Jewish group wants Mormons to stop proxy baptisms

[9-10ths_Penguin]

WTH is your problem? Seriously, do you just have a grudge against us in general or is there something else?

I don't have a grudge against you. I do have a problem with the idea of sacraments, though this isn't by any stretch of the imagination limited to the LDS Church. I've though about and reflected on this quite a bit, since the odds are fairly high that any future children I have would go through at least Catholic baptism and First Communion.

I think that tying the grace of God to human ritual has some pretty awful implications unless it's based on truth. Since I don't consider any sacrament to be based in truth, I'm left with a fairly negative impression of them.

This statement alone shows you are most likely not willing to listen to what we say. Great way to try and carry on a conversation, compare what the other person considers a sacred ordinance to a pet owner asking their dog to roll over.

I didn't mean to compare people to animals; I was trying to address the idea of arbitrary rituals. Going through some set of actions that is necessary only because someone has arbitrarily deemed them to be necessary is performing a trick.

Even assuming the truth of the LDS faith, why baptism? Why would God bar people from paradise until they're dunked in water? Does that action have any more intrinsic meaning than, say, hopping on one leg, running a marathon or reciting a poem? In that sense, I think that baptism is arbitrary, even if it's based in truth.

 

[Watchmen]

When does the Lord say that I'm to be baptized, either directly or by proxy?

Is the order in the form of a consecutive list? Is it by date? Does it say "do this group first, and then once you're done, move on to that group"?


Only if you assume the beliefs and doctrines of the LDS Church to be generally true. For most people, this is begging the question.


Let's see: a religious ritual performed by living humans for the purpose of moving dead souls from an undesirable realm to a desirable one. Sounds pretty similar to me.


And if that exploration leads a person away from the LDS Church, what then? I've talked to people who moved from Christianity to agnosticism that were very reluctant to do so out of worry that if they were wrong, they'd go to Hell. Do you think that attaching the baggage of the spirits of a person's ancestors would make it easier or harder to leave the LDS Church if they felt guided to do so?


But that salvation and exaltation doesn't happen until you perform tricks for that supposedly loving God.


I don't think it's the Lord's work, but I already said I wouldn't stand in the way.


That much is true. I don't understand it.

There's really no point in continuing. You admit you don't understand it and I will not apologize for my closely held beliefs.

 

[zippythepinhead]

In other words, no one is to take responsibility for violations in the agreement?
sometimes you need to know that the body you make agreements with is going to take responsibility for these agreements.

Im sorry to say that just the notion of being 'on a mission to save those in the afterlife' sounds bizarre. let the dead bury the dead.

It may sound bizzare, but that is what we are about as Mormons. As far as taking responsibility for keeping agreements, my opinion is that most members do make a good faith effort to keep within policy. But if someone is LDS, has a direct ancestor who is Jewish, and believe that they need to offer that someone a posthumous baptism, why not?

What if the ancestor needs it after all? What if the ancestor wants to convert to Mormonism? Who are we to deny that blessing to them?

We believe that every soul who departs this life has freedom of choice. The can accept or reject any action taken for them in mortal life or earth life if you prefer. We cannot choose for them, we can only offer a gift, through Jesus Christ, and hope that they will accept.

 

[Katzpur]

1. It makes God's actions contingent on human actions, thereby elevating the status of certain humans by bestowing them with an element of the divine.

Obviously, if there is a God -- and for the purpose of this discussion, we have to assume there is -- He has the final decision as to when the final curtain falls. If He makes sure this doesn't happen until every single one of His children has had the opportunity to be baptized (either during their mortal lives or by proxy after their deaths), His actions will be entirely contingent on His own will. It's absolute nonsense to believe that "certain humans" are bestowed with an element of the divine and others are not. You are reading an awful lot into the doctrine that isn't there. Fact is, the Latter-day Saints believe that everyone who has ever lived is the spirit son or daughter of divine parents and that all of us have a spark of divinity within us.

2. It is legitimately offensive to many people. It assumes that the prior beliefs of a person have no worth, or at least not so much worth that they shouldn't be thrown away. It is an attempt at evangelism, just across the etherial plane.

We have never implied that "prior beliefs have no worth." You are doing us an injustice to make such a claim. We would never suggest that anyone, living or dead, reject any of the beliefs they hold which are true. As people live their lives, they are constantly modifying their beliefs and coming to accept things as true which they once believe were false. The only difference between us and most other people is that we see this process as continuing after death, whereas most people who believe in any kind of an afterlife at all think that a person's eternal destiny is determined by the choices he makes in a relatively short 70 or 80 years of mortality.

3. I worry that the process could be corrupted in some way, if it isn't already. I see strong parallels between this practice and indulgences in the Catholic Church, which became the seed for Martin Luther's protest when it started to be used as a fundraising mechanism.

This is the only one of your objections that I would consider to be a legitimate concern. Of course, I believe that this won't happen because I believe that God is directing His Church and that He is in constant communication with a living prophet and apostles. Corruption can only take place when people are left without His direction and guidance. This is what we believe was the case in the early Church. Without the same organization that existed in the Church Jesus Christ founded and without individuals being vested with the same authority the original prophets and apostles had, the process could, as you suggested, be corrupted.

4. Even if it isn't corrupted, I think that the practice creates a strong disincentive for a person to explore one's religious and philosophical beliefs. It's difficult enough to entertain ideas that run counter to the religion you were brought up in when it's only your soul that you have to worry about; how much worse must it be if you're also worried about the souls of all your dead ancestors?

And if it's true, then what? We believe that every one of us is literally a brother or sister to everyone else who has ever lived. We believe that we are all God's children and that He wants His family to be eternally united. To us, it is a priviledge to be a part of helping that come to pass. If we're wrong, what harm has been done?

Edit: 5. It assumes an arbitrary and IMO vindictive God. Effectively, baptism implies that the mere fact that a person was not dunked in water in a particular way (or, in the case of proxy baptism, someone else was dunked in water on his or her behalf) would be sufficient to bar that person from Paradise. Now, I suppose that in and of itself doesn't pose any problem, but it does create a logical inconsistency when saving baptism has to be shoehorned into the theology of a good and just God.

I can't believe that this far into the discussion you are still unable to grasp this one basic doctrine: Nobody is going to be left out. Everyone will receive the ordinance before he or she is judged and everybody will have had the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether or not to accept it. That is in no way arbitrary. It is the most just and equitable way God could possibly work. He gives a commandment and that makes it possible for everyone to obey -- even those who died before hearing and understanding the commandment.

However, even considering all that, like I said before, if you really want to baptize people by proxy and you don't go around saying that they're now Mormon, go nuts. I disagree with the practice, but I won't stand in your way of doing it.

You won't? Whew! What a relief! By the way, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that we not only "don't go around saying that they're now Mormon," we don't even believe they're now Mormon. It looks to me as if you are selectively ignoring much of what we've tried throughout this thread to explain.

 

[Katzpur]

I think that tying the grace of God to human ritual has some pretty awful implications unless it's based on truth. Since I don't consider any sacrament to be based in truth, I'm left with a fairly negative impression of them.

And if it is based on truth? You seem unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong. What if you are?

I was trying to address the idea of arbitrary rituals. Going through some set of actions that is necessary only because someone has arbitrarily deemed them to be necessary is performing a trick.

Again, you don't know that they are arbitrary and haven't provided any evidence that they are. At this point, it's simply a difference of opinion. At some point, one of us is going to be proven right and the other one proven wrong. What will be the outcome if you're right? What will be the outcome if I'm right? What will be the outcome if neither of us is right?

Even assuming the truth of the LDS faith, why baptism? Why would God bar people from paradise until they're dunked in water?

Oh, come on! Haven't we gone over this a million times already? How many times do we have to explain that we believe baptism to be a commandment before it sinks in? We believe that we have to be born of water (i.e. be immersed in water through baptism) and of the spirit (i.e. given the Gift of the Holy Ghost). That's how we interpret scripture. You interpret it differently. You think that being born of water means nothing more than being born physically. From our perspective, the answer to "Why baptism?" is, "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!"

Does that action have any more intrinsic meaning than, say, hopping on one leg, running a marathon or reciting a poem?

Good question. If I told you that after you died, I was going to hop on one leg, run a marathon, and recite a poem, would we even be having this discussion? You might question my sanity, but would it seriously be all that offensive to you? Would you be insisting that I was infringing upon your rights? Would it be okay as long as I didn't write your name down on a list? Would it be okay for me to write your name down on a list as long as I didn't show anyone the list or allow my friends to add to the list the names of people they'd recited a poem for?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I realize this thread is 17 pages long....but FWIW...i.m.o. the LDS position is pretty reasonable. If we don't believe in Mormonism, then obviously the ritual is harmless. If we do believe in Mormonism, it is still harmless: the deceased is merely offered an invitation. The strongest argument on the other side is that the records at Salt Lake will confuse future historical records on the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. That strikes me as a weak argument. But it's understandable that Holocuast survivors would gaurd accuracy of the historical record very jealously.

Go ahead and try to stand in the way if you want - you'll be crushed. The Lord's work will move forward.

With all due respect: do you hear yourself? In another thread you advocate "unleashing the Danites" and now you invite others to stand in your way so you can "crush" them for the Lord.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously, if there is a God -- and for the purpose of this discussion, we have to assume there is -- He has the final decision as to when the final curtain falls. If He makes sure this doesn't happen until every single one of His children has had the opportunity to be baptized (either during their mortal lives or by proxy after their deaths), His actions will be entirely contingent on His own will.

... but these actions all must occur through the intermediary of a human agent, no?

And I don't think we necessarily only have to look at this with the assumption that God exists. If God doesn't exist, priesthood becomes a matter of people exalting themselves over others, based on nothing.

It's absolute nonsense to believe that "certain humans" are bestowed with an element of the divine and others are not. You are reading an awful lot into the doctrine that isn't there. Fact is, the Latter-day Saints believe that everyone who has ever lived is the spirit son or daughter of divine parents and that all of us have a spark of divinity within us.

Can you perform a baptism?

We have never implied that "prior beliefs have no worth." You are doing us an injustice to make such a claim. We would never suggest that anyone, living or dead, reject any of the beliefs they hold which are true.

But with the a priori assumption that the beliefs that you suggest are true. I think you've basically said the same thing as I did in a roundabout way.

This is the only one of your objections that I would consider to be a legitimate concern. Of course, I believe that this won't happen because I believe that God is directing His Church and that He is in constant communication with a living prophet and apostles. Corruption can only take place when people are left without His direction and guidance. This is what we believe was the case in the early Church. Without the same organization that existed in the Church Jesus Christ founded and without individuals being vested with the same authority the original prophets and apostles had, the process could, as you suggested, be corrupted.

But as an outside observer, why should I assume that the LDS Church is any less corruption-proof than any other religion?

And if it's true, then what? We believe that every one of us is literally a brother or sister to everyone else who has ever lived. We believe that we are all God's children and that He wants His family to be eternally united. To us, it is a priviledge to be a part of helping that come to pass. If we're wrong, what harm has been done?

I've touched on this before: if you're wrong, the well-meaning efforts of countless good people will have been wasted. Personally, I think it'd be a horrendous thing to channel good works into something that's completely ineffective.

I can't believe that this far into the discussion you are still unable to grasp this one basic doctrine: Nobody is going to be left out.

That doesn't make it any less vindictive or arbitrary, IMO. "Nobody gets into Paradise without being baptized" doesn't stop being true just because everyone is baptized.

And if it is based on truth? You seem unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong. What if you are?

Again, you don't know that they are arbitrary and haven't provided any evidence that they are. At this point, it's simply a difference of opinion.

Does baptism somehow make a person more worthy of Paradise?
Is God physically incapable of bringing an unbaptized person into Paradise?
Could God not have instituted whatever means of salvation He wanted?

At some point, one of us is going to be proven right and the other one proven wrong. What will be the outcome if you're right? What will be the outcome if I'm right? What will be the outcome if neither of us is right?

Ah - Pascal's Wager.

If I'm right, we die and that's it. Would you have done things differently in the only life you'll ever have if you knew it was going to be the only life you'd ever have? Would you do things differently if you didn't believe that Christ or any other supernatural entity would come down from Heaven and make everything right in the world?

If you're right, AFAIK, you go to a very, very nice afterlife and I go to one that's nicer than here, but not as nice as yours... until I decide to accept someone's proxy baptism, apparently.

If neither of us is right, I guess all bets are off. We can be reincarnated as gnats together or something like that.

Oh, come on! Haven't we gone over this a million times already? How many times do we have to explain that we believe baptism to be a commandment before it sinks in? We believe that we have to be born of water (i.e. be immersed in water through baptism) and of the spirit (i.e. given the Gift of the Holy Ghost). That's how we interpret scripture. You interpret it differently. You think that being born of water means nothing more than being born physically. From our perspective, the answer to "Why baptism?" is, "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!"

Actually, I wasn't thinking of alternate interpretations of "born of water" when I said that. What I meant was this: even if we take as a given that God wants us to be baptized, why would He want that in the first place?

Good question. If I told you that after you died, I was going to hop on one leg, run a marathon, and recite a poem, would we even be having this discussion? You might question my sanity, but would it seriously be all that offensive to you?

As much as baptism. My issue is more with the intended effect than the choice of a specific method.

Would you be insisting that I was infringing upon your rights?

No, I wouldn't. I haven't been doing it now. Just because I don't like the practice doesn't mean I have a right to make you stop doing it.

Would it be okay as long as I didn't write your name down on a list? Would it be okay for me to write your name down on a list as long as I didn't show anyone the list or allow my friends to add to the list the names of people they'd recited a poem for?

If you asked my permission first, I wouldn't give it, but I wouldn't demand that you doing any of that be dependent on my permission.

 

[Watchmen]

I realize this thread is 17 pages long....but FWIW...i.m.o. the LDS position is pretty reasonable. If we don't believe in Mormonism, then obviously the ritual is harmless. If we do believe in Mormonism, it is still harmless: the deceased is merely offered an invitation. The strongest argument on the other side is that the records at Salt Lake will confuse future historical records on the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. That strikes me as a weak argument. But it's understandable that Holocuast survivors would gaurd accuracy of the historical record very jealously.

With all due respect: do you hear yourself? In another thread you advocate "unleashing the Danites" and now you invite others to stand in your way so you can "crush" them for the Lord.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's not a response.

 

[Watchmen]

That's not a response.

Actually, it is.

 

[silvermoon383]

Can you perform a baptism?

I can, I have in the past, and I'll continue to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can, I have in the past, and I'll continue to do so.

Thanks. I still hope that Katzpur specifically will answer.

 

[Katzpur]

... but these actions all must occur through the intermediary of a human agent, no?

That's correct.

And I don't think we necessarily only have to look at this with the assumption that God exists. If God doesn't exist, priesthood becomes a matter of people exalting themselves over others, based on nothing.

Well, we had better start from scratch then. Obviously, if we Latter-day Saints didn't believe that God exists, there would be no reason for us to be baptized -- for ourselves or for anybody else. There would be no reason for our Church to exist, and you and I would not be having this conversation. Frankly, this last comment makes me inclined to believe that you've gone from arguing your position based on logic to just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing.

Can you perform a baptism?

No, I can't perform a baptism, but I can be the recipient of a baptism (i.e. for the dead). I'm guessing you see that as a problem. Am I right?

But as an outside observer, why should I assume that the LDS Church is any less corruption-proof than any other religion?

I wouldn't expect you to, which is why I said this was the only point you've made that is even remotely valid.

I've touched on this before: if you're wrong, the well-meaning efforts of countless good people will have been wasted.

We're willing to take that risk. I'm sure I've been baptized for people who will reject my offer. If it's my time and energy that's been wasted, not yours. What possible difference could it make to you?

Personally, I think it'd be a horrendous thing to channel good works into something that's completely ineffective.

Horrendous? That's a pretty strong term to use. Even if it were ineffective, it wouldn't be damaging. Seriously, you're starting to sound almost desperate.

That doesn't make it any less vindictive or arbitrary, IMO. "Nobody gets into Paradise without being baptized" doesn't stop being true just because everyone is baptized.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense any more. God gives us a commandment and tells us how we will be blessed by obeying Him. Everyone has an equal opportunity to obey. God blesses those who choose to do so. And that's arbitrary and vindictive?

Does baptism somehow make a person more worthy of Paradise?

Probably not in and of itself. Obedience is what makes a person more worthy of Paradise.

Is God physically incapable of bringing an unbaptized person into Paradise?

No. He is physically capable of doing whatever He wants.

Could God not have instituted whatever means of salvation He wanted?

He not only could have done, He did.

If I'm right, we die and that's it. Would you have done things differently in the only life you'll ever have if you knew it was going to be the only life you'd ever have?

I don't know. Probably.

Would you do things differently if you didn't believe that Christ or any other supernatural entity would come down from Heaven and make everything right in the world?

Probably.

If you're right, AFAIK, you go to a very, very nice afterlife and I go to one that's nicer than here, but not as nice as yours... until I decide to accept someone's proxy baptism, apparently.

Well, that's a better deal than you'd get according to 99% of Christians, isn't it?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of alternate interpretations of "born of water" when I said that. What I meant was this: even if we take as a given that God wants us to be baptized, why would He want that in the first place?

I don't know! I'm not God and I can't possibly know why He does everything He does. You keep asking why He wants us to be baptized, and I keep saying that the reason itself is beside the point. The point is that He does -- at least we Latter-day Saints believe that He does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I can't perform a baptism, but I can be the recipient of a baptism (i.e. for the dead). I'm guessing you see that as a problem. Am I right?

Not really. The claim that men can acheive a divine station that women cannot is pretty far down the list for me.

We're willing to take that risk. I'm sure I've been baptized for people who will reject my offer. If it's my time and energy that's been wasted, not yours. What possible difference could it make to you?

To me directly? Not much. I know that if my well-intentioned actions were ineffective, it would bother me. I think that the difference it makes to me is based on empathy, though I doubt you'll share my point of view.

Horrendous? That's a pretty strong term to use. Even if it were ineffective, it wouldn't be damaging. Seriously, you're starting to sound almost desperate.

I'm sure you know the old saying "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." IMO, there are a number of things, including proxy baptism but not only limited to Mormon practices, that represent ways in which the genuine desires of good people are turned into effectively nothing.

You don't think that's horrendous? I do.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense any more. God gives us a commandment and tells us how we will be blessed by obeying Him. Everyone has an equal opportunity to obey. God blesses those who choose to do so. And that's arbitrary and vindictive?

The form is arbitrary. Making salvation contingent on an arbitrary ritual is vindictive.

Probably not in and of itself. Obedience is what makes a person more worthy of Paradise.

Okay, but it's not based on anything intrinsic in the water itself or the ceremony, except that which God has decided to instill in it, right?

No. He is physically capable of doing whatever He wants.

So God could admit an unbaptized person to Paradise if He were to choose to do so, right?

He not only could have done, He did.

Okay, but if God had decided that the ritual should be hopping on one foot instead of being dunked in water, it would have the same effect, no?

I don't know. Probably.

Probably.

Okay, so if your beliefs are wrong, there would be a personal cost associated with that, represented by the difference between what you would've done if you had known and what you actually did.

Well, that's a better deal than you'd get according to 99% of Christians, isn't it?

Umm... thanks?

I don't know! I'm not God and I can't possibly know why He does everything He does. You keep asking why He wants us to be baptized, and I keep saying that the reason itself is beside the point. The point is that He does -- at least we Latter-day Saints believe that He does.

I keep on asking, because it's central to my main point: even assuming the truth of the doctrines surrounding baptism, unless God has a good reason for making baptism what it is, then baptism is arbitrary.

 

[Katzpur]

Not really. The claim that men can acheive a divine station that women cannot is pretty far down the list for me.

Claim? What claim? We've certainly never claimed there is something "divine" about performing a baptism. There is no "divine station" or anything of the sort than a man can achieve that a woman cannot also achieve.

To me directly? Not much. I know that if my well-intentioned actions were ineffective, it would bother me. I think that the difference it makes to me is based on empathy, though I doubt you'll share my point of view.

If I knew that my intentions were ineffective, it would bother me, too. If I knew them to be ineffective, I wouldn't be doing them! I'm doing them because I believe them to have a purpose according to God's plan. I think the difference between us is that I don't take it upon myself to judge your "well-intentioned actions" as ineffective, whereas you have no qualms about passing judgment on mine.

I'm sure you know the old saying "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." IMO, there are a number of things, including proxy baptism but not only limited to Mormon practices, that represent ways in which the genuine desires of good people are turned into effectively nothing.

Actually, even if it turns out that the practice of proxy baptism proves to be worth nothing, I believe that God expects us to have enough integrity that our actions will always be in accordance with what we sincerely believe to be true. I can't imagine that He would be displeased with anyone who remained true to his beliefs, even in the face of criticism from others.

You don't think that's horrendous? I do.

Sorry, I don't.

The form is arbitrary. Making salvation contingent on an arbitrary ritual is vindictive.

I give up. I evidently don't even know what you mean by "arbitrary."

Okay, but it's not based on anything intrinsic in the water itself or the ceremony, except that which God has decided to instill in it, right?

Well, it's the means by which an individual enters into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. If God had told us to enter into this covenant in some other way, we'd comply with His instructions.

So God could admit an unbaptized person to Paradise if He were to choose to do so, right?

Of course He could, but in doing so He would have to go back on his word. Then, salvation would, in fact, be arbitrary.

Okay, but if God had decided that the ritual should be hopping on one foot instead of being dunked in water, it would have the same effect, no?

This is really getting kind of silly, but hypothetically it would have the same effect.

Okay, so if your beliefs are wrong, there would be a personal cost associated with that, represented by the difference between what you would've done if you had known and what you actually did.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to try to rephrase it?

Umm... thanks?

Why the sarcasm? Would it make you happier if we told you that you'd burn for eternity for not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? I'm sorry, but I can't tell you that. I'm sure there are a handful of people on RF who would be happy to, though.

I keep on asking, because it's central to my main point: even assuming the truth of the doctrines surrounding baptism, unless God has a good reason for making baptism what it is, then baptism is arbitrary.

That's right -- "unless God has a good reason" being the operative phrase here. Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so aremy ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

The bottom line is that I don't have to understand everything God expects of me in order to try to meet His expectations. That fact that I sincerely believe that He has commanded us to be baptized is reason enough for me to obey Him. I'm sorry if I haven't been able to get through to you on that point, but I've really done my best. Please understand that if I fail to respond to the same question yet again, it's only because I've run out of answers.

 

[DeepShadow]

I realize this thread is 17 pages long....but FWIW...i.m.o. the LDS position is pretty reasonable. If we don't believe in Mormonism, then obviously the ritual is harmless. If we do believe in Mormonism, it is still harmless: the deceased is merely offered an invitation. The strongest argument on the other side is that the records at Salt Lake will confuse future historical records on the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. That strikes me as a weak argument. But it's understandable that Holocuast survivors would gaurd accuracy of the historical record very jealously.

Wow! That's got to be the most succinct, thoughtful and on-topic post I've read in months. Frubals!

With all due respect: do you hear yourself? In another thread you advocate "unleashing the Danites" and now you invite others to stand in your way so you can "crush" them for the Lord.

Yeah, we need less LDS with that perspective.

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, we need less LDS with that perspective.

So you want me to quit being LDS?

You're opposed to self-defense?

You don't think the Lord will win in the end?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Claim? What claim? We've certainly never claimed there is something "divine" about performing a baptism. There is no "divine station" or anything of the sort than a man can achieve that a woman cannot also achieve.

I was thinking of priesthood specifically. Can women become priests in the LDS Church now?

If I knew that my intentions were ineffective, it would bother me, too. If I knew them to be ineffective, I wouldn't be doing them! I'm doing them because I believe them to have a purpose according to God's plan. I think the difference between us is that I don't take it upon myself to judge your "well-intentioned actions" as ineffective, whereas you have no qualms about passing judgment on mine.

It's a relatively straightforward matter to figure out whether actions directed at the physical world are effective... more so than for actions directed beyond the plane of this existence, anyhow.

And if you do know that well-intentioned actions of mine are ineffective, I do want to know. For example, I've started to become worried that donations I make to poverty-related charities might be part of a problem of building a dependence on aid, and that my money might do more good if I put it into some sort of micro-credit program... if you can shed light on the total effects of either option, I'd like to hear it.

Actually, even if it turns out that the practice of proxy baptism proves to be worth nothing, I believe that God expects us to have enough integrity that our actions will always be in accordance with what we sincerely believe to be true. I can't imagine that He would be displeased with anyone who remained true to his beliefs, even in the face of criticism from others.

Yet he'd be displeased with mine to the point that he would put me in Spirit Prison at least until someone is baptized upon my behalf, apparently.

I give up. I evidently don't even know what you mean by "arbitrary."

The normal meaning: unnecessary or chosen without reason, more or less.

Of course He could, but in doing so He would have to go back on his word. Then, salvation would, in fact, be arbitrary.

I was talking about capability. My point was just that God, although able to admit to Paradise whoever He wanted without condition or restriction, chose to put in place the condition of baptism.

This is really getting kind of silly, but hypothetically it would have the same effect.

Right. So God, although able to make salvation contingent on whatever He wanted, chose one specific form of a ritual as that condition.

Take these two things together:

- salvation by some sort of ritual is not intrinsically necessary; it was only made necessary by the fact that it was deemed so by God.
- the form of that ritual is not intrinsically necessary; the form of baptism was only made necessary by the fact that it was deemed so by God.

In my mind, this makes baptism arbitrary. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to try to rephrase it?

It wasn't a question. It was my attempt to sum up a response to your Pascal's Wager-esque question a few posts back.

Why the sarcasm? Would it make you happier if we told you that you'd burn for eternity for not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? I'm sorry, but I can't tell you that. I'm sure there are a handful of people on RF who would be happy to, though.

I just wasn't sure how to take it. In my mind, there are two options:

- the pleasant afterlife you describe is made-up, in which case it seems to me like you're trying to say that a nice, but non-existent afterlife is better than an awful, but non-existent afterlife.

- the pleasant afterlife you describe isn't made-up, in which case it's just a simple fact and not dependent on your sentiment at all. It'd be like telling me that belief in a round earth is better than belief in a flat earth because it'll make my flight to Australia shorter... while I suppose it is technically true, it's not like you made it true for my benefit, did you?

That's right -- "unless God has a good reason" being the operative phrase here. Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your waysmy ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so aremy ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

The bottom line is that I don't have to understand everything God expects of me in order to try to meet His expectations. That fact that I sincerely believe that He has commanded us to be baptized is reason enough for me to obey Him. I'm sorry if I haven't been able to get through to you on that point, but I've really done my best. Please understand that if I fail to respond to the same question yet again, it's only because I've run out of answers.

And for me, the bottom line is that it's not enough to simply trust God. When I'm told to stop asking questions, all sorts of alarm bells go off in my head.

 

[Katzpur]

I was thinking of priesthood specifically. Can women become priests in the LDS Church now?

No. What does holding the priesthood have to do with being divine?

And if you do know that well-intentioned actions of mine are ineffective, I do want to know. For example, I've started to become worried that donations I make to poverty-related charities might be part of a problem of building a dependence on aid, and that my money might do more good if I put it into some sort of micro-credit program... if you can shed light on the total effects of either option, I'd like to hear it.

I see what you're saying, but we have no way of knowing the outcome of certain actions will be until the next phase of our existence. We have to act on the basis of what we believe, not on what we know. In that regard, we're no different than people of any other religion or people with no religion at all.

Yet he'd be displeased with mine to the point that he would put me in Spirit Prison at least until someone is baptized upon my behalf, apparently.

That's where you're wrong. You would be in the Spirit Prison only as long as you chose to be. Once you recognized that God would cease to hold you accountable for your sins through the atonement of Jesus Christ, you would enter Paradise. Baptism is not a necessary requirement for a spirit to be in Paradise. Paradise and the Spirit Prison are both intermediate states that a person exists in prior to the resurrection. Many unbaptized people are in Paradise.

The normal meaning: unnecessary or chosen without reason, more or less.

You're assuming that because you don't understand the reason, there is no reason. If God gives us a commandment, and we understand the consequences of our disobedience, there is nothing arbitrary about it. If God were to tell us one thing and then simply make allowances based on a whim, then it would be arbitrary.

I was talking about capability. My point was just that God, although able to admit to Paradise whoever He wanted without condition or restriction, chose to put in place the condition of baptism.

Well, as I said before, Paradise is not the same thing as Heaven, but with that qualification, I would agree. God has chosen to make exaltation contingent upon baptism, whether we understand His reasons for doing so or not.

Take these two things together:

- salvation by some sort of ritual is not intrinsically necessary; it was only made necessary by the fact that it was deemed so by God.
- the form of that ritual is not intrinsically necessary; the form of baptism was only made necessary by the fact that it was deemed so by God.

In my mind, this makes baptism arbitrary. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.

It's arbitrary only for someone who figures he's got the same right as God to make the rules. If the shoe fits...

I just wasn't sure how to take it. In my mind, there are two options:

- the pleasant afterlife you describe is made-up, in which case it seems to me like you're trying to say that a nice, but non-existent afterlife is better than an awful, but non-existent afterlife.

- the pleasant afterlife you describe isn't made-up, in which case it's just a simple fact and not dependent on your sentiment at all. It'd be like telling me that belief in a round earth is better than belief in a flat earth because it'll make my flight to Australia shorter... while I suppose it is technically true, it's not like you made it true for my benefit, did you?

If I'm understanding you correctly, maybe this will help: I believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. It exists independently of what either you or I believe. I am simply stating what I believe to be true. I am not making it up to benefit either of us. That would be pointless.

And for me, the bottom line is that it's not enough to simply trust God. When I'm told to stop asking questions, all sorts of alarm bells go off in my head.

I've never stopped asking questions and I've never been told to either. The German poet, Geothe said, "Human life divided by reason leaves a remainder." LDS Scholar, Steven Bennion added the following statement to Goethe's: "Faith deals with the remainder." From my perspective, we should never stop questioning. We should always look for answers to our questions, but we should also recognize that we are not always going to be able to find satisfactory answers during the relatively short period of time we are here on earth. In time, the answers will come. Meanwhile, we have to continue to proceed with confidence, based on what makes sense to us. And what makes sense to one person will not always make sense to someone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. What does holding the priesthood have to do with being divine?

Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?

You're assuming that because you don't understand the reason, there is no reason.

No, I'm assuming that out of logical consistency, there is no reason. A reason imposed on God to act one way instead of another would represent a limitation on what God could do; but apparently God can do anything.

If God does not need anything, then God does not need to make salvation or exaltation contingent on baptism... hence baptism is unnecessary, except to whatever extent God makes it so.

Well, as I said before, Paradise is not the same thing as Heaven, but with that qualification, I would agree. God has chosen to make exaltation contingent upon baptism, whether we understand His reasons for doing so or not.

And based on my limited understanding of Mormon theology, I think it's a fair statement to say that God could not be compelled to do anything... correct? If so, then how could any reason God had to make exaltation contingent upon baptism been a compelling one?