Is There A Way To Block Mormon Relatives From Baptizing Me When I Croak?

[LifeOnaPlate]

So far Oracle has advocated both extortion and forgery in this one thread. By their fruits, I suppose.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, Expositor left quite satisfied saying "I understand now," in effect. You're the one bludgeoning the issue in behalf of no one.

But I digress, and have the solution:

HA HA. Now it is appropriat to use this yes?

Actually.... Read the name of the thread again.

There is no way that the church is going to stop his relatives from doing the work. So the only way is for him to notify his relatives of his wishes and if they do it. Thats between him and them. The church has nothing to do with it and they arn't going to taser them when they come and present his name.

Thank you for the correction. I do need from time to time.

[AddamS]

Actually, Expositor left quite satisfied saying "I understand now," in effect. You're the one bludgeoning the issue in behalf of no one.

But I digress, and have the solution:

Almost perfect, Just add "Or Else he'll leave a burning sack of poo at your planet's doorstep in the after-life"

[Avatar4321]

yeah. get baptized while you are alive.

[Calm]

Almost perfect, Just add "Or Else he'll leave a burning sack of poo at your planet's doorstep in the after-life"

Such a visual to hit me right before I go start preparing dinner. How unkind of you!

Eternal pranksters...why not. Keep all of us from taking ourselves too seriously.

[AddamS]

yeah. get baptized while you are alive.

Wow...I don't even know how to respond to that.

Just....wow.....

[LifeOnaPlate]

Get baptized, commit every grievous sin you can conceive of, don't repent, get excommunicated, and then you can hope they won't dare baptize you. But still, they'll probably try.

[Avatar4321]

Wow...I don't even know how to respond to that.

Just....wow.....

You want to stop being baptized by proxy after your dead. The only sure way I know of to do that is to be baptized before you are dead.

[selek]

Wow...I don't even know how to respond to that.

Just....wow.....

Take it or leave it, he's right. Once you're baptized, your descendents won't bother trying again. Of course, then you're lined up for all those other silly rituals the Mormons endorse: funeral potatoes, green jello with carrots, "rice crispies" bars made with cheerios or Froot Loops.

It'll be a tough row to hoe, one way or the other.

[Zakuska]

Well... maybe he'll just get double dipped like some of the people Paul was talking to.

[MorningStar]

You want to stop being baptized by proxy after your dead. The only sure way I know of to do that is to be baptized before you are dead.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You want to stop being baptized by proxy after your dead. The only sure way I know of to do that is to be baptized before you are dead.

Even though he maybe jokeing wich I hope he is. If not it would be quit a bad idea to do that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Expositor is a live person, is he not? The OP states his express wishes to not have proxy ordinances performed on his behalf after he is dead. This thread has been much about everyone telling him he shouldn't care about it, it doesn't matter, it will be done anyway. That's invasive, at least from where I am sitting.

If Mormon beliefs are foolishness, performing a vicarious baptism for Expositor will not be "invasive" because doing so will have precisely no impact or effect upon him. In order for an act to be "invasive" of somebody, it would seem to me, that act would have to have some effect upon him or her.

If Mormon beliefs are true, there is a very real possibility that Expositor, finding himself in a quite new situation, will rethink his opposition to vicarious baptism. Typically, however, people in such a state are unable to communicate their views to those who remain behind. So the safest thing seems to be for Mormons to perform vicarious baptisms even for people like Expositor. The risk of harm is zero; the possibility of enormous benefit is, depending upon your point of view, either zero, or very slight, or immense. Thus, the risk never outweighs the potential benefit, and the benefit may be virtually infinite.

[Mighty Curelom]

It does seem to me to be a question of religious liberty. Does one have the right to determine the treatment of one's own soul? The LDS position that baptisms for the dead can either be accepted or rejected doesn't strike me as a very strong defense. An action is still being performed on a soul--the subsequent meaning of that action is irrelevant. American jurisprudence has determined that religious freedom is not extended to practices which involuntarily invade an individual's person. If such practices involving the physical body can be limited, it stands to reason that practices involving the soul could similarly be limited, especially in cases where the individual has expressed his will that his soul not be subjected to a religious ritual.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It does seem to me to be a question of religious liberty. Does one have the right to determine the treatment of one's own soul? The LDS position that baptisms for the dead can either be accepted or rejected doesn't strike me as a very strong defense. An action is still being performed on a soul--the subsequent meaning of that action is irrelevant. American jurisprudence has determined that religious freedom is not extended to practices which involuntarily invade an individual's person. If such practices involving the physical body can be limited, it stands to reason that practices involving the soul could similarly be limited, especially in cases where the individual has expressed his will that his soul not be subjected to a religious ritual.

Well thankfully the law pretty much ends at death, or does the law go into the supernatural? So as such there really can be no argument, or can there be?

[Daniel Peterson]

It does seem to me to be a question of religious liberty. Does one have the right to determine the treatment of one's own soul? The LDS position that baptisms for the dead can either be accepted or rejected doesn't strike me as a very strong defense. An action is still being performed on a soul

If Latter-day Saint belief is false, no action whatsoever is being "performed" on the soul of the person for whom the ordinance is performed.

And anyway, unless I'm mistaken, you don't believe that there's a soul on which such an action could be performed.

If I say that lighting this candle will enhance the levitating powers of Transylvanian unicorns, someone who denies the existence of Transylvanian unicorns, disbelieves in levitating powers, and rejects the possibility that candles have significant transoceanic impact would be ill-advised to criticize me for lighting a candle on the grounds that it is immoral to meddle with the unicorn population of Transylvania.

American jurisprudence has determined that religious freedom is not extended to practices which involuntarily invade an individual's person.

The courts have not yet extended their jurisdiction to the afterlife, so far as I'm aware.

Moreover, it hasn't been demonstrated that performing a vicarious baptism on someone's behalf "invades" that individual's "person" in any sense at all -- certainly no more than praying for that person or lighting a candle for that person does. No court in its right mind would ever think of banning the lighting of votive candles or the saying of masses for the dead. You're really, really, really stretching here.

If such practices involving the physical body can be limited, it stands to reason that practices involving the soul could similarly be limited, especially in cases where the individual has expressed his will that his soul not be subjected to a religious ritual.

I'm glad that you've come to a conviction of the existence of the immortal soul. But you should understand that Latter-day Saints don't believe that vicarious baptisms "subject" anybody's soul to anything at all.

[Zakuska]

An action being preformed on a soul? No... that is necromancy.

It's an action being performed by another totally independent soul and body that has nothing to do with the soul the action is being performed for. The soul can still spit in the eye of the soul and body who is performing the action.

[Maidservant]

From D & C 20

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

74 Then shall he shall immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

(Just so you know how it goes -- with only minor changes for proxies)

[Noodle]

I actually attend the first church of beelzebub. We also have an ordinance that binds people by proxy, however the cool thing is in my church they don't have to be dead yet to bind people to the first church of beelzebub. I already have on record Daniel peterson, pahoran and charity. I am adding more each day to the church of beelzebub. They may not be interested now, but later oh boy they'll thank me for it.

[Oracle]

So far Oracle has advocated both extortion and forgery in this one thread. By their fruits, I suppose.

So far LOaP has shown insensitivity, insincerity and rudeness...all in one thread. By their fruits, I suppose.

Great, I can extort people to respect my wishes!

Isn't it sad that one would have to even think about resorting to such action in order to ensure his wishes are respected by his family.

[Oracle]

Well he got his answer long ago. Did he not? You accused some of us here that we were talking past each other. I dont think this was the case, as you can clearly see that he has not posted in some time and even admitted that he understands now our belief. yes?

Actually, that is not the case as Mr. Expositor is still on the thread. I do think he is getting a much better understanding of the belief, however, by the tone and responses of those who are on this thread.

[Oracle]

Assuming that it could be found legally binding (and that's a fairly big if), that doesn't work beyond those named specifically in the will. It's also heavily dependent on how scrupulous your executor is.

Let's say he leaves the Porsche, the yacht, and the house in Beverly Hills to his son.

Expositor, Jr. can decide that the lucre is worth it and refuse to baptize (or allow it) his father by proxy. Thirty years later, the Junior dies and in turn leaves the loot to his son.

Expositor III can turn around and have his grandsire baptized by proxy and there isn't a thing the executor can do about it, because E3 inherited it from Junior, not from his grandfather.

Or seventy(?) years can go by and some well-meaning but deluded cousin can come along and say, gee- Unk Ex hasn't been dunked yet, and have the work done for him and there is nothing they can do about it.

You can say anything you want, make any demands you wish, in your will. Whether it's of any effect or even legally binding is another matter altogether.

Remember, Anna Nicole Smith's hubby left everything to his son. She still wound up with several million dollars.

Well, it was just a suggestion, and the will does leave documented evidence of Expositors desire to NOT be baptized. Actions contrary to that by the family is just proof their will is more important than Expositors when it comes to his own "soul."

[Oracle]

If Mormon beliefs are foolishness, performing a vicarious baptism for Expositor will not be "invasive" because doing so will have precisely no impact or effect upon him. In order for an act to be "invasive" of somebody, it would seem to me, that act would have to have some effect upon him or her.

If Mormon beliefs are true, there is a very real possibility that Expositor, finding himself in a quite new situation, will rethink his opposition to vicarious baptism. Typically, however, people in such a state are unable to communicate their views to those who remain behind. So the safest thing seems to be for Mormons to perform vicarious baptisms even for people like Expositor. The risk of harm is zero; the possibility of enormous benefit is, depending upon your point of view, either zero, or very slight, or immense. Thus, the risk never outweighs the potential benefit, and the benefit may be virtually infinite.

What is invasive, IMO, is that you are telling Expositor that it doesn't really matter what he wants, the LDS work will be done regardless. All beliefs aside.

If is a pretty big word there, isn't it. Pascals Wager has the unfortunate effect of reducing God to the role of a gamer.

[Daniel Peterson]

What is invasive, IMO, is that you are telling Expositor that it doesn't really matter what he wants, the LDS work will be done regardless. All beliefs aside.

It is non-invasive because neither his kin nor he can know what he will want after his death, and neither his kin nor he will likely be able to communicate about his preferences at that time, but his believing kinfolk will probably offer a postmortem baptism to him that he will continue to be free to reject if he so chooses. That's called religious liberty. People are free to pray, say masses, burn candles, spin prayer wheels, and baptize for anybody they want. Doing so hurts nobody.

If is a pretty big word there, isn't it. Pascals Wager has the unfortunate effect of reducing God to the role of a gamer.

If anything, it reduces the believer to a gamer. But, with Claremont's Stephen Davis, I don't think it does even that.

[Mighty Curelom]

I don't really understand the tenacity of believers arguing against Mr. Expositor's request. Considering the absolute impossibility of baptizing the entire Human Family, it seems a small request to leave out the minuscule number of people who object to it. For example, Pre-Columbian Americans didn't keep birth records. A steady population of several million, living and dying, generation after generation for thousands of years, all unavailable for proxy baptism. In fact, most of the people who've lived and died on this planet left no genealogical records, and many births and deaths still go unrecorded, making the goal of vicariously baptizing every last soul a fool's errand.

So, since you're never going to baptize everyone anyway, why not humor those who wish to opt out? Just add them to the millions upon millions of other people whose names will never grace LDS genealogical records. It's no skin off your nose, and it will make Mr. Expositor feel better, so why all the fuss?