Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[zaffiroborant]

Stop right there. ** I can guarantee you that you have NEVER seen a Mormon argue 'dead people have no rights** so there," or anything even close to it. In fact, that’s YOUR argument–that they have only the rights you allow them to have. WE believe that they have the right to make a choice for themselves; that the choice to accept this work is completely and entirely THEIRS. Not ours—and NOT YOURS.

Yes I have.

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means. Now suppose you are a Catholic (and a Mormon hater!), and you dropped dead tomorrow; and two years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and decided to do temple work on your behalf; what right do you, as a dead person, have to stop it? The answer is that you have none. What right do other Catholics have to stop it? None! What right has the Catholic Church? None! What right do they have even to be “offended” by it? Answer: None! It has nothing to do with them, and it is none of their business. If my dad was a Catholic, and I wanted to do temple work for him as Mormon, who cares that other Catholics don’t like it? I wouldn’t!

If you really wanted to go to the extreme, I suppose you could leave a will behind stating that after your death you don’t want to be baptized by proxy in a Mormon Temple. But even then, it is doubtful that will can be legally enforced. Who is going to enforce it? Those who inherit your estate will have to decide to enforce it; and if they (or one of them) became a Mormon, they can override it. There is no legal mechanism as far as I can tell that can prevent them from doing it. A dead person basically has not legal rights. All the rights belong to his or her descendants; and if they decided to have him baptized, there is nothing that anybody else can to about it. They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

P.S. I had by mistake posted this on another thread. I am now reposting it here.

 

[gearhead]

So…there’s no problem with offering them a choice, is there? That’s all you would be doing, after all; you can’t make their minds up for them.

But this rationale would apply to a stranger as well. Why not baptize non-relatives on this basis?

That rather depends upon whether one believes that baptism is a requirement for eternal salvation. We do.

Wait a minute: this doesn’t mesh up with what I know of Mormon theology from talking to other Mormons. You believe that virtually everyone, baptized or not, will get into some form of eternal heaven, don’t you?

As to the "proxy’ part of it…well…I’ve already told the story of my uncle who was married by proxy to his sweetheart in England so that he could get her on a boat and over to the USA. SHE stood in front of a clerk in England and had a wedding there–her brother stood in for, and signed for, my uncle the groom. That same day (give or take a few hours) my uncle stood in front of a justice of the peace and was married to her; a cousin ‘stood in for’ the bride.

Now, the bride did not actually marry her brother, though he said all the words as if he were the groom. The groom did not actually marry his cousin, though she stood in for the bride. Many thousand miles apart, the bride and groom married each other BECAUSE they both accepted the actions of their proxies on another continent. If either one says 'no, s/he didn’t speak for me," the marriage would have been null–as if it had never taken place, In reality, it never would have. Everything depended upon the agreement and acceptance of those for whom the proxies spoke.

I must have missed that before. I’ve never heard of “proxy marriage” before; I’m sure it’s nt legal where I live. In any case, I don’t think the practice should be legal.

Edit: thinking over the story, though, something in it doesn’t make sense to me: I can’t see how the presence of the “proxy bride” and “proxy groom” would have been necessary at all. Their signatures would have carried no legal weight whatsoever. Am I wrong?

It works EXACTLY the same way for us. The one for whom the work is done may not be the one getting wet, but if s/he accepts the actions of the one who DID, it is as if s/he had been the one dunked. If s/he says ‘this person did not speak for me,’ it is as if nothing had been done, because, in reality, nothing was. Everything depends upon the acceptance of the one for whom the work is done, and the choice is, completely, his or hers.

So… proxy baptism works just like something else I consider inappropriate. I still consider it inappropriate.

 

[gearhead]

Something else occurred to me: you’ve repeatedly presented proxy baptism as a choice on the part of the deceased; well, what if someone makes that choice while they’re alive?

If I were to make it clear that do not want proxy baptism after I die, will my wishes be honoured?

 

[twopekinguys]

Something else occurred to me: you’ve repeatedly presented proxy baptism as a choice on the part of the deceased; well, what if someone makes that choice while they’re alive?

If I were to make it clear that do not want proxy baptism after I die, will my wishes be honoured?

I’m going to start a website do_not_baptize_me_after_Im_dead.com

 

[gearhead]

I’m going to start a website do_not_baptize_me_after_Im_dead.com

You could cross-promote it with the Post-Rapture Post.

 

[Publisher]

What I’m reading is non-Mormons think proxy baptism is disrespectful as it seems to deny the departed persons religious beliefs…but Mormons are operating on the belief that THEIR belief in the afterlife is true and accurate AND that the departed loved IN FACT DOES have a choice in the afterlife.

Let’s suppose for an instant that the Mormon view of the afterlife is correct…I understand that non-Mormons believe it is not, so the issue is settled…HOWEVER MORMONS believe their view IS CORRECT…so operating on the presumption that Mormonism turns out to be true…and we won’t know this until we die…just as most of us who are not Cathoic will not know that Catholicism is correct until we die and then it may be too late unless we’re part of the invincibly ignorant…which I can live with as long as I’m not burning in hell…wouldn’t it seem resonable to want SOMEONE to perform a ritual that the deceased COULD ACCEPT IF THEY SO CHOSE in the afterlife to set them on the path of exhaltation, which is a tenet of the Mormon afterlife?

REMEMBER this little hypothetical scenario we’re discussing is on the assumption that the Mormon view is CORRECT which for most of us we’ll not know UNTIL WE HAVE PASSED and **then we’ll have truly wished someone would have performed this temple **ordinance on our behalf so we would have the benefit of it in the afterlife. We’re not operating on the assumption that the Catholic view is correct…we’re operating in the scenario that the Mormon view is right and everthing they’ve been preaching to us and telling us and their scriptures REALLY WERE inspired by God and TOLD THE TRUTH of the afterlife…are those of you who are against proxy baptisme telling us that none of you would want the opportunity in the afterlife to dwell with the Father because you were Catholic in mortal existence and now that you know Mormonism is true, you’re going to reject it out of hand because proxy baptism was “disrespectful”…even though NOW in the afterlife you COULD receive the benefit of this loving offer someone did on your behalf to give you the opportunity in the afterlife YOU REJECTED in mortal existence?

AND IF you held tenaciously to your Catholic belief in the afterlife…for what ever reason that would be…we’re talking hypothetical now…you would begrudge your loved one with you the opportunity of exhaultation since someone had been baptized on their behalf in mortal existence because “it is disrespectful”?

Let’s be honest here…I do not believe Mormon baptism for the dead in any way effects the afterlife of the deceased. When my nephew is baptized for my wife and child…and my mom and grandmother…he is doing it out of love…not out of disrespecting their religious beliefs in mortality…becasue he is operating on the assumption HE IS RIGHT and they were “invincibly ignorant” and NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be with him in Glory…is this not an act of love…even as miguided as we believe it to be…because were operating in this little hypothetical scenario that MORMONISM IS TRUE…I know some of you ‘die hard believers" will say “BUT IT’S NOT TRUE”…I understand that…we’re beyond that for this discussion…can any of us really say…"I dont’ want my deceased loved one to have the opportunity of accepting this baptism."

 

[dianaiad]

I voted no, it’s disrespectful. My concern is not the effectiveness of the proxy baptisms. They can have no effect since baptism is only effective during life. Once a person dies, there will is locked in, the choice has been made - it’s either heaven or hell, period.

My concern is the scandal. Whether a reasonable person will assume there is some affiliation with the LDS, is up for debate. If the records shown on the previous thread are accurate, maybe a reasonable person won’t. However, a reasonable person who sees baptism as the initiating sacrament into Christianity, seeing that a person has been baptized by proxy could assume there is an affiliation, there. Particularly someone who’s not familiar with the process.

My other concern is that a person’s legacy is important. The choices a person made during his/her life, are important. However, well meaning the LDS may be, the fact of the matter is this proxy baptism may not reflect the choices a person made in real life.

There is the disconnect, right there. You don’t think that the after life is ‘real,’ that the 'will is locked." As a result, you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that what we do really is only about those who have passed on, giving them a choice they are free to make.

The LDS may not agree with those choices, that’s their right.

It is not up to us to agree or disagree. We aren’t forcing anything upon anybody.

It’s my right, as a Catholic, to worry about my family members being in a religion that I see as untrue. I can pray for them, I can let them know I’m here if they have questions. What I can not do is offer them a choice they do not want.

Two points: First, put very bluntly, who gave you the right to decide what they want? THEY have the right to decide that, and according to our beliefs, they are the only ones who DO have that right. So we offer them the chance to decide that.

Second, I don’t believe that you should be objecting to our giving the dead an honest choice in the matter, when you do something very much else. When you pray for your loved ones, you believe that your prayers have some effect upon their eternal lives, right? They shorten stays in purgatory? Do you ask those loved ones if they WANT your help? Do you believe that they have a right to refuse it? (Never mind that you assume that they would not…have you ever asked yourself if they COULD?) Yet you go ahead and pray for them anyway, don’t you? I’m sure you even pray for people who did NOT die Catholic, in the expectation that your prayers will aid them.

Whether they asked for it, or want it, or not. The difference between us is that in your arrogance, you assume that of course, they want it and of course, it works. At least with us there is no *of course *about the matter.

Unless they come to me and ask for my help, all I can do is try to be the best example I can and pray.

Which, as I have already mentioned, you assume has an effect whether the recipient of the prayer wants it or not.

The proxy baptism, in my opinion does the opposite of this. It tries to say, “I disagree with the choices you made in life so much, I’m going to offer you one more chance, whether you want it or not.”

Offering is not offensive. It allows them to express their choices, and honors that.

Is this their right? Yes. As I mentioned above, according to Catholic belief, it’s meaningless. The choice is already made, they are already where they are going to be, or at least on their way.

I agree with the comments others have made. This is about a lack of understanding. The LDS on this site, without exception, seem to be demanding we see their side of things, while completely discounting our side.

Actually, I see it as the other way around. While a few of the posters here make an attempt to 'see our side," MOST of you are insisting that we not only SEE your side, but agree with it and efface ourselves in the face of your disapproval–even when that disapproval is based upon misinformation and a misunderstanding of what proxy baptism actually is–and you are attempting to put US on the defensive. You are succeeding, too–so much so that when someone (me) starts questioning the misinformation and assumptions y’all are making about what this work is actually about, y’all take it as impertinant, arrogant and insufferable. I SEE your side. I really do…but your ‘side’ is based (as your post here has clearly illustrated) on a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what our proxy work IS. Therefore, asking you to understand the truth about what WE believe regarding this is not being unreasonable.

I see the LDS side, I just completely disagree with it. I think it’s wrong.

Believe me, I understand completely when a Catholic (or anyone else) thinks that our proxy work for the dead is useless, or dumb, or silly, or any number of epithets describing it as useless and a complete waste of time (apart, of course, for the genealogical information everybody gets out of it). THAT attitude I can actually understand, and even empathize with. Other religions do many things that I think are incredibly silly.

…but if those things are an integral part of their faith, and they do no harm to me, then I have no right to call them ‘wrong…’ or even ‘incorrect.’ One really should live according to his faith.

I do not understand where anyone has the right to tell me that I can’t practice my religion, when doing so does not interfere with him practicing his.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I have.

You are quite right. Z did post this. I don’t think he said it in quite the same way you meant it when you were talking about it, but …he certainly said it.

The problem here is that it is not WE who are denying the dead their rights.

 

[dianaiad]

But this rationale would apply to a stranger as well. Why not baptize non-relatives on this basis?

Family first.

Wait a minute: this doesn’t mesh up with what I know of Mormon theology from talking to other Mormons. You believe that virtually everyone, baptized or not, will get into some form of eternal heaven, don’t you?

Pretty much, yes. Perhaps I should have said ‘exaltation.’

I must have missed that before. I’ve never heard of “proxy marriage” before; I’m sure it’s nt legal where I live. In any case, I don’t think the practice should be legal.

But it is, and there is nothing wrong with it. It happens to be legal almost everywhere. Do a google search to make certain about YOUR area, but I think you will be surprised at what you find.

Edit: thinking over the story, though, something in it doesn’t make sense to me: I can’t see how the presence of the “proxy bride” and “proxy groom” would have been necessary at all. Their signatures would have carried no legal weight whatsoever. Am I wrong?

Yep. you’re wrong. However, they carry only the legal weight the person for whom they are standing allows. Proxy weddings are performed differently in different areas; most have proxy stand ins. They are not simply proxies…they are witnesses to the intent of the ceremony.

So… proxy baptism works just like something else I consider inappropriate. I still consider it inappropriate.

You may consider it inappropriate, but it’s legal, and those who enter into it consider it very appropriate. For instance; suppose you are an American serviceman (or woman) and you have been suddenly deployed overseas. You and your fiance’ wanted to marry; perhaps she is pregnant, or perhaps you simply want him to begin recieving the benefits of being married to you. Perhaps you need him or her to have the legal rights to take care of your business while you are gone. Whatever the situation, you intended to marry, but were separated before you could be. In these cases, proxy weddings are done…and they are done more frequently even than I thought they were. If they are legal, and both parties agree to it, what right do we have to consider them ‘inappropriate?’ They are real, they are legal, and the parties involved agree.

 

[dzheremi]

Why are you framing this discussion in terms of “rights”, Dianaiad, when the poll frames it in terms of respect? I think this is ultimately why we’re talking past each other.

 

[dianaiad]

Something else occurred to me: you’ve repeatedly presented proxy baptism as a choice on the part of the deceased; well, what if someone makes that choice while they’re alive?

If I were to make it clear that do not want proxy baptism after I die, will my wishes be honoured?

I hope so, if you have made them clear to those who would be submitting your name.

However, even if you didn’t, and the work was done for you, all you have to do is say ‘no’ one last time. It’s not like you would be forced into it.

 

[gearhead]

It is not up to us to agree or disagree. We aren’t forcing anything upon anybody.

Yes, you are. You may not consider it to be of consequence, but you are.

Two points: First, put very bluntly, who gave you the right to decide what they want? THEY have the right to decide that, and according to our beliefs, they are the only ones who DO have that right. So we offer them the chance to decide that.

Have you had a chance to look at the questions I asked a few posts back?

Unlike many of the people who lived in ages past, I know about the practice of proxy baptism and I reject it. I also know about the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon and I have rejected them both. I have made a conscious decision not to be baptized into the Mormon faith while living and I don’t want you, any of my relatives, or anyone in the LDS Church (or any other church, for that matter) to baptize me by proxy after I’m dead.

I’ve made my choice. Will the Church honour it?

Edit: I see you posted a reply to my original question while I was typing this post. Never mind.

Second, I don’t believe that you should be objecting to our giving the dead an honest choice in the matter, when you do something very much else. When you pray for your loved ones, you believe that your prayers have some effect upon their eternal lives, right? They shorten stays in purgatory? Do you ask those loved ones if they WANT your help? Do you believe that they have a right to refuse it? (Never mind that you assume that they would not…have you ever asked yourself if they COULD?) Yet you go ahead and pray for them anyway, don’t you? I’m sure you even pray for people who did NOT die Catholic, in the expectation that your prayers will aid them.

Whether they asked for it, or want it, or not. The difference between us is that in your arrogance, you assume that of course, they want it and of course, it works. At least with us there is no *of course *about the matter.

Which, as I have already mentioned, you assume has an effect whether the recipient of the prayer wants it or not.

I agree with you here. I think there’s a real disconnect between the objections from Catholics here and their church’s own teachings and practices.

Offering is not offensive. It allows them to express their choices, and honors that.

No, it is offensive.

Imagine that the Church of Satan published a list of “invited members” that included nothing but shut-ins who were incapable of getting out and voicing their public rejection of their invitations. Wouldn’t you consider that to be offensive?

Actually, I see it as the other way around. While a few of the posters here make an attempt to 'see our side," MOST of you are insisting that we not only SEE your side, but agree with it and efface ourselves in the face of your disapproval–even when that disapproval is based upon misinformation and a misunderstanding of what proxy baptism actually is–and you are attempting to put US on the defensive.

If you’re including me in “most of you”, then I think you misunderstand my position.

I do find the practice of proxy baptism to be offensive and inappropriate, but I’m not about to try to force you to stop it. But the freedoms that grant you the right to do it also grant me the right to voice my opposition.

Believe me, I understand completely when a Catholic (or anyone else) thinks that our proxy work for the dead is useless, or dumb, or silly, or any number of epithets describing it as useless and a complete waste of time (apart, of course, for the genealogical information everybody gets out of it). THAT attitude I can actually understand, and even empathize with. Other religions do many things that I think are incredibly silly.

I entirely agree so far.

…but if those things are an integral part of their faith, and they do no harm to me, then I have no right to call them ‘wrong…’ or even ‘incorrect.’ One really should live according to his faith.

I do not understand where anyone has the right to tell me that I can’t practice my religion, when doing so does not interfere with him practicing his.

… But I disagree with this. The freedom for you to say “x is right” and the freedom for me to say “x is wrong” are the same freedom.

 

[gearhead]

I hope so, if you have made them clear to those who would be submitting your name.

How could I do this?

None of my relatives are Mormon now; I have no way of telling which might convert in future. And I have absolutely no reliable way to pass a message like that along to my children or grandchildren beyond a couple of generations at most.

Just going out as far as cousins, aunts and uncles, my father had more than 100 living relatives when he died. I’ve met maybe 8 of them; most of the rest are an ocean away in Ireland; it would be very difficult for me to track them all down. Are you telling me that if I really don’t want to be proxy baptized ever, I’ve got to do this? AND I’ve got to figure out some way to get ALL of them to pass along my message to their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.down through the ages?

And then I have to do this all over again for my Mom’s side of the family?

However, even if you didn’t, and the work was done for you, all you have to do is say ‘no’ one last time. It’s not like you would be forced into it.

But then I would’ve had a proxy baptism on my behalf, which is precisely the thing I said I didn’t want.

 

[gearhead]

Family first.

So, then, it’s not so much “don’t baptize non-relatives” as it is “baptize non-relatives later”?

Pretty much, yes. Perhaps I should have said ‘exaltation.’

Which changes things a bit, don’t you think?

But it is, and there is nothing wrong with it. It happens to be legal almost everywhere. Do a google search to make certain about YOUR area, but I think you will be surprised at what you find.

Here’s what it says for my area:

Can I get married over the Internet or the telephone? Can someone else stand in for me or act as a proxy?

No, both partners stand before the person solemnizing the marriage and the two witnesses. Immediately after the marriage ceremony, the spouses, the solemnizer and the witnesses must sign the marriage register.

Source

Yep. you’re wrong. However, they carry only the legal weight the person for whom they are standing allows. Proxy weddings are performed differently in different areas; most have proxy stand ins. They are not simply proxies…they are witnesses to the intent of the ceremony.

Virtually every legal marriage has witnesses; we call them witnesses, not the “proxy bride” or “proxy groom”.

You may consider it inappropriate, but it’s legal, and those who enter into it consider it very appropriate.

People who do things normally consider those things appropriate.

For instance; suppose you are an American serviceman (or woman) and you have been suddenly deployed overseas. You and your fiance’ wanted to marry; perhaps she is pregnant, or perhaps you simply want him to begin recieving the benefits of being married to you. Perhaps you need him or her to have the legal rights to take care of your business while you are gone. Whatever the situation, you intended to marry, but were separated before you could be. In these cases, proxy weddings are done…and they are done more frequently even than I thought they were. If they are legal, and both parties agree to it, what right do we have to consider them ‘inappropriate?’ They are real, they are legal, and the parties involved agree.

Looks like they’re legal in some jurisdictions, but they go against the long-standing common law tradition we have that agreement must be between the parties to an agreement, and that promises one person makes for another are not binding on that other person.

And personally, I don’t see the point of going through the rigamarole of having “proxy” members of the wedding party. If the groom’s not there, he’s not there. In the situation you describe, I think it would make more sense to allow the bride and groom to sign the marriage certificate at different times (thereby allowing marriage by mail, effectively) than having stand-ins pretending to be people they’re not.

 

[dianaiad]

Let’s be honest here…I do not believe Mormon baptism for the dead in any way effects the afterlife of the deceased. When my nephew is baptized for my wife and child…and my mom and grandmother…he is doing it out of love…not out of disrespecting their religious beliefs in mortality…becasue he is operating on the assumption HE IS RIGHT and they were “invincibly ignorant” and NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be with him in Glory…is this not an act of love…even as miguided as we believe it to be…because were operating in this little hypothetical scenario that MORMONISM IS TRUE…I know some of you ‘die hard believers" will say “BUT IT’S NOT TRUE”…I understand that…we’re beyond that for this discussion…can any of us really say…"I dont’ want my deceased loved one to have the opportunity of accepting this baptism."

Thank you, Publisher.

Truly, I DO understand the non-Mormon POV that Mormonism is not true. I understand that Catholics believe that Catholicism IS true, and thus LDS proxy work for them simply will not work and is irrelevent.

But you are correct; I DO believe that Mormonism is true, and that the proxy work we do for the dead is only effective if the person we do it for actually wants it done.

Nobody loses here, in other words. Either it’s ineffective…or they can choose freely. If they are irritated by this one last knock upon the door, well—it is only one last knock upon the door.

The vast majority of those for whom we do the work haven’t even heard of us; so for them it’s the first AND last knock upon the door.

…and yes, we do it out of love, because we want the best for our loved ones. However, ‘wanting the best for our loved ones,’ does not, WE believe, mean forcing them into something they might not want. It just means…making the offer.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-mormons?

Why not? As weird as it is, it’s part of their Faith and it doesn’t hurt anyone.

As a Christian, of course, I know that being baptized on behalf of someone else is simply a waste of time as it does not do anything for anyone. The only way to help the dead is through prayer for them.

Like the Bible says, at least those people who are doing baptisms for the dead have a believe in life after death/resurrection. This means *at least *they have one thing correct in their belief system as there truly is life after death/resurrection.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, you are. You may not consider it to be of consequence, but you are.

WHAT? What IS it that we are supposed to be forcing upon anybody?

Have you had a chance to look at the questions I asked a few posts back?

Unlike many of the people who lived in ages past, I know about the practice of proxy baptism and I reject it. I also know about the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon and I have rejected them both. I have made a conscious decision not to be baptized into the Mormon faith while living and I don’t want you, any of my relatives, or anyone in the LDS Church (or any other church, for that matter) to baptize me by proxy after I’m dead.

I’ve made my choice. Will the Church honour it?

Edit: I see you posted a reply to my original question while I was typing this post. Never mind.

I agree with you here. I think there’s a real disconnect between the objections from Catholics here and their church’s own teachings and practices.

No, it is offensive.

Imagine that the Church of Satan published a list of “invited members” that included nothing but shut-ins who were incapable of getting out and voicing their public rejection of their invitations. Wouldn’t you consider that to be offensive?

Very different scenario. Those shut-ins may not be able to get out, but someone can certainly get IN. That said, I note that you said ‘invited members.’ It is not an insult to be invited anywhere. I’ve been invited to all sorts of strange things, as has everybody else. As long as it is simply an invitation, and no coercion or assumption of acceptance goes along with it, I see no problem–even when the invitation comes from someone we disagree with.

If you’re including me in “most of you”, then I think you misunderstand my position.

I do find the practice of proxy baptism to be offensive and inappropriate, but I’m not about to try to force you to stop it. But the freedoms that grant you the right to do it also grant me the right to voice my opposition.

I entirely agree so far.

… But I disagree with this. The freedom for you to say “x is right” and the freedom for me to say “x is wrong” are the same freedom.

Ok, but that’s not what the problem is. This is not about non-Mormons saying that they disagree with it, or that it’s wrong. It’s about them telling us how offensive we are, and how much we are forcing something on them (when we are not) and then taking physical and legal steps to prevent us; in other words, the irony of their using force to keep us from offering a free choice to their ancestors is pretty obvious.

…and on a personal level, I find it ironic and incredibly offensive to be told that I must agree with them that their religion trumps mine, even though I believe firmly in what we do. Even though what we do does not affect them, or deny their own beliefs (or those of their ancestors!) Even though what we do does not (as do their prayers and baptisms) do ANYTHING those who don’t want it. A simple ‘no’ makes the whole thing moot.

In the end, what is more disrespectful; to learn about, remember and honor the lives of those who lived before us…and to give them a free choice…or to ignore them, forget them, and not learn from the very interesting and vital lives they lived? In many cases, the only reason our opponents know anything ABOUT those relatives they claim to be protecting is because we found them. We remember them. We honor them, and the lives they actually lived.

…and we believe that those people’s rights to live, make decisions and learn do not end at death, and that their rights to make decisions remain THEIR right to make decisions. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs.

 

[Contarini]

I voted “no,” but I want to clarify my vote.

I voted “no” for the obvious reason that I do not accept Mormon baptism in the first place, and certainly don’t think that Christians should be rebaptized as Mormons alive or dead. In other words, I answered “no” from the standpoint of orthodox Christianity.

I think it is silly to condemn the practice as “disrespectful” or to pretend some neutral stance from which to judge the practices of other religions, except where those practices do violence to others or otherwise violate natural law.

If what Mormons believe is true, then the practice is a good one. Since I don’t think it is, I disagree with the practice. There is no way to judge a practice like this independently of our beliefs about the truth or falsehood of Mormonism as a whole.

Edwin

 

[dianaiad]

Why are you framing this discussion in terms of “rights”, Dianaiad, when the poll frames it in terms of respect? I think this is ultimately why we’re talking past each other.

If we are speaking of respect, which is more disrespectful: to assume that someone is able to make his or her own decisions, and to offer something precious to us–a thing to which they may freely say "no,’ --or to assume that you have the right to decide for them what they MUST think and believe about religion–and to make their decisions for them?

I know which I think is the most desrespectful action.

 

[gearhead]

If we are speaking of respect, which is more disrespectful: to assume that someone is able to make his or her own decisions, and to offer something precious to us–a thing to which they may freely say "no,’ --or to assume that you have the right to decide for them what they MUST think and believe about religion–and to make their decisions for them?

I know which I think is the most desrespectful action.

Growing up, when a door-to-door salesperson would come asking “are your parents home?” and offering something that I knew they didn’t want, I had no issue with turning them away and I didn’t feel that I was disrespecting my parents by doing so.