Latter Day Saint baptisms for the dead...

[officer2002]

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.

[bluethread]

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.

I'm sorry, please present one rite an atheist is expected to observe or perform. Atheism is not a religion.

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.

And I suppose being an auto mechanic is a religion because they examine an engine to see why it is dead then too?

No, if a car of it's own volition practiced mechanics, as a means of determining the nature of it's existance, that would be religion. That said, your response to the OP is not based on scientific atheism, and my time to post is rather limited, so let's just focus on your belief in the value of memories, which is humanistic atheism. It does derive from scientific atheism as protestantism derives from catholacism in that it is much less consistant, as I will argue in reacting to your response below.

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.

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?

Well, the problem with that, in the context of atheism, is that there is no person to object. If there is no afterlife, a common tenet of atheism, then to whom does the memory belong? The body can be deemed as property and custody be granted to another. That is why our secular society has determined that the custodian of the body has legal standing, while legally one can not defame the dead. One can contest the validity of a historical account, but there is no crime.

Now, in the case of baptism for the dead, if one does not believe it to be effectual, there is no violation of one's beliefs. The question then becomes, to whom do one's beliefs belong. If my beliefs are my property and mine alone, it is a violation of my rights to insist that I refrain from practicing my beliefs when you find them ineffectual. One the other hand, if you find them to be effectual, you have validated my beliefs. Therefore, we have two alternatives in relating to the mormons. We either reject their belief system, in which case, there is no offense. Or, we accept at least this tenet of their belief system and also acknowledge their power with regard to it. Would you not consider the latter of these options to indeed be religious?

[officer2002]

The other way to approach this is to hold a service at Joseph Smith, Jr's grave and baptise him into another faith.

When we do baptisms for the dead we are getting them into heaven, not changing their religion. Their spirit which never dies is given the choice about accepting the baptism. If someone does an equivalent ordinance for the dead for Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, etc we will not be outraged and call for a stop to it and an apology!

[officer2002]

[quoteFrom my point of view, I would be extremely annoyed if some Mormon tried to Baptize any of my relatives [quote]

You did not answer my question. If we do a go to hell ordinance for the dead would you be annoyed?

[officer2002]

For me it is an unclean meats issue. I do not believe that these baptisms are anything, so I see no reason to condemn them. However, if someone is offended by them, I would stand with that person, if these were done publically. That said, would those who take offense at this also take offense at voodoo practices or being prayed for by a muslim, buddist or someone of another denomination?

What do you mean by "unclean meats"?

[officer2002]

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.

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.

We are trying to get them into heaven withus. How is that disrespectful?

[Gunnarr]

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.

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.

We are trying to get them into heaven withus. How is that disrespectful?

There is Christianity in a statement.

I am not a christian, I do not believe in heaven, I do not believe in Jesus or your 'omni' everything God, forcing your beliefs on dead people, who like me may have found your religion distasteful is disrespectful.

Going deeper into the physche of your post 'with us' is assuming a moral and numerical advantage = correctness, that on balance makes an individual wrong by default.

You are wrong on all counts, sad to think you think otherwise.

[bluethread]

For me it is an unclean meats issue. I do not believe that these baptisms are anything, so I see no reason to condemn them. However, if someone is offended by them, I would stand with that person, if these were done publically. That said, would those who take offense at this also take offense at voodoo practices or being prayed for by a muslim, buddist or someone of another denomination?

What do you mean by "unclean meats"?

In Paul's time. animal sacrifice was quite common. not just those made to Adonai. However, unlike the meat of the sacrifices to Adonai, other religions sold the meat of their sacrifices in the markets. Some might be reluctant to eat this meat, because it's having been offered to an idol made it unclean. Paul's response to this was that since the idol was not really a god, the sacrifice did not really make the meat unclean. Therefore, eating that meat was acceptable, unless it caused one who was not secure in the faith to stumble. To apply this to this OP, since I see no real effect to these baptisms for the dead, I would not really raise a serious objection, unless my lack of objection interfered with more important issues. In this latter case, I might discuss the issue in private with the offended party, but in public I would side with the offended party. This is something that the mormons should keep to themselves.