 07, 2009 2:15 pm

[quote=""tunnelcat"]Baptizing the dead into a faith they're not part of, don't want to be associated with or don't believe in and even having to gall to baptize DEAD JEWISH Holocaust victims no less, at least up until 1995 AFTER a lot of complaints by Jewish family members! They obviously didn't approve of the practice! [/quote]
I agree. I mean, technically, they aren't hurting anything. If you don't believe in what they are doing, then what difference does it make that they took a dip? But still, it's obviously going to offend some folks.

It's kind of like sending a donation to a charity in someone else's name. You probably didn't meant to offend, but if the person you are attempting to honor disapproves of the charity, they are probably going to be offended you attached their name to it.

tunnelcat wrote:That little project should worry people as to why this 'religion' is tracking down everybody's genealogical history and creating a large database for 'who knows what' use for.

We know why they are doing it, they believe that everyone MUST be baptized to be saved. So they have to track down all their old relatives and be baptized for them.

tunnelcat wrote:Most people here don't want the government keeping track of us, so why let the Mormons dig around in our family history? Knowledge and information is power.

Genealogical information is a matter of public record. It's being gathered and compiled by others than just the Mormons. Not much you can do about it. Everyone knows who your great great grandmother was.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu May 07, 2009 4:27 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Baptizing the dead into a faith they're not part of, don't want to be associated with or don't believe in and even having to gall to baptize DEAD JEWISH Holocaust victims no less, at least up until 1995 AFTER a lot of complaints by Jewish family members! They obviously didn't approve of the practice!

It doesn't matter. What the living do only effects the living.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu May 07, 2009 7:38 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Baptizing the dead into a faith they're not part of, don't want to be associated with or don't believe in and even having to gall to baptize DEAD JEWISH Holocaust victims no less, at least up until 1995 AFTER a lot of complaints by Jewish family members! They obviously didn't approve of the practice!
It doesn't matter. What the living do only effects the living.

correct. Baptism is an expression of faith by those who decide to follow Christ. Paul was being factious when he wrote that. Baptism by itself does nothing. There needs to be a profession of faith ... which the dead can Not do. they had their chance just like the rest of us. Game over man, game over...

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:02 am

Duper wrote:Baptism by itself does nothing. There needs to be a profession of faith ... which the dead can Not do. they had their chance just like the rest of us. Game over man, game over...

Are you sure it's "game over" for the dead? Do you know that for yourself?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri May 08, 2009 1:03 pm

TechPro wrote:
Duper wrote:Baptism by itself does nothing. There needs to be a profession of faith ... which the dead can Not do. they had their chance just like the rest of us. Game over man, game over...
Are you sure it's "game over" for the dead? Do you know that for yourself?

Yes, I'm quite sure.

Baptism is merely a symbolic gesture. What you did in life in relationship to Christ is what matters.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri May 08, 2009 1:35 pm

TechPro wrote:
Duper wrote:Baptism by itself does nothing. There needs to be a profession of faith ... which the dead can Not do. they had their chance just like the rest of us. Game over man, game over...
Are you sure it's "game over" for the dead? Do you know that for yourself?

I have it on good authority from sombody thats been there

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri May 08, 2009 2:58 pm

TechPro wrote:I don't know what lack of biblical knowledge that Cuda is referring to, but I do know that baptisms by proxy for the dead is mentioned in the New Testament (however very briefly) at 1 Cor. 15:29. Paul the Apostle was reasoning with his audience with regards to why some practices were being done. The record doesn't contain any additional information regarding that practice at that time.

the lack of biblical kowledge has to do with this passage.

1 Cor. 15:29 wrote:Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

that says that if Christ was not raised from the dead then there is no point in identifing your self with him. it has NOTHING to do with baptising dead people.

It does say Baptised FOR the dead. not Baptised WHILE dead

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri May 08, 2009 4:15 pm

I was baptized Methodist as a child and don't mind that it was done, WHILE I WAS A LIVING CHILD. It was expected and part of life in the 1950's and my parents approved it and were responsible for all decisions concerning me. However, since I wasn't raised as a Mormon and don't believe in Mormonism, they should stay out of baptizing those who are NOT of their church. It may not seem to be important to a lot of people but it's just the principle of the thing to me. It's almost along the same lines as being voted into the Church of Scientology by proxy AFTER you're dead!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri May 08, 2009 4:41 pm

TC the whole point of baptism is to worry about your future NOW while you still have that option, because once your dead it doesnt matter who tries to \"Proxy\" you into a faith it will not make any difference.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:24 pm

I think your point is well-founded, tunnelcat, and I agree. After it's unBiblical, and then nonsensical, it is presumptuous. It is only their problem, though. Aside from the fact that we have to hear about it.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri May 08, 2009 10:58 pm

meh. sorry, tc; I just can't get too worked up over it. It has meaning for you if you're LDS and it has no meaning for you if you aren't. If I want to believe you can fly, hey, it's my delusion. Doesn't affect your aerodynamic properties one bit.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat May 09, 2009 9:33 am

OK. My question is if you're a strident Christian or Jew and believe and follow your faith according to the The Bible and NOT the Mormon Tenants, do you want anything associated with it stuck on your name? Would it violate your principles? If you're not a strong Christian believer, I could see where it wouldn't matter, although it does bother me. I just don't want anything associated with Mormonism applied to me, no matter how insignificant it seems.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 09, 2009 11:12 am

all that matters to me is what God thinks of me since he is the ONLY one that matters. titles AFTER I'm dead are irrelevant.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat May 09, 2009 2:56 pm

Watch out! What’s to stop them from doing it while you are still alive? I’m being silly, but there is still a point in there.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sat May 09, 2009 7:07 pm

Wow, thought I heard it all with this but there is always something new.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:33 pm

tunnelcat wrote:f you're a strident Christian or Jew and believe and follow your faith according to the The Bible and NOT the Mormon Tenants, do you want anything associated with it stuck on your name? Would it violate your principles?

I am not personally threatened or upset by this possibility. If they asked permission, I would deny it.

BUT, I think you have a valid point. Say the local nazi party was signing people up as "honorary" members after they died. It doesn't really mean anything, but most folks would be highly offended by it.

Now *I* don't view being baptized LDS by proxy as the equivalent of being signed up as an honorary nazi. But there are people who DO. To me, this is useless, but harmless. To others, it's useless, highly insulting, rude, and disrespectful.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun May 10, 2009 8:05 am

tunnelcat wrote:OK. My question is if you're a strident Christian or Jew and believe and follow your faith according to the The Bible and NOT the Mormon Tenants, do you want anything associated with it stuck on your name? Would it violate your principles? If you're not a strong Christian believer, I could see where it wouldn't matter, although it does bother me. I just don't want anything associated with Mormonism applied to me, no matter how insignificant it seems.

No.

The Bible talks about earnestly contending for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). The lies of the Mormon cult and any sub-cults therein ought to be resisted, but my principles can only be violated by me. Their lies and delusions only effect them, unless they sway someone who hears them, which is what ought to concern us the most. It does not--cannot directly effect a believer.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:54 pm

It's good to have, hold and practice your beliefs, but your name should not be tagged or stained for all of history with another's beliefs that you oppose.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:01 pm

Absolutely not.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:19 pm

Thankyou!

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:42 pm

tunnelcat wrote: ... but your name should not be tagged or stained for all of history ...

I think my hyperbole meter just pegged.

Baptism by Proxy

Baptism by Proxy

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: