Is it confined to the dead?
Is it explicate that they have baptised someone?
Are the deads relatives nominating them for baptisum?

If last is true its almost as the indivduel is almost powerless as the infent who is baptised. The similare point is some family member thought it a good idea.

That's the point, Celtic. Mormons believe that they are offering baptism to everyone and it's up to them to accept it in the afterlife. I kind of understand this logic, even if I don't agree with it, but they have even baptized Jews and whatnot. It's the relatives, particularly of the Jews -- some of whom perished in the Holocaust -- who objected so strenuously. I have read that the Mormons agreed to stop doing this and that they still do it, so I have no idea.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, only to point out that people can feel very strongly about beliefs when they feel they have been unfairly conscripted.

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.

I don't think you derailed the thread ELLMAN i think you made a good argument for the furtherence of the descusion of the thread.

and also i am just curiouse about this as i have never heared of it before (within the mormone faith), I am always up for learning bits and bobs of facts lol even if some of them do nuthing more than just be a fact thats remembered but never used again.

Its a simlare thing (this fact) and relivent to this chat as its just about being or belonging too an organisasion the indidel din't wanna bvelong too.

the idea of getting to chose to be baptised or not in the afterlife thats a whole new idea to me to, Obviouslie they belive in afterlife and choice which is good and i also get it.

if its not the relatives who put them up for baptisum then who nominates them or makes them knowen to the church? Is thir a cereimony to do baptisum by? Like with water as chatty said? Thers seems to be a diffrense to offering baptisum to everyone and actulie baptising anyone and everyone.

Id be cross to find myself baprtised into anything i din't wanna be baptised into, so id have a few choice words in the afterlife lol.

oh i also din't relise you could click on the blue link for to read the articale, it looked to fancy for a web address and i would't know how to fancy it up that pretie.

so this came about as a joke be the atheists but it taken on a life of its owen. We never know if those people are joking or seriouse that have dowenloaded the form.

good point anno
id just assumed it had to have meaning for someone to want to undo it. Simplie about choice and personal choice alone that makes it valide point for some folks, who take personal choise seriouslie, good enough reason to have it undone. If it can be undone.

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.

Celt, the basis of a straw argument relies on a misrepresentation of a position wherein that position is refuted by substitution, which does not really refute the original position.

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).

Good points, all.

I do agree, that this is all for publicity for a cause. Agree or not, if this is the case, he won this round.

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.

Yes, this is a point well-taken, Lola. There are many deeds, religious and many more others, that parents do in the best interest of their children. I know that baptism is always in the best interest of a child. Circumcision too, I believe.

There are so many deeds that some parents do that are not in the best interest of a child. Looking at it from this perspective makes this man's actions seem frivolous, at best.

Again, tho, if he wanted attention, he surely found it.