by Tina~in_ut
Baptism by Proxy has been in the news a lot lately. Most recently, it was reported that Mahatma Gandhi was baptized by proxy as a Mormon in the Salt Lake City Temple on March 27, 1996. Before that, it was discovered that Anne Frank was also baptized by proxy. Of course, many people are outraged, but I don't think people understand what really happens and the intent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that baptism is an indispensable requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Baptism by proxy allows those members of your family who were not given the opportunity on earth to get baptized another chance. This is why Mormons are encouraged to research their genealogy. The idea is to find all the people in your family who are not baptized and get baptized for them. My husband found that his great-grandfather was baptized by proxy. Unfortunately, we don't know by who. The one thing that is left out of most articles on the subject is that the person who has died has the option to accept the baptism or reject it in the afterlife. That is, of course, if you believe in this, which most do not. I guess if I were Mormon, I would feel comforted in the fact that I was able to do something for my family.
I read an article where Gandhi's grandson, Arun, was quoted:
“My grandfather always believed in respecting all the religions,” Gandhi said. ”When anyone asked him in his lifetime which religion he believed in, he said, ‘I’m a Hindu, I’m a Christian, I’m a Muslim, I’m a Buddhist, I’m everything, So in that spirit, I think he’d now say he’s a Mormon, too.”
Unfortunately, no one is clear on whether or not Gandhi or Anne Frank were baptized by a member of their family. In recent years, because of criticism received by non-members, the LDS church has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for direct ancestors of church members. They are in the process of removing names from the registry of those persons baptized by non-family members, but it is a labor intensive process and must be done on an individual basis.
Not surprising, I found that Pope John Paul II was baptized by proxy, as well as Christopher Columbus, Adolf Hitler, and even Barack Obama's mother. What are your feelings on this?
its all just laughable. All the religious hoops that people can jump through....
ReplyDeleteI always start with the weekly ritual of people pretending to drink blood and eat flesh....then anything after that is really not shocking...
Good Morning Michael - Congrats on being first.
ReplyDeleteTina - This is the first time I have heard of baptism by proxy. I really think if a person wants to be baptized then he/she would have done it when they were alive. Just like funerals are really to console the living not the dead I think baptism by proxy has the same affect. I don't think it would change the status of the deceased. But then again what do I know? I am not an expert on religions.
Michael Congrats on being first and the most handsome today. Maybe your sisters will have you baptized in proxy. LOL
ReplyDeleteZona That is a very interesting topic. I would not want to be baptized into any religion without my desire and permission. That's not freedom of relition at all.
ReplyDeleteTinka You are right, of course. It's about what's making the living happy and the deceased have no say in it.
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Just_Lin - I agree with you completely. It's bad enough to have pushy people on earth but I hope we can't be manipulated once we get to Heaven.
ReplyDeleteOnce again it's nap time. The days are just flying by. Wishing you all a great Friday. See you later.
ReplyDelete9
ReplyDeleteJ/L...thats funny :)
ReplyDeleteMy plan (written) is that my sisters not be informed of my death. Then when everything is done and over...services...burial...etc., there will be an obituary for me in my hometown newspaper.
Then my sisters can explain why they had no idea to everyone....lmao
and that means they would not have been included in my will....which trust me...would be their only concern....the whores..
this has to be told.
ReplyDeleteRecently I volunteered for a local disaster drill (huge event)as a victim....as I am sure you all well know this is to insure our local responses teams are ready for disasters...
The theme is "Wildfires"...I assume since Texas has been on fire several times recently...
I don't really want to do it but I haven't done anything community wise in a long time and thought it my duty...
The organizer has been sending endless emails with ideas and instructions. I have gotten to the point that I just read and delete...
WELL!!
This came this afternoon!
Subject: Disaster Information
To: undisclosed recipients
Volunteers,
Since our disaster is a wild fire, it would we wonderfully realistic for people to come into the shelter smelling of smoke. Anyone who might be burning brush (etc.) in the days ahead, or having a small campfire, or firepit, etc., please consider wearing some casual clothing around the fire that you can also wear to disaster (most cases will call for casual clothing). Or hold clothing in the line of smoke to absorb the smell. These clothes can be placed in a large ziplock to keep the smell from permeating your home.
It just provides a heavy dose of realism to the simulation.
Thanks!
Diana Crapanella
Simulation Training Coordinator
I wrote her back and said...
I do not have a wildfire planned nor do I intend to seek one out in order to "stink" up some clothes for your fire drill! Something is wrong with you!
Something is wrong with her.....
Little foggy and warm here. Beautiful place to relax
ReplyDeleteMichael Maybe you could volunteer to singe your eyebrows in order to be more realistic. LOL
ReplyDeleteor ur luxury hair~ ijs~
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this practice at all. If a person is raised in a religion and they pick a religion of their choice, we should all respect their wishes and leave them the hell alone even after death.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think it is selfish in the extreme and only offers a strange kind of comfort to the people who perform this ritual. jmo
I understand that some members baptize people that were explicitly against the Church. That was never who this practice was intended for. If our ancestors lived in a part of the world where they did not have a reasonable chance to hear the message, they should be given the opportunity to receive baptism (even prejudice caused by anti-mormon doctrine could count under this category). As mentioned above, if the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, the person has the opportunity to accept or reject the ordinance, if it is not, then the people are doing something meaningless. We believe that by not baptizing these people, we are sealing their fate. If we perform the ordinance, they are not "saved" without doing their own work on their end.
ReplyDelete