DiscussMormonism.com

The thread title says it all:

http://mormonvoices.org/859/proxy-baptisms

My finger is in a splint, so I can't type enough to give my opinion, so I'll ask yours: What do you think of their justifications for baptisms for the dead?

Sorry to hear about your finger, tomodachi.

I think on the whole the answer is all right, though I might have worded some things differently.

I take some issue with the idea that anybody who criticizes this unique practice is being "unfair to Mormons." Sounds kind of defensive to me.

Most of all, this phrase caught my attention:

Journalists and commentators are invited to consider the following:

This seems like the kind of language somebody would use only if they believed they are representing the Church in some sort of official capacity.

Are they expecting journalists and commentators are actually going to see this little article?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This is a depressing statement.

From the Mormon point of view, withholding baptism would be debilitating to the deceased person.

I can't put a (non-splintered) finger on why it is depressing. Maybe because it is presumptuous and bleak. It says A LOT about the afterlife when we don't know anything at all about the afterlife. It also says a lot about God and the people that are up there meeting with God at this very moment.

Maybe I've been away from the fold too long.

zeezrom wrote:This is a depressing statement.

From the Mormon point of view, withholding baptism would be debilitating to the deceased person.

I can't put a (non-splintered) finger on why it is depressing. Maybe because it is presumptuous and bleak. It says A LOT about the afterlife when we don't know anything at all about the afterlife. It also says a lot about God and the people that are up there meeting with God at this very moment.

Maybe I've been away from the fold too long.

It's also sad how legalistic God is. Why would the supreme being of the universe be so concerned about paperwork?

I would agree with it for the most part. From an LDS point of view, all members are doing is performing an ordinance that will eventually be performed anyhow, and it doesn't affect the deceased person's ability to accept or reject the ordinance.

I can understand why people are offended (holocaust Jews, etc.,) but in my opinion, which admittedly counts for very little, being baptized for someone who is an atheist or of a different faith isn't really much different than praying for an atheist or someone of a different faith. I don't think that many atheists would be offended if someone prayed for them, or said "god bless you." If they choose to reject that symbolic gesture, that that is their choice.

As an atheist myself, I don't care who performs what religious ceremony on my behalf when I die, as I don't recognize that it will have any effect on me, positive or negative.

Why is it offensive to baptize holocaust Jews and not offensive to baptize say, victims of Pol Pot's regime? Why so much talk about one group and not all the others.

And for that matter, why not offensive to any other group of people? I hear this a lot about the holocaust victims and "how could they!" kind of stuff. What is the big deal if the others are not a big deal?

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

zeezrom wrote:Why is it more offensive to baptize holocaust Jews ... I'm sure I'm missing something here.

yes you are missing something, the answer can be found in the same thing that drives many loudmouthed LDS internet poster to cry anti-mormon or tool of satan, towards anyone who does not promote the LDS Church as being the best thing since sliced bread.

zeezrom wrote:Why is it offensive to baptize holocaust Jews and not offensive to baptize say, victims of Pol Pot's regime? Why so much talk about one group and not all the others.

And for that matter, why not offensive to any other group of people? I hear this a lot about the holocaust victims and "how could they!" kind of stuff. What is the big deal if the others are not a big deal?

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

It's my understanding that family members of holocaust victims get upset, because the Jews were victimized during the holocaust partly because of their religious heritage. From my limited understanding of southeast asian history, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge committed genocide, but the victims of their purges were not singled out because of their religious heritage.

aranyborju wrote:It's my understanding that family members of holocaust victims get upset, because the Jews were victimized during the holocaust partly because of their religious heritage. From my limited understanding of southeast asian history, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge committed genocide, but the victims of their purges were not singled out because of their religious heritage.

Thank you, aranyborju.

I'm feeling really slow today. What is my problem? The answer you gave me is not working. It is not satisfying for some reason. How does the reason for being killed make it more or less offensive?

zeezrom wrote:Why is it offensive to baptize holocaust Jews and not offensive to baptize say, victims of Pol Pot's regime? Why so much talk about one group and not all the others.

And for that matter, why not offensive to any other group of people? I hear this a lot about the holocaust victims and "how could they!" kind of stuff. What is the big deal if the others are not a big deal?

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

I'm of two minds on this.

Since I'm a non-believer I see the idea of baptizing long dead non-Mormons into the Church as pointless as baptizing chickens. What possible difference could it make?

The other side is that it's understandable that religious Jews would take offense at the idea that "Christians" would attempt to convert holocaust victims. After all, it was a group of "Christians" that perpetrated the holocaust in the first place because they hated Jews.

I imagine that Jews do not think that Mormons can pull off that sort of religious magic, anyway. I'm guessing that they are just offended by the attempt.

I think most people in Cambodia are Buddhists. They don't worry too much about what other people believe.