Baptizing Dead Quakers

[Jeff K.]

I do find it unfortunate. I have many friends and family members that are active LDS and I respect them. I consider myself Mormon even if I don't hold the supernatural or historical claims of the church to be factual. Like the author of the article, I'm not a believer or participant in my family's religious tradition. That doesn't mean I enjoy the poor behavior if it's members because it tarnishes the institution.

Phaedrus

The presumption of course being that something is being tarnished here, when in fact there is no after life imperialism. The action of baptism regarding baptism of the dead remains in the hands of the dead, for all Latter-day Saints know, we are merely going through motions which will produce little in the way of results, and even then only by those with a right of family to make that decision, not the church itself.

One wonders why the articles do not attack the families that baptize for their dead rather than the church. Is it perhaps easier to hate a faceless institution than to go to a person personally and say "I have more rights in the matter than you and my decision is that you may not baptise in the name of our mutual fathers and mothers."

[Scott Lloyd]

The presumption of course being that something is being tarnished here, when in fact there is no after life imperialism.

I think by "tarnish," phaedrus was referring here to Pahoran's posting style, not the practice of baptism for the dead. I, of course, disagree that the church is tarnished by vigorous and intelligent defense against criticism.

One wonders why the articles do not attack the families that baptize for their dead rather than the church. Is it perhaps easier to hate a faceless institution than to go to a person personally and say "I have more rights in the matter than you and my decision is that you may not baptise in the name of our mutual fathers and mothers."

This is a valid point. A church is a community of believers.

[LeSellers]

In what material way does baptizing for the dead differ from baptizing infants?

Neither can make his wishes known at the time of the ritual. Neither can refuse the ceremony.

The only difference that I can see is that the dead can effectively refuse the consequences of the ordiance, and an infant, destined to be raised in the religion of those who have baptized him, has little chance of declining.

Lehi

[Calm]

In what material way does baptizing for the dead differ from baptizing infants?

Neither can make his wishes known at the time of the ritual. Neither can refuse the ceremony.

The only difference that I can see is that the dead can effectively refuse the consequences of the ordiance, and an infant, destined to be raised in the religion of those who have baptized him, has little chance of declining.

Lehi

Perhaps a valid argument for those who accept baptism of infants as a proper ordinance, but in the case Quakers do not.

[Calm]

In trying to find info on the view of baptism from an official source (nothing yet), I came across this interesting commonality between LDS and Quakers:

The Religious Society of Friends (most commonly referred to as Quakers) originate in around 1648 with revelations supposedly given to George Fox in England. For the rest of his life he went around England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and even America and Holland, preaching concerning the revelations given to him. The Quakers have separated the practice of Christianity from having doctrines, and prefer to follow the former; they have removed any physical event of importance (including baptism and the Lord's Supper) to focus on the spiritual life. The New Testament, according to Friends theology, should not be taken as the final revelation of God; it is just as possible to receive revelations today as it was in the first century. Quakers are known for plain dress, respectful greeting to all, and being rather informal in meetings.

http://www.deusvitae...ons/quaker.html

From an actual Quaker, but not a formal discussion: http://quakeroatslive.blogspot.com/2006/11/baptism.html

This is probably as official as it gets:

Q: Do Quakers practise water baptism?

A: No. Jesus baptises his true followers in the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was meant for the disciples of John the Baptist. John himself said that he baptised with water, but the one who was to follow him (Jesus) would baptise with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). Baptism in Jesus fulfils and ends water baptism. Water Baptism cannot cleanse a person from their sin. Baptism in the Holy Spirit can and does!

http://www.rcquakers.lomaxes.me.uk/faq/faq.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

Assuming that the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead has some validity (and those who oppose it apparently believe it does, else why would they oppose it?) who, really, is imposing on the person who is dead?

Not Mormons, certainly, for they believe the ordinance is efficacious only if the one for whom it is performed accepts it.

On the other hand, those who would seek to prevent it are, in effect, taking the option away from the one who has died.

So I ask again: Who, really, is imposing upon the dead?

[LeSellers]

This is probably as official as it gets:

Q: Do Quakers practise water baptism?

A: No. Jesus baptises his true followers in the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was meant for the disciples of John the Baptist. John himself said that he baptised with water, but the one who was to follow him (Jesus) would baptise with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). Baptism in Jesus fulfils and ends water baptism. Water Baptism cannot cleanse a person from their sin. Baptism in the Holy Spirit can and does!

I really do not want to get into a "What Quakers believe and why they're wrong, wrong, wrong" discussion, but this seems to miss an important passage (at least in my mind).

Jesus Himself baptized. I am not where I can check my references, but all who claim that He did not make the same error of ignoring the scripture as the Quakers seem to be.

Ah, I found it:

22 — After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

If Jesus did as John reported, then it is wholly in error to claim He did not, as many do.

Lehi

[Calm]

Assuming that the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead has some validity (and those who oppose it apparently believe it does, else why would they oppose it?) .....

I do see how those who oppose it don't have to have any confidence in its validity to dislike the rite itself being performed on principle...especially if they think LDS look on this as adding to their membership roles etc. For one thing, they could oppose it simply because it's something they know LDS think is important and if they don't like LDS, they could be putting roadblocks in their path so they are not as successful (a more concrete example would be someone who opposes the building of an LDS temple anywhere, even if it's not in their neighbourhood and has no effect on their own lives).

Others feel like LDS are making a claim of possession and they feel like this diminishes their own relationship somehow...an analogy would be how someone might feel if an individual who was not actually related but still claimed Joseph Smith (or even better Oliver Cowdery as this has really happened) as an ancestor to give themselves more credibility. While LDS do not see performing proxy work as accomplishing this, others may interpret our belief in this way or at least see us as self-validating by doing this, a validation they don't believe we deserve.

I can also understand how it looks like it is dishonouring the person by baptizing them, by expecting them to change their former beliefs for our own (though we only expect this if the beliefs are true....since we believe they are true, it is an actual expectation) it looks like we are dismissive of how the person chose to live her life, instead of letting her own words and actions speak for her and stand as a memorial we are superimposing what we think they would be doing on top of that making it appear to some that we don't value what this person was in life. An analogy would be someone stating that women who practice polygyny hated it and only did it because they were forced or conned into the practice while ignoring all the writings and personal remarks of the actual women who promoted plural marriage as a true godly practice that allowed them to experience a part of heaven here on earth (a paraphrase from one of my own female ancestors).

[Calm]

Jesus Himself baptized.

Unless that can be shown to have been baptisms with water and not simply a spiritual baptism (though this would seem to be some sort of rite or at least a recognition by both Christ and the believer that a baptism has taken place), I don't see how that contradicts their belief. It seems that the Quakers see such things as supposed to be solely about the relationship between the individual and Christ and not any formula or rite 'interfering' or obscuring that primary relationship.

[LeSellers]

Unless that can be shown to have been baptisms with water and not simply a spiritual baptism (though this would seem to be some sort of rite or at least a recognition by both Christ and the believer that a baptism has taken place), I don't see how that contradicts their belief.

Whatever the Quakers (or anyone else) may see in this, the context strongly points to water baptism.

22¶ After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

John was in a nearby place baptizing, there is no distinction made between the two ordinances, and it's all in the same Greek "paragraph".

Lehi