« New Movie Analyses | Main | News Article Roundup »
"...if the dead rise not at all?"
Imagine this: you're on a safari in southern Africa. While travelling, you come across a small tribe of natives who live deep within the Kalahari wilderness. When visiting their village, you come across a special shrine built inside one of their primitive huts. To your surprise, you find a picture of you and several of your family members placed on the shrine, inscribed with some native words at the bottom, and surrounded by flowers and sweet-smelling herbs. The tribal chief explains that you and members of your family were selected by the tribe as recipients of a special ritual. In addition to the flowers and herbs, each picture was engraved with a special tribal blessing, loosely translated as 'Peace in this life and the life to come'. Every week, he explains, the tribe gets together and performs a special ceremony in front of the shrine for the purpose of granting wisdom and happiness to those living, and speedy entrance to heaven after passing on.
After discovering this heretofore unknown ritual, what is your reaction?
(a) You thank the people of the tribe profusely for the great kindness they have given to you and your family.
(b) You think this was all meaningless since you don't believe the tribe has any power to give peace and happiness to your family in this life or the next, but you appreciate the gesture anyway.
(c) You are mortally offended and angry--publicly rebuking the tribe both in person and in the media after getting home for daring to do such a thing, and calling upon the local government to forcefully stop the tribe from performing their ritual.
Now...as you might have guessed from the subject header--substitute 'LDS Church' for 'African tribe' and 'baptism for the dead' as the ritual and you have an idea what the ongoing controversy is about (discussed in this Daily Herald editorial). Jewish groups have vehemently opposed performing baptismal ordinances for other Jews for years, and the controversy has again resurfaced. I admit I may be biased in this matter, but the reasons behind the complaint just don't make any sense. If the LDS Church doesn't have any authority to influence the eternal destiny of people after they pass away, then the ceremony is meaningless, as in (b) above. But what's more mystifying to me is the vehemence of the objection despite the fact that the purpose of the 'ritual' is to bring blessings and happiness to those for whom it's performed. It's not like an ex-girlfriend sticking a knife into your picture, or someone performing a voodoo ritual with a doll with your name on it in the hopes that you suffer in some way. In those cases, even though you don't really believe the gesture has any real impact on your life, your natural reaction is to oppose the gesture, if only for your peace of mind. But baptism for the dead isn't a 'curse'--a "We're going to punish you and make you suffer in the afterlife for not being Mormon..." kind of thing--it's supposed to BE GOOD FOR YOU. It's there because the Church members WANT you to be happy, and they believe that this ritual will help bring happiness and peace to those in the spirit world. Even if you don't recognize the authority, couldn't you still recognize the intent? Why in the world would you have such a serious problem with it?
I can't help feel that the root of this isn't in the inherent idea itself, but rather who it is that's doing it. I'm thinking there's still a lot of negative stereotypes and distrust of Mormons out there, and a lot of people just naturally view anything our Church does with suspicion, even if the motives are good. (Similar to how many Democrats oppose anything President Bush proposes; not that they necessarily inherently disagree with the idea, just that they really don't trust the guy proposing and executing it) I'd imagine only time will alleviate some of the misconceptions in popular society about Mormons and allow for more trust, and in any case, it won't matter in the long run if the Church stops baptisms for deceased Jews for the time being. Actually, according to prophecy ("The first shall be last, and the last shall be first..."), the Jews, in terms of groups of people, will be the last to accept the restored gospel and Jesus Christ as the Messiah anyway...
UPDATE: see more discussion on this topic here, and here
April 20, 2004 in LDS Church News | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/651935
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "...if the dead rise not at all?":
Comments
I'm not an LDS member, and I am a Democrat who doesn't trust George W. Bush, so perhaps I can elucidate.
"Similar to how many Democrats oppose anything President Bush proposes; not that they necessarily inherently disagree with the idea, just that they really don't trust the guy proposing and executing it"
I have grown suspicious of every proposal made by the Bush Administration because they drop nearly every ball. Repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's plans? Disregarded. The entire defense community's warnings about preparing for postwar Iraq? Disregarded. They even messed up the war in Afghanistan, which so many Democrats supported! Give me a competent Republican administration and I'll stop dreading their every attempt at policy.
As for posthumous baptisms: you linked to some interesting discussions (example: Vodkapundit), where non-LDS members made points similar to the ones I'd like to make. First, your analogy glosses over some of the details that make LDS posthumous baptisms so annoying to some non-members.
Example: LDS calls it a "baptism," a word that has very strong connotations to people outside LDS. Baptism is the rite of conversion in many religions, not just an introductory offer. Your analogy, where the tribe's blessing rituals are unnamed, glosses over this.
Example: The adventurer could ask the tribespeople to stop performing the ritual. A person can make no such request after dying.
Second, personal choice means a great deal to me. I understand that one purpose of posthumous baptisms is to introduce the gospel to people who have not had the chance to hear The Good News (for example, people who died centuries before the founding of LDS). That seems like a good idea. But I (at least right now) am very deliberately choosing to NOT join LDS. What protocol can I follow to make sure that my descendants do not decide to disregard my wishes? And, to use the jargon of marketing and spam filtering, why should this be an opt-out list? I understand that, once a person is posthumously baptized, LDS enters her name on a list for geneaological reasons. I don't mind you keeping my name in a genealogical database, but don't libel me by marking me down as something I'm not.
I think the biggest reason that posthumous baptizing creeps out some nonbelievers is the name. A baptism in LDS evidently doesn't mean the same thing as a baptism in other denominations of Christianity. If LDS called it something else, such as "blessing" or "forgiving" or some other word with less final connotations, then non-members would understand better what LDS was trying to do. But we aren't going to change the title of Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" just because some people trying to say "Huck Finn" switch the letters around and accidentally cuss. And I doubt that LDS would change the term for posthumous baptisms just to get nonmembers to feel okay about the ritual.
Posted by: Sumana | Dec 19, 2004 12:40:55 PM
Thanks for writing in, Sumana...
I can understand why Democrats (and left-leaning people) don't trust W. much--but even putting Iraq aside--did the Dems accept the Bush administration's recent drug plan for seniors with open arms? Not even close--because many said, "This is OUR issue...you can't make us believe you really care about the health of senior citizens because that's what WE do..." Many also opposed it because they didn't want to give the Republicans a victory on what is usually a Dem issue... Such is the state of partisan politics today--and of course the Republicans would do the same thing to any right-leaning policy by a Dem president--at heart, it's not just about W as a person.
One could go on about the state of US politics for quite a while, though, so let's leave that aside...
Baptism in the LDS view is no different in connotation than the 'outsider' you mentioned. Baptism is the LDS rite of conversion--when performed normally, it is a person who has consciously chose to join the Church, and the baptism signifies his/her becoming a Church member and having his/her name of the membership roles. The issue of choice and free will is even more present in the LDS view of baptism than in other churches that perform infant baptism since LDS doctrine requires the person having reached a certain 'age of accountability'--where they are old enough to understand the significance behind it and make a conscious decision. (8 is the LDS age of accountability as you probably know. Children under eight are not baptized, and neither are baptisms for the dead performed for anyone who died before the age of eight either) And (although few go to the trouble) one can write in to the Church HQ at any time and have their names removed from the membership roles should they decide not to be a Church member anymore.
It's a little different on the baptism for the dead side, though...since the option isn't available for spirits who wish to 'join the Church' to be baptized on the other side (it is purely a physical ordinance) the ordinances must be performed by proxy without necessarily knowing about a person's choice. This apparent lack of choice beforehand is what others object to, of course, although one might ask: without any evidence to the contrary, how do you know the spirits on the other side have NOT chosen to become LDS? You might think the more proper way to do it would be to have more direct communication between the spirits and the living to make it clear who wants the ordinance performed for them and who does not, however that would require the living and the spirits of the dead to have a much greater level of detailed communication which obviously is not part of the structure of the universe. That's a whole other issue, though...
My main point is still how little people seem to consider either (a) the authority, or (b) the intent. There seems to be two and only two possibilities:
(1) the LDS Church has the authority to affect the afterlife of deceased spirits, in which case, the baptism would be a great blessing to them.
-or-
(2) the LDS Church does NOT have any authority or knowledge of the afterlife and the spirits that dwell there, and thus their using of people's names for strange ordinances is meaningless
I admit I'm on the inside here, but I fail to see how anyone is actually harmed either way... In any case, I still think 'trust' is the issue--if more people understood what baptism means from an LDS perspective (and it's not that different than any other church you run into) and why and how baptism for the dead is performed, I think people would be more comfortable with the idea, even if they don't care about the LDS faith themselves. (Insider's position, again, of course...)
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 19, 2004 2:00:05 PM
The problem with posthumous baptism is that it's NOT meaningless. It says that the dead person needs to be "saved." The efficacy of the ritual doesn't matter. It's an insult to the baptized person.
I know it doesn't look like an insult to you; it's a wonderful thing for you. But how would you like it if the ACLU devised a ritual (involving, say, the signing of a contract by a proxy) wherein one of your descendents could "free" you from the bonds of your nutty suspicious beliefs and lifestyle. Would you want one of your descendents to do that? Perhaps you could have a daughter who leaves the Church of LDS and finds it embarrassing, so she asks an ACLU lawyer to draw up such a contract after you die. Once her brothers and sisters object, she says, "Either this contract has no effect on Dad, or this contract is a good thing. No harm, no foul." Is that okay with you?
You have every right to think that people who live their lives in a non-LDS (or even nonreligious) way have problems with their souls. You can introduce these people to your ideas. They can accept or reject you. But to baptize them after their deaths is to say, "You're dead, so now I've won the argument."
Posted by: John-Paul | Dec 20, 2004 12:28:28 PM
With regard to George W. Bush's administration: The matter at hand is competence. I personally care less about parties "stealing" each others' issues than I do about actual incompetence in implementing policies. It's not just Iraq. They incompetently vetted Kerik for the Homeland Security post; they lost bin Laden; they lost the world's cooperation and momentum in fighting terrorism; they never caught the anthrax terrorist; and, yes, the prosecution of the war in Iraq has been a debacle. Why should I trust a proven incompetent? The burden of proving "we won't screw it up this time" is now on Bush's team.
Now I'll continue to try to explain why a nonmember might feel creeped out by LDS posthumous baptisms. Of course, part of the reason is the great unbridgable gap between LDS members and nonmembers: you believe you're right and we don't necessarily believe you are. We don't recognize your authority to change our status regarding LDS membership without our consent, and are offended that you claim that authority. Performing an unrequested baptism ritual and then recording and sharing and publishing that person's name on a list of LDS members is a lie, and we should not lie.
"This apparent lack of choice beforehand is what others object to, of course, although one might ask: without any evidence to the contrary, how do you know the spirits on the other side have NOT chosen to become LDS? You might think the more proper way to do it would be to have more direct communication between the spirits and the living to make it clear who wants the ordinance performed for them and who does not, however that would require the living and the spirits of the dead to have a much greater level of detailed communication which obviously is not part of the structure of the universe. That's a whole other issue, though..."
If you applied that logic ("how do you know they didn't want it?") to most other situations relating to unwanted labelling, it would be ridiculous. The more proper way to do it would simply be to only baptize those who had asked for it before dying. That's why I said, "And, to use the jargon of marketing and spam filtering, why should this be an opt-out list?" Why should the burden of request be on the recipient instead of the giver of this unwanted label? In any case, if there is a "do not baptize" list (like the "do not call" list for telemarketers) that I can get my name on, please let me know.
Doesn't the lack of personal choice degrade the ritual? Why would you degrade the ritual of baptisms by performing it on people who never requested it when you won't even perform it on children under eight within your own faith?
"-or-
(2) the LDS Church does NOT have any authority or knowledge of the afterlife and the spirits that dwell there, and thus their using of people's names for strange ordinances is meaningless"
I think there's a difference between "ineffective in achieving the desired purpose" and "meaningless." Words have meaning. Vague prayers and blessings have less of a "we are bringing you into our religion whether you like it or not" connotation than does "baptism."
"I admit I'm on the inside here, but I fail to see how anyone is actually harmed either way..."
There's no physical harm, but there's insult in the presumption that the LDS Church knows better than nonbelievers what they would need for the afterlife. It's like disregarding someone's will (the written instructions for bequeathing possessions, not the general term "will" for "choices").
If I say "everyone would be a Hindu if they just realized how great and correct our religion is," and then started calling people Hindus no matter whether they had decided to be Hindus or not, including dead people who had no recourse to counter my lies, that would be wrong.
I recognize that members of LDS who perform this ritual want to bless their ancestors and get them into heaven. Is there any way to do this without these nonconsensual baptisms? That would be nice. But, of course, religions (especially ones with as much written scripture as LDS) don't generally compromise on these matters.
Thanks for your good wishes and your good faith attempt to understand nonbelievers on this matter.
Posted by: Sumana | Dec 20, 2004 1:52:52 PM
(Okay...company trip over, let’s get back to business…)
I understand that the most galling aspect of LDS baptism for the dead from an outsider’s standpoint is the seeming ‘arrogance’ of it (hinted at by both JP and Sumana). The LDS Church insists that it has the knowledge and authority to know (a) what the condition of spirits in the afterlife is and (b) what ordinances need to be done to improve it—like a brash business executive wandering into a company boardroom and telling everyone, “Your company needs fixing...and I’m the only one who knows how to do it.”
Yet, stepping back for a minute—that’s how the LDS Church does just about everything...
LDS founder Joseph Smith claims to have seen God the Father and Jesus Christ in person, who gave him the knowledge and direct authority to correct the false doctrines that had entered into the Christian world since the death of the apostles by founding a ‘true’ Christian church.
This is a very bold and audacious claim...
In other words, the church he founded was not just another Protestant church trying to interpret the Bible the best they can, but “the one true and living Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth”. The implicit arrogance and superiority of this claim annoys other Christian churches to no end, then and now--and, in fact, was one of the factors leading to Joseph Smith’s murder in 1844. Yet, the fact remains--devout Church members (whether they say so openly or not) believe they are “right”, and Church policy (obviously) is based directly on the strong belief in the correctness of it.
Thus, the ‘arrogance’ of performing baptism for the dead is entirely consistent with everything else the Church does. From an LDS perspective, it’s what needs to be done for the benefit of everyone--regardless of what percentage of the general population believes in and accepts that necessity or not. You might find such absolute faith and confidence in their own correctness either ‘admirable’ or ‘scary’ (depending) but I’m mentioning this just as an explanation--you may not agree with the practice, but you should understand the reason and the motive behind it--and why the practice will continue. This is exactly why, generally speaking, the LDS Church does not “compromise on these matters” (as Sumana put it)...or at least not much (it has agreed to stop baptizing Holocaust Jews as the article mentioned...)
>>> “Performing an unrequested baptism ritual and then recording and sharing and publishing that person's name on a list of LDS members is a lie…”
But, see, you’re still assuming it’s unrequested and unwanted. How would you know if it wasn’t? The burden of proof cuts both ways, here...
Even if someone was adamant in not receiving the rites before he/she died, why wouldn’t the journey into the spirit world give someone a totally new perspective--clear up some things about the afterlife that had previously been unknown--and thus bring the choice up for consideration again?
>>> “If I say ‘everyone would be a Hindu if they just realized how great and correct our religion is,’ and then started calling people Hindus no matter whether they had decided to be Hindus or not, including dead people who had no recourse to counter my lies, that would be wrong.”
Well, I would disagree here too. From an absolutist perspective, a ‘religion’ is not just a social group for people with common beliefs--it is also a collection of facts (or ‘truths’) about the conditions of the universe and the creation and destiny of human spirits. Such facts (whatever they are) remain facts regardless of how many people (if any) believe in them. (God exists or doesn’t exist regardless of how many people believe in Him or don’t believe in Him, for example...)
Since Sumana brought up Hinduism, let’s use that for an example: The Hindu view of the universe contains the principles of karma, reincarnation, and the caste system which affects your social status in this and future lives. Note that according to Hindu belief, these principles affect ALL people, not just people who belong to a particularly defined “Hindu Church” (“Joining” the Hindu faith doesn’t appear to have any meaning, since there are no particular entering rites--like baptism--to draw parallels to. Becoming Hindu seems to mean simply accepting the Hindu view of the universe as truth)
Therefore, a devout Hindu could make the claim that everyone in the world IS ALREADY Hindu, defining the term not through religious affiliation, but because our spirits are ALL subject to the karma/reincarnation/nirvana cycle that Hindus accept as a factual part of the universe. (It has nothing to do with whether we ‘decide to be’ Hindu or not…)
It, then, would also be logical for a devout Hindu to say everyone SHOULD learn more about Hindu beliefs and views about preparing for the afterlife because everyone is subject to the same journey, whether we’re “Hindu” in faith or not. If Hinduism had an equivalent to ‘baptism for the dead’ (increasing your caste in the next life, for example), it is reasonable to think they would be forthcoming in performing it for anyone possible, since everyone is part of the same system (personal belief notwithstanding) and would benefit from it.
The LDS view is exactly the same--the ‘facts’ of the universe are set in stone. The destiny of human spirits--the journey that we make from pre-mortal life to earth life to our eternal destiny--is the same regardless of what we BELIEVE to be true. And baptism for the dead is thus appropriate (and helpful) for everyone since we’re ALL part of the same system, whether we believe in the system or not.
That is the logic behind it--and the problem is: the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of it can’t be decided (or even discussed for any length) without knowledge of the condition of human spirits in the afterlife (assuming there is one, of course...). So, for the time being, we’re stuck with the Church continuing to perform them, and people on the outside continuing to complain about them…
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 22, 2004 4:54:51 PM
Thanks for your response.
"If Hinduism had an equivalent to ‘baptism for the dead’ (increasing your caste in the next life, for example), it is reasonable to think they would be forthcoming in performing it for anyone possible, since everyone is part of the same system (personal belief notwithstanding) and would benefit from it."
Since "Hinduism" is much like "Judaism-Christianity-Islam" (is "Abrahamic religions" the correct term?) in that it comprises many, many branches and denominations with VERY different views on God and the afterlife, some Hindu sects probably perform rites affecting the status of the souls of the dead. Since my family is Hindu, I'm used to those sets of beliefs, rituals, and superstitions. Thanks for your explanation. If you actually do want to know more about Hinduism, let me know.
"So, for the time being, we’re stuck with the Church continuing to perform them, and people on the outside continuing to complain about them…"
Yes, indeed, not only will non-members "continue to complain" but they will have a real and legitimate grievance which the LDS Church is generally stuck not acknowledging because of its self-certainty. I should look up the case of the mass baptisms of Jews as a counterexample (since you mention that the LDS Church has stopped).
You and I have run up against the fundamental problem in coversations containing religious difference: "logical rudeness" (see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm for a detailed description).
When you first posted your safari analogy, I inferred that you did not understand the objections to posthumous baptism. Now I believe that you understand them but consider them wrongheaded. If I'm wrong, let me know; otherwise, I see no future in this particular discussion, and I will bid you a pleasant adieu.
Posted by: Sumana | Dec 22, 2004 6:46:40 PM
"Since my family is Hindu, I'm used to those sets of beliefs, rituals, and superstitions. Thanks for your explanation. If you actually do want to know more about Hinduism, let me know."
I thought you might be, since you brought it up. The brief "Hinduism for Dummies" paragraph I posted wasn't necessarily for your benefit--I'd bet my rudimentary knowledge of Hindu doctrines are still more than the average American would know...
(And you didn't say my brief explanation was incorrect...only a oversimplification. That I'll gladly agree)
"some Hindu sects probably perform rites affecting the status of the souls of the dead."
That is interesting--if this is true, would you object to this in the same way as the LDS baptism for the dead?
"Yes, indeed, not only will non-members 'continue to complain' but they will have a real and legitimate grievance which the LDS Church is generally stuck not acknowledging because of its self-certainty.
You and I have run up against the fundamental problem in coversations containing religious difference: 'logical rudeness'"
I'm sorry if you feel I am rude (I admit I have phrased the last paragraph poorly--blogging doesn't leave much time for reflection and editing...), but you knew from the beginning that I am an 'insider' on this matter and wasn't likely to condemn the practice. I've participated in baptisms for the dead before--just last week, in fact--and I've felt the increased level of spiritual 'closeness' it brings.
I do understand that others object to the 'self-certainty' of the Church's position and that the idea can be 'offensive to one's sensibilities'--but my point is that the Church has always been 'offensive to sensibilities' as it were.
Joseph Smith's claim of his "First Vision" is offensive to many.
The claim that the Book of Mormon is a volume of scripture comparable to the Bible is offensive to many.
The claim that our Church has real priesthood authority to perform holy ordinances is offensive to many.
The LDS method of sending missionaries everywhere--even to ostensibly Christian households-- is offensive to many.
At some point, just the fact that people are 'offended' at such and such a practice or doctrine ceases to be a legitimate reason for them (us) to change.
Without any demonstration that baptism for the dead actually 'harms' someone, living or dead (and indeed that it is even unwanted by the spirits on the other side) then I don't see why the LDS Church SHOULD stop.
(Even the change in the policy towards baptism of Jews is more of a PR compromise towards those that object, than an admission that the ordinance is actually harmful in some way...)
So that's where we are: Since the non-LDS world can't demonstrate any actual harm, the baptisms will continue...and since the Church can't provide any proof that would satisfy the non-LDS world that baptisms for the dead are good, people will continue to object, and we're stuck with the status quo, as mentioned.
I don't think this needs to be the end of the discussion--although without deeper knowledge of what goes on beyond the grave, it is true that the discussion probably doesn't have anywhere else to go. My intent has not been to be insulted to you (Sumana) or anyone--but my personal position on the matter should be clear: I don't find the objections to proxy baptisms to contain much of substance given the obvious good intentions of the Church and the lack of evidence to the contrary--and that's just where we stand now...
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 24, 2004 8:34:21 AM
First, thanks, Sumana, for pointing me over this way! I'd like to throw out another comment as a person who's uncomfortable with proxy baltism whose discomfort isn't due to the fact that it's LDS baptisms. I have a problem with *all* baptisms and rites of this sort that are performed on people who can't refuse them. I've never attended a baptism or christening of an infant, and don't intend to because I think it's a choice each person needs to make for themselves. A general blessing for good fortune or something similar is very different than a ritual that's designed to change an individual's status; the one can take effect within the existing structure of a person's life, while the other is inherently designed to change that structure.
Part of the reason that I dislike baptisms is that I see a third choice as to what may happen when someone's baptized. (To paraphrase what you'd said: either the LDS theories about baptism are wrong and therefore the baptisms don't affect anything, or the LDS theories are right and the baptisms will offer people blessings and salvation.) My view of things is slightly different - I'm a relativist, and believe that all religions have an equal claim to validity. Practically speaking, this means that I think that an LDS baptism has an effect on the baptised person, but I also think that a Catholic baptism has an effect, as do other religion's rites.
Given that, I think that the proxy baptisms do have an effect upon people who have died, but I don't think that the effect will necessarily be a positive one. If there are multiple possibilities for people after they die, and the LDS baptism grabs an agnostic/Catholic/whatever from the afterlife they'd been in previously, that wouldn't neccessarily be a good thing. (For some Catholics, as I understand it, being baptized LDS could be considered damning, and would affect their salvation in that way.)
Of course, like you said, there isn't any way to know what the actual situation is after death, so these objections can't be anything other than speculative. Even so, they are enough to make me uncomfortable with the idea of these baptisms.
So that brings up the second reason I'm uncomfortable with them, which is plain old autonomy. I've never been baptized, and am extremely glad of that fact. Like I said before, the idea of performing a rite on another person who *can not* choose whether to participate or not offends my respect for individual choices, which is why I plan on avoiding all baptisms/ christenings of my neices and nephews. I understand that other religions have beliefs that mandate this, but I have a huge problem with it. This problem holds for all religions that perform rites on folks who can't refuse - it's definitely not just Mormonism. I'm Pagan, and am uncomfortable with the rites some fellow Pagans have developed for naming children Pagan.
Even if the LDS worldview is right about the afterlife and I'm going to miss out, then it was my choice. I'm not going to hedge my bets by trying to fulfill the requirements of all religions while I'm alive, so I'm fine taking my chances with whatever will happen when I die.
As for the arguments that the baptisms are intended to offer the dead a choice, and it's one that they can refuse if they wish, I'm much more ok with that. The LDS sites I've found don't mention this, even though the linked articles do, so I'm skeptical about it. I find it much more likely that the baptisms are considered to be binding - given that folks within the LDS church aren't relativists, it makes more sense to have baptisms be full rites, rather than open invitations. Something I'll be looking into, though.
Posted by: alice | Dec 26, 2004 8:11:13 PM
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Alice...
We could talk about the 'relativist' vs. 'absolutist' view of religion for weeks if we wanted to, although you're right from the relativist perspective the issue of baptism for the dead looks different...
I would say, though: considering how much God seems to respect the free agency of man (i.e. he doesn't stretch forth His hand and save us from drunk driving accidents, burning buildings, or terrorist attacks) wouldn't you say that its unlikely that any proxy ordinance done by someone else could 'overrule' the desires of the individual (living or dead)--presuming, in the relativist view, that there are several choices to choose from? That, in other words, if a spirit was a particular religion in life and then wanted to 'change' post-death, he/she would have that option? Or the other way around, the spirit had proxy ordinances performed for him/her and didn't feel like accepting them, then the spirit's will would still take precedence?
Here's another example: if someone is mistakenly excommunicated from a church (any church) for something that they did not do, even if that Church did have the proper authority to take away spiritual blessings through excommunication, the Church would be 'overruled' in a sense by God Himself, since He knows the person is innocent. Assuming God exists at all, you would have to assume He wouldn't be delegating ABSOLUTE authority over the welfare of spirits to human (and fallible) servants, and thus would still handle things the right way Himself. From this perspective, the only way a particular spirit would have their personal desire 'overruled' by outside ordinances is if God felt like ignoring their personal desires Himself, since He has power over all things.
I guess I would say then, that given God's attitude toward free agency the likelihood that LDS baptism for the dead or any church ordinance would overrule anyone's personal desire (or righteous standing) is very unlikely. (In other words, if a spirit really doesn't want to be 'Mormon' in the spirit world (whatever that means)--and didn't choose to be in the first place--then there's no reason to think a just God will force him/her to be. LDS doctrine doesn't say otherwise...) Even from an absolutist perspective, people can still choose what to believe and follow--people leave the LDS Church all the time--and if God felt like taking away the free agency of man for our 'own good', He'd just stretch out his hand and control us all so that we'd do good and righteous things all the time and worship Him as much as He wanted...
In summary, I guess, if you believe God is in control of the universe, than whether LDS baptisms for the dead are 'right' or 'wrong' makes no difference--God will deal with spirits how He wants to, and if you believe in a just, loving God, then obviously he's not going to ignore the desires and needs of one of His spirit children just because some of his other children put his/her name on a list...
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 31, 2004 12:51:23 PM
I should hope that post-humous baptism into a faith NOT of the deceased's choosing will stop. It will give the wrong impression to future generations in
thinking that Mormonism was chosen when the reality is - forced without consent. It's like rape.
Bad Mormon.
Posted by: no thank you | Aug 9, 2006 1:56:48 PM
Again...if it IS of the deceased's choosing, how would you know?
Posted by: The Baron | Aug 9, 2006 2:46:25 PM
