Dotsie, absolutely ... who should care... and even if they claimed 60,000 (some headlines had 100,000) downloaded the certificate, it's likely some did so out of curiosity. I'd like to see it myself.
Ellem, I'm thinking '15 minutes' or need to belong type of thing, too. But, goodness
.... Mormons believe that they are offering baptism to everyone and it's up to them to accept it in the afterlife.
And, I think the Mormons are doing it because they believe (and want) fellowship in the afterlife with their loved ones. If I remember correctly, they believe that non-Mormon loved ones who go to 'the next plane' are 'taught' the faith by Mormon loved ones already there. Interesting concept. The faiths that baptize babies are loving parents who think they are protecting them from some evil, right? The faith I was raised in, we accepted the Lord as personal Savior, and
then we were baptized as a profession of faith, our 'certificate.'
If my parents had raised me in a faith that I could not live with, and the faith told me that I could not undo a sacrament that I had no choice in receiving, I would not be very happy. I would do everything in my power to undo what had been done to me by no choice of my own. Even if I felt that it had no meaning.
Rebelling against authority, parents and otherwise... the "I'll show you" some 'children' do, grown ones, even.
Mormons are known as some of the world's best researchers in genealogy. They are very serious about searching for roots and keep voluminous records. (As far as I know, they permit non-Mormons to take advantage of their work.) BUT, the reason they are doing the research is to get lists of people to baptize; to the best of my knowledge they work off the lists when they do baptisms and yes, I think there's some sort of ceremony. If I got any of that wrong, someone please correct me.
I believe you are right on every point, which includes them being baptized for each they choose in the temple.
.... In this particular case, the atheist's argument relies on a false premise by misrepresenting the "matter of choice" in conferring the Sacrament of Baptism on an infant. By substituting a proposition i.e. the absence of choice, the atheist creates an illusory position that the baptism is meaningless. Where does the refutation fail? The atheistic argument does not refute the theology behind the Sacrament thereby it does not render it meaningless. The argument relies on choice. But it still fails because, where the choice was not the infant's to make in the first place, neither would it have been of any faith community. It is a parental prerogative (whereupon the original position rests).
Whoa, Lola, I had to read that three times to understand it fully.
The Sacrament of Baptism is a covenant between God and man. In faith communities where the covenant between man and God is intangible and unseen, one can repudiate the faith one was raised or born into by simply walking away from it and become non-practising or non-observant. However, how does one undo a covenant with God where it is tangible and seen? There are faith communities which bear the rite of circumcision.
I need to ask - for a parent to assign the covenant... well, is it
truly a
binding covenant between God and the baby? Or more a covenant between God and the parents?
I hate my name, and have thought of changing it several times throughout my lifetime. It wouldn't be a step against my parents, however. It'd be simply because I don't like it. The fact is, I didn't pursue my desire, mostly, because I knew it would hurt my mom, who loves the name.
Previous Topic
Index
