http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/mo ... h-baptism/
I want to focus on the baptisms for the dead more so than this one specific person.
I do not understand why some people are so mad about this. The story doesn't let us know how many people are mad about this but enough for the Church to issue an apology and the story be in the news.
It would make sense to me if we were digging up graves.
We are only saying the dead person's name. We are trying to get them into heaven with us. To those who are mad or offended at baptisms for the dead I ask, should we do the opposite thing to get an opposite reaction from you? I am not asking that question to people who just do not believe. Should we do a "go to hell" for the dead ordinance, so you will not be angered or offended?
I promise to not be mad or offended if any other religion will say my ancestor's names in an ordinance for the dead to get my ancestor's to a better place than they would otherwise be.
Latter Day Saint baptisms for the dead...
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:20 am
Post #11
I think the two are the same, taking ones body without permission of the person who's remains it is, is the same, in my opinion. The remains in their culture if taken from their chosen resting place I would have consider may be even more insulting to their memory. Historically remains after some execution's were quartered and spread to the four corners, this was done to disrespect their body as a final punishment after death.
Post #12
I'm not saying it isn't disrespectful to some people, however, I think there is a distinction between doing something that violates their customs, beliefs, and cultural practices, such as grave robbing does, and retroactively robbing them of having those customs, beliefs, and practices in the first place, which is what the retroactive baptism effectively does, and to me, the latter is more disrespectful. I suppose we can agree to disagree.Gunnarr wrote:I think the two are the same, taking ones body without permission of the person who's remains it is, is the same, in my opinion. The remains in their culture if taken from their chosen resting place I would have consider may be even more insulting to their memory. Historically remains after some execution's were quartered and spread to the four corners, this was done to disrespect their body as a final punishment after death.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Latter Day Saint baptisms for the dead...
Post #14Well, that is your religious belief. I know it can be seen as bit insulting to a scientific atheist to refer to their beliefs as religion. However, that philosophy has presumptions and rites in which one is expected to place one's faith, just like any other religion. Memories decay just as bodies do. One can erect a memorial or do other things in an attempt to preserve them, but that is not much more than erecting a tombstone or figuratively embalming the individual. According to their belief system, they are doing the equivalent of advancing humanity, just like the medical scientist believes he is doing when he disects a body.Abraxas wrote:I disagree. Firstly, since I have never participated in grave robbery, I reject any projected guilt by association you are directing my way. Second, there is a difference between examining a body and destroying the memory of a person. If I take someone's body and use it to advance medicine or what have you, I may have disrespected their remains, but I have done nothing to them as a person. If I take their memory, and throw away all the choices they made in life, take from them their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, and force them into a mold of my choosing that they categorically rejected in life, I'm removing what made them, them. When I'm dead, I'm not using my body, but I would take it as a kindness if you left my memory intact.bluethread wrote:
Grave robbing has generally been frowned upon. Since HaTroah seems to discourage the practice, one could say spiritual grave robbing could be seen as no better. However, if I recall correctly, actual grave robbing was a mainstay of the early practitioners of modern science. So, a scientific atheist seems to have no more justification for being offended by a spiritualization of the same practice.
Last edited by bluethread on Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #15
Yes, but unless scientists still practice actual grave robbery, I don't see how disagreeing over whether physical grave robbery or spiritual grave robbery is more disrespectful hurts anything. I hope it doesn't come off that I am defending actual grave robbery, that was not my intent.Gunnarr wrote:I understand what your saying and your outcome is as you say 'agree to disagree' but where does that leave religions who practice ancestral veneration in their own locality. Agreeing to disagree softly fails to deal with the dilemma.
I'm sorry, please present one rite an atheist is expected to observe or perform. Atheism is not a religion.Well, that is your religious belief. I know it can be seen as bit insulting to a scientific atheist to refer to their beliefs as religion. However, that philosophy has presumptions and rites in which one is expected to place one's faitjh, justlike any other religion.
They do decay, but if we are to remember someone at all, let us remember them for who they were, not who we wish they were, and certainly not for who they explicitly chose not to be.Memories decay just as bodies do. One can erect a memorial or do other things in an attempt to preserve them, but that is not much more than erecting a tombstone or figuratively embalming the individual. According to their belief system, they are doing the equivalent of advancing humanity, just like the medical scientist believes he is doing when he disects a body.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #16
There are various forms of atheism, just as there are various forms pf christianity. In scientific atheism, an autopsy is a rite. One examines the entrails in order to confirm one's predictions. Sounds like religion to me.Abraxas wrote:I'm sorry, please present one rite an atheist is expected to observe or perform. Atheism is not a religion.Well, that is your religious belief. I know it can be seen as bit insulting to a scientific atheist to refer to their beliefs as religion. However, that philosophy has presumptions and rites in which one is expected to place one's faitjh, justlike any other religion.
That is your religious tenet. Some would say that if we are to preserve a body at all we should preserve it as it was, not how we wished it was, and certainly not as the person explicitly chose it not be preserved. Both of these presume a shared belief that what is preserved about someone is sacred. That is a religious belief.They do decay, but if we are to remember someone at all, let us remember them for who they were, not who we wish they were, and certainly not for who they explicitly chose not to be.Memories decay just as bodies do. One can erect a memorial or do other things in an attempt to preserve them, but that is not much more than erecting a tombstone or figuratively embalming the individual. According to their belief system, they are doing the equivalent of advancing humanity, just like the medical scientist believes he is doing when he disects a body.
Post #17
And I suppose being an auto mechanic is a religion because they examine an engine to see why it is dead then too?bluethread wrote:There are various forms of atheism, just as there are various forms pf christianity. In scientific atheism, an autopsy is a rite. One examines the entrails in order to confirm one's predictions. Sounds like religion to me.Abraxas wrote:I'm sorry, please present one rite an atheist is expected to observe or perform. Atheism is not a religion.Well, that is your religious belief. I know it can be seen as bit insulting to a scientific atheist to refer to their beliefs as religion. However, that philosophy has presumptions and rites in which one is expected to place one's faitjh, justlike any other religion.
Does anyone here have a problem with preserving bodies as they wish to be preserved? Even if I were to accept, for the sake of argument, it is a religious stance, at what point does it become acceptable to force your religious beliefs onto another over their objections and without their consent?That is your religious tenet. Some would say that if we are to preserve a body at all we should preserve it as it was, not how we wished it was, and certainly not as the person explicitly chose it not be preserved. Both of these presume a shared belief that what is preserved about someone is sacred. That is a religious belief.They do decay, but if we are to remember someone at all, let us remember them for who they were, not who we wish they were, and certainly not for who they explicitly chose not to be.Memories decay just as bodies do. One can erect a memorial or do other things in an attempt to preserve them, but that is not much more than erecting a tombstone or figuratively embalming the individual. According to their belief system, they are doing the equivalent of advancing humanity, just like the medical scientist believes he is doing when he disects a body.
Re: Latter Day Saint baptisms for the dead...
Post #18Wow, that's a mouthful. Your absolutism on "throwing away who the person was" is a bit much for me.Abraxas wrote:Funny, I had the opposite reaction. To me I was irritated by the actions of the Mormon church, in that they effectively decided to take throw away who the person was; decided to disregard everything he believed in, his personal convictions, his choices, in life, to not be a part of the faith and decided to disrespect his memory by forcing it into a mold he never wanted to be part of. I'm honestly not sure how you could be any more disrespectful to a person after their passing than to strip them of everything they stood for in memory.Vanguard wrote:Well, I know t's a big deal to Mormons. Especially when it involves loved ones who have passed on. My wife and I have "done" temple work on behalf of some of her ancestors and it has been a touching experience. I myself have done temple work for many who have since deceased but who were presumably alive hundreds of years ago. I imagine them in my mind as we go through the ceremony and at least for a few moments I "feel" a connection to them. I have pondered many times how nice it would be to after this life meet up with all those who have been baptized and/or received other temple ordinances from my efforts. I feel a kinship to them.
I also get how it can a become a legitimately sensitive issue. It will probably never be resolved to everyone's liking though. I do, however, take GREAT exception to Bill Mahrer's mockery of Mormon vicarious baptisms when he "de-baptized" on his show Mitt's now deseased father-in-law.

In fairness though, there are also examples of where extended family have been hurt as a result of vicarious baptisms for some of the reasons you have listed. For this, there are certain restrictions in terms of when a baptism can be performed. If I am not mistaken, when the surviving spouse or children are still alive, persmission must be granted or some such.
It's peculiar. Mr. Davies did not care for religion. Ok. His daughter loved him enough to follow through with something she believed she owed to him once he passed. I doubt his daughter thinks she has "disrespected his memory" by carrying out this very personal ceremony but rather feels closer to him as a result.Abraxas wrote:Bill Maher, in his usual humorist style which, as always, borders on the, shall we say, uncouth, made that point and I think he did it well. A transcript of the event, slightly edited for content.
But that’s not gonna happen. And short of that, if you still insist that atheism is a religion, then it’s only fair that we get to do all the loony stuff that you get to do. And I’m going to start tonight by unbaptizing Mitt Romney’s dead father-in-law.
In case you didn’t hear, it was discovered last week that Edward Davies, Anne Romney’s father, an enthusiastically anti-religious scientist who called organized faith “hogwash�, was posthumously baptized in the Mormon tradition, fourteen months after he died. They tried to do it sooner, but he wouldn’t stop spinning in his grave.
Maher puts out a B&W photograph of Edward Davies.
MAHER: So here, then, is history’s first unbaptism ceremony, right now …
Maher puts on a star-and-moon-adorned wizard’s hat, takes out a candle, and grabs a magic wand.
MAHER: … for the late Edward Davies.
Maher pretends to blow out the lights in the studio, which all go dark except for one illuminating him from above. An ethereal chorale starts chanting.
MAHER: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the presence of math, gravity, Evolution and electricity to honor Brother Edward and to send the powers of Seal Team 666 to rescue him from Planet Kolob so that he may spend eternity with the kind of freethinkers he chose to hang out with on Earth. So, by the power granted to me by the Blair Witch: Schlemiel, schlemazel, e pluribus mumbo-jumbo, Expecto Patronum, sususurio, yo momma, I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the **** alone.
Brother Edward, in this world, you had to put up with Mitt Romney. You’ve suffered enough.
Regardless, if there is an afterlife, Mr. Davies and everyone else can invalidate the action - as the belief goes - and so he's no worse the wear. If there is no afterlife anyway, well, the whole thing becomes kinda' irrelevant...
Post #20
Absolutely. As long as it is not done in mockery but instead a genuine effort as an integral part of one's faith - then knock yourself out. His name and death details are public record. Do with his name what you will. He certainly endured much worse. FWIW, it does not bother me in the least.Gunnarr wrote:The other way to approach this is to hold a service at Joseph Smith, Jr's grave and baptise him into another faith.
