De-Baptism

[Darth_Bill]

Following atheist trend, Britons seek 'de-baptism'

So....it isn't just the ex-mormons that are all up in a tizzy to get their names off church rolls. Seems like others want to leave their churches too.

It also seems that some are having an issue with infant baptism being some sort of an issue. The person here cites it as "child abuse" but I find that a bit difficult.

And what is this about the Pope calling condom use a cause of disease? That's just not right. Granted, it might cause some to be, shall we say, a bit immoral, but that doesn't mean it is disease causing. Is latex a medium for disease?

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

And what is this about the Pope calling condom use a cause of disease? That's just not right. Granted, it might cause some to be, shall we say, a bit immoral, but that doesn't mean it is disease causing. Is latex a medium for disease?

No, the Pope did not say it would cause the disease, he said it would increase the spread of it.

This is for two reasons. The first is it encourages immoral behavior and once that is begun the possibility (or should I say probability) is that if they decide to act in that way and a condom is not present that probably won't stop them. The second is that in some countries it has been found that condoms get re-used (washed or simply turned inside out!), which of course is silly to us, but to those who do not understand even simply concepts of sanitation this seems to fit what they understand on the issue of "safe" sex.

Of course the Catholic Church considers disease of the soul more significant than disease of the body anyway so the immoral dangers of the teaching take precedent over the physical safety.

[Darth_Bill]

Well, I figured that was the case. There had to be something that would explain the comment.

I also thought it might be those chinese condoms that the UN uses. I don't know if I would trust those all that much.

And I'm sure it was also in reference to human behavior. The human animal and it's illogic continue to astound me.

[Don]

1. I think being de-baptism is a healthy thing to allow. A person is what they choose to be. When I was baptized as an adult I was aware that I was repudiating my infant baptism as good intentioned but meaningless, since I had no choice in the matter.

2. Some churches pad their rolls by not clearing out the non-attendees. In this way one person can be claimed to be attending many churches, even if they are not attending any. Claiming to represent a large group of people MIGHT be a way to seek more political or economic power for the leaders of such groups; so I think it would be more honest to come clean and just list active attendees as members.

3. Richard Dawkins has been raising awareness in the last few years that speaking of a young child (his specific example was 4 year olds) as being a member of a religion makes as little sense as speaking of him/her as holding a specific economic or political theory. I agree with him on this.

[Darth_Bill]

>I think being de-baptism is a healthy thing to allow. A person is what they choose to be.

I expressed this also on another board. I am a firm believer in freedom of association. I do think that a church is within its rights to express itself in the importance of the decision. However, they should allow people to leave, and either be removed from the rolls or at least have it notated.

>Some churches pad their rolls by not clearing out the non-attendees.

I know what you are saying, but this is a more difficult proposition. It would require some churches to put some kind of controls in place. My church has that mechanism but it is still a difficult task. Also, many people that don't attend also do not want their names removed, and my church takes membership and record keeping VERY seriously. We also have baptism as a condition of membership and we don't practice infant baptism.

We have also changed our procedures so that a person can leave without going through a complicated process. We still reserve the right to discuss this as we feel this is a person blotting themselves out of the Book of Life.

[Don]

I can see requesting a discussion, but I do think one should be able to leave without discussion if that is what they wish.

[Darth_Bill]

We reserve the right.

It doesn't mean it actually occurs. Usually, if the person hasn't darkened the door for years, their name is taken off without discussion.

More often, the volunteers that run the church are too busy to really worry about it all that much. The only thing is that our wards are so small that we know everyone these people, so...

It does kind of surprise me that we have some "Do Not Contact" people that refuse to take their names off the rolls. We aren't like other churches. If you are on our rolls, we are aware of you. If you don't want us around, take your name off. Simple letter. We'll even provide it, all we need is a signature.

Of course, some LDS don't like the whole name-removal thing. I'm pretty liberal in that regard.