Is the Mormon baptism by proxy practice much different from infant baptism?

[they don't love you like i love you]

As far as I see it no, in both cases someone who doesn't believe is being "baptized" without their consent, but it's also harmless and holds no effect on the person in question.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes, because an infant can disavow the baptism/change his mind later.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes, because an infant can disavow the baptism/change his mind later.

As can a dead person in the afterlife according to Mormon doctrine.

And if you don't believe in Mormon doctrine, then the entire issue becomes pointless.

[afleitch]

As far as I see it no, in both cases someone who doesn't believe is being "baptized" without their consent, but it's also harmless and holds no effect on the person in question.

Disputable.

[they don't love you like i love you]

As far as I see it no, in both cases someone who doesn't believe is being "baptized" without their consent, but it's also harmless and holds no effect on the person in question.

Disputable.

Baptizing babies doesn't have any effect on them, any effects are caused by being raised in that church. If a baby is baptized out of tradition but the parents make no effort to raise the child in that church then it's no different if the baby wasn't baptized at all.

I think baptizing babies is pointless, but also pretty harmless, if I had any and the mother wanted them baptized I wouldn't object as long as I was OK with the church (not Catholic or conservative Presbyterian or Bachmann's branch of Lutheranism, etc.) But I would encourage them to be baptized again when older if that's what they wanted.

[minionofmidas]

Infant baptism strikes me as worse.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Infant baptism strikes me as worse.

So would you encourage anyone who remains Christian who was baptized as a baby to be rebaptized? I guess you'd approve of me "invalidating" my infant baptism by getting rebaptized in a few weeks.

[afleitch]

Infant baptism strikes me as worse.

So would you encourage anyone who remains Christian who was baptized as a baby to be rebaptized? I guess you'd approve of me "invalidating" my infant baptism by getting rebaptized in a few weeks.

Well look at it this way. I can't 'anull' mine.

[minionofmidas]

Infant baptism strikes me as worse.

So would you encourage anyone who remains Christian who was baptized as a baby to be rebaptized? I guess you'd approve of me "invalidating" my infant baptism by getting rebaptized in a few weeks.

"Invalidating" Baptism? Dude, it's a Sacrament. Either that  charade your parents went through when they had you baptized as an infant was not a Sacrament at all but a mockery of one (and thus probably blasphemous to boot; not consciously of course, not saying that at all), and then there is no reason to bother with invalidating though you do need to be rebaptized; or it's valid anyways and you can't invalidate it (though I guess you could still be rebaptized just for, you know, yourself and the world, rather than God).

While I've heard of errors of ritual "invalidating" a Sacrament, I've never heard of some kind of "invalidating ceremony". That seems to be an innovation to Christianity quite as strange and disturbing as anything the Mormons come up with.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Secular parents having their children baptized out of some sense of cultural necessity without having any intention of raising the child in the church, or religious at all, is certainly a mockery of the sacrament.

[Insula Dei]

I think the difference is that the one thing involves parents making a choice on behalf of their child (, which they do all the time), whereas the other involves people doing something against the clear wish of someone whois capable of having desires of their own. A better analogy would be having catholic last rites performed on your atheist father, who no longer is capable of expressing his opposition. That clearly is both seriously not okay, and useless.

[© tweed]

I don't think it's 'worse' if that's what you're getting at.  it's certainly different.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Infant baptism strikes me as worse.

So would you encourage anyone who remains Christian who was baptized as a baby to be rebaptized? I guess you'd approve of me "invalidating" my infant baptism by getting rebaptized in a few weeks.

"Invalidating" Baptism? Dude, it's a Sacrament. Either that  charade your parents went through when they had you baptized as an infant was not a Sacrament at all but a mockery of one (and thus probably blasphemous to boot; not consciously of course, not saying that at all), and then there is no reason to bother with invalidating though you do need to be rebaptized; or it's valid anyways and you can't invalidate it (though I guess you could still be rebaptized just for, you know, yourself and the world, rather than God).

While I've heard of errors of ritual "invalidating" a Sacrament, I've never heard of some kind of "invalidating ceremony". That seems to be an innovation to Christianity quite as strange and disturbing as anything the Mormons come up with.

That's a very Catholic-centric view (as well as from afleitch), evidenced by use of the word "Sacrament", some Protestants use it yes but most that baptize only adults use the term "ordinance" instead. Though "invalidate" was a poor word to use.

Protestant churches that don't baptize babies still have a dedication ceremony for them, mine is doing it the same day I'm being baptized. So the view is that infant baptism is not an actual baptism, just equivalent to a dedication except using water. People who were baptized as babies therefore were merely only dedicated and can grow up and decide to be baptized if they wish (like I am), and if they aren't they baptized again it's not a big deal since baptism is only symbolic in most's view and not required for salvation (unless you're talking to some very legalistic cult-like groups and some extreme Pentecostal sects even other Pentecostals consider crazy.) A person who was baptized/dedicated as a baby and does not grow up to be a Christian has no need to "invalidate" their baptism/dedication since it was only symbolic and had no real effect on them, granted many would believe that any such person would be damned but that's due to rejecting Christ, not failure to carry out some bureaucratic ritual. And if a person actually is baptized as an adult but then backslides anyway most simply hold then the baptism wasn't valid (or if it's done against the person's will, or if the person is not a believer but does it for other reasons), meaning there is no need for an "invalidation". afleitch may not be able to "anull" his baptism as he doesn't plan on getting baptized in another church, but to a non-believer it's a pointless ceremony anyway, so why bother? Most Protestants also would consider that he effectively "annulled" it in his lack of belief, which is what I would say as well. (No the Catholic Church doesn't because they do believe that it leaves some sort of "indelible mark on the soul", but that's moot to a non-Catholic believer. As far as I'm concerned as well as him it was just some guy sprinkling water on a baby's head.)

My pastor when speaking of baptism said that if you were baptized as a baby and are fine with that so is he (since his policy on arguments is "don't have them".), so he clearly doesn't consider infant baptism blasphemous. Neither does this church which actually agrees to baptize babies if the parents wish (when signing up for that they are given a choice of infant "baptism" or "dedication"), but also baptizes adults including those baptized as babies and shows an obvious preference as to which they prefer if you watch the videos at the bottom (note Krysta's). So baptizing babies to them is sort of mildly discouraged, but obviously not banned or considered blasphemous.

If there's something I would consider blasphemous, it's the view that God would condemn someone because their parents neglected to carry out some ordinance/sacrament or because their ancestors didn't do it for them either in the future, or essentially any "bureaucratic God". The former view isn't too common in Catholicism any more (though still is held by some radically conservative Lutherans and Calvinists), but the latter in Mormonism is actually the only thing I find offensive in their proxy baptisms.

[minionofmidas]

Protestant churches that don't baptize babies still have a dedication ceremony for them, mine is doing it the same day I'm being baptized. So the view is that infant baptism is not an actual baptism, just equivalent to a dedication except using water. People who were baptized as babies therefore were merely only dedicated and can grow up and decide to be baptized if they wish (like I am), and if they aren't they baptized again it's not a big deal since baptism is only symbolic in most's view and not required for salvation (unless you're talking to some very legalistic cult-like groups and some extreme Pentecostal sects even other Pentecostals consider crazy.)

And even then there'd be no issue with the double Baptism - one's valid and the other's just some unnecessary-but-not-harmful kind of dedication / confirmation ceremony.

So what is this thing you're doing then before getting - oh. Just scrolled down and noticed that I read that wrong. "By" getting rebaptized. Alright. Objection dropped. Have your Baptism for real this time. Like I care.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes, because an infant can disavow the baptism/change his mind later.

As can a dead person in the afterlife according to Mormon doctrine.

And if you don't believe in Mormon doctrine, then the entire issue becomes pointless.

Sure, but a dead person can't communicate that to the outside world.

[useful idiot]

Both are awful, the problem is that infant baptism is often practiced by people who should know better...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The essential difference is that to make infant baptism more like Mormon baptism by proxy as it is actually practiced, you'd need to have Christian ministers force their way into hospital maternity wards and baptize every baby in there no matter what the preference of their parents might be.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Both are awful, the problem is that infant baptism is often practiced by people who should know better...

FWIW I've gathered from some people including a United Church of Christ pastor that lots in mainline circles aren't too big on infant baptism now including many clergy. The problem I think is that paedobaptist churches have kind of painted themselves into a corner, they can't come out and now say that infant baptism isn't valid without thus also saying the vast majority of members, including most clergy weren't baptized properly as well.

At least some (like UCC and Presbyterian Church USA) are now giving parents the option of a "dedication" instead and letting the kid make the decision themselves when they get older, I even know of an ELCA church here that does that and regularly baptizes adults including those baptized as infants previously, including no doubt many in the ELCA ironically (a bit of a special case though since it started out as an American Baptist outreach, went non-denominational and opted to affiliate with ELCA only recently.)