![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was raised with grandparents in two different sects of Christianity - Southern Bapist on one side and Latter-Day Saints on the other. So my understanding of baptism is different than that of some of my friends (as Melanie can attest after a discussion we carried on for a few days). Recently, a friend witnessed the baptism of her little grandchild and the occurrance got me to wondering, again, about the differing views on that sacrament...
Now - here's a warning - I'm about to fly off into never-never land, as far as some of you are concerned. Just attach your seatbelt, disengage your insta-reaction setting, and fly with me a bit...
One of the hotpoint about Romney's candidacy for President is his membership in the Latter-Day Saints, which has focussed a new spotlight on their practises. And one of those practises is baptism done by a person on behalf of their deceased family members. In Mormonism, it is believed that baptism is a contract (if you will) accepting Christ as the individual's Saviour and it must be entered into here, on earth, in order to be valid for eternity (this is also true of marriages meant to last past death, which are performed in a Temple, same as baptism-by-proxy). So a person who petitions for permission to stand for a deceased relative in a baptism is doing so in the belief that they are acting in that relative's good interest and insuring that their loved one has the necessary religious 'insurance' to guarantee everlasting life in heaven as a Christian (of the proper Sect). There is acknowledgement that the relative will have the right of rejection of that baptism, but should they choose to accept it, they'd be 'covered', as it were. (And please, let's not get into the subject of those who have been caught cheating in order to perform some of those baptisms... believe me, the LDS church is FAR more harsh with them than the outraged relatives are, even with all the media coverage. The Church is QUITE unforgiving when it comes to something like that.)
So now to the other type of baptism that I was thinking about - that of infants. I have no real knowledge about the practise, it not being something I have experienced or really studied. But my understanding of it is that a child's God-parents (who may also have other obligations towards the child) or parents act in that child's stead and make promises in it's name towards God and towards Christ as well as their sect of Christianity, while accepting (on behalf of the child) Christs & God's protection and membership into that particular church. Is that about right? The infant gains the church's spiritual protection and guidance as well as membership (in some sects, this is followed up with a Confirmation later in their lives) during their lifetime from the moment of their baptism. Right? But later, if a child should grow up and leave the church, they'd be considered a heretic since they were once 'accepted into the body of the church'. So in one case, there's a diverging of consequence for the baptise-ee.
So as I see it, there isn't much difference between the act, on the part of the adults involved, between that of 'regular' Christian churchmembers acting as agents of an unknowing individual (the child) and those of the LDS church acting as agents of their related-but-unknowing (dead) relatives, saving that the Mormon-related ones do not run the risk of being labelled 'heretic' should the repudiate the baptism/membership.
Nowadays, of course, repudiation doesn't carry the heavy punishment that it did medievally, but the 'stain' is still there.
So am I off? Have I misunderstood an aspect of the two practises? Remember - I have no real knowledge of the practise of infant baptism at all, as I was raised with the idea that it was an act of faith practised by a knowing, responsible faithbearer entering into a personal relationship with Christ. An acknowledgement of one's personal gift of salvation by Christ and one's debt of obedience to His & God's Will. Thus my understanding of how that is accomplished via infant baptism, and how that differs from baptism-by-proxy is most likely flawed.
But if I am not too far off, then I fail to see why there is so much distrust and outrage over the baptismal practises of Romney's faith compared to mainstream-accepted Christian sects which practise infant baptism. Perhaps someone could explain it to me?
(Please keep in mind that my friends who read this walk many faithpaths and I respect their choices and their joy in their paths so be polite in your comments. I'd really like to see a good discussion but not, I hope, with any harsh and nasty comments. You're all smart - use your smarts to craft your point with grace. I'd wager it'll only take you an extra three minutes or less.)
Now - here's a warning - I'm about to fly off into never-never land, as far as some of you are concerned. Just attach your seatbelt, disengage your insta-reaction setting, and fly with me a bit...
One of the hotpoint about Romney's candidacy for President is his membership in the Latter-Day Saints, which has focussed a new spotlight on their practises. And one of those practises is baptism done by a person on behalf of their deceased family members. In Mormonism, it is believed that baptism is a contract (if you will) accepting Christ as the individual's Saviour and it must be entered into here, on earth, in order to be valid for eternity (this is also true of marriages meant to last past death, which are performed in a Temple, same as baptism-by-proxy). So a person who petitions for permission to stand for a deceased relative in a baptism is doing so in the belief that they are acting in that relative's good interest and insuring that their loved one has the necessary religious 'insurance' to guarantee everlasting life in heaven as a Christian (of the proper Sect). There is acknowledgement that the relative will have the right of rejection of that baptism, but should they choose to accept it, they'd be 'covered', as it were. (And please, let's not get into the subject of those who have been caught cheating in order to perform some of those baptisms... believe me, the LDS church is FAR more harsh with them than the outraged relatives are, even with all the media coverage. The Church is QUITE unforgiving when it comes to something like that.)
So now to the other type of baptism that I was thinking about - that of infants. I have no real knowledge about the practise, it not being something I have experienced or really studied. But my understanding of it is that a child's God-parents (who may also have other obligations towards the child) or parents act in that child's stead and make promises in it's name towards God and towards Christ as well as their sect of Christianity, while accepting (on behalf of the child) Christs & God's protection and membership into that particular church. Is that about right? The infant gains the church's spiritual protection and guidance as well as membership (in some sects, this is followed up with a Confirmation later in their lives) during their lifetime from the moment of their baptism. Right? But later, if a child should grow up and leave the church, they'd be considered a heretic since they were once 'accepted into the body of the church'. So in one case, there's a diverging of consequence for the baptise-ee.
So as I see it, there isn't much difference between the act, on the part of the adults involved, between that of 'regular' Christian churchmembers acting as agents of an unknowing individual (the child) and those of the LDS church acting as agents of their related-but-unknowing (dead) relatives, saving that the Mormon-related ones do not run the risk of being labelled 'heretic' should the repudiate the baptism/membership.
Nowadays, of course, repudiation doesn't carry the heavy punishment that it did medievally, but the 'stain' is still there.
So am I off? Have I misunderstood an aspect of the two practises? Remember - I have no real knowledge of the practise of infant baptism at all, as I was raised with the idea that it was an act of faith practised by a knowing, responsible faithbearer entering into a personal relationship with Christ. An acknowledgement of one's personal gift of salvation by Christ and one's debt of obedience to His & God's Will. Thus my understanding of how that is accomplished via infant baptism, and how that differs from baptism-by-proxy is most likely flawed.
But if I am not too far off, then I fail to see why there is so much distrust and outrage over the baptismal practises of Romney's faith compared to mainstream-accepted Christian sects which practise infant baptism. Perhaps someone could explain it to me?
(Please keep in mind that my friends who read this walk many faithpaths and I respect their choices and their joy in their paths so be polite in your comments. I'd really like to see a good discussion but not, I hope, with any harsh and nasty comments. You're all smart - use your smarts to craft your point with grace. I'd wager it'll only take you an extra three minutes or less.)
