It appears he had his atheist father-in-law baptized after death. Interesting!
I think we should respect people’s decisions as they made them while they could still communicate with us. On the other hand, it suggests Mitt Romney really does believe what he claims–about his faith at least.
… at RodneyOlsen.net. Go check out the first Christian Carnival of the new year. (No, I didn’t contribute anything this week.)
. . . at Bounded Irrationality. Check it out.
This morning I awoke to start my early morning blog and e-mail work only to find that co.mments.com had supplied me (at my request) with seven messages alerting me to comments on Ed Brayton’s most recent blog entry on the Richard Dawkins petition debate, representing 27 comments. I only worked my way through a few…
Well, sort of … If you talk like this, consider a change! HT: The Internet Monk
… for his response to Larry Flynt.
I’ve always believe in open communion in the sense that any Christian should be permitted to participate. Over the last few years I’ve attended a church where truly open communion is practiced, because the pastors believe, with John Wesley, that this is a converting sacrament. So they state each time communion is offered that you…
If we’re going by fact: RMoney evidently participated in a religious rite which violated the wishes and beliefs of his deceased father-in-law in accordance to RMoney’s own personal beliefs? Usually I would say religion is private. But I must ask myself can such a man with those beliefs truly value the rights and choices of others enough to objectively run this country and it’s military? Will the USA embark on a MISSION to save souls across the globe dead or alive? Will the deceased service members suffer the indignities of a secret-baptism? These are valid questions as this man is seeking to be the LEADER of the USA and has stated he will govern in accordance with his religious beliefs.
I certainly find it disrespectful of his father-in-law’s beliefs. Would that carry over into other areas of his life or how he would behave in government? I don’t know. I already have enough reasons not to vote for him, so I’ll leave that one unexplored.
Perhaps. But isn’t respect of your fellow human being more important? How would he feel if HE was baptized post mortem into a new religion that his future family believed in? It really isn’t how I look at spirituality at all: a relationship between me and my God. This seems to be based on what I feel is the mistaken notion that I can do something to earn my way into heaven. Or in this instance, I can do something to earn my loved ones way into heaven. Being baptized, taking communion, these are things that symbolize our relationship with our Father, but don’t earn us anything. I find the whole idea ridiculous. The only thing that gives me comfort in this is that it really does nothing to those they are supposedly baptizing.
My cousin is a devote Mormon, and after my father passed, he asked me if he could baptize him. I told him no. My dad had his own relationship with God. I have no idea if he did it anyways. I hope not, but frankly I don’t think it would change anything if he had. I know he’s in heaven, waiting for me there.
Absolutely! I guess I didn’t make that clear enough. My comment about knowing he really believes what he believes was mildly sarcastic. As I look at it, that is not at all clear, so I’m taking my chance to clarify the point. I don’t think sincere belief trumps respect. Romney’s action was disrespectful and I don’t think he should have done it.
People of course are entitled to their opinions. However, the ordinance is performed either by or on behalf of a living relative of the deceased. That person has to be a close relative such as mother, father, sibling or other close relative if the deceased was born within the last 90 years. If the deceased was born prior to that, the requirement is just that the person requesting or performing the ordinance be a relative. Keep in mind this is an offering only and makes no demands on the departed soul.
Regarding the issue some Jews had with baptism for the dead as performed by the LDS Church, they had a problem with the dead being on the rolls of a Christian organization. They did not believe the ordinance was valid so that was never a problem. It should be made clear that having this ordinance performed does not make anyone anything. It does not mean the deceased has become a member of the church nor does it mean the dead person is henceforth known as a Mormon or carried on some membership roster of any sort. It is analogous to Catholics praying someone out of purgatory although there is considerable theological difference. Readers should look at what the act is intended to do. It extends an offering or blessing to someone who needs assistance in complying with a standard set by God which can only be performed by the living.