Jewish group wants Mormons to stop proxy baptisms

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." How do you interpret that?

I don't know. It doesn't touch on what happens to unbaptized believers.

Okay, I'll concede that point, although I believe that washing the feet of someone else is a reference to serving our fellow human beings rather than literally washing their feet. We can pursue the meaning of being "born of water and of the spirit" -- again -- if you really want to, but I think we've both said pretty much all we have to say on the subject, and it really is kind of going off-topic.

That we can both agree on!

Since the Latter-day Saints perform proxy baptisms with the understanding that being born of water means being baptized by immersion and not simply being born physically (which is referred to in the Bible as being "born of flesh"), I don't see a lot of point to even looking at our practice of performing baptisms for the day as relating to being "born of the Spirit."

For those of us who believe that ultimately everyone will receive this ordinance, there is nothing arbitrary about it.

I meant more that the form of baptism seems arbitrary. Why the importance of being immersed in water? Why not make it spinning around three times instead or hopping on one foot? I don't see baptism as being attached to anything that would have any bearing on the worthiness of a person to receive, well, anything at all, and in that sense, I think it's arbitrary.

The grace of God is contingent upon our obedience -- sometimes to things we don't fully understand. He provides the way and we do what He has commanded. That is grace.

But it's only bestowed when a human ceremony is performed, right?

Getting back to your question that started this tanget, though, I wouldn't really have any more of an issue incorporating the idea of a God who deems people Catholic for being baptized by proxy than I would with the idea of a God who deems people Catholic for being baptized as infants, and both of those would be only slightly more difficult to incorporate into my theology than the idea of a God who cares about baptism at all in the first place.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know. It doesn't touch on what happens to unbaptized believers.

No, it doesn't specifically, but belief is a prerequisite for baptism -- at least for the baptism to be meaningful. If someone doesn't believe, there is no reason for him to be baptized. A person who has been baptized but doesn't believe in Jesus Christ has more or less wasted his time.

I meant more that the form of baptism seems arbitrary. Why the importance of being immersed in water? Why not make it spinning around three times instead or hopping on one foot? I don't see baptism as being attached to anything that would have any bearing on the worthiness of a person to receive, well, anything at all, and in that sense, I think it's arbitrary.

Jesus appears to have been baptized by immersion. Otherwise, He would not have been said to come "straightway out of the water." We believe He set the example of how we are to be baptized. Of course, at Latter-day Saints, our belief has been reinforced through revelation to living prophets.

A huge part of my faith is accepting the fact that God sometimes gives us commandments that we don't understand the purpose behind. We believe that prior to being baptized, a person must have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The next thing he must do is repent of his sins. Why aren't these two things sufficient? I don't know. All I know is that having faith in Jesus Christ requires that we be faithful to Him. Being faithful to Him requires that we obey His commandments, even those that might appear to us to be unnecessary.

But it's only bestowed when a human ceremony is performed, right?

It's a cermony performed by a human being but that human being has been given the authority to perform it. This authority is not received by a degree earned at a divinity college or theological seminary. It is received through ordination by someone who can trace his authority back to John the Baptist. (But now, we're getting really far off topic.) At any rate, we believe baptism to be valid only if performed by someone who has the God-given authority to do so and if performed in the way God has instructed it be performed -- which is by immersion.

Getting back to your question that started this tanget, though, I wouldn't really have any more of an issue incorporating the idea of a God who deems people Catholic for being baptized by proxy than I would with the idea of a God who deems people Catholic for being baptized as infants, and both of those would be only slightly more difficult to incorporate into my theology than the idea of a God who cares about baptism at all in the first place.

Perhaps He doesn't care, but if I can't believe that it's important for me to obey what I believe to be a direct commandment from Him, how should I decide what else to disregard?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps He doesn't care, but if I can't believe that it's important for me to obey what I believe to be a direct commandment from Him, how should I decide what else to disregard?

I don't know, and I think this gets back to what I touched on before: sometimes, religious tolerance conflicts with the actual practice of religion. I don't have a good answer to how to resolve the problem.

To a certain extent, respect for the beliefs of others entails acknowledging some worth in those beliefs. If this means allowing for some possibility that they might be right, then the implication is that other beliefs might be wrong, which runs counter to many people's personal beliefs.

Back to my point, though, it seemed like you were implying that the idea of God declaring people to be Catholic based just on a proxy baptism was somewhat ridiculous. That far, I agree. However, I don't have your faith - I don't see any reason to draw a line between that idea and other ideas that may be important to you.

 

[YmirGF]

1. Per LDS doctrine, nobody can enter the highest heaven (Celestial Kingdom) without receiving a proper baptism while in mortality or by proxy after death.

What about those who may have no interest in entering the Celestial Kingdom? Is it fair to baptize them, after the fact, just in case?

2. LDS have a mission to find the names of their ancestors and perform their baptisms in the temple.

Theoretically, any Mormon is already baptized, so virtually all proxy baptisms would be made on behalf of non-Mormons. Isn't this a rather presumptuous act then? Again, what if the dead did not wish to be baptized in proxy? It's not like they could make their wishes known.

3. Per LDS doctrine, a deceased person has agency to accept or not accept the proxy baptism.

Out of curiosity, how does that work?

4. When a living person is baptized into the LDS church, a membership record is created and that person becomes a member of the church.

Agreed.

4. When a proxy baptism is performed, no church membership record is created. The genealogical records are updated, however, to show that a proxy baptism occurred. This is not to declare this person as a "convert" or a "Mormon", but rather to avoid repeating the baptism for the same person. (I don't know what people are called in the spirit world who have received and accepted proper baptism. "Saint" is the biblical term and probably the most likely IMO.)

More importantly, what are those who openly reject such baptisms called? What is in their fate according to Mormon "doctrine".

5. All of this work is done based on faith and our best intentions for our deceased ancestors.

They say the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In my view, Mormons are overstepping the bounds of reason with this policy and it should be discontinued.

6. Proxy baptisms for deceased holocaust victims were done with good intentions.

Is this supposed to make it all ok? You mean well. *sigh* I may add a clause to my will, outright rejecting any form of proxy baptism, by any future family members who may be suffering from a case of "good intentions".

7. The LDS church stopped the practice of performing proxy baptisms for holocaust victims when it became apparent that the practice can be offensive. I believe the LDS church is doing it's best to prevent this from happening.

They should not stop at Holocaust victums, but should move to outlaw the practice once and for all. The precedent has already been set with the issue of polygamy, so this shouldn't be too hard to work out. End it now, while Mormons still have some measure of credibility.

 

[Katzpur]

What about those who may have no interest in entering the Celestial Kingdom? Is it fair to baptize them, after the fact, just in case? Theoretically, any Mormon is already baptized, so virtually all proxy baptisms would be made on behalf of non-Mormons. Isn't this a rather presumptuous act then? Again, what if the dead did not wish to be baptized in proxy? It's not like they could make their wishes known.

*sigh* What is it about posts number 21, 33, 34, 42, 45, 49, 51, 54, 59, 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 78, 80 and 82 that leave you still confused? :banghead3

Out of curiosity, how does that work?

By saying, "Thanks, but I'm not interested."

More importantly, what are those who openly reject such baptisms called?

Uh... I believe they are called "conscientious rejectors."

What is in their fate according to Mormon "doctrine".

Their "fate" is to not have to spend eternity in the company of those who accepted the baptism. If that sounds so appealing to you, you now know how to make it happen.

They say the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In my view, Mormons are overstepping the bounds of reason with this policy and it should be discontinued.

Well, why don't you stage a protest in front of an LDS temple? Isn't that the thing to do these days?

End it now, while Mormons still have some measure of credibility.

Where have you been the past few weeks? We already have no credibility left. We have nothing more to lose.

 

[Caladan]

Katzpur, you said:

He then commanded us to be baptized and said that unless a person was baptized, he could not enter into His kingdom.

Seems that there has been a change from the first intentions of Smith in proxy baptism.

Seems that baptism will not redeem the non believers:

Alma 34:35-36: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked."


2 Nephi 9:15: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."


ALSO, after all this discussion, it seems like one of the main points has not been discussed: that there are violations in the agreement between the Mormon church and the groups who have voiced their objection.

 

[Scott C.]

What about those who may have no interest in entering the Celestial Kingdom? Is it fair to baptize them, after the fact, just in case?

None of the posts interact with my posts 59 and 60. I know I quoted LDS scripture and some of it is hard to follow, especically when you've never read it before. But, posts 59 and 60 are incredibly important to establish LDS doctrine and to understand what's going on here and why.

Please read those posts carefully and try to understand what is being said word by word.

If what the LDS believe happened (as described in 59 and 60) really happened, then the LDS Church is involved in one of the greatest and most significant works for the salvation of man in the history of the world. God is fulfilling ancient prophecy and is carrying on the work of salvation for the entire human family through his temples. I can't over state it's importance.

If it really happended, as I believe it did, then it's completely beyond the realm of possibility to even think for a moment that the church would stop this great and important work simply because some are offended by it. The church can do its best to explain and to not offend or to make accommodations in circumstances such as holocaust victims, but it can't stop the work. Again, if the revelations happened, if heavenly angels appeared and bestowed priesthood authority, and if God gave a specific mandate to the church to do this work in behalf of the dead, who are we as mere church members to even consider not doing this work?

I realize that people not of my faith may not believe that any of these revelations actually took place. If you do believe, you would be wise to join up with us

But, even if you don't believe, if you really understand the revelations that we do believe occurred, then I can't understand how you could possibly expect the church to stop this work. The only way the church could stop this work would be to stop believing that the cited prophets received the cited revelations from God. This would mean that they were not prophets and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ never happened. This would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not at all what it claims to be and there would be no purpose for the church's existence. Proxy baptism is not a doctrine that was decided by an individual or a committee and can be re-thought based on public opinion. Revelation from God is a core belief of our church. Revelation from God is what drives us to do temple work (proxy baptisms).

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, you said: Seems that there has been a change from the first intentions of Smith in proxy baptism.

Seems that baptism will not redeem the non believers:

Alma 34:35-36: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked."


2 Nephi 9:15: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."

No, you are simply taking two passages out of the Book of Mormon and attempting to base a relatively involved doctrine around them. That's a mistake. Besides, these aren't even Joseph Smith's words, nor do they address his "intentions."

ALSO, after all this discussion, it seems like one of the main points has not been discussed: that there are violations in the agreement between the Mormon church and the groups who have voiced their objection.

I think that's probably because people keep making comments that take us off topic. Like you just did with your first paragraphs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But, even if you don't believe, if you really understand the revelations that we do believe occurred, then I can't understand how you could possibly expect the church to stop this work. The only way the church could stop this work would be to stop believing that the cited prophets received the cited revelations from God. This would mean that they were not prophets and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ never happened. This would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not at all what it claims to be and there would be no purpose for the church's existence.

Or, alternately, you could acknowledge their authority but still not do what they've told you to do.

Speaking for myself, I see plenty wrong with many religions including the LDS Church... yet I restrain myself from interfering out of respect for others. I see much of the religious message to be inherently negative in connotation and effect.

What could be worse than convincing people who recognize the suffering in the world that some fantastic mechanism will make all of it okay without human help, or even (astoundingly) that this suffering is in service to some greater noble purpose?

What could be more downright evil than a scheme to take the positive intentions of intrinsically good and moral people, and funnel these desires into actions that are at best ineffective and at worst profoundly negative?

Just like most other religions, the claim that the actions of the LDS Church are moral are dependent on the LDS Church's teachings being true. Outside the Church's membership, I don't think you'll find many people willing to concede that they are.

If you want licence to follow the dictates of your beliefs without restraint, how should my personal beliefs be translated into practice? After all, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

Or... you could extend the respect to other beliefs that other beliefs extend to you.

 

[Caladan]

No, you are simply taking two passages out of the Book of Mormon and attempting to base a relatively involved doctrine around them. That's a mistake. Besides, these aren't even Joseph Smith's words, nor do they address his "intentions."

for many posts this thread has been going in circles on the issue of the Mormonism perspective, well apparently its not that simple. also the Mormon theological perspective is irrelevant to violations of the agreement between the Mormon church and Jewish groups or the Catholic church.

I think that's probably because people keep making comments that take us off topic. Like you just did with your first paragraphs.

of course since Im adressing your many posts of the Mormon perspective, which is still irellevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Watchmen]

I'll get us back on topic.

Everyone should quit their *****in'. The Church is acting in good faith to uphold the agreement.

Case closed.

 

[Scott C.]

Or, alternately, you could acknowledge their authority but still not do what they've told you to do.

I guess the bottom line is that I believe that God has asked me to do temple work for my ancestors. I will do that work at God's request. I realize that only those of my faith believe that this is what God wants me to do. I hope my actions don't offend anyone and I always try not to offend others, but in the final analysis I will follow my religious beliefs, as it's always better to follow God than to follow the wishes of others. If at any time in the future, direction comes from the Lord that I should do otherwise, I will follow the new direction. I hope that doesn't sound like a lack of empathy for the feelings of others. It's simply a deeply held religious conviction which I must follow in good conscience.

 

[Caladan]

I'll get us back on topic.

Everyone should quit their *****in'. The Church is acting in good faith to uphold the agreement.

Case closed.

Is that the normal Mormon stance? if so I can understand where the *****in' is coming from.

 

[DeepShadow]

for many posts this thread has been going in circles on the issue of the Mormonism perspective, well apparently its not that simple. also the Mormon theological perspective is irrelevant to violations of the agreement between the Mormon church and Jewish groups or the Catholic church.

of course since Im adressing your many posts of the Mormon perspective, which is still irellevant to the topic at hand.

Exactly. The issue at hand is whether the Church is acting in good faith.

 

[DeepShadow]

But why not with regard to other people?

Other people who want to reject posthumous baptism? Well, I suppose they'd have to unite as a group to get their voices heard. We don't have the infrastructure in place to register individual complaints.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, then go nuts, as far as I'm concerned.

I take this to mean you have no problem with us doing the baptisms as long as we don't publicize the records. Is that right?

 

[Katzpur]

None of the posts interact with my posts 59 and 60.

Sorry. I was just trying to explain how thoroughly we've addressed this doctrine and I felt like the scriptures you provided were helpful in that regard.

 

[Scott C.]

Sorry. I was just trying to explain how thoroughly we've addressed this doctrine and I felt like the scriptures you provided were helpful in that regard.

Katz, no need to be sorry. I wasn't referring to what you said. I was simply expressing to the non-LDS that I've been anxiously waiting for someone to give some feedback or questions on my earlier posts of scriptures. Apparently, I did not explain myself well.

 

[Watchmen]

Is that the normal Mormon stance? if so I can understand where the *****in' is coming from.

I am hardly a normal Mormon and I don't speak for the Church or any Mormons on the RF. I speak for myself and I stand by what I said.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Sorry. I was just trying to explain how thoroughly we've addressed this doctrine and I felt like the scriptures you provided were helpful in that regard.

Could you show me where the Scriptures talk about proxy baptism?