Is baptism for the dead more objectionable than infant baptism? (salvation, grace)

[Katzpur]

I've been thinking that it might be interesting to compare the LDS practice of performing proxy baptisms on behalf of one's deceased ancestors with the Catholic practice of infant baptism. The most commonly raised argument I've heard against baptisms for the dead is that this practice is done without the consent of the person for whom the ordinance is being performed, and instead at the request of the person's family members. From my perspective, infant baptisms are performed without the consent of the person being baptized, and at the request of the infant's family members. So why do so many people find the LDS practice so objectionable and just dismiss the Catholic practice as something that may be done, but doesn't really count for anything if the person doesn't choose to practice Catholicism as an adult?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

So why do so many people find the LDS practice so objectionable and just dismiss the Catholic practice as something that may be done, but doesn't really count for anything if the person doesn't choose to practice Catholicism as an adult?

Maybe it's because with infant baptism, you get to grow up and choose to be something else, but with proxy baptism, it seems like rewriting history in a way?

Like I said in the other thread, I would've been peeved to find that someone erected a gravestone with a cross over me, even when I was an atheist. Nothing at all against Christianity, but I wasn't a Christian. I don't think I'd like to see my life get misrepresented that way.

Though in the case of proxy baptism, I personally still wouldn't be upset about it, because unlike that gravestone, I don't view it as misrepresenting what I am (was). It's a record somewhere about what members of your faith have performed. It's not physically attached to me in any way.

Anyway, just something to run up the flagpole here.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Booko

Maybe it's because with infant baptism, you get to grow up and choose to be something else, but with proxy baptism, it seems like rewriting history in a way?

And that raises this question: If you grow up and choose to be something else, does the baptism no longer count? If you end up embracing the Baha'i Faith, what affect would your Catholic baptism have?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

And that raises this question: If you grow up and choose to be something else, does the baptism no longer count? If you end up embracing the Baha'i Faith, what affect would your Catholic baptism have?

Well, it makes it darned hard to enumerate religious adherents.

My husband was baptised and confirmed RCC, and is not Baha'i. The RCC still counts him as Catholic.

I was baptized Reformed. It's viewed symbolically in that denomination, and is more a promise on the part of the parents to raise the child as a Christian (which they did).

Since I was never a member of the Reformed denomination (you have to be 18 -- I was an atheist by 12), they would not count me among their membership. And had I joined the denomination, there are means to have your name removed.

Same for the Baha'is, incidentally. If you decide you don't believe it any more, you just send a note to National and they remove you.

Anyway, as you see, I still hold to a view of Baptism consistent with my upbringing, in that I see it as symbolic. Since I chose something else, no it didn't "count."

Although the RCC, having a different view of sacraments, thinks counted. It made it easier for us to have a wedding in an RC church, as we had to get a dispensation from the Archbishop, me not being a Christian and all.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Booko

Well, it makes it darned hard to enumerate religious adherents.

That's a very interesting point. The Catholic Church counts any person baptized as a Catholic as a Catholic. The LDS Church does not count anyone baptized by proxy as LDS.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I've been thinking that it might be interesting to compare the LDS practice of performing proxy baptisms on behalf of one's deceased ancestors with the Catholic practice of infant baptism. The most commonly raised argument I've heard against baptisms for the dead is that this practice is done without the consent of the person for whom the ordinance is being performed, and instead at the request of the person's family members. From my perspective, infant baptisms are performed without the consent of the person being baptized, and at the request of the infant's family members. So why do so many people find the LDS practice so objectionable and just dismiss the Catholic practice as something that may be done, but doesn't really count for anything if the person doesn't choose to practice Catholicism as an adult?

Infant baptism is done by the choice of the parents for their child/baby before the age of reason and it is a sign of grace and welcoming the baby into the family of Christ. As the child grows up they are free to choose whatever religion they wish, although the baptism will always be 'effective' in that they do not need to be rebaptized if they leave and then choose to return.

The difference is that it is part of a parent's responsibility to make some choices for their children, but it is not part of the family's responsibility to make choices for adults who have had the chance to make their own decisions with regard to religion in life. Presumably most of the desceased reached the age of reason and made their own religious choices. It strikes me as disrespectful to overrule those choices without their consent.

As I said in the other thread, it's not a biggie to me, but it's obviously also not just 'nothing.' If it was nothing it would not be done. In a way it is arrogant, and it sends the message that the baptism I have already had is meaningless. You may indeed think that my baptism is meaningless, but I'd rather not have that pushed on me in life by a campaign to have my dead great-grandmother rebaptized by LDS. I can see how this could be viewed as disrespectful and that it could cause problems for the remaining family. It's insulting...not for the dead person (at that point who cares), but for others in the family who are not LDS.

[Ðanisty]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I've been thinking that it might be interesting to compare the LDS practice of performing proxy baptisms on behalf of one's deceased ancestors with the Catholic practice of infant baptism. The most commonly raised argument I've heard against baptisms for the dead is that this practice is done without the consent of the person for whom the ordinance is being performed, and instead at the request of the person's family members. From my perspective, infant baptisms are performed without the consent of the person being baptized, and at the request of the infant's family members. So why do so many people find the LDS practice so objectionable and just dismiss the Catholic practice as something that may be done, but doesn't really count for anything if the person doesn't choose to practice Catholicism as an adult?

Honestly, Katz, I don't particularly care for either practice. At least I'm consistent...lol.