M
mjf001
Guest
Exactly, but she overlooks the fact that has been pointed out repeatedly.
- Status
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
dianaiad:
Our religious freedom is protected by the Constitution, including the right to resign from any religion, even religions that believe membership is for life or eternity.
Once a person has formally resigned from a church, the church has no legal right to excommunicate, hold court, or perform any other rite or act regarding that person. There are court cases that have upheld this right of freedom to resign from a religion.
So, for anyone leaving any church or religion, it is important to write a letter, clearly stating immediate resignation from the church.
exmormon.org suggests a resignation letter include the following:
“This is my formal letter of resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hereby terminate my consent to be treated as a member of said church and I withdraw my consent to submit to the church’s beliefs and ecclesiastical disciplinary procedures. You must now treat me as a FORMER member in all your dealings with me.” (exmormon.org/mormon/mormon217.htm)
Also, as soon as a church has been notified of a resignation, the church has no legal right to continue to contact the former member.
In other words, if the LDS Church “excommunicated” me, after I formally resigned; I could sue the church; and I would most definitely win.
I could have sued them for continuing to contact me, when I repeatedly requested no further contact. I didn’t know my rights at the time. Many people do not know that our Constitution provides us the “religious freedom” to leave a religion.
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Michael,
Thank you for your kindness and your prayers. May God’s peace and blessings be upon you, as well.
Anna
C
Catholic20064
Guest
I don’t really care. No dead person is harmed by the Mormon proxy baptisms. No living person should care. It’s a worthless ceremony so ignore it.
K
kalt
Guest
We’re aware that the baptism has no value - even the Mormons admit that. The complaint is that the person’s name is listed in LDS records as one of the baptized in the LDS faith (by proxy). Catholic nuns and priests have been baptized and been given husbands and wives. Again, a useless act. And yet these nuns and priests are listed on the LDS roster as baptized and married.
Apparently any relative (and we suspect any person, really) can pick a name and use it. You may be the parent, but if a 3rd cousin twice removed decides that your priest son should be Mormon–and married–that’s how he’ll be listed on the LDS roster.
No one - not even the Mormons–think that these baptisms and weddings actually have any effect.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
So just ignore their records. In some cases the Mormon work is valuable because it actually preserves a genealogical record of the deceased person. The records make clear the Mormon action did not take place within the person’s lifetime. So who cares what they do after the person has died?
K
kalt
Guest
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Catholic: I’m trying to remember from you previous posts; are you a former LDS member? Why do you believe you have the right to decide whether or not a person should care about this?
Kalt:
I agree with you.
I don’t think anyone can dictate to another person, whether or not they “should” or “should not” care about a Mormon proxy rite.
I don’t think anyone can dictate whether or not a person “should” be upset or bothered by a rite. If it is disturbing or offensive to me, which it is, that is not an arguable point.
Anna
G
gearhead
Guest
And how is this less offensive than the idea that even a babysitter could decide to baptize your child in the tub while you’re on an evening out, and because of this your child will somehow by Christian in the eyes of the Catholic Church?
K
kalt
Guest
Are you assuming here?
You’re a little late. I brought this up in a post several days ago. (But I was talking about people who had the temporary guardianship of children–foster parents and orphanages during war time–and who did legitimate baptisms) We agree on the point. Both are disrespectful. For an atheist the baptismal rite, even if valid, would have no meaning, and yet it would be very disrespectful to the parents.
While performing the rite is equally offensive, in this case the child’s name would not be listed on the Catholic roster. Anyone who went to a Catholic priest with this information would most likely be reprimanded and sent for couseling. A consciencious priest might even call the parents to warn them that their babysitter is a little “off”. I’ve never known a priest who was impressed by zealots.
I just asked the question on another board. Thinking more about it, though, I don’t think that baptism would be valid. I think we can baptize people in an emergency situation, but that in cases where there is no emergency, the rite must be performed by the clergy to be valid. We’ll see what they say on the other board–if they choose to answer the question.
Edit again. Check this answer. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=317354&highlight=who+can+baptize
D
dianaiad
Guest
You are contradicting yourself. I wasn’t referring to the idea that this indelible mark on the soul was salvific; that’s irrelevant to the point. It is a strawman.
You have here re-affirmed that Catholic baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul–and the infant who has it was not consulted as to whether he or she wanted that mark. No matter what happens to that child, or what he or she does in life, that mark is, as you claim here, permanent. Indelible…whether the person whose soul is marked with it WANTS it, or not. No choice there.
I am pointing out that what we do is absolutely a matter of choice. We aren’t either one of us talking about whether the ordinance of baptism is salvific in and of itself. We both know that it is not. Rather, it is like reading a book. No matter what, if you are going to read a book, you must open it. Opening it doesn’t guarantee that you will read it, but you aren’t going to read it if you don’t open it. Baptism isn’t going to gaurantee salvation, but it is required. YOU, as a Catholic, believe it is (that indelible mark) and so do we.
The difference here is that while we hand someone a book that they can pick up or put down, you have tattooed it on their…souls, will they, nill they. Therefore I find it ironic that any of you should criticize us for ‘disrespecting the dead,’ or ‘ignoring their expressed wishes’ or anything else.
Diana
PS…your faith is your faith; believe as you will, baptise whom you will. If you are correct, you are doing these infants a favor. But do NOT criticize the Mormons for what we do, when you neither ask permission for, nor allow for the refusal of, baptism for your own members.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Only one person has equated baptism = guarantee of salvation, and it wasn’t me. We aren’t talking about whether baptism = salvation. We are talking about whether the proxy baptism we provide is being disrespectful, or is forcing someone into being, or doing, something he or she does not want.
I mentioned that the baptism YOU provide is far more coercive than the proxy work we do. After all, the only thing they have in common, really, is that they are both recorded in a genealogical record. YOURS, however, is done to infants who have no choice in the matter, and it leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon their souls. The baptism follows them through life and through eternity no matter WHAT choices they make later; whether they stay Catholic, or join another religion or lose their faith altogether, that ‘mark’ remains. No matter what they choose, their lives are marked by that baptism done to them when they were newly born.
The proxy work we do…yes, it is also recorded upon a genealogical record; recorded considerably after the death of the individual so that it is obvious that they did not choose this in life. We claim that it is an offer; the person for whom it is done has the absolute, final say in whether it means anything to their eternal future or not, and nobody, looking at that record, can assume anything about thier lives or their choices.
…and you guys criticize us for ‘being disrespectful,’ and for ‘doing something to them’ that they didn’t want done. Well, people…we aren’t doing anything TO them. We make an offer. They accept it or reject it. Their choice. You can’t say the same.
I think your strawman, here, lacks a brain.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, you do. And when you do, you become ‘excommunicant.’ Whether the church kicks you out or you decide to leave, it results in the same thing; you become an ‘ex’ communicant.
Excommunication is not a legal matter, Anna. The fact is, if you resigned from the church, then you are excommunicant. As in; you were a member and now you are not. As well, if someone has broken the rules to the extent that he or she would have been subject to church discipline, then resigning doesn’t legally require that this discipline NOT be taken. In other words, that same freedom of religion you are talking about also means that the church can say “resign if you wish, but we are also going to ‘fire’ you.” More or less. there is no law that says a church MUST accept a resignation instead of dealing with the situation through disciplinary action, y’know.
In fact, some churches (not ours…) have, quite literally, gone after people and excommunicated them postumously, going so far as to dig 'em up, rescinding their burial in sanctified ground, and dispose of their bodies elsewhere. Freedom of religion goes both ways here.
Good idea. Or, if you no longer believe that your membership means anything (as in, it’s not ‘true,’ ) you can just, y’know…leave and join another church. Saves time and aggravation.
There’s no law that says they can’t, either.
You sure about that? What would you win?
Oh, baloney, Anna. Everybody in this nation knows that you can change religions, leave religions, join others…it’s right there in the bill of rights. What YOU seem to be forgetting is that your freedom of religion does not trump mine, nor mine yours. In other words, the government can’t dictate what you believe, and religions cannot force you to join them or stay in them once you wish to leave, but just as there is no law against your leaving, there is also no law against them kicking you out. There is also no law against a church contacting you. No law against missionaries knocking upon your door.
By the way, as it happens, once your resignation was in and official, you would not have been excommunicated. WE aren’t the ones who do that sort of thing, though I have heard of many other faiths that have done precisely that. It is quite possible that you joined one.
G
gearhead
Guest
OTOH, your freedom of religion doesn’t trump my freedom of speech. You may have the legal right to engage in proxy baptism, but I also have the legal right to complain about it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ok then…what’s your problem? Except, of course, for the inaccurate idea you are presenting that 'the person’s name is listed in LDS records as one of the baptized in the LDS faith." as if the “by proxy” and the date (being more than a year posthumously) means nothing at all. C’mon. that means everything. Those two items are the giant signs that say 'this person did NOT make this choice in life; it’s an offer that they may accept or reject at death."
As well, there must be some evidence that the person WAS married before the work is done; names aren’t really picked out of a paper bag, as much as you want to portray it that way.
D
dianaiad
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, you feel about the rite anyway you wish to feel about it. What you do NOT have the right to do is to figure that your feelings about it should force us to change our faith, or that your feelings about it change what it actually does, and is.
H
higherednerd
Guest
In Mormonism there is a big difference between resigning and being excommunicated. Excommunications are decided by Church courts and are absolutely disciplinary measures. But people can leave for any reason or none. I happen to know this because I am an ex Mormon. I left. If I went back I would have to be rebaptized, but there are no disciplinary issues to be resolved. I would be welcome with open arms. If I’d been excommunicated, whatever the cause of that would have to be resolved before I could be rebaptized. It might no longer involve any penalty or restitution if it had become moot, but the cause of my being kicked out would have to be addressed. Not so for me now: I would just have to satisfy the same conditions as any new member.
As to baptism by proxy: there is no such thing as forcing a person to be Mormon. They merely make the ordinance available just in case the person wants it. They believe that missionary efforts continue in the next life after death, so a person could possibly change their mind and want to be Mormon, if they had not heard the Mormon gospel properly presented in life.
As to baptism by proxy: there is no such thing as forcing a person to be Mormon. They merely make the ordinance available just in case the person wants it. They believe that missionary efforts continue in the next life after death, so a person could possibly change their mind and want to be Mormon, if they had not heard the Mormon gospel properly presented in life.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have no problem with COMPLAINING about it, as long as I have equal rights to argue back.OTOH, your freedom of religion doesn’t trump my freedom of speech. You may have the legal right to engage in proxy baptism, but I also have the legal right to complain about it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Only in the procedure and reason, not the result, and that is a dictionary definition sort of thing. Excommunication is something that happens when one is either kicked out OR leaves voluntarily, because the result is, one becomes an ex-communicant. The procedure for coming BACK is precisely the same, either way.
So are people who have been kicked out, rather than walked out. We want nothing more than to have them come back; you know this. For us, excommunication IS discipline, not a forever sundering–at least we hope it isn’t.
Actually, you would get that extra interview, and the procedure for restoring everything would be exactly the same as if your separation had been instigated by the church rather than yourself. The person who was kicked out would be working through his or her repentance, but wouldn’t you be doing the same thing as you reconsidered your decision to leave, and struggled with a decision to come back? Believe me, you WOULD be asked: "why did you leave? " and “Why do you want to come back?” and “are you certain about THIS decision?”
That is absolutely true. Thank you.
- Status