Ok I have a question. A family friend sent us this article (with good intentions, he always sends us articles that he thinks will fascinate us): Taking Mormons to Court? (a related article here )
The article is about Jews who are upset (to the point of asking Hillary Clinton to take legal action) about our ritual of proxy baptism. Proxiy baptism is sacred ordinance performed for the deceased. Like most Christians, we believe that no one who has not been baptized can enter the highest glory of heaven. However, understanding that there are many people who have never had the oportunity to be baptized (or even learn what baptism is), we perform baptisms for the dead. The way it works is this: a member of the Church researches an ancestor's name, takes the name to the Temple, is baptized in place of that person, and then that deceased person's spirit has to choose wheither or not to accept the baptism. Once the ordinance is performed, the name is kept on a record that includes the baptism date as well as birth and death dates. This is so that we don't repeat baptisms over and over. We also believe in keeping good records. This practice is why we do so much geneology research.
Anyway, the problem is that this practice bothers some Jews (and others) because it supposedly robs their anncestors of their heritage. My question is, is that a legitimate concern, and how can we address that concern without compromising our beliefs?
Most of me wants to say that if you don't think we have the authority to actually do the ordinance legitimately, why do you care? And if you care, then you obviously think that it is legitimate, and if you think it's legitimate, then why aren't you a member of the Church?
But then there's a small part of me that says hey, the Church procedure is that the names you find are supposed to be family members, and if people aren't following that procedure, then they should be punished. But suing the Church is still inappropriate by that mode of thought because it is the member's fault for not getting the right names, not the Church's fault.
I don't know, it's complicated. These ordinances and these records are crucial parts of our faith. The mission of the Church is this: 1. Perfect the saints, 2. proclaim the gospel, and 3. Redeem the dead.
Could the government even have the power to take away that last goal? Proxy work is such a spiritual, beautiful, sacred thing. What would the Church do in such a circumstance?
Personally I think that even should Hillary Clinton bring it to court, it wouldn't go anywhere. I was very amused, though, by some of things people are saying.
For example:
"'I am really saddened that the practice is continuing,' said Cathy Wolf, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix. 'I was under the impression it had been stopped.'
She said she hoped that religious groups would learn to respect one another's unique practices."
Oh the irony. Isn't this one of our unique practices that she is not respecting.
"One of the "unintended consequences" of proxy baptism is the legitimization of fascists and Nazis."
What the heck? I don't get this arguement.
"It's ridiculous for people to pretend they have the key to heaven," said Rabbi Marvin Hier
Then what the heck are you doing as a Rabbi if you can't even promise your flock salvation?
OK, I'm done asking my question, ranting, and rambling.
Recent Comments