LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a "wife"

[twopekinguys]

St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton appears to have had some work done. She was the mother of Catholic education in the US

Abraham Lincoln appears to have some work done. A couple of the listings on familysearch.org have him married to Ann Rutledge…LOL.

 

[ParkerD]

1 Since they aren’t valid in the eyes of the mormon church, is there a mechanism for having this corrected/removed?

2 I believe you are strictly talking about the proxy baptisms here, when my comparison was between baptisms for the living and the dead. Like I said in an earlier post, If a live person is baptized Presbyterian, they are considered Presbyterian. Why is a proxy baptism looked at as only an offer. Is there a scriptural reference that shows the difference?

3 So are you saying that once the children of the deceased have passed away, the grandchildren wouldn’t have any say? A grandchild in this example would in fact be the closest living relative, as opposed to a sibling of the deceased, cousins, etc. After all, even from biblical times, everything was passed down to the eldest son, or child.

4 Just as a side note, I don’t believe you have addressed the issue of temple marriages/sealings for people that have been baptized by proxy. If the baptism is merely an offer, and you have no way of knowing whether or not it has been accepted, how can a temple marriage/sealing be done for these people? After all, only worthy mormons can be married/sealed in the temple right?

Twopekinguys,

1–Not that I am aware of, no. There have also been many, many duplicate ordinances done, and those are not “removed” either. It just means the work was “invalid” and since these are all conditional anyway, nothing can make it more invalid than that the person doesn’t accept it or that the research or submittal was incorrect or was based on incorrect information.

2–Yes. Here are two:
1 Pet. 4: 6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Rev. 20: 12
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Their “works,” which includes their “decisions and choices”, continues in the spirit world. Judgement day comes after their opportunity to have declared their “works” by making a choice with full understanding of their choice. Baptism, as an ordinance on earth, is a type of “works.”

3–I suppose if the grandchildren and their cousins have some kind of communication, that it would be a joint family decision that individual families might make differently.

4–You are correct about the sealing of the living. The sealing of those who have died, as I noted before, is only conditional on their acceptance of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost and the whole concept of covenant making. As spirits they would have no inkling about ordinance work being done in their behalf if they did not choose to accept baptism initially. What they are able to “see” of what happens on earth is based on an act of faith and worthiness on their part. They simply would not see it, and the ordinance would be invalid except for what I had mentioned which is that the sealing connection passes to the next generation, and skips over any generation that has not accepted the ordinance and sealing.

 

[kimmielittle]

Three hundred and ninety plus posts here:

Not one time has any member of LDS said something like: “Well yes, I can see where some may be offended”

Not once has an LDS member said something like “Hey, maybe, I can contact…OR maybe, I can present your concerns”

It’s ignored as a problem one, that in my opinion hurts relations / perceptions ], or it’s defended. Knowing it’s at the very least, broken.

That, to me, isn’t selective memory…that’s selective thinking or use of common logic

 

[Jay53]

Is there a separate part of a Mormon baptism (of the living) where the person being baptized formally accepts Mormonism that is omitted from the baptism by proxy?

 

[dianaiad]

It is my story. I have posted it a number of times. It sounds the same, because it is easier to do a “cut and Paste,” than to keep rewriting the experience.

I first posted it to Finrock in Post #616, Jun 14, '09, 9:48 am:

**Thread: **What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5324407#post5324407

I think I confused whether Kolob is a star or planet–same idea either way.

Anna

Huh?

How is it the ‘same idea’ whether Kolob is a star or a planet? (hint. It is a star and God does NOT live there.)

I think that there is a fair bit of difference between stars and planets, myself…

 

[Janet1983]

I just made a random search for several names… well those are in the data base:

Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto - Pope Pius X - born
Giacomo Paolo Giovanni Battista della Chiesa - Pope Benedict XV - born 1854 in Italy
Count Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci - Pope Leo XIII - born 1810 in Italy

 

[dianaiad]

OK, I have a couple of questions for our mormon friends on here.

The biggest responses that we keep hearing regarding this baptism of the dead is, “It is an offer”, and “They are free to accept or reject it”, and “It doesn’t make them mormon”.

With that being said, please answer these questions as briefly as possible if you would.

1. All of these baptisms and sealings are done only at temples, and not at local meeting houses correct?

yes.

1. The mormon church spends millions and millions of dollars on temples around the world, obtaining geneology records, maintaining a huge database, etc., all for a maybe? How is that logical?

How is it “logical” to spend millions of dollars and hundreds of years taking people away from any hope of having a family of their own, and spending their lives in service to an idea that everything they sacrifice (home, family, wealth, even comfort and health) mean that they will be rewarded in a heaven? How ‘logical’ is it to figure that praying to, and for, dead people actually does something for them? How ‘logical’ is it that wafers and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Christ? How logical is it that we all believe that the Red Sea parted, that a man could walk on water and raise the dead? How “logical” is it that Catholics spend nearly a month giving up something, or doing something different than they do the rest of the year to remember something that happened (or not…) 2000 years ago?

Since when is religion EVER logical?

However, the things we do can be internally logical; if Catholics are correct, then transubstantiation, a celibate priesthood, convents and prayers to and for the dead make perfect sense.

If we are correct, then proxy baptisms not only make sense, they are imperative.

1. As I understand it, marriage sealings (temple weddings) are only for temple worthy mormons. How can you seal a dead person to a spouse if you aren’t sure they accepted the mormon baptism?

If we don’t know if they accepted the baptism, we don’t know that they would NOT accept the rest, which is, of course, done with the same expectation as baptisms are; they are only effective if they are accepted. We may as well do it all as do any of it.

4.These proxy baptisms, etc. can only be done by temple worthy mormons right? 50% +/- of all mormons don’t have temple recommends, so how are all of these baptisms, etc being done by non family members?

There are 14,000,000 Mormons. If you are correct, then 50% of them DO have Temple Recommends. Actually, it is less than that, since a great many Mormons are children too young to have Temple recommends. On the other hand, proxy baptisms are also done by the youth…14 +/-, with special recommends specifically for that purpose. However, let’s say that a quarter of all Mormons have Temple recommends. Of those, perhaps a quarter visit the Temple regularly to do proxy work. That still involves a little over a million and half people actively doing this stuff.

That’s a lot of people.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,

1–Not that I am aware of, no. There have also been many, many duplicate ordinances done, and those are not “removed” either. It just means the work was “invalid” and since these are all conditional anyway, nothing can make it more invalid than that the person doesn’t accept it or that the research or submittal was incorrect or was based on incorrect information.

2–Yes. Here are two:
1 Pet. 4: 6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Rev. 20: 12
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Their “works,” which includes their “decisions and choices”, continues in the spirit world. Judgement day comes after their opportunity to have declared their “works” by making a choice with full understanding of their choice. Baptism, as an ordinance on earth, is a type of “works.”

3–I suppose if the grandchildren and their cousins have some kind of communication, that it would be a joint family decision that individual families might make differently.

4–You are correct about the sealing of the living. The sealing of those who have died, as I noted before, is only conditional on their acceptance of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost and the whole concept of covenant making. As spirits they would have no inkling about ordinance work being done in their behalf if they did not choose to accept baptism initially. What they are able to “see” of what happens on earth is based on an act of faith and worthiness on their part. They simply would not see it, and the ordinance would be invalid except for what I had mentioned which is that the sealing connection passes to the next generation, and skips over any generation that has not accepted the ordinance and sealing.

1 Cool, but you have to admit, all of those listings can be confusing.

1. Those verses are directed toward the dead, and doesn’t mention the differences between the 2 baptisms. Preaching the gospel to the dead is different than baptism.
   Now, as I understand it, and I believe most mainstream christians do, there is the particular judgement, that occurs immediately after death, where we are judged on our earthly life. Then there will be the general judgement, where all of humanity is judged. Now, I don’t see anything in scripture that says, or even hints at a delay in judgement. Even those in purgatory have been judged, they will be in Heaven once their purgation is complete.

3 See, now I have to disagree with you here. If we have direct lineage requirements, as in child approving ordinance for parents, then you would need to continue that direct lineage approval process. There is no precedence to deviate, and allow cousins, aunts, uncles, etc into the mix.

4 But if it is conditional in the afterlife, why isn’t it conditional in this life.

I am trying to understand why you have one set of rules for the living, and something different for the dead.

Example 1

Living:

Baptized into mormon faith, they are mormon

Dead:

We’ll baptize by proxy, you may or may not become mormon

Example 2

Living:

Only mormons in good standing can be sealed in the temple

Dead:

You weren’t mormon in this life, we’re not sure you’re mormon in the next, but we are going to give you a sealing that only good standing mormons on earth can receive.

Can you see all of the confusion in this?

 

[ParkerD]

1 Cool, but you have to admit, all of those listings can be confusing.

1. Those verses are directed toward the dead, and doesn’t mention the differences between the 2 baptisms. Preaching the gospel to the dead is different than baptism.
   Now, as I understand it, and I believe most mainstream christians do, there is the particular judgement, that occurs immediately after death, where we are judged on our earthly life. Then there will be the general judgement, where all of humanity is judged. Now, I don’t see anything in scripture that says, or even hints at a delay in judgement. Even those in purgatory have been judged, they will be in Heaven once their purgation is complete.

3 See, now I have to disagree with you here. If we have direct lineage requirements, as in child approving ordinance for parents, then you would need to continue that direct lineage approval process. There is no precedence to deviate, and allow cousins, aunts, uncles, etc into the mix.

4 But if it is conditional in the afterlife, why isn’t it conditional in this life.

I am trying to understand why you have one set of rules for the living, and something different for the dead.

Example 1

Living:

Baptized into mormon faith, they are mormon

Dead:

We’ll baptize by proxy, you may or may not become mormon

Example 2

Living:

Only mormons in good standing can be sealed in the temple

Dead:

You weren’t mormon in this life, we’re not sure you’re mormon in the next, but we are going to give you a sealing that only good standing mormons on earth can receive.

Can you see all of the confusion in this?

Twopekinguys,
I think you’ve made valid points from your perspective. I certainly agree with your item 1 comment.

2–If one takes the concept of the gospel being preached to the dead, plus the concept that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), then the logic should not seem so far-fetched that God would have a requirement for a baptismal covenant ordinance that applies to the spirits of those who have already died but are being taught in the spirit world.

I agree that there is a partial judgement when we die. Some people made very poor choices in their lives and will go to the “purgatory” that is Hell. Others will go to paradise but still be learning and gaining the opportunity to make covenants they either didn’t know about or didn’t really understand while they lived as mortals. (All of us will still be learning in the spirit world, with a great deal to learn–thankfully so our learning will not be over.)

I think 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 communicate that there is going to be a judgement of the dead that is at a later point in time than immediately after each person’s death, and that this later judgement really is a judgement rendered based on “works” which can include “works” or “decisions” made when those spirits lived “according to God in the spirit.”

Isaiah 1:2 says “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth:” which can be understood to mean that God speaks to both spheres to give them His redeeming message–the sphere of “heaven” or the spirit world, and the sphere of this earth.

3–Your comment is why I think it makes more sense and is what is done that the approval be obtained from living children, with no “requirement” extending beyond that.

4–Those ordinances are always conditional, even those received by the living for themselves, and each person involved understands completely that the ordinance is conditional on their continued worthiness and faithfulness and desires about living by the covenants they made, as shown by their actions throughout their lives. Many people don’t keep those covenants, and it is as though the ordinances had never been done except for what I have mentioned in that the sealing (linking) process skips over a generation if the person or couple were not faithful or did not make those binding covenants.

That linking process back to Adam and Eve will be completed during the Millenium, and is an integral part of the complete Plan of Salvation for all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Christ is the only One who would not have needed those sealing and binding links, because He was perfect already and is exalted as the divine Son of God.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Huh?

How is it the ‘same idea’ whether Kolob is a star or a planet? (hint. It is a star and God does NOT live there.)

I think that there is a fair bit of difference between stars and planets, myself…

My point is that Mormons believe that God lives on or near a star called Kolob. You think you have identified the dwelling place of God. So, whether you call it a star or a planet, you are still identifying the place you claim God dwells in or near, depending on which LDS member you speak to.

 

[Jay53]

Bump

Is there a separate/specific part of a Mormon baptism (of the living) where the person being baptized formally accepts Mormonism and all of its teachings?

 

[ParkerD]

Bump

Is there a separate/specific part of a Mormon baptism (of the living) where the person being baptized formally accepts Mormonism and all of its teachings?

Jay,
The covenant of baptism is not with Mormonism per se nor with people per se, but with the Savior, Jesus Christ. The person who is baptized is formally accepting and covenanting that they want a personal relationship with Him and that they believe in Him and also in Heavenly Father and also in the Holy Ghost. They receive the gift of the Holy Ghost soon after their baptism. They have also joined a covenant group of people who have made the same covenants with Jesus, so they become a community of believers who seek to lift each other, help each other, mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who may need comfort.

So the short answer is, “no”.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
The covenant of baptism is not with Mormonism per se nor with people per se, but with the Savior, Jesus Christ. The person who is baptized is formally accepting and covenanting that they want a personal relationship with Him and that they believe in Him and also in Heavenly Father and also in the Holy Ghost. They receive the gift of the Holy Ghost soon after their baptism. They have also joined a covenant group of people who have made the same covenants with Jesus, so they become a community of believers who seek to lift each other, help each other, mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who may need comfort.

So the short answer is, “no”.

Thank you, Parker. So what exactly does a baptism (of the living) entail and how does it make someone a Mormon or does it even bind them to the Mormon faith?

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank you, Parker. So what exactly does a baptism (of the living) entail and how does it make someone a Mormon or does it even bind them to the Mormon faith?

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to get at, in a round about way.

 

[Jay53]

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to get at, in a round about way.

I’m trying to figure out if a baptism of a live Mormon person is also simply an “offer” that the living person then has to accept or reject. If they don’t have to do that (accept the offer) as part of the rite/sacrament/ordinance, but the baptism still makes them a member of the Mormon community, then wouldn’t the baptism by proxy do the same thing?

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you, Parker. So what exactly does a baptism (of the living) entail and how does it make someone a Mormon or does it even bind them to the Mormon faith?

Jay and Twopekinguys,

Here is a key verse describing the answer to this question, from Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 which says, “And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”

Two other key verses regarding mode of baptism from that same section (chapter) are the following:

72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I would answer that baptism does not “bind them to the Mormon faith” per se, because no words convey that in either the ordinance itself or in the interview process leading up to the ordinance. A person who has the desire to be baptized is interviewed first to ascertain their sincerity, their repentance, their commitment to making a covenant with Jesus Christ, and their intent to serve Him throughout their life with a willing heart.

But certainly a record is made of their baptism so they are considered a “member,” and they are “watched over” by being visited (unless they at some point ask not to be visited) and it is hoped that they will have the desire to be involved in serving those around them including members and non-members.

It is also hoped that they will continue renewing and recommitting to their baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ by partaking of the “emblems of His sacrifice” most Sundays. This would happen during a congregational meeting called “sacrament meeting”, which is a representation of the “Lord’s supper” or “communion” as described in the New Testament.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
I think you’ve made valid points from your perspective. I certainly agree with your item 1 comment.

2–If one takes the concept of the gospel being preached to the dead, plus the concept that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), then the logic should not seem so far-fetched that God would have a requirement for a baptismal covenant ordinance that applies to the spirits of those who have already died but are being taught in the spirit world.

I agree that there is a partial judgement when we die. Some people made very poor choices in their lives and will go to the “purgatory” that is Hell. Others will go to paradise but still be learning and gaining the opportunity to make covenants they either didn’t know about or didn’t really understand while they lived as mortals. (All of us will still be learning in the spirit world, with a great deal to learn–thankfully so our learning will not be over.)

I think 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 communicate that there is going to be a judgement of the dead that is at a later point in time than immediately after each person’s death, and that this later judgement really is a judgement rendered based on “works” which can include “works” or “decisions” made when those spirits lived “according to God in the spirit.”

Isaiah 1:2 says “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth:” which can be understood to mean that God speaks to both spheres to give them His redeeming message–the sphere of “heaven” or the spirit world, and the sphere of this earth.

3–Your comment is why I think it makes more sense and is what is done that the approval be obtained from living children, with no “requirement” extending beyond that.

4–Those ordinances are always conditional, even those received by the living for themselves, and each person involved understands completely that the ordinance is conditional on their continued worthiness and faithfulness and desires about living by the covenants they made, as shown by their actions throughout their lives. Many people don’t keep those covenants, and it is as though the ordinances had never been done except for what I have mentioned in that the sealing (linking) process skips over a generation if the person or couple were not faithful or did not make those binding covenants.

That linking process back to Adam and Eve will be completed during the Millenium, and is an integral part of the complete Plan of Salvation for all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Christ is the only One who would not have needed those sealing and binding links, because He was perfect already and is exalted as the divine Son of God.

1–See, we’ve made some progress here

2-& 3-Seems to be selective use of logic. In 2, you want to use logic to support the proxy baptism, but when it comes to family consent, you don’t want to use the logic of direct decendents past the immediate generation. Bit of a conflict don’t you think?

4 Interesting…hmmm…Let me get this straight. A living couple have a sealing, and they “understand” that it is a maybe? Maybe my spouse will make it, maybe they won’t?

I have to go back to one of my earlier thoughts. You’re doing all of these things on a maybe?

I’m sorry, but doctrinally speaking, that is just too many maybe’s for me, and I am sure, a whole lot of other people to accept.

Thanks for doing your best to try and explain these things, but I am afraid the only thing I can agree with is the fact that you baptize the living, and even then I’m not so sure, because even that seems to be conditional.

While I believe you as a mormon have a right to do the baptisms for the dead, I still don’t believe you have a right to do it to people you are not related to in any way, shape, form or manner, like has been done with many people.

Thanks again.

 

[Jay53]

Jay and Twopekinguys,

Here is a key verse describing the answer to this question, from Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 which says, “And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”

Two other key verses regarding mode of baptism from that same section (chapter) are the following:

72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I would answer that baptism does not “bind them to the Mormon faith” per se, because no words convey that in either the ordinance itself or in the interview process leading up to the ordinance. A person who has the desire to be baptized is interviewed first to ascertain their sincerity, their repentance, their commitment to making a covenant with Jesus Christ, and their intent to serve Him throughout their life with a willing heart.

But certainly a record is made of their baptism so they are considered a “member,” and they are “watched over” by being visited (unless they at some point ask not to be visited) and it is hoped that they will have the desire to be involved in serving those around them including members and non-members.

It is also hoped that they will continue renewing and recommitting to their baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ by partaking of the “emblems of His sacrifice” most Sundays. This would happen during a congregational meeting called “sacrament meeting”, which is a representation of the “Lord’s supper” or “communion” as described in the New Testament.

So it is the “interview process” that is skipped when a baptism by proxy is done - and this interview process is done before the baptism?

If the baptism of a living Mormon makes them a “member”, why doesn’t it make a “non-Mormon” a member through baptism by proxy? I’m trying to figure out what exactly is different about the ritual that makes it only an “offer” to a dead non-Mormon, but a full sacrament to the living person.

 

[twopekinguys]

…snip to here…

But certainly a record is made of their baptism so they are considered a “member,” and they are “watched over” by being visited (unless they at some point ask not to be visited) and it is hoped that they will have the desire to be involved in serving those around them including members and non-members.

This is where most people see the baptisms of the dead going…".But certainly a record is made of their baptism so they are considered a “member.”,

This is what gets people upset.

 

[ParkerD]

So it is the “interview process” that is skipped when a baptism by proxy is done - and this interview process is done before the baptism?

If the baptism of a living Mormon makes them a “member”, why doesn’t it make a “non-Mormon” a member through baptism by proxy? I’m trying to figure out what exactly is different about the ritual that makes it only an “offer” to a dead non-Mormon, but a full sacrament to the living person.

Jay,
The way this world and going into the spirit world were organized and planned by God, we don’t have the kind of communication between the two spheres that would allow people on earth to know of the intents, desires, repentance, and commitment level of a person who has died and is a spirit. If God had wanted such a communication to occur between the two spheres, He certainly could have done that. But He didn’t, so the LDS baptism for the dead does not make any assumption about whether anyone has or has not made such a commitment and covenant with Jesus Christ in the spirit world.

But a commitment is made by a living person through being interviewed, so they definitely enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ by being baptized.