Is baptism for the dead more objectionable than infant baptism?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

I realize that those who practice infant baptism see it as a "sign of grace and welcoming the baby into the family of Christ." I am not aware of any scriptures that describe it this way, though. Rather, wherever the Bible discusses the purpose of baptism, it is described as being "for the remission of sins." I suppose that if a person believes his week-old baby has sinned, baptizing him would make sense. Personally, I don't believe a person can sin at such an early age.

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.

I see what you're saying, but most of those we perform proxy baptisms for did not have that chance. Of course, we believe that a person must be baptized by one holding the proper authority to do so, so when I say that they didn't have the chance, you have to realize that. At any rate, a proxy baptism doesn't "overrule" any choice a person made during his lifetime -- unless he chooses to let it.

 

[lunamoth]

I realize that those who practice infant baptism see it as a "sign of grace and welcoming the baby into the family of Christ." I am not aware of any scriptures that describe it this way, though. Rather, wherever the Bible discusses the purpose of baptism, it is described as being "for the remission of sins." I suppose that if a person believes his week-old baby has sinned, baptizing him would make sense. Personally, I don't believe a person can sin at such an early age.

But the Catholic Church, like the Anglican Communion, does not have a "Bible only" theology. Neither do I believe that a baby has sinned, but it is a sign of throwing off sin-nature (propensity to sin) and putting on of Christ nature. In our baptism we die and rise with Christ. Once it's done it's done and no need to do it again.

I see what you're saying, but most of those we perform proxy baptisms for did not have that chance. Of course, we believe that a person must be baptized by one holding the proper authority to do so, so when I say that they didn't have the chance, you have to realize that. At any rate, a proxy baptism doesn't "overrule" any choice a person made during his lifetime -- unless he chooses to let it.

A proxy baptism may not overrule any choice a person made during their life but it certainly does send the message that you don't think their choices in life were sufficient. I notice that you overlooked my comments on how it might make other members of the family feel. I don't think it would be very popular if the Catholic Church decided to start baptizing by proxy all LDS infants simply by request of Catholic relatives.

 

[jonny]

[offtopic]
Katzpur - did you just change your username to red because I changed mine to gold with a blue title? I thought I was the only one getting excited for football season! I just wish that my blue shadow was working to finish it all off!
[/offtopic]

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

Several posts were deleted from this thread for being off topic.

If you wish to discuss the theological underpinnings of the sacrament of baptism, please start a new thread in an appropriate area.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Sharon
RF Supermod

 

[Blindinglight]

I feel infant baptism, dedications, and any other religious rites involving an infant are a pitiful waste.
The child will grow up, and make decisions, rather than be lead by the parents. You may want to bring your child into your particular walk of life, but you should not expect them to do so.

 

[Smoke]

I think the main difference is that the infant, rightly or wrongly, and despite being oblivious to it, actually is a part of his parents' religious community.

 

[nutshell]

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?

The practices are easily distinguishable Katz.

Infant baptism involves a minor individual who falls under the decision making authority of its parents. Baptism for the dead does not have this same relationship between the one receiving the baptism and the one deciding it will be done.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I could not have said that better. (I know because I have been trying and failing.)

 

[xexon]

Baptism is a useless ritual if you don't change the inside first.

Neither the dead or the infant are capable of either, because neither can make that decision.

People get into the kingdom by personal decisions they make within their lives. It's not a nightclub where you get your hand stamped and you can come and go as you please.

Such baptism is for the benefit of those other than the baptised themselves. It gives them comfort.



x

 

[Katzpur]

Baptism is a useless ritual if you don't change the inside first.

I agree.

Neither the dead or the infant are capable of either, because neither can make that decision.

Well, here's where we differ. I believe that the dead can, in fact, make that decision. And that's the whole point behind proxy baptism.

 

[Muffled]

I agree.

Well, here's where we differ. I believe that the dead can, in fact, make that decision. And that's the whole point behind proxy baptism.

I don't believe that either baptism is efficacious.

I suppose you could hope that some soul hasn't gone to heaven and just happens to be hanging around an LDS church when the baptism takes place and would be willing to make the decision that makes baptism efficacious but I see the odds against it as very high.

I disagree with those who say only one baptism is necessary. Since baptism is the first act of obedience to Jesus after asking Him to be Lord, it's significance is greater than just sprinkling some water. Infant baptism isn't much more than that to the child unless you have a Pagan idea that the child is magically changed into a Christian.

 

[Mike182]

i don't think either of them is the child or deceased person making a commitment, it is something offered them that they can accept or decline later on, so i have no problems with either.

 

[Katzpur]

I suppose you could hope that some soul hasn't gone to heaven and just happens to be hanging around an LDS church when the baptism takes place and would be willing to make the decision that makes baptism efficacious but I see the odds against it as very high.

I always find these interpretations so amusing. Is that how you really think we believe it works?