|
|
Else What Shall They Do? The Practice of Proxy BaptismMay 09 '09 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line The damage we do when walking in darkness at midday.
Submitted for discussion, the following news article from the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_12301237 Apparently, the LDS Church is investigating an incident whereby President Obama’s late mother received Proxy Baptism at the hands of some church members in the Provo, Utah Temple sometime last year. Although this juicy tidbit hasn’t bubbled up to the national news networks yet (can’t compete with such topics as the Economy and Pandemic Flu), it has sparked a veritable “sheetstorm” in the Internets and is sure to give birth to a new meme – Necrodunking. For the uninitiated, Proxy Baptism, known colloquially as Baptism for the Dead, is one of a set of higher church rites, offered to prepare members for Exaltation—that is the state of being in total Communion with God. Members hold that Baptism is required for all who aspire to enter into the “Fullness”, and so offer the rite, through proxy, to the deceased, the idea being that they will be free in the Afterlife to either accept or reject this most “kind and gracious act”. The Church justifies the rite through reference to Paul’s testimony in I Corinthians 15:29, Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? Before going further, the deceased are not exhumed and dunked, but a church member takes on their name and is baptized for them. This is only done in LDS Temples, with each volunteer taking on several names, being dunked in rapid succession as part of what is best described as “assembly line salvation”. The process is supposed to be controlled by a specific set of rules. However, this hasn’t stopped members from baptizing various Founding Fathers, Adolph Hitler, and remarkably, several thousand victims of the Holocaust. In its defense, the Church stated that it simply cannot police the actions of all its members, but has taken positive steps to remove unauthorized names from baptism lists. Simultaneously, however, the Church asserts that the practice is done out of love, and that the deceased can simply reject it if they aren’t interested. It continues to be this very attitude which causes me the most angst. Those who are acquainted with me know that I am a former member of the LDS Church, having shared some of my experiences on this forum in the past. I usually observe church antics with quiet amusement, but this particular topic makes my blood boil, so I’ve got to add my viewpoints to the discussion. To be certain, if I were a member of the Obama family I would be angered and humiliated by the act perpetrated on my departed relative. One’s chosen (or absence of) a particular faith is a personal matter and not to be toyed with lightly. The very basic research I’ve done on Stanley Ann Dunham reveals that she considered herself an Agnostic, who nevertheless exposed her children to the writings and practices of various religions, not just Christianity. So, knowing this, wouldn’t her being subjected to a Christian Ordinance be considered at the very least poor taste? Immediate family aside, however, the real victims continue to be LDS Church members themselves. After all, participation in this and other esoteric rites continues to reinforce the collective belief of being chosen and empowered by God, over non-members. Thus, members fall into the delusion that they are giving souls a “leg up” toward Heaven. Never mind that it is also LDS doctrine that everyone must work out their own salvation. When held to task, the common response amongst the Brethren is “Well, they are free to accept or reject it, so what’s the big deal?” The big deal continues to be that the act says one thing, “Our way is the only way”. To illustrate, let’s suppose that the President’s deceased mother was a lifelong member of the Baptist Church, having received the ordinance when she was very young. According to Christian doctrine, one baptism is all that is required. If she wanted to switch churches and become a Methodist, she wouldn’t have to repeat the ordinance. So, by forcing the LDS version of the ordinance on her in death, so that she can receive the Gospel, aren’t we also saying that she wasn’t truly saved, and only the LDS version counts? I think so. Forced conversion? You decide. I am not naive. I know that the Church will continue the practice of Proxy Baptism and that there will still be zealots who submit unauthorized names to temples around the world. But what I continue to demand of Salt Lake is honesty. If the Church continues to hold that it is the Truth, and the only way whereby man can come to know God and Jesus Christ fully, then it should say so to the world and quit trying to hide behind politically correct language. After all, if their beliefs are true, then they will remain standing throughout any assault.  |
| Read all comments (4)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
