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

[kalt]

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.

If the Catholic Church were llisting the person as a baptized (by proxy) Catholic, the comparison would be a good one.

Why is it so hard to understand that it’s the using their name that’s the problem. Listing them!! We all know that baptism by proxy by the Mormons means nothing. It has no effect - in this world or the next. That’s not the point. No one is complaining that the Mormons are making their dead relatives Mormon. We’re complaining that they are using their names. Hands off.

It’s unbelievable that an entire group of people could be so numb to the rights and feelings of the relatives of the dead people. To be so disrespectful of the dead and their families is simply astounding.

Please, Momons, don’t come here complaining of being “disrespected” by others when you can’t even respect the names of the dead, and will even argue in favor of taking their names for you list, knowing that the families don’t want the name on your list. This is really sick. It has a cult feel. Creepy.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If the Catholic Church were llisting the person as a baptized (by proxy) Catholic, the comparison would be a good one.

Why is it so hard to understand that it’s the using their name that’s the problem. Listing them!! We all know that baptism by proxy by the Mormons means nothing. It has no effect - in this world or the next. That’s not the point. No one is complaining that the Mormons are making their dead relatives Mormon. We’re complaining that they are using their names. Hands off.

Are you serious? Have you been reading that other thread? One of the most common objections being offered is something along the lines of "I don’t want my descendants thinking I was a Mormon in life. Yet when pressed for a logical explanation of how this would even be possible, no one has delivered.

That’s why I went with a practice of ours in which we list people’s names. I think you’re exercising some special pleading here, kalt. You say the comparison isn’t a good one because “it isn’t baptism” while what the Mormons are doing is so scandalous because “it’s baptism”.

My point was that in both cases a religious ritual is being performed for the sake of a deceased person who wasn’t a member of said religion in life. In both instances, those who are submitting the names are doing so out of charity. In both instances the people involved truly believe they are helping the deceased. In both instances, the members of the opposite religion do not believe in the efficacy of the ritual. Most importantly: In both instances, the church performing the ritual are not dishonestly claiming that the deceased for whom the ritual was performed was “a member of that religion in life”. I don’t know where this claim is coming from, but the LDS do not “list the dead as Mormons”. They don’t even presume to know the choice that the deceased made in accepting the Ordinances, they simply list that the posthumous ritual was performed by this or that living person in this or that temple on this or that date.

Do you think the Mormon descendant of a deceased Mormon should be grossly offended if they found a parish program that listed their relative in the Mass intentions? Do you think they should assume that “the arrogant Catholics are trying to claim them as one of their own!”?

It’s unbelievable that an entire group of people could be so numb to the rights and feelings of the relatives of the dead people. To be so disrespectful of the dead and their families is simply astounding.

Please, Momons, don’t come here complaining of being “disrespected” by others when you can’t even respect the names of the dead, and will even argue in favor of taking their names for you list, knowing that the families don’t want the name on your list. This is really sick. It has a cult feel. Creepy

Not surprisingly, I know a handful of Evangelicals who feel the same way about our practices. The key here is consistency. If you’re truly offended by this by virtue of it being innately disrespectful (and not just because they’re Mormons performing these rituals), then I really hope you’re equally offended when Catholics do similarly.

 

[thecourt]

I agree with the original poster of this thread.

My church will continue to do baptisms for the dead, making every effort to find out if any living relatives of the deceased have a issue.

Personally, I submit this is further evidence by some who hate my church regardless of what it does as their basis to attack any way they can.

As I continue to ask, despite the differences in doctrine, is it possible to get along with others that you may disagree doctrinally? If this hatred is being pushed by Catholics, I thought that your cause has been improving relations for years with those of other faiths that your disagreed with? Why are Latter Day Saints a exception in your efforts in improving relations?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I agree with the original poster of this thread.

My church will continue to do baptisms for the dead, making every effort to find out if any living relatives of the deceased have a issue.

Personally, I submit this is further evidence by some who hate my church regardless of what it does as their basis to attack any way they can.

And you, my friend, are hastily jumping to conclusions just as are many of those you deem haters.

There is confusion about exactly what goes in and what is omitted in the LDS Ordinance records. Rather than summoning the violins and the sob story about how the LDS Church is so hated, it would be better if you jumped in and tried to clear up confusion (as I’m attempting to do). You’re only compounding the problem.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I just went digging for my own Family History records, and I’ll share with you what these records explicitly state. For anonymity’s sake, I’m changing first and middle names to initials.

On the “Pedigree Chart” my Great Grandmother:

V.S. Rosenberg
Born: 10 Feb 1894
Where: Cedar City, Utah
When Married: 6 Sept 1917
Died: 30 Nov 1932
Where: Cedar City, Utah
Name of Husband or Wife: E.W. Dennis

I’ll make the assumption that she was a “real” Mormon since she was born, raised, and died in Utah. Sure enough, when I turn the page to the detailed list of her parents, it says:

J.T. Rosenberg

Children:

V.S. Rosenberg

“Christening”: N/A (See LDS Ordinance Data)
Date of First Marriage: 6 Sep 1917.

LDS Ordinance Data:
Baptized: 2 Oct 1903 (Makes my great-grandmother 9 years old at the time of her LDS baptism).
Sealed (Wife to Husband): 6 Sep 1917 - SG

Notice that not only is the “Baptism” performed while she was still alive (meaning her own body was baptized), but under “Christening” it says N/A because she never had a non-Mormon baptism. The records clearly make the distinction. Furthermore, the “date of marriage” and “sealed” date are identical meaning she physically married in the SG (St. George) temple.

Now lets jump back a couple generations to before my pioneer ancestors joined the LDS Church:

J.F. Rosenberg (Great-grandfather of V.S. Rosenberg. My great-great-great-great grandfather):

Born: 14 Jun 1808
Where: Hamsover, Hams, Ger (Germany)
When Married: abt. 1834
Died: 20 Sep 1875
Where: Desden. Ger (Germany)

Christening: N/A (see notes).

LDS Ordinance Data:

Baptized: 13 Apr 1903
Endowed: 22 Oct 1903
Sealed (Wife to Husband): 22 Oct 1903 - SLC (28 years after he died and in Salt Lake City, on a continent upon which he never stepped foot!)

Notes: Jakob F. Rosenberg has no record of any Christian sacraments performed in life. The birth and death records come from a synagogue registry in Germany.

I don’t see how anyone could read this information and not conclude that my great-great-great-great-grandfather was never a Mormon in life, that he had his temple work performed vicariously by a descendent and that he was in fact a Jew.

ETA: I forgot to mention that on the sheets that list ancestors who’ve had ordinance work performed vicariously in the 20th century list the name of the “Family Representative” who actually submitted the data. My grandfather’s name is practically plastered over every sheet. Once we get into ordinance work that was performed in the 19th century, however, that information is not given.

So not only can one very easily determine if someone was a Mormon in life or not, one can just as easily determine which descendant made this horribly disrespectful decision to perform ordinance work on behalf of their own ancestors.

 

[gnoa]

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

First off, no where in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is baptism by proxy mentioned as a viable or acceptable form of baptism. From my understanding, the invalidity of the Mormon baptism comes from the lack of the correct rite or formula for baptism and the lack and disregard of fundamental Christian doctrines. The Catholic Church only recognizes baptism that where performed by certain Christian sects that use the correct Trinitarian formula and hold to the ancient and fundamental Christian doctrines. Baptism by proxy is performed without the consent or freewill of the dead who are not with us, physically, to provide their consent, freewill. Now, I know that one might bring up the charge at this point about infant baptism; however, even though this would be a red herring mixed with a little straw man, I will address it anyways.

Infant baptism takes place out of the consent of the parents who God worked with as co-creators of the infant and has given the responsibility to care for and raise. Parents have the duty to God and the community to raise and care for their child(ren) and are expected to speak on behalf, for the physical and spiritual well-being, of the child.

As for Mormom marriage, a Mormon can be married without being sealed; however, the sealing occurs only if the couple is married in the Mormon faith and then sealed through a ceremony in a Mormon temple. The sealing binds the two for eternity, with the hope that someday they will be the God of their own planet. (Yes, you read that right.) Now, if one is to continue down this line of thought and examine Mormon theology on the subject, it is easy to demonstrate that Momonism does not actually teach that their is one true God, but a pantheon of gods and goddesses. This is just one of the problems that Catholics and other Christians see with Mormonism and why many do not refer to it as a Christian denomination or sect.

 

[gnoa]

I agree with the original poster of this thread.

My church will continue to do baptisms for the dead, making every effort to find out if any living relatives of the deceased have a issue.

Personally, I submit this is further evidence by some who hate my church regardless of what it does as their basis to attack any way they can.

As I continue to ask, despite the differences in doctrine, is it possible to get along with others that you may disagree doctrinally? If this hatred is being pushed by Catholics, I thought that your cause has been improving relations for years with those of other faiths that your disagreed with? Why are Latter Day Saints a exception in your efforts in improving relations?

Improving relations is a goal, so is showing the faults in one’s teachings and logic so they may be enlightened to Truth and Facts. I encourage all to check early Christian history, the early Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds. Mormonism was never practiced by the Native American Indians, no historical record exists of a lost tribe coming to the Americas, and Mormonism did not exist before 1830.

 

[kalt]

Are you serious? Have you been reading that other thread? One of the most common objections being offered is something along the lines of "I don’t want my descendants thinking I was a Mormon in life. Yet when pressed for a logical explanation of how this would even be possible, no one has delivered.

That’s why I went with a practice of ours in which we list people’s names. I think you’re exercising some special pleading here, kalt. You say the comparison isn’t a good one because “it isn’t baptism” while what the Mormons are doing is so scandalous because “it’s baptism”.

My point was that in both cases a religious ritual is being performed for the sake of a deceased person who wasn’t a member of said religion in life. In both instances, those who are submitting the names are doing so out of charity. In both instances the people involved truly believe they are helping the deceased. In both instances, the members of the opposite religion do not believe in the efficacy of the ritual. Most importantly: In both instances, the church performing the ritual are not dishonestly claiming that the deceased for whom the ritual was performed was “a member of that religion in life”. I don’t know where this claim is coming from, but the LDS do not “list the dead as Mormons”. They don’t even presume to know the choice that the deceased made in accepting the Ordinances, they simply list that the posthumous ritual was performed by this or that living person in this or that temple on this or that date.

Do you think the Mormon descendant of a deceased Mormon should be grossly offended if they found a parish program that listed their relative in the Mass intentions? Do you think they should assume that “the arrogant Catholics are trying to claim them as one of their own!”?

Not surprisingly, I know a handful of Evangelicals who feel the same way about our practices. The key here is consistency. If you’re truly offended by this by virtue of it being innately disrespectful (and not just because they’re Mormons performing these rituals), then I really hope you’re equally offended when Catholics do similarly.

You missed the point. Do you understand that Baptism is a rite of initiation? When one is baptized, one is brought into the group. Lising someone’s name, even if the baptism is by proxy, is proclaiming that the person is part of the group.

Saying a prayer for someone - which is what the Mass is - doesn’t compare.

If Catholics were praying that the person is converted after death, the comparison would be valid.

The comparison doesn’t work. In the case of the LDS practice, people are being listed who aren’t Mormon. Never were. Never will be. It’s dishonest and disrespectful.

 

[ByzCath08]

Mormons baptize dead people. Who cares? Look at some of their beliefs. They believe in being married for time and eternity. Jesus said in Matthew, for in the resurrection they shall neither marry or be married.

They believe the early church was taken off the earth and returned at the time of Joseph Smith; Christ taught that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and that he would be with us until the end of time.

Mormons teach that very few people are destined for hell. Christ said, wide is the gate and broad is the road that lead to destruction; small is the gate and narrow is the road that lead to life and only a few find it.

Or how about some nuggets of information coming out of the Journal of Discources:

•There are as many Gods as there are millions of worlds and their particles of matter - Volume II p345

While I know many LDS people & families and they are good people; they follow a belief set that is not Christian and in reality is a cult.

•If Joseph Smith asked for the wife of a man of God, he would gladly give her to him VII p14

•The only men who become Gods must practice polygamy - V 11, p269

•Adam was made from the dust of an earth, not this earth - V 3, p319

I understand that the Journal of Discources are not dogma or doctrine. However, these “opinions”, yet many LDS leaders quote the Discources in their works. For example, Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe used the Discources as a primary source for his book, “Discources of Brigham Young”.

 

[Annie_B]

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.

It is merely a listing. I take no personal offense at what others may or may not think I am. I could list myself as an alien visiting from mars with three heads, but that would not make it so And, what is it you would like me to change my designation to?
Annie

 

[Annie_B]

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

I have not listed anyone’s name… However, I do not see it as an ethical problem. As far as names on lists being an ethical problem, I have a MUCH greater problem with people getting my name from a list for the purpose of spam and junk mail. Now THAT is bothersome and a waste.

As a Catholic, do you see it as an ethical problem that you judge other’s intentions?

Annie

 

[Annie_B]

If the Catholic Church were llisting the person as a baptized (by proxy) Catholic, the comparison would be a good one.

Why is it so hard to understand that it’s the using their name that’s the problem. Listing them!! We all know that baptism by proxy by the Mormons means nothing. It has no effect - in this world or the next. That’s not the point. No one is complaining that the Mormons are making their dead relatives Mormon. We’re complaining that they are using their names. Hands off.

It’s unbelievable that an entire group of people could be so numb to the rights and feelings of the relatives of the dead people. To be so disrespectful of the dead and their families is simply astounding.

Please, Momons, don’t come here complaining of being “disrespected” by others when you can’t even respect the names of the dead, and will even argue in favor of taking their names for you list, knowing that the families don’t want the name on your list. This is really sick. It has a cult feel. Creepy.

Kalt, could you please tell me exactly what “list” it is that has you so upset and exactly where I can find it?

Annie

 

[Annie_B]

First off, no where in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is baptism by proxy mentioned as a viable or acceptable form of baptism. From my understanding, the invalidity of the Mormon baptism comes from the lack of the correct rite or formula for baptism and the lack and disregard of fundamental Christian doctrines. The Catholic Church only recognizes baptism that where performed by certain Christian sects that use the correct Trinitarian formula and hold to the ancient and fundamental Christian doctrines. Baptism by proxy is performed without the consent or freewill of the dead who are not with us, physically, to provide their consent, freewill. Now, I know that one might bring up the charge at this point about infant baptism; however, even though this would be a red herring mixed with a little straw man, I will address it anyways.

Infant baptism takes place out of the consent of the parents who God worked with as co-creators of the infant and has given the responsibility to care for and raise. Parents have the duty to God and the community to raise and care for their child(ren) and are expected to speak on behalf, for the physical and spiritual well-being, of the child.

As for Mormom marriage, a Mormon can be married without being sealed; however, the sealing occurs only if the couple is married in the Mormon faith and then sealed through a ceremony in a Mormon temple. The sealing binds the two for eternity, with the hope that someday they will be the God of their own planet. (Yes, you read that right.) Now, if one is to continue down this line of thought and examine Mormon theology on the subject, it is easy to demonstrate that Momonism does not actually teach that their is one true God, but a pantheon of gods and goddesses. This is just one of the problems that Catholics and other Christians see with Mormonism and why many do not refer to it as a Christian denomination or sect.

Sacred Scripture is apparently in the eye of the beholder! For you to say that it is found nowhere in “sacred scripture” is in error; it is found nowhere in YOUR sacred scripture, but it is in the scripture and teachings of the LDS church and we find that VERY sacred!
Annie

 

[Utah_Bob]

regarding LDS Baptism the dead,Im a practicing Catholic living in Utah the point isn’t whether or not we believe in Baptism for the dead ,but respect for others.
I have found it very hard to find LDS people who can stand with respect,love,humility in the shoes of others.

 

[gnoa]

Sacred Scripture is apparently in the eye of the beholder! For you to say that it is found nowhere in “sacred scripture” is in error; it is found nowhere in YOUR sacred scripture, but it is in the scripture and teachings of the LDS church and we find that VERY sacred!
Annie

Sacred Scripture is in the eye of the beholder, provided that the eye does not deceive one from Truth and Historical Fact. Can you prove, from academic, peer reviewed sources outside of LDS that demonstrate the Book of Mormon to come before Smith or Young? The Book of Mormon might be sacred to Mormons, but to no other Christian denomination, especially Catholics which are the Original Christians and the True Church. If I was to continue your line of argumentation I would to say that I must respect the Qu’ran for Muslims, because not only is it sacred to them but it was written over a thousand years before the book of Mormon. The LDS church has no way to prove, from the New or Old Testament, or through empirical evidence the claims that it makes to be the true Christian church. So go ahead and continue to believe the Book of Mormon to be true, yours or other Mormons’ belief in it doesn’t make it true or sacred to the rest of Christendom.

 

[Annie_B]

Sacred Scripture is in the eye of the beholder, provided that the eye does not deceive one from Truth and Historical Fact. Can you prove, from academic, peer reviewed sources outside of LDS that demonstrate the Book of Mormon to come before Smith or Young? The Book of Mormon might be sacred to Mormons, but to no other Christian denomination, especially Catholics which are the Original Christians and the True Church. If I was to continue your line of argumentation I would to say that I must respect the Qu’ran for Muslims, because not only is it sacred to them but it was written over a thousand years before the book of Mormon. The LDS church has no way to prove, from the New or Old Testament, or through empirical evidence the claims that it makes to be the true Christian church. So go ahead and continue to believe the Book of Mormon to be true, yours or other Mormons’ belief in it doesn’t make it true or sacred to the rest of Christendom.

It does not need to be true or sacred to the rest of Christendom, as you say. And yes, I believe that we should respect the Holy Scriptures of other faiths. That means not to put them down because they are different. To respect something does not mean that we automatically agree with it. We can respect the beliefs of others without agreeing with them. I respect the teachings of your church because they are important to you and I will not “belief bash” or put them down just because I may not agree with some of them. As far as “proof” goes, , “for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible”.
Annie

 

[gnoa]

It does not need to be true or sacred to the rest of Christendom, as you say. And yes, I believe that we should respect the Holy Scriptures of other faiths. That means not to put them down because they are different. To respect something does not mean that we automatically agree with it. We can respect the beliefs of others without agreeing with them. I respect the teachings of your church because they are important to you and I will not “belief bash” or put them down just because I may not agree with some of them. As far as “proof” goes, , “for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible”.
Annie

Why does it not need to be true and sacred to the rest of Christendom? The LDS church does use a Protestant version of the Old and New Testament, because a failure to use these scriptures would weaken the position of trying to be a Christian sect. Other Christian denominations do not use the Book of Mormon because it is not an authentic, historical Christian text and goes against the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. While it is possible to be respectful of others’ beliefs, it does not mean that we should hold to others’ beliefs or allow others to continue to have irrational, non-logical, beliefs. To continue down your line of thought means that Mormons should not do proxy baptisms since the dead were not obviously Mormon nor wished to be Mormon. An example of others’ beliefs:

Let’s us say that you have a sibling who believes that 2+2=10. Basic Math and simple logic dictate that this is an incorrect belief, since 2+2=4. Do you not correct your sibling because it is his or her belief? That would be not only irrational, but irresponsible, especially since you want your sibling to know the Truth and do not want him or her to look like a fool.

Your final quote, “for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible,” is catchy; however, blind faith can allow one to run into walls since it has no sight or sense of direction, faulty footing. Also, if no explanation is necessary, then why create/use the Book of Mormon or even quote it? Why even have the Old and New Testament?

Those who believe do not need an explanation because they already believe, they understand the evidence already presented to them. For some of those who do not believe, no explanation is possible because they refuse to listen to the evidence. However, someone can still believe something and that belief be wrong. That is why it is important to continue to educate ones’ self and others with universally accepted facts.

 

[ricko]

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There’s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

2 Nephi 9:15: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

 

[gnoa]

Hey Ricko,

Actually, in Mormon theology, non-Mormons go to a heaven-like place where they are preached to by good Mormons. This is supposed to be a non-Mormon’s last chance to repent and accept Mormonism as the truth. The proxy baptisms are symbolic/ritualistic earthly representations of the acceptance of the deceased freewill to accept Mormonism. The quotes you are using, I believe off the top of my head, are to express the denial of Mormonism after death and at the final judgment. Nevertheless, this line of Mormon theology negates the freewill of the person on earth before death. One can try to see this as an attempt to have a similar teaching to the Catholic notion of “invincible ignorance” (Pope Pius IX, 1854). However, their are more differences between the two teachings than similarities.

 

[livi]

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

No, I do not believe more about the LDS faith than I admit. But I do feel that it is disrespectful to baptize people Mormon once they have passed on. I am Catholic and wish to remain so. I would hardly call myself “irate” about this issue, but I would not want to all of a sudden be considered Mormon by the LDS church when I die because I was baptized without my consent. They are not just statistics. Catholicism is part of my identity, a part that matters very much to me, and I wish to retain it. And that is most certainly my decision, not the decision of the LDS church.