Outrage I Don’t Understand
Cidu Bill on Sep 3rd 2010
Many Jewish leaders are angry about the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism by proxy — specifically, ceremonies in which the names of Jewish Holocaust victims are used to offer the departed a chance to convert in the afterlife.
Now, I can understand calling people who participate in these ceremonies arrogant, insensitive and disrespectful — but beyond that, who really cares? In the end it’s meaningless. Nobody’s forcing anybody to convert and the jokes on them anyway because Jews don’t believe in a Christian-style afterlife. By making a big deal out of this, Jewish leaders only seem to be acknowledging that there’s some validity in all this.
Personally, I’d rather have Mormons try to convert me after I’m dead than have Jehovah’s Witnesses wake me up by ringing my doorbell on Sunday mornings when I’m alive.
Filed in Bill Bickel, Judaism, Mormons, afterlife, posthumous baptism by proxy, religion | 102 responses so far
Bearman Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:09 pm 1
I would be happy for all the religions of the world to claim me after I am gone. Hopefully one of them is right.
Sili Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:10 pm 2
I like Dan Savage’s response: he suggests that we make Mormons gay by proxy.
Scott Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:18 pm 3
I think the real outrage is over a more or less respected religion actively calling another one wrong. Now, the right thing to do would be to explain why the Mormon faith is bunk, but we’ve had about 2,000 years of that not working out very well. The insensitivity just adds to the problem.
In any case, if religions started examining other religions rationally, Religion Inc. would collapse.
czhorst Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:26 pm 4
To me the outrage. Is in the use of the Holocaust as a marketting gimmick.
If they picked names any other way (yesterday we postumously baptised Isaac Dineson. Today James Tiptree, Jr and tomorrow George Elliot!) I would not especially care
MarkH Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:40 pm 5
Personally, if someone tried to do this to me after I was gone, I’d hit them with a lightning bolt. I doubt I’m alone in this - and as far as I know, none of them have been struck by lightning yet. So either:
a) There’s no heaven, so no-one up there to mind.
b) They’re all the same heavens anyhow, so everyone’s up there laughing at them.
c) There is a heaven, but you’re not allowed to smite the unbelievers any more. Since most holy books talk about persecuting heretics in some way, I find this option hard to believe.
Of course, since I don’t believe anything happens after you’re gone, it’s academic. But if there is a heaven, I expect to be able to hurl lightning bolts at will, otherwise it won’t really be a heaven I can believe in
HeroSteve Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:47 pm 6
Bill, I see your point (humorous closing, by the way).
I think the focus of the outrage (which I share) is the insensitivity and disrespect which you call out in the beginning. Personally, I’d be offended if any of my relatives’ names were used, even though none I know of died in the Holocaust.
The wikipedia article on proxy baptism includes a section about baptising Jews and nazis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_baptism#Criticism_of_vicarious_baptism_of_Jews_and_Nazis). The section mentions that the church has guidelines for name submission, and in spite of that, names of Holocaust survivors and prominent nazis have been submitted without adequate permission. This suggests that there are some members of the church deliberately trying to subvert church rules, which suggests that those members are being deliberately offensive towards Jews.
There is an implication that proxy baptism is being used to forward an agenda - next in the article is a section on the proxy baptism of President Obama’s mother.
I can understand the practice for family relatives to give people a feeling of closeness with their ancestors. I’m offended by the idea that such a practice would be used to upset a specific person or people, for a religious or a political agenda.
(Although I did laugh as Sili’s post)
Daniel J. Drazen Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:52 pm 7
I can see the Jewish POV in their viewing the practice as the ultimate extension of the old Catholic practice of forced baptism of Jewish infants. The attitude behind it all is “We know God better than you do and whatever you think or feel doesn’t count.”
When done when someone is alive it’s called “Bullying.”
James Pollock Sep 3rd 2010 at 01:04 pm 8
Mark, the Judeo-Christian tradition limits posthumous smiting to God. Once you’re in heaven, you’ll be too busy enjoying the heavenly chorus to want to smite anyone here on Earth. In the old testament, God takes on a lot of the smiting work… floods, plagues of frogs and locusts and boils and whatnot. And if you cross Him, you get a flaming sword turning every which way to keep you where He wants you.
I’m less bothered by the Mormons offering a backup to Jews, as I am what they did to the Boy Scouts. Fortunately, 100% of my offspring are female, and the Girl Scouts are far more accepting.
paperboy Sep 3rd 2010 at 01:56 pm 9
“Baptism by proxy”?? If that works, then why the hell was I dragged out of my nice, warm crib, taken to church and sprinkled with cold holy water? I coulda stayed in bed and had the priest dab my birth-certificate.
CIDU Bill Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:00 pm 10
“Cold holy water.” Well, boo hoo. I’m sure every Jewish infant boy feels so sorry for your ordeal!
Jeff S. Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:06 pm 11
I say, let the Jews make it even… let them perform posthumous circumcisions by proxy on all the Mormons.
paperboy Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:07 pm 12
CIDU Bill#10- Gotta admit, I cried like baby.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:13 pm 13
The Mormons interest in genealogy is rooted in their belief of baptism by proxy as a way to “save” their ancestors who never had a chance to accept Mormonism during their lifetime. While opening up their archives to other, non-Mormon genealogists for little or no cost is admirable, the prospect that any information I might contribute to their data banks could lead to posthumous baptism has always left me uncomfortable. I guess it’s not outrage at having my ancestors baptized without their consent as I don’t lend much credence to the practice as much as the perceived condescending attitude of saving the poor, ignorant deceased, regardless of what the may or may not have believed. At least with the door-to-door proselytizers you can tell them “No thank you, I don’t accept your faith system.”
Blinky the Wonder Wombat Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:17 pm 14
BTW, as a result of using published records for Baptism by proxy, the Catholic Church as bared further microfilming of church records by the Mormons and aren’t too keen on perusing them by anyone in general. ‘Tis a pity, as these microfilmed records have been valuable resources for genealogists .
Irene Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:34 pm 15
It is irrelevant, really. Sacraments are only for the living. You cannot baptize the dead. (for the record- I teach this stuff) Even in an extreme circumstance, like a stillbirth, the person baptizing would say “If you are alive, I baptize you ….”
Katie Sep 3rd 2010 at 03:27 pm 16
As a friend who was trying to be supportive, I went to mormon church with a newly-converted friend. During one ‘class’ part of the day, this subject was brought up. They discussed proxy baptisms on dead and *living* friends and family members. As a happy agnostic, this really freaked me out.
To me, it is a violation of me, as a rational and a spiritual being. To presume to say that their dear heathen friend, or late Uncle Tony had the wrong beliefs and therefore must now be made new, that’s the height of arrogance.
I think saying that the millions of people who were murdered for who they were/their beliefs had the wrong beliefs and therefore must now be made new goes beyond arrogance. That’s really, really sick.
DrDan Sep 3rd 2010 at 03:55 pm 17
Hey CIDU, I got the same treatment and I’m catholic, and my old lady told me if I converted I”d still have to have a token ceremony
paperboy Sep 3rd 2010 at 03:57 pm 18
I’d rather be converted to Mormonism after I’m dead than made into a zombie.
FeelinOld Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:03 pm 19
I kind of put this in the realm of voodoo, they say you have to believe for it to work, so why worry…
I suppose they may actually perform the ceremony for someone that was thinking of going to a different faith, but as most faiths say there is ’something’ after death, be it reincarnation or whatever, the chances of someone still being undecided AFTER dieing is pretty slim…
Pirk Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:39 pm 20
what do Jewish people believe about the afterlife, in a nutshell?
John in Tronna Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:51 pm 21
I just go down to the non-Catholic cemeteries during rainstorms and yell, “I BAPTIZE THEE…”
In my own personal case, I really don’t care what they do to me after I’m dead. As far as I am concerned, it ain’t gonna “take”. I don’t think I will be floating around in, say, RC afterlife and then get suddenly yanked down to Planet Kolob because someone put my name in at LDS.com.
If the atheists — or, incidentally, the Jehovah Witnesses — are right, it’ll all be moot.
Yes, the arrogance (advertant or inadvertant) bothers me, but it’s similar to someone flipping me the bird. It’s only going to have the effect on me that I allow it to. Because it bothers the Jewish people, then it shouldn’t be done.
A person I knew who was Wiccan decided to have a “Wiccan seder” — it was pretty much word-for-word and ingredient-for-ingredient the same as a Passover Seder, with “the Goddess”, “Blessed Be”, etc substituted as applicable. It really bothered me — because it seemed disrespectful to Jews. So I actually called a rabbi and asked his opinion. He was surprised by the question, but basically said, meh, things could be worse, they don’t mean any harm so WTH, but he seemed mystified as to why they picked Jewish ritual to copy. He thanked me for “being offended” on their behalf (he sounded like he was trying not to chuckle), but said it wasn’t necessary. His reaction seemed to be bemusement more than anything else.
Not the same thing, I know, but I’m trying more and more to get out of my own headspace, especially with regard to inter-religious relations.
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2010 at 05:00 pm 22
Daniel, what differentiates this from forced baptism of Jewish infants (aside from the obvious) is that the Mormons are giving the departed Jews the opportunity to convert, rather than (in their minds) converting them against their wills.
In the end it’s disrespectful and kind of stupid, but no more than that.
FeelinOld Sep 3rd 2010 at 05:10 pm 23
Pirk #20: Hmmpph, that one set me back a bit, over the years I’ve done a lot of ‘recreational’ reading of various religious texts, and to be honest can’t really remember much of anything being said in the Talmud or Torah about an afterlife, I think it’s more about this life. I found the Talmud difficult to get through which I think was mostly due to the translation than the content, and translations can quite often take on a slant from the translator so reader beware. I saw this in a other religions as well, as an example I’ve read some of the Pali Canon (Tipitaka? from Buddhism) in two different translations and the meaning of some of the text came out totally different because of the translation, and I don’t know if either meaning was what was intended.
Ian Osmond Sep 3rd 2010 at 05:46 pm 24
The impression I got from Mormon friends is that the posthumous baptism thing only gives the people an OPPORTUNITY to convert. If I die, and discover that the Mormon heaven is correct, and one of my Mormon friends throws my name out for posthumous baptism, I still have the option to ignore them. (And, being an ornery cuss, I just might.)
So long as it’s OPTIONAL, I don’t mind.
Pirk #20: BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Jewish beliefs about ANYTHING in a nutshell? (Okay, fine, there’s that Hillel and Shammai story, but still . . . )
Okay. The Jewish belief about the afterlife is that either you die, and then you’re dead and there ISN’T an afterlife at all, or that your soul gets subsumed into God and you lack an individual existence, or that your soul separates from your body, and gets subsumed into God just as your body gets subsumed into the earth, but then, at the End of Days, God re-creates your soul and your body and reunites them, or that your soul separates from your body and goes to a heavenly paradise, or your soul separates from your body and goes to a heavenly paradise until it’s bodily resurrected, or you’re reincarnated, or you exist, but not in a fully cognizant state, or any combination of the above, plus several other options.
Normative Judaism doesn’t have any particularly strong opinions on the subject, so Jewish theologians have pretty much taken ideas from Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Greek Paganism, several other Bronze Age tribal religions, and some other sources, and just used them all.
Basically, it’s not a very important question in Judaism. Judaism is more concerned with the nature and existence of life BEFORE death than life AFTER death.
James Pollock Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:23 pm 25
They came first for the dead Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a dead Communist.
Then they came for the dead trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a dead trade unionist.
Then they came for the dead Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a dead Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
–Pastor John Niemuller (almost)
Lihtox Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:13 pm 26
I wrote a long response, but in the end the inherent insult here boils down to the fact that baptism is an *initiation* ritual: when you baptize someone, you are bringing them into your church. For the Mormons to baptize someone who is decidedly not Mormon is about as insulting as telling someone, “Why, you’re such a good person, you’re practically a Mormon!” Or Catholic. Or American. Or German. Or whatever. Pray for their souls, revere them as holy martyrs if you like, but respect their covenant to their own faith.
Even if the Mormon definition of baptism specifically denies that it is a rite of initiation, they should take into account the standard definition and act accordingly.
OMJulie Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:44 pm 27
Ian Osmond @ 24: “The impression I got from Mormon friends is that the posthumous baptism thing only gives the people an OPPORTUNITY to convert. If I die, and discover that the Mormon heaven is correct, and one of my Mormon friends throws my name out for posthumous baptism, I still have the option to ignore them. (And, being an ornery cuss, I just might.)
So long as it’s OPTIONAL, I don’t mind.”
It’s actually about 1000% optional. No person, living or dead, is automagically a part of anything. It just gives an opportunity to someone IN CASE they have a posthumous change of faith.
Mormons have a fairly complicated view of the afterlife. Basically, there is NO Heaven/Hell dichotomy. There are three different heavens, all of which are considered kingdoms of glory and eternal rest and joy and pretty much everything you could want in a heaven. Unless you actively try to go to “Hell” (ie, you know God personally and decide you hate Him) (and it’s not a traditional hell, either; more a place of oblivion than ongoing torture), then you go to some version of heaven.
Mormon or not, pretty much EVERYBODY goes to some kind of heaven.
There’s some difference between the heavens, and one of them is only open to those who have made all of the Mormon covenants/sacraments, including (but not limited to) baptism.
So basically, proxy baptism for dead people is completely and unequivocally optional for the dead person, and they won’t go to hell if they don’t “accept” the ordinance. It just provides options.
Those are the basic points, anyway. You can still be offended by it, and still have a good point in that. Certainly the idea of “converting” Holocaust victims at all is pretty squirmy. But I think a good understanding of how it all works clears up at least some of the more objectionable aspects of the issue.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 01:17 am 28
pst!… I think OMJulie might be a Mormon.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 01:18 am 29
pst!… I’m one too.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 01:31 am 30
I’m very glad about how civil and cordial this discussion is going. I’ve performed proxy baptisms (and other proxy ordinances) for random dead people as well as for my specific ancestors. I understand why that would make some people upset. I’m sorry for that. If it helps I try to concentrate on only my own ancestors. And if they’re all gonna beat the crap out of me when I die for doing what I did, well I deserve it.
I’m happy to answer any questions anybody might have about this practice or anything else you may be curious about. But I am not an official spokesperson for the LDS Church. I’m just this guy, ya know.
–OMJulie:”Mormon or not, pretty much EVERYBODY goes to some kind of heaven.”
I’m gonna have to call “not quite” on that one. There is an “Outer Darkness” for those people who are determined to reject every last scrap of what God has to offer. God is the only one who gets to decide which people get that treatment. I wouldn’t want anybody else to have to deal with that decision.
FeelinOld Sep 4th 2010 at 02:51 am 31
El Cucui #30: I think you missed the point of OMJulies comment, just because someone doesn’t qualify under your belief system doesn’t mean they don’t qualify under ANY system…
I consider myself agnostic, all my reading basically boils down to there once were a few good men that had phenomenally good ideas. Unfortunately most of their teachings have since been twisted and perverted by the ‘religious powers’ of the day.
I think in the past the carrot and stick presentation of religion to the masses may have worked, and a lot of the ‘laws’ laid out were there to stabilize the community, but in todays world I consider most of them anachronisms.
If I was forced to pick an option personally I’d go for reincarnation, mostly because it sort of satisfies the law of conservation of energy. If you consider a ’soul’ energy, the energy is redistributed within the ’system’ instead of ending up outside it…
Proginoskes Sep 4th 2010 at 03:10 am 32
What’s this “by proxy” ****? If the Mormons want to baptize people after they died, the Mormons should have to dig up the bodies and do it for real.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 03:48 am 33
FeelinOld: You’re so very, very right, I completely missed a whole section of her comment. Sorry. I’m hopin’ I got the right belief system. If I don’t I’m hopin’ it looks a lot like The HitchHiker’s Gude to the Galaxy. That’d be fun.
I think it’s hard to go wrong with the “Do to others what you want done to you” rule. Game theory seems to support that one anyway.
I know the “carrot-stick” analogy is more often used to describe a rewards/punishments system, but it originally meant putting a carrot at the end of a stick so that the carrot is perpetually out in front of the donkey… so it’s always motivated to move, but never reaches the goal. Oddly enough, that analogy still works for various flavors of religion.
As for conservation of energy, I love it. Kinda connects to this one from the LDS canon, written/revealed in 1833: “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” D&C 93:29-30, 36
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 03:49 am 34
Proginoskes #32: …but that’d be icky…..
Igelino Sep 4th 2010 at 11:05 am 35
A Mormon colleague of mine described it as kind of like getting a postcard in the afterlife inviting you to start “believing”. I think it wouldn’t be offensive, but then I don’t know how much mail one gets in the afterlife, nor how much of that qualifies as junk mail.
Keera Sep 4th 2010 at 12:10 pm 36
Proginoskes @32, you make a good case for cremation.
txhoudini Sep 4th 2010 at 01:14 pm 37
First off I consider myself atheist by religion but Jewish culturaly. That said, the problem many Jews had with this Mormon practice was that they were “converting” Jews who had been killed in the Holocaust. It’s a big smack in the face to find out that your ancestor, who had died because of their religion, was now being counted among the ranks of another religion.
By the way, the Mormons do this for lots of groups including all the US founding fathers, US Presidents, etc.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/u-s-jewish-group-to-mormons-stop-baptizing-holocaust-victims-1.256935
Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2010 at 01:21 pm 38
El Cucui, why is there a need for giving people the opportunity to convert in the afterlife? I figure most people have the religion they do (or lack thereof) because that’s what they believe to be true. In the afterlife, won’t we know which religion was true?
For example, I’m an atheist because I don’t think any of the religions in the world are true, not because I dislike Jehovah, or would prefer not to be reincarnated. I’ve always assumed that, if I was wrong, I’d find out after I died. Under the standard Christian beliefs that I’m familiar with, I’d find out by being set on fire for all eternity (whoops!), but it would be too late to change my mind. But if I was dead, and the Mormons (or whoever) had been right, I don’t think any further missionary efforts would be needed to show me that they Mormons had been right - the evidence of my own eyes (or whatever sensory apparatus I get in the afterlife) would be sufficient.
James Pollock Sep 4th 2010 at 02:11 pm 39
I’m willing to accept the benevolent explanation of the practice; every member of the LDS church that I’ve met has been a nice enough person individually that I’ll assume a non-hostile explanation. But, I’m concerned by one thing… God reserves for Himself the power to judge people at death, and to determine their fate. He is presumed to do so using His knowledge and His ability to peer to the darkest nooks of the soul. He distributes the judged as He sees fit. Then the Earthly Mormons come along and baptize by proxy, offering the judged a “second chance”. The image of this that I get is of teenagers holding the back door of the movie theatre open so that their friends can get in without paying. They’re basically saying that they know better than God where specific souls should be. Have they no faith in His mercy?
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 03:42 pm 40
Winter Wallaby (38): If there’s an afterlife it’s highly probable that at some point in that afterlife everybody will know which belief system is “true”. However it’s not clear that this truth becomes blindingly obvious right away. 1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6 suggests that gospel preaching/teaching takes place while people wait to be resurrected (and various additional LDS scriptures come right out and says that missionary work in that pre-resurrection Spirit World is quite vigorously active).
If it so happens that LDS/Mormon teaching is true, part of LDS doctrine says that in order to receive a fullness of glory each person must have performed certain ordinances/covenants which need to be performed in a physical state. Each person can do that for themselves before they die, but since far too many people have lived and died without any knowledge of that requirement, it’d be unjust for God to make that requirement and then not provide a way to meet it. So these ordinances/covenants can be performed by proxy after they die.
One question that often comes up is this: We’re told that as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, everybody gets resurrected, as in each spirit is re-united with their perfected, immortal body. That’s everybody, no matter what, free gift. So why not wait until after a person is resurrected to let them do the ordinances for themselves? A few possible answers:
1) The mechanics of resurrection may require that the ordinances are performed before the person’s resurrection can happen. They don’t necessarily have to accept the proxy ordinances, but they do need to take place.
2) It’s gonna take a loooooooong time to vicariously baptize all 20-100 billion humans who have ever lived. We’re only up to about 100 million so far. Might as well get started now. (…but if God is immortal/eternal and all the resurrected people are immortal won’t there be plenty of time?)
3) There could be a free will thing going on. If the spirits of the deceased don’t automatically know which is the “true” belief system and if the resurrection process makes “the truth” blindingly obvious, then deciding to do those ordinances for oneself after resurrection would be a foregone conclusion, not an exercise of free will. Thus the choice as to whether or not to accept the proxy ordinances must be made before a person can get resurrected. They can still reject the proxy ordinances and still get resurrected, but the choice has to be made first. … maybe.
4) It’s all a bunch of hoo-hah and Mormons are all deluding themselves.
By the way, Biblical support for doing baptisms for the dead: 1 Corinthians 15:29 (it’s a practice that Paul’s audience was familiar with. Records show various early Christian sects did baptisms for the dead until at least the 300’s AD. That’s about when the Catholic Church shut down the practice… though I recently read an article by an atheist in an Irish newspaper that suggests that the Catholic Church still has a sacrament of posthumous baptism that is still occasionally, but extremely rarely, performed in modern times).
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 03:59 pm 41
James Pollack (post #39): “Have they no faith in His mercy?”
The proxy baptisms don’t override God’s judgement. God’s judgement of each individual is still the last word and final say in a person’s eternal well being. But God made a requirement that everybody has to be baptized physically (as well as spiritually). That’s a massively unfair requirement for God to make for the billions upon billions of people who never had the slightest idea about it. It’d be unjust and unmerciful for God to peer to the darkest nooks of the soul, find it to be worthy, but then reject the soul for not having their ticket punched. In that sense the proxy ordinances are acts of faith that facilitate and complement God’s mercy.
So either there is no requirement for baptism, or there is, and there’s a way for people who missed out in physical life to still meet the requirement.
It’s more like the teenager showing up to high school graduation with their extended family only to be told that they can’t get in without the tickets that their teachers never told them about. The Mormons are handing out tickets. Let’s hope they’re not fakes.
James Pollock Sep 4th 2010 at 06:41 pm 42
“That’s a massively unfair requirement for God to make…”
Again, it’s His creation, and if He wanted it unfair, then there’s nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, if you can see that it’s unfair, surely HE saw that it was unfair, and has already taken care of those poor souls He sent into the world before He decided what the rules were going to be.
It is a very unfavorable impression of God that He would make a mistake like that, or that He would need your help to correct it.
Irene Sep 4th 2010 at 09:09 pm 43
@40
“I recently read an article by an atheist in an Irish newspaper that suggests that the Catholic Church still has a sacrament of posthumous baptism that is still occasionally, but extremely rarely, performed in modern times).”
Why on earth would you believe what an atheist has to say about the Catholic Church? I repeat: sacraments are for the LIVING and ONLY the living. The Church teaches that God instituted them as a way of signifying grace as they are actually giving us grace. As humans, we need something we can ’see’ and the signs and rituals of sacrament are how God decided to make that happen for us.
The closest there is to a post-death baptism is the conditional baptism of a dead person. This can happen at an accident scene or in the case of a stillborn child. The regular formula for baptism is to pour flowing water on the head and say ” I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” ANYONE can do this- even an atheist. The conditional formula is , ” If you are alive, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The point is- it should never be done unless it is clear that the person would have wanted it, or the parents of the child would want it. It is allowed because while we can see when the heart and breathing stops, there may be a time when the person still has brain function that would make them still ;alive,; though death is near. This is the last moment of conversion…a moment when even a suicide can repent. That is why the Church allows funerals for suicides now, along with the growth in knowledge about mental illness.
IF posthumous bapstisms occurred in the early the Church, then were abolished, that makes perfect sense as the Early Church Fathers grew in their understanding of Jesus Christ and what he did for us.
Once a person dies, they have already decided their fate. God does not send people to hell. People choose it for themselves by not living a decent life. ( Define that according to your faith system) There is no un-doing once death has occurred.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 09:55 pm 44
@ James Pollock “On the other hand, if you can see that it’s unfair, surely HE saw that it was unfair, and has already taken care of those poor souls’
Maybe His way of taking care of those poor souls is to have this baptism for the dead ordinance. So in other words I was intending to mean “If God had done it that way (made a requirement He knew people couldn’t fulfill), that’d be unfair, but God can’t be unfair, so he didn’t do it that way.”
@ James Pollock “unfavorable impression of God that He would make a mistake like that, or that He would need your help to correct it.”
God asks for our help in tons of other stuff. Why would this be an exception? He doesn’t ask for help to fix His mistakes (’cause He doesn’t make mistakes). He asks for help to fix the effects of mistakes we make.
It’s not seen as His mistake. It’s our mistake. If we had all been obedient from the very beginning then we all would have kept the “true faith” from the outset and done our own baptisms and such. But He knew that was (sadly) unlikely so when people started dying without having been baptized He explained the baptisms for the dead thing (which He had prepared well in advance for just such occasions) to still-obedient people who were concerned about the eternal well-being of their “disobedient” deceased relatives.
Of course that makes a rather massive assumption that there was once only one true religion and all religions descended from that original one, with various changes and alterations along the way. And it also comes off as sounding excruciatingly arrogant, not to mention the near-impossibility of providing any archaeological evidence to back up such a claim. It stands to reason that there could have been a group of hominids that came up with the first “religion”, and all other religious traditions followed from that. Was that first “religion” a hominid invention or THE Original Divine Inspiration? There doesn’t seem to be any way of knowing without a time machine… or more divine inspiration. Or were the first “religions” developed/inspired independently from each other?
So it goes back to: You’re right, it does sound offensive. I’m sorry. But we mean no harm and hope that in the end it does turn out to be of beneficial eternal service.
CIDU Bill Sep 4th 2010 at 09:55 pm 45
Why on earth would you believe what an atheist has to say about the Catholic Church?
Dunno. Why do so many people believe what Christians say about Islam?
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 10:07 pm 46
@Irene #43
That was a bit irresponsible of me to mention that article without the link to it. I’m sorry. Problem is I can’t find that article anymore. I mentioned the author’s atheism so that people would know to take it with a grain (or even a spoonful) of salt.
@Irene #43 “IF posthumous bapstisms occurred in the early the Church, then were abolished, that makes perfect sense as the Early Church Fathers grew in their understanding of Jesus Christ and what he did for us.”
That speaks to quite a number of Catholic vs. Protestants/Eastern Orthodox/etc. issues. One interpretation is the one you gave. The other is that the Catholic Church Fathers had various reasons for halting different practices, and not always because of greater understanding of Jesus Christ. That idea of straying from Jesus’ original design is used to legitimize almost all differences in every flavor of Christianity.
OMJulie Sep 4th 2010 at 10:15 pm 47
To clarify on the Mormon beliefs about afterlife/proxy baptism, and only those, and only because there’s been some continuing questions:
Basically, in Mormon theology there’s a gap in time between physical death and judgment. Nobody’s quite sure what that spiritual “waiting time” looks like or how or where it occurs. Sometimes people talk about a Paradise/Spirit Prison, but again, nobody’s really clear on what that means. Damnation is generally described as a stopping of progress in Mormon cannon, rather than what we might consider outwardly-imposed punishment, so that should qualify any speculation on the matter. It does seem clear that while in this Spirit World, real knowledge about what comes later still isn’t perfect. So posthumous proselytizing is still, presumably, valid.
Union of body with spirit is really, really important in Mormon dogma (it’s considered a major purpose for being born in the first place, since we existed in spirit form before we were born here). I’m not totally sure why. But as part of that, the major ordinances require a physical component (like being immersed in water for baptism) to ratify the covenants being made. People who are dead are not currently in their bodies, so we substitute a living body and have someone baptized on their behalf. Since we have no real contact with the dead, we have no way of knowing who wants a baptism and who doesn’t, so we baptize as many people as we can and they can choose whether or not they want to accept that.
The Celestial Kingdom (otherwise known as Mormon heaven) is basically a place of continual progression through the Mormon faith. If you don’t want to go there and invest yourself in that, then you are free to go to another, also glorious and ever-wonderful heaven where you can have eternal rest. The details of all of that are also a bit unclear.
In the end, James, you’re completely right - it’s up to God to judge. Always has been and always will be. The thing I think you might be missing is that Mormons see Pre-Birth, Here-On-Earth, and Post-Death life as all the same life, with the same spirit allowed continuing opportunities for knowledge and progression. Life is not a one-time test with a conclusion and reward at the end; it’s just a piece of an ongoing process.
Anyway, the major point of my earlier post was that A) Mormons aren’t making “stealth conversions” of people without their knowledge or consent, and B) Mormons don’t believe you have to be Mormon in order to go to heaven anyway.
I still do think that people have a good reason to be upset about Holocaust victims being baptized. I feel the baptisms are done with the best of intentions (the Mormons doing it just want people to have the option if they want it, really), but it’s still pretty upsetting to see someone trying to convert another person who died specifically because of his or her belief system - especially when concentration camps seemed designed, among other things, to systematically destroy those beliefs, not just the people behind them.
And yes, I do happen to be a Mormon.
PS: El Cucui, I did try to qualify that statement about Hell/Outer Darkness. There are some people who will end up there, but they basically have to know what they’re doing and decide that that’s where they want to be. And even then they aren’t burned or tortured; eventually they just cease to exist.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 10:20 pm 48
@ OMJulie I did try to qualify that statement about Hell/Outer Darkness.
Yes you did. I missed that somehow. I’m sorry.
OMJulie Sep 4th 2010 at 10:32 pm 49
El Cucui, you seem like a fine enough person, but there was no productive reason to imply that the Catholic Church stopped doing proxy baptism for self-serving reasons. It just makes you (and me, by extension) look pretty arrogant, which is kind of what I’m trying to argue against here.
Personally I’m trying to speak to the offensiveness (or inoffensiveness, which I assume is a real word) of the practice, not its fundamental theological correctness. I think some clarification about why Mormons happen to do it is helpful to that discussion.
If we start arguing about whose religion is right and whose isn’t, we’re just going to be here forever, pointlessly arguing while everybody involved gets more upset.
El Cucui Sep 4th 2010 at 10:52 pm 50
@ OMJulie I did not intend to offend or present a case for Mormon superiority. And I admire your care and eloquence.
It is correct and legitimate to argue that the Catholic Church stopped doing baptisms for the dead, assuming they ever did them in the first place, because of a greater understand of Jesus Christ. Every belief system, including Mormons, that used to practice one way but doesn’t any longer uses that same argument to explain why. It’s just that every belief system that disagrees with such changes uses the “uninspired change” counter argument. It’s extremely difficult to sort that out to both sides’ satisfaction.
My intent was to show that proxy baptisms are described Biblically and argue that they aren’t a Mormon invention (well, not entirely anyway). I shouldn’t have referenced that Irish article without a link to it. That was ill-advised.
Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2010 at 10:55 pm 51
Irene@43:
Irene, your first comment made clear that that was your belief. However, it’s pretty clear that Mormons have different beliefs. As, indeed, does the Catholic Church. I’m an atheist, so I guess there’s no reason to believe anything I say. However, you could instead check what the Catholic Church has to say: See Part 2, section 2, chapter 2, Article 4, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, titled “The sacrament of penance and reconciliation,” available here, see paragraph 1471 on indulgences:
I have no idea if the El Cucui’s article was accurate or not, but according to the Catholic Church, it’s untrue that sacraments are only for the living.
Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2010 at 11:23 pm 52
El Cucui, OMJulie, thanks for the explanations, those were very enlightening. Are there sections in the Book of Mormon that lay out the view of the afterlife that you describe?
El Cucui, those verses in 1 Peter and 1 Corinthians are very interesting! I had forgotten about those.
OMJulie Sep 5th 2010 at 12:27 am 53
Well, there are a number of scriptures you can look at. The different versions of heaven (called “Degrees of Glory”) are laid out pretty well in another book of Mormon scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants (which is mostly made up of revelations by Joseph Smith and a few other early Mormon prophets). Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 is your basic breakdown of what each of the kingdoms of glory are like. There are other sections of the D&C that discuss the kingdoms, as well as a great deal of modern revelation on the topic. That will take some more digging, though you can always search through the gospel library on the lds.org website and see what you come up with (there’s a search function to pull up General Conference talks and other statements by prophets - just bear in mind that in cases of apparently contradictory counsel, the most recent prophet is considered correct).
Multiple degrees of glory are also alluded to in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 and 2 Corinthians 12:2, at least under Mormon interpretation.
In the Book of Mormon, D&C, and words of modern prophets (which are also considered scripture) there are a lot of verses you can look at as far as the Spirit World, posthumous proselytizing, and you being you no matter if you’re alive or not. The Book of Mormon generally focuses less on the afterlife than the others, however.
D&C 138 mentions a revelation in which Jesus Christ goes to the Spirit World to preach to the righteous dead, as well as discussion of ongoing work done there by dead church elders who preach repentance to other dead.
Alma 40 (in the Book of Mormon) discusses “the state of the soul between death and the resurrection.”
Um…well, I could keep listing references all day. Is there a particular aspect you’d like a reference for?
sjelly Sep 5th 2010 at 02:18 am 54
What’s the problem with it? What a question! Until VERY recently, black people couldn’t possibly get in to “Mormon heaven.” Then Mormons got all politically correct because a public spotlight was shone on them and their beliefs. To avoid public criticism, Mormons decided that black people CAN, after all, get into their heaven. Now they can “convert” all those formally unworthy dead darkies so that some Mormon’s chance of getting into heaven are improved. Other peoples’ religious beliefs? Screw them: Mormon beliefs are all that matter. Don’t believe in any god at all? So what! Mormons need to get to heaven, so on their baptismal rolls these non-believers go. You don’t see the harm, I know, but the contempt for the wishes and beliefs of others, whether in life or death, seems to me to be the real harm. If so called religious people have contempt for the beliefs of others when those people are dead, then they will have contempt for those people and their beliefs in life. That cannot fail to have actual real life consequences (e.g., murdering doctors who provide abortions, fire bombing churches, synagogues, or mosques because the folks who worship in these places don’t worship the “right god, the right way,” stabbing taxi drivers, beating up Sikhs, and so on, for bloody ever) Why should they have the right to choose for others, whether those others are alive or dead? Why do their religious beliefs get to trump those of other religious or those of the non-religious? In the spirit of full disclosure: I am an atheist, and black. Why the bloody he88 do Mormons get to decide for me? Slavery is over. They shouldn’t be able to enslave me again, whether or not I’m dead. If I didn’t choose them in life, they shouldn’t get to decide that I choose them in death.
sjelly Sep 5th 2010 at 02:22 am 55
EDIT. That should read “chances are improved” or “chance is improved” not the illiteracy I wrote. Sorry.
sjelly Sep 5th 2010 at 02:23 am 56
Also “formerly.” Too. Also.
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 02:28 am 57
@ Winter Wallaby #52
Here’s a link to the searchable online LDS scriptures: http://scriptures.lds.org/
Includes: Bible (Old & New Testaments, King James Version), Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and a bunch of extra study helps (topical guide, Bible dictionary, etc.)
Proginoskes Sep 5th 2010 at 03:56 am 58
@CIDU Bill (0 … original post, last paragraph): That one’s going into my “quotes to remember” file.
Winter Wallaby Sep 5th 2010 at 12:00 pm 59
OMJulie, El Cucui, thanks, that’s very helpful. (Wow, you guys have a lot of scriptures!) D&C 76 was interesting, will take a look at others later. Feel free to ignore me if I’m driving you crazy with questions, but I had one (probably) last one. I was intrigued by this statement by OMJulie @53:
From the word “apparently,” I gather that all these scriptures are infallible and thus not ever actually contradictory, similar to other Christian beliefs about the Bible and/or papal ex cathedra pronoucements. Is this correct? (according to Mormons). And if so, is the interpretive rule that Julie states true for all prophets? i.e. modern 20th century prophets > Book of Mormon > New Testament > non-Torah Hebrew Bible > Torah for resolving apparent contradictions?
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 12:51 pm 60
@ Winter Wallaby #59
Here are the 13 Articles of Faith that form the foundation of LDS Doctrine (… well, after the “Love God, Love others as self” thing anyway)
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
Notice number 8:
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Number 9 is somewhat applicable here also.
There are Mormons who believe in the infallibility of scripture, and the infallibility of ancient and modern prophetic pronouncements and find ways to explain away passages that don’t, on the surface, seem to agree. There is, after all, this bit in the D&C from Wilford Woodruff, who was the prophetic leader soon after Brigham Young:
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
However, there are also Mormons with a more nuanced take on scriptures and prophetic pronouncements, just as there are amongst people in other belief systems, and who deal with apparent contradictions not necessarily by explaining them away, but through patience, study, and prayer find ways of addressing such concerns. That’s not to say this nuanced approach is superior. It’s just that personal beliefs amongst Mormons range from “There are not now and can never be any scriptural/prophetic contradictions, ever.” through “Hmm, those things don’t seem to agree…. Fancy that…. Lemmee dig around at this for a few years until I find the truth, …or at least more questions.” There is, of course, the occasional “Hey, these don’t agree. It’s all lies! I’m leaving and never coming back!” But, again, none of that is an exclusively Mormon thing.
I think OMJulie might agree with the following: The ultimate interpretive rule in LDS teaching is personal revelation. If a person finds themselves in a quandary about this or that gospel/prophetic teaching they are to ask God in faith, in the name of Jesus Christ, and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, receive a revelatory answer (which can manifest itself in myriad ways). The chronological succession OMJulie describes is typical in LDS instructive practice, but ultimately personal revelation trumps all.
Of course if personal revelation appears to disagree with gospel/prophetic teaching…. then that can be problematic.
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 01:13 pm 61
@ sjelly #54
It’s a bit more complex than that, though it probably won’t seem much better: Joseph Smith ordained several black men to the priesthood and the intention seemed to be that all peoples were entitled to the full blessings of the gospel (though other J.S. Jr writings seemed inclined towards gradualistic elimination of slavery, and maybe a “separate homeland”). While many of the men Joseph Smith ordained kept their ordinations and even ordained others (even as late as 1934), soon after Joseph Smiths’s death the LDS church abandoned the practice of ordaining blacks to the priesthood for what may well have been rather petty reasons, but dressed it up as doctrine… and then in 1978 said it wasn’t.
The following Wikipedia entries are not official LDS Church material, of course, and they are, well, Wikipedia. But keeping that in mind, these entries do present what appears to me to be a reasonably sourced and fairly accurate summary of the issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
The posthumous baptisms don’t force any dead spirits to convert and cannot serve as a substitute for righteousness and/or a lack thereof. God will judge each person individually, regardless of anybody else’s actions.
While people claiming devout beliefs do sometimes commit offensive and even horrendous acts, I should hope one would be able to see that the larger majority of people in all belief systems usually tend to strive towards peace, harmony, and love towards their fellow beings.
Winter Wallaby Sep 5th 2010 at 02:57 pm 62
Oh, man! I need something simple that I can tell people at dinner parties. As in “I just learned about how Mormons read their scriptures. Here it is!” Not “just like members of every other religion, different Mormons read them different ways.” What am I supposed to do with that?
Just kidding El Cucui, that was extremely helpful. Thanks!
Irene Sep 5th 2010 at 04:40 pm 63
@52
Indulgences are a whole ‘nother creature….and greatly misunderstood.
An indulgence is remission for the punishment for a sin that has already been forgiven through sacramental confession.
The way I explain it to my students is this…
Say you are 10 years old and your mother told you not to play baseball in the yard. She is afraid you will break someone’s window. You don’t listen and-sure enough- you break a neighbor’s window( disobedience and property damage- 2 sins). Not just ANY window. A one-of-a-kind, stained glass window his son made for him.
You do the right thing and admit fault and apologize to your neighbor( confession). Now- as a 10 year old, you have no way of paying to replace a regular window, let alone one so special, and your neighbor knows this. He graciously accepts your apology( sacramental absolution). So, as a way for you to “pay” for your transgression, he works a deal with you: he’ll put together a list of tasks for you to do around his house and yard. When you have completed the list, all is even.( the indulgence)
This is how indulgences work. Absolutely nothing we do can ever pay the price for our sins against God ( and ALL sin is against God). Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that. But justice demands some sort of restitution on our part. So- after we admit our fault, we are given the opportunity to perform an indulgence, which is a series of tasks ( generally, attending Mass, making a good confession, praying for particular needs and visiting a shrine or holy place and- the corker- being determined never to sin again). All are easily do-able, except for the not-sinning-again part. The good news is, even if we cannot be detached from sinning, we still get a partial indulgence. The indulgence is like time off for good behavior, and yes- it may be applied to the dead ( even someone we don’t know), an act that is considered quite virtuous. It’s like handing a stranger a winning lottery ticket and walking away.
Now- before anyone gets on my case and tells me purgatory is not in the Bible…neither is the Trinity, though both ideas are fully supported. St. Paul tells us to pray for the dead. If they are in heaven, they don’t need our prayers, if they are in hell, our prayers do them no good. There must be a place for those who are undergoing the refiner’s fire, losing the last impurities that keep them from entering Heaven. That is purgatory.
Anything else anyone would like clarified about Catholicism?
Less Reality, More Fantasy, No Baby Blues Sep 5th 2010 at 05:29 pm 64
There is no afterlife in true traditional Judaism: There are, only, two parts of the Torah that might be considered to imply any existence after death. One is when David uses a witch to contact the spirit of Abraham, who asks why his rest was disturbed. This implies that death is permanent oblivion, not some transition. Elijah is the other example: He arises from the dead after three days of crucifixion in the desert, and is taken to Heaven by flaming chariots. (Note that Heaven is defined as the land of God, not anywhere humans go.)
Afterlife mythology developed from Jewish mysticism, an offshoot of the religion that most religious sources consider apocryphal. Sheol is a vaguely-defined place in the Kabbalah where souls go to eternal rest, which implies the same thing as the first story.
Most of the ancient Rabbis did not believe in the afterlife. Ben-Eliazar said that Jews should perform Mitzvahs in order to help others, not in the hope of an imaginary reward.
Less Reality, More Fantasy, No Baby Blues Sep 5th 2010 at 05:37 pm 65
Any Christians who are hoping for an afterlife should be aware that their religion derives from Judaism.
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 07:42 pm 66
Irene @53 “Anything else anyone would like clarified about Catholicism?”
My understanding of the Catholic afterlife is that as soon a person dies they are immediately given God’s judgement, which can be one of these options:
* Hell
* Some time in Purgatory before admittance into Heaven
* Straight to Heaven (rare)
* Limbo: My understanding is that Limbo doesn’t an option anymore, and may never have existed, yes? (What’s the difference between Limbo and Purgatory anyway?
Is that an adequate description?
The second part of my question is this:
If a person lives their life without ever hearing about Catholicism, or even Jesus Christ, and yet that person lives as “righteously” as they are capable of understanding that to be with respect to that person’s culture and traditions, when such a person dies, might God decide to issue any of those judgement options, or are some of them off the table because they had no mortal exposure to Jesus’ Gospel?
James Pollock Sep 5th 2010 at 08:18 pm 67
I offer the following as a thought experiment only. Suppose that the revelations to the modern prophets of the LDS church were not made by God, but by Satan, in an effort to mislead the otherwise faithful into Hell? Suppose Satan is now able to claim anyone who has followed those revelations in their mortal lives, AND is now able to claim those baptized by proxy, also. How many righteous souls have been condemned to an eternal torment in a lake of burning sulfur by well-meaning, but misguided, LDS churchmembers?
Winter Wallaby Sep 5th 2010 at 08:34 pm 68
James, I’m not sure I understand the point of your thought experiment. Is it supposed to be a thought experiment about an actual, plausible, possibility? If it’s just a wild, made-up scenario, then why not try out the thought experiment that every time you eat a ham sandwich, God gives someone cancer? And if it’s supposed to be at least somewhat plausible, then what conception do you have of God in which he allows the actions of well-meaning, but misguided, LDS churchmembers to send already-dead heaven-bound Christians to hell?
James Pollock Sep 5th 2010 at 09:17 pm 69
Of course, it IS a real possibility… the workings of the divine are beyond my ken. I base the possibility that God might be the sort of divine being who would allow the actions of well-meaning, but misguided persons to land innocents in Hell on the testimony in the Old Testament… He decides He wants the Israelites to leave Egypt, but rather than simply having the Pharoah wake up one day and think “I should let the Israelites go”, He commands Moses to lead the Israelites out. Moses goes to Pharaoh and asks for the Israelites’ freedom, but God hardens Pharaoh’s heart, and brings down the plagues on the innocent people of Egypt.
Now, the thought experiment is NOT “what if some guy slanders the LDS church on an internet website”… I neither expect the Mormons to change their beliefs based on my question nor do I expect non-Mormons to change their opinions of Mormons and their Church. I also suspect that they encounter slanders far more foul, and more importantly, heartfelt, in other places. Instead, I’m challenging some of the earlier postings in this thread which found this practice to be benign, as the persons selected for Mormon baptism by proxy have very likely already achieved their destined afterlife, and, at worst, the Mormon baptism by proxy gives them another option in the afterlife. The thought experiment is, what if that ISN’T the worst possible result of being baptized into their church by proxy following death (and, presumably, judgment as described by one or more religious traditions). What if being baptized (by proxy) into the LDS church disqualifies you from a good afterlife in your own religion. According to the Mormons, that isn’t the case nor is it their intention… but God may have a (substantially) different opinion.
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 10:02 pm 70
@James #65
Fundamentally, if a person is practicing love towards others by treating them as they themselves desire to be treated, that person is practicing love of God. I should hope that God will judge each person fairly and with mercy and justice. (I have no idea how this works for sado-masochists). In the end this could be the only measure God uses, and all other religious accessories are irrelevant. Even if there is no God, that “golden” rule of thumb still tends to yield the best results in the long run.
Matthew 7:20 “Thus by their fruits you will know them.”
(from Book of Mormon) Alma 41:10 “Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness”
Using those two scripture references as a foundation, it would seem that if a person’s beliefs/actions result in beneficial outcomes for others and themselves, those beliefs/actions are probably of God. If a person’s beliefs/actions result in negative outcomes for others and themselves, those beliefs/actions are probably not of God.
The results of my LDS-saturated beliefs/actions have resulted in mostly positive outcomes so I’m going to stick with it.
There’s lots and lots of scriptures that give information about how to recognize whether a revelation is from God or not. Some of those instructions are oddly specific (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/129/4,7-8#4) and some are somewhat vague (Eph. 1:17). It’s important to practice asking for and receiving personal revelation so that one can be familiar with the various mechanisms by which correct revelations can be manifested and avoid being deceived by incorrect revelations.
I’m not aware of any scriptures which indicate that Satan can capture a soul through any form of baptism. Since a baptism is almost always done as a demonstration of faith in God, no matter which tradition/style of baptism is performed, how would Satan benefit from that?
There do appear to be scriptures which indicate damnation for various people who performed sacred ordinances the wrong way, however those appear to be instances where the person performing the ordinance knew full well what they were up to and were deliberately committing and act of rebellion against God.
I do sincerely hope that I’m not being led astray by LDS teachings. If I’m wrong in that hope and I’m complicit in the damnation of many souls that’s gonna suck. There is the theological discussion stemming from Paul’s writings about sinning in ignorance to the effect that if a person is unknowingly committing sins, they can still receive mercy and forgiveness. That doesn’t excuse the sinful acts, but it does potentially provide a way to be free of them.
There is also Article of Faith 2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/2#2) which holds that each person is accountable for their own actions and not punished for others’ errors. So if my proxy baptism work is ultimately in error, that’s my problem, and won’t affect anybody else’s salvation.
And as Winter Wallaby seems to be suggesting, your thought experiment could be applied to any action/doctrine in any religious tradition.
El Cucui Sep 5th 2010 at 10:23 pm 71
@James #67
There’s a problem in that OT accounting of the Moses/Pharaoh story in that if God forced a mind change in Pharaoh to let the Israelites go that’d be violating Pharaoh’s free will, and God’s not supposed to do that. However the Bible does say that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, which is just another way to violate Pharaoh’s free will. One resolution for that predicament is to play the “incorrect translation” card and claim that the original account said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. It’s a nifty little loophole that conveniently skirts around scriptural contradictions… but it could just be an easy way out.
I’m not at all offended by your thought experiment. Truth be told, from a very young age my parents taught me to use that kind of “what if I’m wrong” thought experiment, and variations on it, and I have utilized that exercise extensively in my religious studies, along with the tools of prayer and fasting, to request spiritual guidance to help me know whether I should pursue this or that teaching/doctrine. It has served me well.
A more thorough response to your thought experiment is awaiting moderation because I had a hyperlink or two in it.
Winter Wallaby Sep 5th 2010 at 10:57 pm 72
But in that sense, everything is a “possibility.” What about my thought experiment, where every time you eat a ham sandwich, God gives someone cancer? We know from the Hebrew Bible that God gets angry when people violate his laws, and that his punishment often comes down on entire nations, rather than just the offending individuals. Perhaps the nationwide cancer increases in proportion to violation of the rules of kashrut.
Now, if in your posts you’re describing actual theological beliefs that you hold, then my comparison is probably kind of insulting. But I’m assuming that you’re just describing a hypothetical set of beliefs about God and the afterlife that you don’t actually hold, in which case my point is that you can show that anything might be bad under certain theological beliefs. It seems to me that if you want to argue that a practice might not be benign, you should argue that it’s harmful under beliefs that you actually hold, not random hypotheticals that don’t have basis in your theology.
I have too little data about the afterlife to assess your claim that most dead people have very likely already acheived their destined afterlife. However, I’m not sure why “[giving] them another option in the afterlife” should be classified as a “worst” scenario, unless you have a reason to think that those new options would be worse then their previously planned destinations.
El Cucui, it’s the second hyperlink that triggers moderation, so in the future, you can always break it up into two posts if you want to avoid the delay. (BTW, I find the “incorrect translation” card for the Pharaoh a little problematic, given that Paul also talks about the hardening of the heart in Romans.)
James Pollock Sep 5th 2010 at 11:50 pm 73
I did not claim that most dead people have already achieved their destined afterlife; rather, I abstracted that consensus from earlier postings. If dead people have already been judged, then baptism by proxy does nothing at all; the only way it can have any effect is if, as intended (based on my understanding of post #47) it provides those who have been judged an invitation to join the Mormons’ afterlife instead of their own.
But, what if A) in the afterlife, this is not an invitation, but a summons, and B) for some unknown reason, God holds Mormons in lower regard than some other group or groups. (and, again, it IS NOT my contention that this is so… although it IS my contention that it is possible, and has the same evidence from my perspective as any of a large number of suggested afterlife possibilities.)
Would your opinion of the practice be the same if you assume that they might actually be pulling people out of heaven as it is if you assume (as apparently, LDS custom and practice claim) that you are helping people get into heaven (or a better neighborhood in heaven)?
If it matters, my general religious belief is that I’ll worry about my relationship with God, and you worry about yours, and when Judgment time comes, we’ll see who’s right. Obviously, I am respectful of other peoples’ religious belief but less so the more they evangelize their path to God as the ONLY path to God. As a law student, I am constantly looking for loopholes. Your mileage may vary.
James Pollock Sep 5th 2010 at 11:57 pm 74
El Cucui, you said “God’s not supposed to do that.” That’s a pretty strong statement, taken in isolation.
El Cucui Sep 6th 2010 at 12:03 am 75
@ Winter Wallaby #70 “I find the “incorrect translation” card for the Pharaoh a little problematic, given that Paul also talks about the hardening of the heart in Romans.”
I think I’m remembering that accounting by Paul about the Romans, but I’m not remembering the exact reference. However I think that one got the “incorrect translation” card too, but I’m not sure.
That “incorrect translation” card is terribly convenient, and understandably suspicious. Other LDS scripture is rather insistent about the free will thing so I lean in that direction. Presented with such conundrums, I like the idea of God honoring free will better than the idea of scriptures being indisputably infallible. But the “incorrect translation” card still comes off as too easy.
Thanks for the tip about the hyperlinks by the way.
James Pollock Sep 6th 2010 at 12:44 am 76
Translation error is certainly possible. Sometimes, even wildly improbable mistranslations can become accepted. For an example, ask any American what kind of slipper Cinderella wears to the Prince’s ball. They’ll tell you “glass”, despite the fact that pretty much nobody considers glass to be an appropriate material for footwear. But if you go to the French, you find two words that sound similar… “verre” and “vair”, one of which means “glass” and one of which means “fur”. Fur slippers are so much more reasonable… but the “glass slippers” are so well established that people would complain if you tried to convince them Cinderella’s slippers were actually made of fur.
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay on the subject of mistranslation, in which he contended that the intended effect of the parable of the good Samaritan is diminished or lost because of a LACK of a translation… modern folk are only familiar with one Samaritan, and therefore assume that ALL Samaritans were good. This strips a lot of the meaning of the parable, because of course the good Samaritan helped the man beset by robbers, that’s what Samaritans do. The Jews of Jesus’ time HATED the Samaritans intensely. To have a Samaritan be the hero of this story, and after the Levite passed by on the other side of the road, was Jesus’ call for religious and social tolerance. (He also did some analysis of the story of Ruth.)
Kilby Sep 6th 2010 at 02:39 am 77
I haven’t commented on the subject of this thread because I find the concept so unbelievably arrogant and obscene that I would not be able to write for very long before igniting into flame war mode. On the other hand, here is something that I can comment on:
@ James Pollock (73) - The “glass” slippers are based on the French version of the tale (as recorded by Perrault). The slippers are golden in the version recorded by the Brothers Grimm.
Igelino Sep 6th 2010 at 04:34 am 78
Haha Kilby, that’s right. And not only were the slippers gold in Grimm, but one sister cut off her toe with a knife to fit into the slipper and the other sister cut off part of her heel. There was blood. Not sure that would be necessary with a fur slipper, but fur would have been pretty ugly before Cinderella got to try it on.
Very nice religion discussion, by the way! People with a clue, pointing out differences - my favorite.
El Cucui Sep 6th 2010 at 07:11 am 79
@ James #72
It’s one of those things like this: God is omnipotent, so He can do anything… except do something un-Godly…’cause then He wouldn’t be God… which is impossible ’cause He’s God… but that can’t be impossible ’cause nothing’s impossible for God…except for being un-Godly… etc., etc., etc.
I can’t remember how much of the following is exclusive to LDS doctrine and how much is shared with other belief systems:
All of our spirits have been around for a looooong time… before this planet was organized anyway. So one day we were all hanging out with God who says that He wants to send each of us down to the Earth so we can have a wider range of experiences… physical experiences, not just our spiritual existences, and learn how to choose for ourselves. That physical life is going to be tough and we won’t remember anything about the pre-physical life. We all just have to make the most of the physical life each of us is going to get. It’s going to be so tough, in fact, that every one of us will make mistakes. And because of those mistakes we won’t be worthy to return to live with Heavenly Father after we die. So He needs somebody who will be willing and able to make an infinite sacrifice to atone for all those mistakes and make up the difference so we can become worthy to return to God’s presence and partake in the complete fullness of His glory, should we choose to accept that atoning sacrifice. Jesus volunteers for that roll. But this other guy, Lucifer, says he has a different idea: he’ll make sure that everybody does the right thing, that way nobody makes any mistakes because nobody will get the opportunity to make any. That way everybody stays worthy for God’s presence and he, Lucifer, saves the day and gets all the glory. God turns down that idea and Lucifer gets all mad about it and there’s a big “war” about it and Lucifer convinces 1/3 of the host of heaven to not get physically born in the first place.
So if God fought a big giant “war” in order to preserve our right to experience free will and lost 1/3 of His spirit children in the process, it seems unlikely that God would turn around and violate that free will on a whim.
Tim Sep 6th 2010 at 07:36 am 80
@El Cucui #76,
That’s almost all exclusively LDS. Almost none of that is held by any other group that I can name.
For the record (and “for getting more discussion going”), the Bible doesn’t even use “Lucifer” as a name for the devil. It’s a reference to the king of Babylon. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215)
Igelino Sep 6th 2010 at 10:04 am 81
At least one part isn’t just LDS. The idea of free will and the philosophical question of whether any of us have a valid reason to prevent anyone else from exercising free will was a topic in one of my theology classes.
Assuming we were created with free will, and assuming we have a set of laws directly from God, removing anyone’s free will can be seen to be directly against God’s will (apart what is explicitly provided for in that set of laws).
Winter Wallaby Sep 6th 2010 at 10:36 am 82
No, nor would my opinion of eating ham sandwiches be the same if I assume that eating ham sandwiches causes other people in the same nation to get cancer. Again, lots of stories about the afterlife are possible, just as lots of supernatural effects of eating ham sandiwches are possible. But unless you have reasons to prefer a particular story, it strikes me as rather arbitrary to make up some story that you don’t actually believe in to argue that a practice might be dangerous. Why do you bring up a story that you don’t believe in about Mormons and the afterlife, rather than a story about ham sandwiches and cancer?
Re: Good Samaritan - this clip puts the Good Samaritan story in its proper context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs (warning: somewhat irreverent, but not actually offensive, I think).
El Cucui, the section of Romans that I was referring to was Romans 9:11-18, frequently taken a statement about predestination. The reference to the Pharaoh at 9:17.
Winter Wallaby Sep 6th 2010 at 10:42 am 83
BTW, El Cucui, while Tim is correct that the idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel doesn’t appear in the Bible (at least, not explicitly, your mileage may vary depending on how you interpret certain passages), the idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel is pretty common belief among Christians. However, I’ve never heard your particular explanation at #76 as to why he rebelled before.
The stuff about Jesus being an atoning sacrifice is also common to other Christians, of course.
CIDU Bill Sep 6th 2010 at 10:54 am 84
I always thought this was why Lucifer was thrown out of heaven.
James Pollock Sep 6th 2010 at 04:03 pm 85
You have an odd fixation on ham sandwiches.
El Cucui Sep 6th 2010 at 05:35 pm 86
@Winter Wallaby #80
The study help footnote I have on Romans 9:18 indicates that the word that was translated from Greek to English to read “hardens/hardeneth” could also have been translated to mean “leaves to stubbornness”, so the passage could be read this way: “and he leaves to stubbornness whom he wants to”, which potentially preserves the free will thing. But which version was the original author’s intent?
As for the various places in Exodus where is says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, for each of those there’s an alternative translation that says “And Pharaoh hardened his heart” instead of “And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh”. Incidentally 1 Samuel 6:6 seems to support the “Pharaoh hardened his own heart” version. But, again, which version was the original author’s intent?
An important detail for the pre-physical-existence “War in Heaven” synopsis: God turns down Lucifer’s plan for at least 2 reasons:
1) Lucifer’s plan can’t accomplish God’s desire that His children learn and grow and gain more knowledge and experience and intelligence. Part of that intelligence-growth process, apparently, requires this physical life, with all it’s complications and joys and sadnesses, etc. Lucifer’s plan would have held everybody in a kind of stasis, without growth/progress. Pleasant, maybe, but not going anywhere.
2) Lucifer’s plan reserves all the glory for himself, instead of God’s original intention to share that glory with everybody.
James Pollock Sep 6th 2010 at 07:47 pm 87
Even if Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart, God brought down the plagues upon all of Egypt, and not just upon Pharoah.
Winter Wallaby Sep 6th 2010 at 09:19 pm 88
El Cucui, a translation of “the Pharaoh hardened his own heart” doesn’t seem reasonably consistent with the context of those sections to me. I can go into more detail if you want, but really, my comment about Romans was just a throwaway side comment - I’m not looking to convince you or anyone else about “correct” Biblical interpretations.
Irene Sep 7th 2010 at 03:29 pm 89
@66
Limbo was never an ‘authentic’ teaching of the Catholic Church; it was more of an explanation someone came up with along the way to describe the fate of the unbaptized who had no personal sin, only original sin. The thought was, there must be some place that isn’t quite heaven and definitely isn’t hell.
The Church coming out and saying there never was a limbo goes along with your second qurestion.
The Church teaches that any person who- through no fault of his own- has never had the opportunity to know and learn about Jesus Christ, yet lives a righteous life has every opporutnity to enter heaven because of God’s justice and mercy. We believe God in his infinite justice and mercy would not keep someone from entering heaven who never had the opportunity to accept it.
This is different than those who freely choose to reject Jesus Christ when given the opportunity to know, love and serve him.
Hope that helps!
bAT L. Sep 7th 2010 at 09:26 pm 90
I wonder what they think happens in this case. Even worst case scenario. Does the person suddenly get taken out of the Jewish afterlife and put into the Christian afterlife? Would that really be so bad? I’d take almost any method of eternal life I can get, if any exist out there. I wonder if they believe that the Jewish afterlife is the true one, so getting converted later gets you kicked out of Jewish heaven? I find it hard to believe that a loving God would be that much of a jerk, really.
On the other hand, I do respect people’s wishes and the dead, so I could see being mad at not being considerate of people’s wishes on what happens to them once they’re gone. Back on that first hand, though, I doubt they’re converting them out of maliciousness at all.
Winter Wallaby Sep 7th 2010 at 10:15 pm 91
Irene, I believe your comment at #89 is inaccurate. I’m not eager to get into an extended argument about Catholic doctrine, so I’ll just give El Cucui the core dump of the information I have, and he/she can use it for web searches if he/she wants to determine whose description of the history of Limbo is more accurate.
(1) The Catholic Church has not “[come] out and said there was never a limbo.” It stated that there may or may not be a Limbo. From the most recent Vatican document on the matter, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”:
(2) It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that “We believe God in his infinite justice and mercy would not keep someone from entering heaven who never had the opportunity to accept it.” From paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Obviously, there would be little need for a “hope,” self-described as speculative, that unbaptized children will go to heaven, if the Church in fact taught that they would go to heaven.
(3) While I do agree that Limbo has been controversial in Catholic teaching, and has never been universally accepted, the controversy has not been the one implied by your comment. Modern laity are resistant to the idea of Limbo because it seems terrible that unbaptized infants fail to acheive heaven. However, historically, Catholic opposition to Limbo came not from those who believed the infants heaven-bound, but from those who believed them hell-bound. For example, from the Council of Florence in 1442:
Or, earlier, from the canons of the Council of Carthage in 418:
While the theory of Limbo has certainly had its adherents, I’m not aware of any similarly authoratative Conciliar canons in support of the pro-Limbo side.
I realize it looks like my intent is Catholic-bashing, so let me say that I would bet that most Catholics believe that unbaptized infants go to heaven, and that this is a nice belief. However, this belief is not modern Catholic dogma (although it is permissible under modern teachings), and is in fact heretical under pre-20th century Catholic dogma.
Joshua Sep 9th 2010 at 01:13 am 92
#76 James Pollock: Even if “glass slipper” was a mistranslation in the Cinderella story, I think it works a lot better for the plot. After all, if the slipper was made out of fur, it would have been relatively easy for another woman to fit her foot into it, which would contradict the idea of the prince searching for the one woman whose foot matched the slipper.
And, yes, glass slippers sound very uncomfortable, especially compared to fur slippers. But then, it’s certainly not unheard of for some women to wear uncomfortable shoes.
Dave in Boston Sep 9th 2010 at 05:10 am 93
The ham sandwich thing isn’t a good comparison because it isn’t directed at a specific person. Consider instead a ritual for eating a ham sandwich on behalf of some other person. To the believer in Hamway a ham sandwich is a blessing and providing one to someone who may have lacked the opportunity to sample one before they died, or was buried without suitable grave goods and is thus starving in the afterlife, or whatever, is obviously a mitzvah. But a lot of people believe otherwise, so directing such a ritual at them would be offensive.
That is, you have to consider the belief system of the person to be affected as well as the person(s) acting. This is why people find this practice problematic.
(I have no idea to what extent any mainstream belief system may have or might have had a problem with proxy baptism; I’m just trying to explain what I think James was trying to get at in #67.)
James Pollock Sep 9th 2010 at 08:18 pm 94
I finally figured out myself why this bugged me. It’s too much like spam (and not the delicious canned meat product from Hormel, either). There you are, decades or even centuries into the afterlife you have chosen/ that you deserve, and poof, there’s a message in your afterlife inbox from the Mormons, inviting you to try something different.
The missionaries come through my neighborhood every summer, asking every year if I haven’t changed my mind about changing my religious views. They’re respectful and very polite, even as I inform them that I am, in fact, happy with my choice of a non-LDS religious option. But now I find that even after I’ve gone to the afterlife, they’re (potentially) going to keep trying to convert me?
Winter Wallaby Sep 10th 2010 at 12:16 am 95
James, I guess I’m confident enough that I’m not going to get the spam that I don’t care. I’m perfectly happy if company X tries to send me 10,000 spam messages that never get into my inbox.
James Pollock Sep 10th 2010 at 01:52 pm 96
I also like to think that there will be no spammers in heaven… but I’m not aware of any Scripture that is definitive either way.
Lola Sep 10th 2010 at 05:53 pm 97
I would guess, if it existed, that the spammers and all the spam would be in hell. Now that would be karma.
El Cucui Sep 12th 2010 at 11:41 pm 98
Irene @89
Thank you very much for that. In truth the explanation for those who haven’t heard of Christ is remarkably similar to LDS teachings… but I suppose, as always, the devil’s in the details.
In retrospect I think I should have asked you what’s your most favorite and least favorite aspect of Catholicism.
James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 01:06 am 99
Wouldn’t most everybody pick the child abuse as the worst thing?
Igelino Sep 14th 2010 at 09:22 am 100
Depends, James, on whether you consider Child Abuse to be part of Catholicism. If Torture and Murder were also part of Catholicism, I would consider them as worser.
El Cucui Oct 4th 2010 at 11:51 pm 101
El Cucui #40: … though I recently read an article … in an Irish newspaper that suggests that the Catholic Church still has a sacrament of posthumous baptism …
Here’s the article:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/eamonn-mccann-what-if-mormons-are-right-and-catholics-and-protestants-wrong-13955402.html
… and it looks like I remembered it wrong.
Better late than never?…. of course that might be the motto for the whole baptism for the dead thing too.
Detcord Oct 5th 2010 at 04:36 am 102
I haven’t participated in this thread because I though Cidu Bill’s opening remarks said it all. However, I acknowledge that the number of subsequent interesting comments in this thread suggest otherwise. As far as I’m concerned, if the LDS crowd want to “save my soul” in absentia, then I say, “knock yourselves out”, and “no skin off my nose”. If it turns out they’re wrong, no big deal. If they’re right, then “Wa-HEY and thanks for all the fish
)
I did like Irene’s description of Purgatory and Limbo (major points of contention when I attended a convent school). As a likely location for either (or both) I humbly suggest, Earth as the most likely location, given that the main driver for life on this planet seems to be pain. (Think about it.)