Why does baptism for the dead bother you?

[Katzpur]

The second "U" stands for Universalist.

I know. Doesn't that mean universal salvation or something like that? Did you know that of all Christian denominations (I'm using the word "Christian" as a Latter-day Saint would use it and not as a lot of other Christians use it), we come closest to having a universalist view of salvation? Mormons believe that there will be very, very few individuals who actually end up in Hell.

 

[Runt]

I know. Doesn't that mean universal salvation or something like that?

Correct.

 

[Katzpur]

*bump*

(So that Runt will see that I was busy modifying my post when he was in the process of replying to it.)

 

[Runt]

I know. Doesn't that mean universal salvation or something like that? Did you know that of all Christian denominations (I'm using the word "Christian" as a Latter-day Saint would use it and not as a lot of other Christians use it), we come closest to having a universalist view of salvation? Mormons believe that there will be very, very few individuals who actually end up in Hell.

I understand that, but I'm not sure you understand Unitarian Universalism. The terms refer more to the roots of our religion (2 seperate churches fused into one) rather than the beliefs held by most modern UUs. Not all UUs today believe there is one God (some believe there are many, some believe there are 2, some believe there are no Gods at all) and most UUs today don't even believe in Hell, which means the concept of universal salvation is kind of a given for those UUs who believe in Heaven (not all of us do... some believe we cease to exist when we die, some believe we are reincarnated, some believe we "become one" with God, etc.)

So I understand that while there seems to be a surface similarity between the two religions---and don't get me wrong, I respect you guys greatly for your belief that most people will be saved because that seems to be to be very positive and optimistic---the similarity doesn't go quite as far as you believe it does. Most (not all, but most) UUs don't believe there is a need for salvation or baptism at all, let alone baptism by proxy.

 

[Katzpur]

I understand that, but I'm not sure you understand Unitarian Universalism. The terms refer more to the roots of our religion (2 seperate churches fused into one) rather than the beliefs held by most modern UUs. Not all UUs today believe there is one God (some believe there are many, some believe there are 2, some believe there are no Gods at all) and most UUs today don't even believe in Hell, which means the concept of universal salvation is kind of a given for those UUs who believe in Heaven (not all of us do... some believe we cease to exist when we die, some believe we are reincarnated, some believe we "become one" with God, etc.)

I understand. I know that UU's are a pretty mixed bag (and I mean that in a positive way) and that your viewpoints about God, salvation, etc. are pretty varied.

So I understand that while there seems to be a surface similarity between the two religions---and don't get me wrong, I respect you guys greatly for your belief that most people will be saved because that seems to be to be very positive and optimistic---the similarity doesn't go quite as far as you believe it does. Most (not all, but most) UUs don't believe there is a need for salvation or baptism at all, let alone baptism by proxy.

I probably implied that I thought the similarities went further than I know they do. That wasn't my intention, and I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all in a thread on some other subject. I only brought it up because whenever the subject of baptism for the dead comes up, people automatically assume that we have a very exclusionary view of who will be saved and who will be damned. I just saw this as a good opportunity to explain that that's not the case -- especially when I saw you rubbing your hands together in glee.

 

[Runt]

I probably implied that I thought the similarities went further than I know they do. That wasn't my intention, and I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all in a thread on some other subject. I only brought it up because whenever the subject of baptism for the dead comes up, people automatically assume that we have a very exclusionary view of who will be saved and who will be damned. I just saw this as a good opportunity to explain that that's not the case -- especially when I saw you rubbing your hands together in glee.

I do find it somewhat encouraging that you do not believe that Mormons are the only people who are going to get into Heaven. You have to understand though that the notion of having to be baptized does bother me... for various reasons that are probably better discussed in another thread. The short version is I find the idea of baptism by water as a literal necessity rather than a symbolic act kind of ridiculous. I also find the idea of a loving God who won't accept anything but a baptism by water a little aggrivating. If God is so powerful and loving, God should either baptize the willing Himself in Heaven without needing to resort to baptism-by-proxy (it seems to me he should be more than capable of doing so) or simply let those who have the desire to be with Him into Heaven without baptism. If spiritual purity is what is needed, I don't see why God the loving-God can't or won't purify the willing himself, without having his followers down on earth do it for him. The whole process just seems rather silly to me, and it also seems far more like a case of Mormons wanting to save people than God needing you to save people...

 

[DeepShadow]

If God is so powerful and loving, God should either baptize the willing Himself in Heaven without needing to resort to baptism-by-proxy (it seems to me he should be more than capable of doing so) or simply let those who have the desire to be with Him into Heaven without baptism. If spiritual purity is what is needed, I don't see why God the loving-God can't or won't purify the willing himself, without having his followers down on earth do it for him. The whole process just seems rather silly to me, and it also seems far more like a case of Mormons wanting to save people than God needing you to save people...

I think this is a wonderful point! Many people have pointed out to me in the past that baptism-by-proxy is only one of many ways that God could take care of the necessity of baptism, including ignoring it when it failed to suit His purposes. As he said of another law, the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

This does make one wonder, why use mortals when he could do it all himself. But the same could be said of other things: why doesn't God send angels to do all the missionary work? Why doesn't he just get rid of risks, and skip the band-aid middleman of charity altogether? Wouldn't it be more efficient?

I think God isn't looking for that kind of efficiency. You may actually be on to something, insofar as proxy baptism is more about the needs of the living than the needs of the dead. God is God, after all. But I think he knows that, and he's still asking imperfect mortals to participate in His work with the dead, for the same reasons that he asks imperfect mortals to participate in all His other acts: we're learning to be like Him.

 

[Katzpur]

I do find it somewhat encouraging that you do not believe that Mormons are the only people who are going to get into Heaven. You have to understand though that the notion of having to be baptized does bother me... for various reasons that are probably better discussed in another thread. The short version is I find the idea of baptism by water as a literal necessity rather than a symbolic act kind of ridiculous. I also find the idea of a loving God who won't accept anything but a baptism by water a little aggrivating. If God is so powerful and loving, God should either baptize the willing Himself in Heaven without needing to resort to baptism-by-proxy (it seems to me he should be more than capable of doing so) or simply let those who have the desire to be with Him into Heaven without baptism. If spiritual purity is what is needed, I don't see why God the loving-God can't or won't purify the willing himself, without having his followers down on earth do it for him. The whole process just seems rather silly to me, and it also seems far more like a case of Mormons wanting to save people than God needing you to save people...

I see what you're saying but, as you know, baptism is not just an LDS ordinance. It's one that is accepted as having a biblical foundation by Christians of all denominations. Jesus Christ made it clear that baptism was not merely a symbolic act, but a requirement for entrance into His Father's Kingdom. There is nowhere in the New Testament where baptism is described as something a person may simply do if he is so inclined. While I think it makes sense to wonder why God would require baptism by water (I mean I understand why it appears to be kind of legalistic), the fact is that He does -- at least according to the Bible. I know I don't feel comfortable in questioning why He would, but I do think that if we can take the liberty of calling anything about the commandment "ridiculous," we ought to be asking ourselves why God would say that something is a requirement and then fail to make it possible for so hundreds of millions of people to comply with the commandment. If God commanded us to receive water baptism, as was definitely the case, it makes no sense at all for Him to simply turn a blind eye in the case of those who didn't comply, for whatever reason. It also makes no sense for him to condemn those who were unable to obey. The LDS practice of proxy baptism is the only means by which God can end up not making a liar of himself and at the same time not be entirely without compassion for His children.

 

[DeepShadow]

If God is so powerful and loving, God should either baptize the willing Himself in Heaven without needing to resort to baptism-by-proxy (it seems to me he should be more than capable of doing so) or simply let those who have the desire to be with Him into Heaven without baptism. If spiritual purity is what is needed, I don't see why God the loving-God can't or won't purify the willing himself, without having his followers down on earth do it for him. The whole process just seems rather silly to me, and it also seems far more like a case of Mormons wanting to save people than God needing you to save people...

I think this is a wonderful point! Many people have pointed out to me in the past that baptism-by-proxy is only one of many ways that God could take care of the necessity of baptism, including ignoring it when it failed to suit His purposes. As he said of another law, the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

This does make one wonder, why use mortals when he could do it all himself. But the same could be said of other things: why doesn't God send angels to do all the missionary work? Why doesn't he just get rid of risks, and skip the band-aid middleman of charity altogether? Wouldn't it be more efficient?

I think God isn't looking for that kind of efficiency. You may actually be on to something, insofar as proxy baptism is more about the needs of the living than the needs of the dead. God is God, after all. But I think he knows that, and he's still asking imperfect mortals to participate in His work with the dead, for the same reasons that he asks imperfect mortals to participate in all His other acts: we're learning to be like Him.

 

[astarath]

those who have died are already in the hands of the lord our job is to focus on the souls of the living and bring them to God

 

[Runt]

I see what you're saying, but I'm sure you realize that baptism is not just an LDS ordinance but a Christian one. Jesus Christ made it clear that baptism was not merely a symbolic act, but a requirement for entrance into His Father's Kingdom. There is nowhere in the New Testament where baptism is described as something a person may simply do if he is so inclined. While I think it makes sense to wonder why God would require baptism by water (I mean I understand why it appears to be kind of legalistic), the fact is that He does -- at least according to the Bible. I know I don't feel comfortable in questioning why He would, but I do think that if we can take the liberty of calling anything about the commandment "ridiculous," we ought to be asking ourselves why God would say that something is a requirement and then fail to make it possible for so hundreds of millions of people to comply with the commandment. If God commanded us to receive water baptism, as was definitely the case, it makes no sense at all for Him to simply turn a blind eye in the case of those who didn't comply, for whatever reason.

Okay, let me get this straight. Baptism, according to you, is not a symbolic act. There is something about an individual being physically being submerged in water that allows God to wash away his or her sins, and there is no other way to do it. If your flesh does not come into contact with water, baptism does not occur, and you do not get into heaven.

Which makes me wonder... if symbolic baptism is not acceptable to God, then, once again, why is it that baptism-by-proxy is acceptable to God? Do you understand what baptism-by-proxy is? It's sympathetic... well, I wouldn't call it magic because I suspect that would offend (and possibly confuse) you. It''s a symbolic ritual. The soul is not coming into contact with the water, yet is being baptized. It is being baptized because someone is standing in for the soul on earth. The person standing in for the soul is a symbolic representation of the soul. Thus, either baptism can indeed be symbolic in nature rather than literal, or the soul is simply not being baptized in a baptism-by-proxy because, as you said, baptism cannot be symbolic; it must include submersion in water.

If, of course, we wish to argue that water does come into contact with the soul during the baptism-by-proxy, despite the fact that the soul is not physically present on Earth at the location of the baptism (unless it temporarily possesses the individual who is standing in for the departed, which is just creepy), then we have to argue that baptism-by-water is possible in Heaven, and doesn't need to be performed by proxy...

Now, I have to confess, this entire topic seems incredibly silly and superstitious to me. It sounds just like the magical practices of so many other religions which are denounced as mere superstition (or devil worship) by some Christians. The notion that an omnipotent, omniscient God requires what seems to me to be a rather arbitrary and unnecessary ritual in order for you to be worthy of Heaven is just not something I can accept. It makes God sound like Tooth Fairy; if I don't put the tooth under my pillow the Tooth Fairy will not give me my prize. I don't understand how people can believe such things.

Now, I admit that I do not regard the Bible as truth, and so what seems to me to be superstitious is, to you, almost a magical act in which something about the combination of will, water, and divine power washes away sins. I understand that, because I know orthopraxy---no matter how silly it may seem to outsiders---is a very serious thing within the religions that possess it.... and most do. But this particular practice doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't seem logically consistent as far as I can tell. Yet I seriously doubt my mere few days of puzzling over the topic has led to a far greater understanding of baptism-by-proxy than that possessed by your church elders (or even your average Mormon) who I know have been studying Mormon theology far, far, far far far longer than I ever have (or likely will). So..... please explain this to me, because I'm seriously confused...

 

[astarath]

Katzpur I am lead to disagree...before christ I would agree that we baptize by water. But all that needs take place to become baptized is to accept Christ. Then through Christ we are baptized by the holy spirit as John spoke in Matthew.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur I am lead to disagree...before christ I would agree that we baptize by water. But all that needs take place to become baptized is to accept Christ. Then through Christ we are baptized by the holy spirit as John spoke in Matthew.

Christ said we need to be born of water and of the Spirit. I suspect you're going to tell me that being "born of water" means being born of a woman and that the water somehow refers to the amniotic fluid. To me, that's a real stretch. I believe that our physical birth is correctly described as being "born of the flesh." Jesus Christ himself received water baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. What would you call this baptism, since He had already been born to a woman?

 

[astarath]

Christ's baptism in the water was not done however following his demise!!! As well differing beliefs hold different values. A baptism of water is to clean the body, baptism of fire to cleanse the soul. As an ebionite my body is merely a husk and as such it will be stripped away clean or not it is what lay within the husk that matters a loving soul cleansed by the fire of the holy spirit!!

 

[Bishka]

those who have died are already in the hands of the lord our job is to focus on the souls of the living and bring them to God

How is this pertinent to the OP?

 

[astarath]

First clarifying which baptism we are refering to whether by water or by fire helps me to discern which point to present. If it be the baptism of water meant for the body baptism truly holds no value as the soul has already left the husk. If it is the latter than there is more of a discussion to take place

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, let me get this straight. Baptism, according to you, is not a symbolic act. There is something about an individual being physically being submerged in water that allows God to wash away his or her sins, and there is no other way to do it. If your flesh does not come into contact with water, baptism does not occur, and you do not get into heaven.

We don't see it as symbolic in the same way certain groups of Christians (notably those with a more Evangelical leaning) do. While they use the word "symbolic" in describing the reason behind baptism to mean that it is merely "outward sign" of one's conversion (i.e. it symbolizes their acceptance of Jesus Christ to other believers), we believe baptism to be the means by which we enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. As to the idea that the water literally "washes away one's sins," no, we don't believe that.

In Acts 22:16, we read the following: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Because a sin is not something that can be washed off the skin by water, that particular phrase is itself symbolic. That in no way negates the fact that God requires the ordinance of baptism as a means by which we solemnize the covenant we are making with our Savior to take upon ourselves His name and to keep His commandments. Incidentally, we don't believe that baptism is required in order to enter into Heaven, but to us, Heaven is not a one-size-fits-all kind of place. We believe that a number of ordinances, baptism being the first among them, are required in order for a person to receive the "fullness of salvation" or eternal life in the presence of God.

Which makes me wonder... if symbolic baptism is not acceptable to God, then, once again, why is it that baptism-by-proxy is acceptable to God? Do you understand what baptism-by-proxy is?

Evidently a lot better than you do.

It's sympathetic... well, I wouldn't call it magic because I suspect that would offend (and possibly confuse) you. It''s a symbolic ritual. The soul is not coming into contact with the water, yet is being baptized. It is being baptized because someone is standing in for the soul on earth. The person standing in for the soul is a symbolic representation of the soul. Thus, either baptism can indeed be symbolic in nature rather than literal, or the soul is simply not being baptized in a baptism-by-proxy because, as you said, baptism cannot be symbolic; it must include submersion in water.

Allow me to correct you, seeing as I'm the one whose beliefs we are discussing. I'll just start by explaining that I will use the word "spirit" instead of "soul" since we believe that, technically speaking, the "soul" exists only when the spirit and physical body are united, as is the case during a person's mortal existence and as will again be the case once that person is resurrected. A person's spirit is incorporeal; therefore it would be impossible for anyone to baptize a spirit. Consequently, baptism is an earthly ordinance. The spirit, on the other hand, is the entity which is given the free will to either accept or reject the baptism done on its behalf. I was baptized at the age of eight. I (i.e. the spirit part of me) made a conscious decision to enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. As a result of this decision, my body was baptized by immersion. My great, great, great grandmother may not have had this opportunity. Because her spirit now exists as a cognizant entity apart from her body, she cannot physically be baptized. I, however, can receive this ordinance for her since I still have my physical body. In the end, the decision to either accept or reject this baptism is hers and hers alone.

If, of course, we wish to argue that water does come into contact with the soul during the baptism-by-proxy, despite the fact that the soul is not physically present on Earth at the location of the baptism (unless it temporarily possesses the individual who is standing in for the departed, which is just creepy), then we have to argue that baptism-by-water is possible in Heaven, and doesn't need to be performed by proxy...

How, may I ask, is it possible to baptize something that has no corporeal form?

It makes God sound like Tooth Fairy; if I don't put the tooth under my pillow the Tooth Fairy will not give me my prize. I don't understand how people can believe such things.

I don't know. Maybe you're just smart and I'm just stupid. To each his own.

 

[Katzpur]

Christ's baptism in the water was not done however following his demise!!!

Ummm... Did you think I was suggesting that it was?

As well differing beliefs hold different values. A baptism of water is to clean the body, baptism of fire to cleanse the soul. As an ebionite my body is merely a husk and as such it will be stripped away clean or not it is what lay within the husk that matters a loving soul cleansed by the fire of the holy spirit!!

As I just explained to Runt, I do not believe that my sins are literally being washed off my skin by water baptism. I believe that baptism is the means by which I covenant with my Savior to take upon myself His holy name and to promise to keep His commandments. It cleanses me because, by entering into this covenant, I am given the assurance that He will pay the price for my sins, therefore making me pure in God's eyes and worthy to enter His presence.

 

[rocka21]

Christ's baptism in the water was not done however following his demise!!! As well differing beliefs hold different values. A baptism of water is to clean the body, baptism of fire to cleanse the soul. As an ebionite my body is merely a husk and as such it will be stripped away clean or not it is what lay within the husk that matters a loving soul cleansed by the fire of the holy spirit!!

1. Matthew 3:11
   I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
   Matthew 3:10-12 (in Context) Matthew 3 (Whole Chapter)
2. Mark 1:8
   I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
   Mark 1:7-9 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
3. Luke 3:16
   John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Nice....

some people are stuck in that John the BAPTIST baptisim ( water). I glad John told us the next baptism

 

[Katzpur]

those who have died are already in the hands of the lord our job is to focus on the souls of the living and bring them to God

And to hell (quite literally) with those who never heard His gospel, I suppose. Is that the kind of God you worship?