Regarding LDS Baptisms of Those of Other Faiths Who Have Passed On......

[Annie_B]

If the general belief here (at least among the Catholics) is that the practices of the LDS church are a bunch of hogwash and mean nothing, then WHY are people getting so upset about the baptisms that are being done for the dead of other faiths? If you do not believe these baptisms are even valid, then you should not be getting so upset about them; to you they should just be a misprint on a piece of paper…If you are worried about the statistics (ie- those of other faiths being listed as LDS after LDS baptism for the dead) I ask again WHY? They are just statistics!

If you are so upset about this, could it be that you believe more about the LDS faith than you are willing to admit?

If you are going to get upset, get upset about something that really matters; something that you can turn into a positive and change a life with. Find a cause that you can be apart of that will be a blessing in someone’s life. Don’t waste your time being irate about something that you claim to not even believe in in the first place!

Annie

 

[ParkerD]

If the general belief here (at least among the Catholics) is that the practices of the LDS church are a bunch of hogwash and mean nothing, then WHY are people getting so upset about the baptisms that are being done for the dead of other faiths? If you do not believe these baptisms are even valid, then you should not be getting so upset about them; to you they should just be a misprint on a piece of paper…If you are worried about the statistics (ie- those of other faiths being listed as LDS after LDS baptism for the dead) I ask again WHY? They are just statistics!

If you are so upset about this, could it be that you believe more about the LDS faith than you are willing to admit?

If you are going to get upset, get upset about something that really matters; something that you can turn into a positive and change a life with. Find a cause that you can be apart of that will be a blessing in someone’s life. Don’t waste your time being irate about something that you claim to not even believe in in the first place!

Annie

Annie B,
Thank you for this thoughtful and straight-to-the-point comment. What a delight to read your thinking on this.

One of the issues that seems to be generally misunderstood is the idea that “those of other faiths” are “listed as LDS after an LDS baptism for the dead”. This is simply not true. The record is kept of the ordinance so that (hopefully) the same ordinance is not duplicated by someone else at a later time. But there is no listing kept that even implies that they are “now LDS,” nor is that taught by anyone within the LDS church. There is an acknowledged “hope” that that person may of their own accord “accept” the ordinance work that was done in their behalf if they want to as a spirit where they are living (in the spirit world), but it is just a “hope”.

It is acknowledged by the LDS that the spirit world is a real place where spirits really do live and interact with each other and continue to learn and change and seek happiness, including interacting with their own loved ones who are there. But it is not as though every spirit has a dramatic change in perspective–they bring the same attitudes, desires, and inclinations with them to the spirit world that they had in this life.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If the general belief here (at least among the Catholics) is that the practices of the LDS church are a bunch of hogwash and mean nothing, then WHY are people getting so upset about the baptisms that are being done for the dead of other faiths? If you do not believe these baptisms are even valid, then you should not be getting so upset about them; to you they should just be a misprint on a piece of paper…If you are worried about the statistics (ie- those of other faiths being listed as LDS after LDS baptism for the dead) I ask again WHY? They are just statistics!

I’m not sure myself. The only seemingly reasonable defenses to such an emotion is that “my future descendants might mistake me for a Mormon”, or something else along those lines. I don’t buy into this as the LDS ordinance records state the date of the ordinance performed by proxy. Your descendants would have to be might negligent to think you died in 2030 but chose to be baptized as a Mormon in 2100.

I certainly understand the concern and the offense, but I personally think it’s all a bit dramatic. I give the Mormons permission to do what they will with my name in their temples after I die. Then again, I doubt the LDS will do anything considering I’m an apostate… You know, that does make me a bit curious. If Diana or Parker are reading this, could one of you two tell me if the church typically rebaptizes apostate LDS after death, or have us apostates sealed our fate in life?

If the church does perform proxy baptisms and sealings for apostates, please do me a favor and make sure that I’m sealed to a handful of the Raiderette cheer leaders.

 

[TheosisM]

If Diana or Parker are reading this, could one of you two tell me if the church typically rebaptizes apostate LDS after death, or have us apostates sealed our fate in life?

That’s really interesting, I’ve never thought about that. The LDS concept of rebaptism is interesting, where they ‘re’-baptize those that are excommunicated when they want to come back into the church, if I’m not mistaken.

Good question, I’m also curious about this.

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s really interesting, I’ve never thought about that. The LDS concept of rebaptism is interesting, where they ‘re’-baptize those that are excommunicated when they want to come back into the church, if I’m not mistaken.

The Mormon church grew out of the Protestant Anabaptist tradition. Many Protestants, including many Evangelicals, do multiple baptisms. For instance, if you take an Evangelical-sponsored tour to Israel you will be expected to get baptized in the Jordan River, even if you are already baptized.

 

[twopekinguys]

Annie B,
Thank you for this thoughtful and straight-to-the-point comment. What a delight to read your thinking on this.

One of the issues that seems to be generally misunderstood is the idea that “those of other faiths” are “listed as LDS after an LDS baptism for the dead”. This is simply not true. The record is kept of the ordinance so that (hopefully) the same ordinance is not duplicated by someone else at a later time. But there is no listing kept that even implies that they are “now LDS,” nor is that taught by anyone within the LDS church. There is an acknowledged “hope” that that person may of their own accord “accept” the ordinance work that was done in their behalf if they want to as a spirit where they are living (in the spirit world), but it is just a “hope”.

It is acknowledged by the LDS that the spirit world is a real place where spirits really do live and interact with each other and continue to learn and change and seek happiness, including interacting with their own loved ones who are there. But it is not as though every spirit has a dramatic change in perspective–they bring the same attitudes, desires, and inclinations with them to the spirit world that they had in this life.

Now see, we have a problem here.

As I understand it, only a mormon can be sealed to his wife right? I mean that is what a temple marriage is right? A sealing? Being sealed to one another for all eternity right?

Well, if you are showing grandpa Joe on the website being sealed to grandma Mary, that would make it look like they were mormon don’t you think? To my knowledge, only mormons use the term sealing.

Now, I want you to look at family search, and look up Abraham Lincoln. Once you do, you will see multiple listings for him, so there is the first problem. Next. I want you to look at the different records for him. On at least 2, you will see him listed as married to Ann Rutledge…Wrong. Look a little further, and you will see some of the records have him born in various portions of Kentucky. One record shows him born in Indiana. But the best one of all shows him born in Colorado. All…Wrong.

So lets boil this down a bit shall we?

1. Showing sealings of non mormons can give the impression to future generations that these people were mormon, when in fact they weren’t
2. There is so much misinformation on the site, who can tell what’s wrong and whats right? Who can tell who’s mormon and who isn’t?

 

[Eucharisted]

It is a matter of human respect. One should not disrespect the dead.

 

[Reepicheep]

If the general belief here (at least among the Catholics) is that the practices of the LDS church are a bunch of hogwash and mean nothing, then WHY are people getting so upset about the baptisms that are being done for the dead of other faiths? If you do not believe these baptisms are even valid, then you should not be getting so upset about them; to you they should just be a misprint on a piece of paper…If you are worried about the statistics (ie- those of other faiths being listed as LDS after LDS baptism for the dead) I ask again WHY? They are just statistics!

If you are so upset about this, could it be that you believe more about the LDS faith than you are willing to admit?

If you are going to get upset, get upset about something that really matters; something that you can turn into a positive and change a life with. Find a cause that you can be apart of that will be a blessing in someone’s life. Don’t waste your time being irate about something that you claim to not even believe in in the first place!

Annie

Here’s a hypothetical question for you, Annie.

Suppose you discovered the American Atheist Union had decided to list your father in their records as a supporter, on the grounds that they hoped he would have been if he’d had the chance.
Would you shrug it off as not important? Or would you be upset about it?
What if it had been the Church of Scientology?

 

[Eucharisted]

Here’s a hypothetical question for you, Annie.

Suppose you discovered the American Atheist Union had decided to list your father in their records as a supporter, on the grounds that they hoped he would have been if he’d had the chance.
Would you shrug it off as not important? Or would you be upset about it?
What if it had been the Church of Scientology?

Don’t use emotional arguments! They are a cheap way of getting people to accept your beliefs and opinions. Use, instead, facts, truth, and reality. That is what all opinions and beliefs must stand on.

 

[Eucharisted]

Example of an emotional argument:

Catholic: I don’t want my family to be baptized by Mormons after death.
Mormon: Why not? We’re just helping your family be remembered!
Catholic: My family will be remembered for what they did, not what you do to them.
Mormon: Well, they’re going to be happy as gods and goddesses anyway.
Catholic: Lack of evidence for such a belief aside, my family doesn’t believe in Mormonism, so don’t push your beliefs on them by baptisizing them.
Mormon: We’re not pushing our religion on them, we’re just baptizing them, just like the early Church did by baptizing the dead.
Catholic: The early Church baptized those who wanted to be Christian, not those who did not want to be Christian.
Mormon: Well, all the same, your family will be getting nice spouses.
Catholic: They don’t want spouses, they don’t want Mormonism, and they don’t accept what you believe, so they had better not be baptized after death.
Mormon: Well, the Church makes sure not just anyone gets baptized, so don’t worry.
Catholic: Than why are you arguing about the benefits of baptism if they won’t even be baptized? Furthermore, if not everyone is baptized, than explain how Mormons baptize as many people as possible.
Mormon: I’m just telling you to not worry. And Mormons really don’t baptized anyone. They get permission first.
Catholic: Yes, because the precautious the Church is taking to keep parish records away from your church is baloney. And because you don’t baptized people who don’t give you permission, people who have no family members to tell you they may be baptized - people like Saint Daminen.
Mormon: That story is a lie, and besides, the people who did it broke church rules.
Catholic: Sorry, but history says otherwise. You baptized Jews, you baptized saints, you baptize as many people as possible. But you had better not baptize my family.
Mormon: Well, it’s not like the church would know about them, it doesn’t have a huge database you know. It doesn’t list people to be baptized. So stop worrying.

Et cetera.

 

[ParkerD]

Now see, we have a problem here.

As I understand it, only a mormon can be sealed to his wife right? I mean that is what a temple marriage is right? A sealing? Being sealed to one another for all eternity right?

Well, if you are showing grandpa Joe on the website being sealed to grandma Mary, that would make it look like they were mormon don’t you think? To my knowledge, only mormons use the term sealing.

Now, I want you to look at family search, and look up Abraham Lincoln. Once you do, you will see multiple listings for him, so there is the first problem. Next. I want you to look at the different records for him. On at least 2, you will see him listed as married to Ann Rutledge…Wrong. Look a little further, and you will see some of the records have him born in various portions of Kentucky. One record shows him born in Indiana. But the best one of all shows him born in Colorado. All…Wrong.

So lets boil this down a bit shall we?

1. Showing sealings of non mormons can give the impression to future generations that these people were mormon, when in fact they weren’t
2. There is so much misinformation on the site, who can tell what’s wrong and whats right? Who can tell who’s mormon and who isn’t?

Twopekinguys,
I don’t know what database you are referring to that uses the term “sealing” rather than the term “marriage”. So I have no idea what impression you have gotten from what database.

The databases are available because people have an interest in doing genealogical research. A seriously interested person will find the primary sources and verify the information they have found after they use the website as a search tool.

I looked up Abraham Lincoln. The “Colorado” birthplace was obviously a typo. A first marriage to a person named Ann Rutledge is a submission by someone who I suppose had a source for that information, but that information is only as valid as the original source material, so it could certainly be wrong or there may have been another person named Abraham Lincoln whom the researcher got confused in their own mind with the person who married Mary Todd and thus “Abraham Lincoln” could be two different people even though showing on that one link as one person who had a first marriage and a second marriage.

 

[kalt]

If the general belief here (at least among the Catholics) is that the practices of the LDS church are a bunch of hogwash and mean nothing, then WHY are people getting so upset about the baptisms that are being done for the dead of other faiths? If you do not believe these baptisms are even valid, then you should not be getting so upset about them; to you they should just be a misprint on a piece of paper…If you are worried about the statistics (ie- those of other faiths being listed as LDS after LDS baptism for the dead) I ask again WHY? They are just statistics!

If you are so upset about this, could it be that you believe more about the LDS faith than you are willing to admit?

If you are going to get upset, get upset about something that really matters; something that you can turn into a positive and change a life with. Find a cause that you can be apart of that will be a blessing in someone’s life. Don’t waste your time being irate about something that you claim to not even believe in in the first place!

Annie

Because they are recording the names. They have no right to use the names of people who were not Mormons, even if some distant relative gives them the OK. Religion is a choice. No non-Mormon name should be recorded as “baptized by proxy” or sealed to a wife–whatever the heck that is supposed to mean–after the person is dead, for crying out loud.

Show some respect, Mormons!

 

[Annie_B]

Here’s a hypothetical question for you, Annie.

Suppose you discovered the American Atheist Union had decided to list your father in their records as a supporter, on the grounds that they hoped he would have been if he’d had the chance.
Would you shrug it off as not important? Or would you be upset about it?
What if it had been the Church of Scientology?

I would not care who listed my father as a supporter. Listing a person as something does not make it truth. The person still has free will to make a choice. Listing someone as a believer in something does not magically make them so. The practice of baptism for the dead does not preclude the free will of that person to choose or not to accept the blessings of the baptism.
Annie

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Example of a straw man:

Example of an emotional argument:

Catholic: I don’t want my family to be baptized by Mormons after death.
Mormon: Why not? We’re just helping your family be remembered!
Catholic: My family will be remembered for what they did, not what you do to them.
Mormon: Well, they’re going to be happy as gods and goddesses anyway.
Catholic: Lack of evidence for such a belief aside, my family doesn’t believe in Mormonism, so don’t push your beliefs on them by baptisizing them.
Mormon: We’re not pushing our religion on them, we’re just baptizing them, just like the early Church did by baptizing the dead.
Catholic: The early Church baptized those who wanted to be Christian, not those who did not want to be Christian.
Mormon: Well, all the same, your family will be getting nice spouses.
Catholic: They don’t want spouses, they don’t want Mormonism, and they don’t accept what you believe, so they had better not be baptized after death.
Mormon: Well, the Church makes sure not just anyone gets baptized, so don’t worry.
Catholic: Than why are you arguing about the benefits of baptism if they won’t even be baptized? Furthermore, if not everyone is baptized, than explain how Mormons baptize as many people as possible.
Mormon: I’m just telling you to not worry. And Mormons really don’t baptized anyone. They get permission first.
Catholic: Yes, because the precautious the Church is taking to keep parish records away from your church is baloney. And because you don’t baptized people who don’t give you permission, people who have no family members to tell you they may be baptized - people like Saint Daminen.
Mormon: That story is a lie, and besides, the people who did it broke church rules.
Catholic: Sorry, but history says otherwise. You baptized Jews, you baptized saints, you baptize as many people as possible. But you had better not baptize my family.
Mormon: Well, it’s not like the church would know about them, it doesn’t have a huge database you know. It doesn’t list people to be baptized. So stop worrying.

Et cetera.

 

[Annie_B]

Because they are recording the names. They have no right to use the names of people who were not Mormons, even if some distant relative gives them the OK. Religion is a choice. No non-Mormon name should be recorded as “baptized by proxy” or sealed to a wife–whatever the heck that is supposed to mean–after the person is dead, for crying out loud.

Show some respect, Mormons!

You are right about one thing; religion IS a choice and the baptisms for the dead are done ~in the event~ that a person makes that choice. If the choice is not made then the baptism is basically meaningless. BUT, the baptism means everything if that person chooses to believe!
Annie

 

[xixxvmcm85]

How are LDS posthumous ordinances, performed vicariously much different than a Catholic who petitions to have a Mass offered on behalf of a deceased non-Catholic? Or a Catholic who offers the name of a deceased non-Catholic to the prayer intentions of a parish?

I’m still not seeing any scandal here. The gesture is performed out of good intentions, and there are no substantive, physical consequences of these religious rites unless you believe in the efficacy of them.

I don’t get offended when a voodoo practitioner utters a bunch of mumbo jumbo over my head (and yes, it has happened before). Similarly, I wouldn’t get offended when and if an LDS relative of mine has my Ordinances reinstated.

 

[Annie_B]

How are LDS posthumous ordinances, performed vicariously much different than a Catholic who petitions to have a Mass offered on behalf of a deceased non-Catholic? Or a Catholic who offers the name of a deceased non-Catholic to the prayer intentions of a parish?

I’m still not seeing any scandal here. The gesture is performed out of good intentions, and there are no substantive, physical consequences of these religious rites unless you believe in the efficacy of them.

I don’t get offended when a voodoo practitioner utters a bunch of mumbo jumbo over my head (and yes, it has happened before). Similarly, I wouldn’t get offended when and if an LDS relative of mine has my Ordinances reinstated.

Well said! Great response
Annie

 

[TheosisM]

How are LDS posthumous ordinances, performed vicariously much different than a Catholic who petitions to have a Mass offered on behalf of a deceased non-Catholic? Or a Catholic who offers the name of a deceased non-Catholic to the prayer intentions of a parish?

I’m still not seeing any scandal here. The gesture is performed out of good intentions, and there are no substantive, physical consequences of these religious rites unless you believe in the efficacy of them.

I don’t get offended when a voodoo practitioner utters a bunch of mumbo jumbo over my head (and yes, it has happened before). Similarly, I wouldn’t get offended when and if an LDS relative of mine has my Ordinances reinstated.

I completely agree. Like I said on the other thread, as Catholics, we do not believe that these rituals have any effect, that the LDS Church does not have any priesthood authority anyway, and our worldview does not accommodate the necessity for such ordinances. These ordinances, in the view of Mormons, do not make someone Mormon, but give them the option to accept or reject. They may be listed somewhere as stating that the ordinances were performed for them by proxy, but that doesn’t mean that they are listed as Mormons (who received these ordinances while living). This is the point that I think is causing confusion.

 

[kalt]

I would not care who listed my father as a supporter. Listing a person as something does not make it truth. The person still has free will to make a choice. Listing someone as a believer in something does not magically make them so. The practice of baptism for the dead does not preclude the free will of that person to choose or not to accept the blessings of the baptism.
Annie

So if CAF changed your religion designation from LDS to Catholic without your permission, you would be OK with it? Because listing you as Catholic means nothing?

If you answer yes, please change it yourself.

 

[kalt]

You are right about one thing; religion IS a choice and the baptisms for the dead are done ~in the event~ that a person makes that choice. If the choice is not made then the baptism is basically meaningless. BUT, the baptism means everything if that person chooses to believe!
Annie

And you are lising their names without their permission. And you see no ethical problem with this?