Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[dianaiad]

Well, I don’t believe in an afterlife personally, but I believe that even people who do believe in one also put some sort of weight on a person’s reputation.

It’s not that I think that everyone’s going to spontaneously convert to the LDS Church and believe it.

Here’s an analogy: imagine the Communist Party decided to make a deceased uncle of yours, a staunch Republican and capitalist while he was alive, a posthumous honorary member. How would you take this?

(grin) You have NO idea how funny that is…since I think it may actually have happened. It turns out that one of my uncles actually voted for John Kerry; three years after his death. Amazing, isn’t it?

However, as long as good old capitalist unc has the same right to tell 'em where to put the honor those for whom proxy baptisms are done, I don’t see a problem. All I have to do, after all, is point out the dates. Posthumous memberships are, by definition, subject to the agreement of the dead guy…which is a little difficult to record, and therefore must always remain provisional.

Not in reality, no. But you do try to call into question their religious beliefs.

No we don’t. If having a missionary knock on your door does not 'call into question your religious beliefs," then neither does this. The only thing that could call your religious beliefs into question is what one DOES about it, and that–is entirely up to the person for whom the work is done.

 

[dianaiad]

I voted no, it’s disrespectful. I understand from Dianaiad’s posts that the Mormons view it as “offering a choice” to the deceased which they may accept or reject. This is fine, I suppose, but then what of the right to not be put in that position in the first place? For instance, I would have a hard time beliving that my mother (may she rest in peace) would even allow herself to put in the position of thinking about Mormon baptism, so committed was she to her Presbyterian church, and if she wouldn’t have entertained such an idea in life, what gives Mormons (or anyone) the right to try to sell her on it in the afterlife?

What right have you got to make that decision for her? Are you that afraid she would listen, and say yes?

Don’t you trust her…don’t you have faith in her faith?

Consider. The only way she WOULD hear about this, you realize, is if we are right. If we ARE right, then your refusal to allow her to hear about it and make her own choice is doing her no favors at all. If we aren’t, then she’s not going to be 'put in that position."

But I’m beginning to understand the problem…the disconnect. WE, the Mormons, believe it’s all about those who have passed on: what they want, what they think, and their ability to choose.

…and you guys think it’s about you; you aren’t insulted for them; after all, you wouldn’t be this insulted at a couple of missionaries knocking upon their door during their lifetimes, especially if that visit resulted in those missionaries marking their names upon a permanent list that they were offered the chance, and that no more visits would be made to them.

So if you wouldn’t be offended at that, why are you offended at this? Just because you can, THIS time, actually see the “list,” where they WERE made the offer?

 

[dianaiad]

They are not really “baptizing” anyone. Their belief in the Holy Trinity, of Jesus Christ, and of the Sacraments is flawed. So they can make people wet and say whatever they want over them, it does not make them baptized.

Funny. We have the same opinion about your baptisms. Oh, we don’t believe that it is your ‘flawed belief’ in the Trinity that causes the problem, of course, but the upshot is the same. We don’t believe that Catholic baptisms do anything but get people damp. It’s an authority issue.

Just like standing in my garage does not make me a car.

Quite true. And having a proxy LDS baptism performed for you does NOT make you a Mormon, either–until and unless you hear about it, want it, and accept it.

So don’t sweat it - they aren’t doing anything but making people wet.

~Liza

…and there you go. Even we don’t think it does more than that, unless the one for whom it is done wants it to do more than that.

 

[thecourt]

To reply to the original poster of this thread and speaking as a Latter Day Saint ---- if the family of the deceased has granted permission, I say yes.

Understand the reason for this dimension of our work before jumping on the bash Mormons train or claiming it is disrespectful.

 

[Anna_Scott]

A Mormon bishop and his wife were my neighbors, before my divorce. I had known them for years. I admired the strength of their family. The bishop seemed like the father I never had. So, after my divorce, they invited me to their church. For weeks, I took lessons at the bishop’s home- with the Mormon Bishop and two Mormon missionaries.

I was at a very vulnerable point in my life. I wanted to belong someplace. I was a single mom, with no family in my city.

So, I went to the Mormon church and finished all the lessons. There were things that concerned me about the church services. I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken. Almost without exception, testimonies began with a statement of belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I was told that there are three heavens. I was also told that God, in the flesh, impregnated Mary.

I did eventually decide to join the church. The day before my baptism, a family member called me and told me about the Mormon belief that God has a wife and lives on another star (Kolob,) and men can become gods. I was so shocked; because none of this was discussed in the lessons-except a passing mention of exaltation-with no clear explanation.

So, I called the Bishop’s house and spoke to one of his daughters. I asked if these beliefs were true, and she admitted that they were. I was really shaken, but I did proceed with baptism. After the baptism, things became very strange. Every time I tried to read the Book of Mormon, I would feel ill–as if I were in a place of darkness.

Then one evening, I heard a knock at my door. It was a friend of mine who drove from another state for a surprise visit. During her stay, I told her that I had been baptized into the Mormon church. She told me she had taken the lessons many years ago. She also told me she found one of Joseph Smith’s early books. Smith actually wrote that he believed Adam was god.

I knew I had to break the connection with the Mormon church as quickly as possible. So, I called the bishop’s wife and told her I did not want any further connection with the Mormon church. She came to my house and asked me why. I told her all the things I had learned about the Mormon beliefs. She acknowledged that they were all true.

When I told her about Joseph Smith’s writings that revealed his belief that Adam was god, she could not deny that either. She said she was familiar with the “Adam/god theory.” I told her I felt that I had been deceived. During the lessons, I was told that the Mormon church is a Christian church–with the same beliefs in God and Jesus as other Christian Churches.

It didn’t end there; members of the church kept calling me and showing up at my door. I kept telling them I was not coming back to the church and to please stop contacting me.

It still didn’t stop. I received phone calls. I received things in the mail-which I marked “return to sender” and left for the Postman. Then, I started receiving things in the mail with no return address-a clear attempt to get me to open the package.

I finally had to write a formal letter to the church–telling them I wanted my name removed from their records, and would consider any further contact harassment—(though I had been harassed, since the moment I told them I was not coming back.)

I recently found some websites that give guidance and sample letters for those who wish to leave the LDS Church. One letter included a statement, “The LDS church shall NOT use my name in baptismal (or other) ordinances for the dead.”

The following is a letter to the LDS Church, by a Mormon resigning from the LDS Church and asking to be removed from all records. Notice concerns of potential proxy temple rites, after death-even though he formerly left the church.

Today, I called the Member Records Division, LDS Church, 1-800-453-3860, x22053. Brother ??? (refused to give his name) looked up my name and said they received my letter of resignation, and it was processed in May 1997.

I asked Brother ??? if he would send me a copy of my letter of resignation. He refused, saying my letter is now “property of the church.”

I asked him how my name appeared in LDS baptismal records, or any other rites performed for me. He said he was not allowed to give me that information.

I told him I am aware that baptisms and other rites are performed by proxy. He told me this would not be done,** “while you are still living.”** I told him I did not want rites performed by proxy after my death; and that I would send a letter stating the same. He was silent on the issue.

So, even though I clearly rejected Mormonism in life, my name would still be there for the LDS church to use as they see fit, once I am deceased. This is so disturbing. The disrespect is astounding. IMHO, this is a violation of religious freedom in our great country.

I am working on my letter to forbid any LDS proxy work, on by behalf, after my death.

God, forgive me for ever straying from your Christian flock,
Anna

 

[dzheremi]

What right have you got to make that decision for her? Are you that afraid she would listen, and say yes?

Don’t you trust her…don’t you have faith in her faith?

Consider. The only way she WOULD hear about this, you realize, is if we are right. If we ARE right, then your refusal to allow her to hear about it and make her own choice is doing her no favors at all. If we aren’t, then she’s not going to be 'put in that position."

But I’m beginning to understand the problem…the disconnect. WE, the Mormons, believe it’s all about those who have passed on: what they want, what they think, and their ability to choose.

…and you guys think it’s about you; you aren’t insulted for them; after all, you wouldn’t be this insulted at a couple of missionaries knocking upon their door during their lifetimes, especially if that visit resulted in those missionaries marking their names upon a permanent list that they were offered the chance, and that no more visits would be made to them.

So if you wouldn’t be offended at that, why are you offended at this? Just because you can, THIS time, actually see the “list,” where they WERE made the offer?

I have a really hard time being charitable towards you in light of what you’ve written here, or understanding how you cannot see why some would upset by this sort of attitude with respect to their departed. Luckily for you, my mother died years ago and I can discuss such things somewhat reservedly. It is sufficient to tell you that it is rude not because of any doubt that I have in the strength of her faith, but because I know that she was true believer in CHRISTIANITY, and not Mormonism. That’s all. I have no need to address your many derogatory and unacceptable ideas and presuppositions. I wish that Mormons would have more respect for the dead than you currently do, but I can’t force you change your attitude.

 

[amontoya]

If we are not correct about our beliefs, then they cannot be insulted by something they will never know about, or see.

Why do you assume that if you are incorrect, then the deceased won’t know what you’re doing in their name? It is possible that even though you’re wrong, they can know about and see what you’re doing in their name.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it proper that they do whatever they believe necessary for the salvation of the souls who have passed. On the other hand there seems no necessity for them to publicize who they are baptizing. As far as I know [which is a very limited distance] that is not a necessary part of the rite.

I hope they think the same if I have a mass said for the salvation of Joseph Smith et al.

 

[dianaiad]

I have a really hard time being charitable towards you in light of what you’ve written here, or understanding how you cannot see why some would upset by this sort of attitude with respect to their departed

Luckily for you, my mother died years ago and I can discuss such things somewhat reservedly. It is sufficient to tell you that it is rude not because of any doubt that I have in the strength of her faith, but because I know that she was true believer in CHRISTIANITY, and not Mormonism.

Since you believe that is so, that your mother would never have anything to do with us, then of course you shouldn’t feel so adamant that she not be offered it.

What I notice here is that you are insisting that I understand you and appreciate the level of insult you feel regarding what we do. The problem is, I DO understand. I understand that those who oppose proxy work misrepresent what it is, and you insist upon thinking that it is something it is not. I understand that you will be disrespectful of me and my beliefs, deeply and personally insult my faith, and expect me to humbly accept and agree with your assessment of it. Why?

Because you believe you are correct and can’t for the life of you understand why anyone would believe differently. So much do you have a problem understanding this, that you can’t comprehend it; on some level you feel that OF COURSE I must agree with you that proxy work is disrespectful of the dead…why? Because YOU think it is, therefore—it is. I must be deliberately doing it because I’m…evil or something. You are making absolutely no attempt to see this from our POV, at all.

Well, I understand your POV. I really do.I simply do not agree with it. I see it, not as insult felt on behalf of your ancestors, but your own insult based upon your own opinions. Frankly, Given that in order for you to figure you have a right to BE insulted by this, you have to believe that you have more right to decide your ancestor’s religious beliefs and decisions than they do. Since that seems to me to be more disrespectful to them than my simply offering a choice, I don’t have to accede to your wishes, and agree that your opinion trumps mine in the case of common ancestors.

I also, admittadly, can’t empathise with it because if someone did this for me, under the same ‘rules’ as we do it for others, I would have absolutely no problem with the idea. Go ahead; do proxy work and make me a Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a…whatever. I KNOW what such a thing would, and would not, mean to me, and I don’t see the insult in it either to me or to my children. I really don’t.

Why don’t you attempt to understand my POV here?

So, in spite of the fact that you don’t think I’m a Christian, and in spite of the fact that you disapprove, and in spite of the fact that you believe your sense of insult is more important than my religious beliefs, I will go on doing the proxy work for my ancestors. Even if they happen to belong to your family tree, as well.

Because, with all that has been said regarding this issue, I do agree that we shouldn’t submit names for proxy work for people to whom we are not related.

 

[dianaiad]

I think it proper that they do whatever they believe necessary for the salvation of the souls who have passed. On the other hand there seems no necessity for them to publicize who they are baptizing. As far as I know [which is a very limited distance] that is not a necessary part of the rite.

I hope they think the same if I have a mass said for the salvation of Joseph Smith et al.

Actually, I don’t know any Mormon who would have a problem with that. Not without being a bit of a hypocrite, anyway. If one does, point me at him.

I certainly don’t have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with those who say that they are praying for me. I figure that God will take the intentions of those whose faith is in Him, and do with it what He wills.

 

[dianaiad]

Why do you assume that if you are incorrect, then the deceased won’t know what you’re doing in their name? It is possible that even though you’re wrong, they can know about and see what you’re doing in their name.

I suppose…but if they do, and we are wrong, it certainly won’t MATTER to them, will it? It will simply be another group of people doing strange, ineffective, stuff.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have a really hard time being charitable towards you in light of what you’ve written here, or understanding how you cannot see why some would upset by this sort of attitude with respect to their departed. Luckily for you, my mother died years ago and I can discuss such things somewhat reservedly. It is sufficient to tell you that it is rude not because of any doubt that I have in the strength of her faith, but because I know that she was true believer in CHRISTIANITY, and not Mormonism. That’s all. I have no need to address your many derogatory and unacceptable ideas and presuppositions. I wish that Mormons would have more respect for the dead than you currently do, but I can’t force you change your attitude.

This is what I see most often, a total inability to understand another persons perspective. Just like the issue with temple weddings, it’s not that they do proxies or exclude non-LDS family it’s that they can not understand the feelings of others and seem to make no effort to try. Once or twice in these discussions I’ve seen an LDS understand a view on this other than their own but mostly it’s the type of thing you commented on or a “well we’re going to do it and you can’t stop us dead people have no rights so there” type of response. These kind of posts make one wonder about the spirit in which these proxies are done.

And I disagree with the idea that I should only be concerned about disrespect directed at me, that the disrespectful treatment of others is not any concern of mine and I should just ignore it.

 

[dianaiad]

This is what I see most often, a total inability to understand another persons perspective. Just like the issue with temple weddings, it’s not that they do proxies or exclude non-LDS family it’s that they can not understand the feelings of others and seem to make no effort to try. Once or twice in these discussions I’ve seen an LDS understand a view on this other than their own but mostly it’s the type of thing you commented on or a “well we’re going to do it and you can’t stop us dead people have no rights so there”

Stop right there. I can guarantee you that you have NEVER seen a Mormon argue 'dead people have no rights so there," or anything even close to it. In fact, that’s YOUR argument–that they have only the rights you allow them to have. WE believe that they have the right to make a choice for themselves; that the choice to accept this work is completely and entirely THEIRS. Not ours—and NOT YOURS.

We are the people who are arguing that THEY are the folks who HAVE the rights! It is YOU, who argue that their rights to make choices for themselves end upon their deaths, and devolve upon you. You claim the right to make these choices for them. No, sir, if you are going to make an argument here, at least be honest. WE are not the ones who are denying them their rights. You are.

…type of response. These kind of posts make one wonder about the spirit in which these proxies are done.

What does the fact that you just completely misrepresented (read, lied…) about what we do and say about this make you wonder?

And I disagree with the idea that I should only be concerned about disrespect directed at me, that the disrespectful treatment of others is not any concern of mine and I should just ignore it.

First make certain that what is happening IS disrespect. Don’t take upon yourself offense that simply is not there.

‘dead people have no rights…’ Great googly moogly—and you think WE don’t 'understand the other person’s perspective?"

What version of proxy baptisms are you arguing against…because it sure ain’t ours!!

 

[gearhead]

Because, with all that has been said regarding this issue, I do agree that we shouldn’t submit names for proxy work for people to whom we are not related.

Why the requirement to be related?

I have relatives whose opinions are in direct opposition to mine on virtually every issue. I have only the faintest notion of how my great-grandparents felt about anything and beyond that, I have no clue.

What is it about being related to someone makes it appropriate to perform a proxy baptism?

Also (and this is similar to the question I have about Catholic infant baptism), why would you being dunked in water have any bearing on the eternal fate of someone else?

 

[dianaiad]

Why the requirement to be related?

For practical reasons, as well as, (for me) ethical ones.
Practically, a great deal of the opposition to such proxy work comes from relatives who feel somehow disrespected because we do work for THEIR ancestors. However, nobody can really argue that they, because they are NOT LDS, have more right to keep great grandma from having her work done than another great grandchild has to DO it.

Ethically…I do believe that this is work for the family to do; it is the family that is being ‘sealed,’ after all…it should be family doing the job.

I have relatives whose opinions are in direct opposition to mine on virtually every issue. I have only the faintest notion of how my great-grandparents felt about anything and beyond that, I have no clue.

So…there’s no problem with offering them a choice, is there? That’s all you would be doing, after all; you can’t make their minds up for them.

What is it about being related to someone makes it appropriate to perform a proxy baptism?

Since the entire thing is about family…then being ‘related’ makes it somewhat special.

Also (and this is similar to the question I have about Catholic infant baptism), why would you being dunked in water have any bearing on the eternal fate of someone else?

That rather depends upon whether one believes that baptism is a requirement for eternal salvation. We do. As to the "proxy’ part of it…well…I’ve already told the story of my uncle who was married by proxy to his sweetheart in England so that he could get her on a boat and over to the USA. SHE stood in front of a clerk in England and had a wedding there–her brother stood in for, and signed for, my uncle the groom. That same day (give or take a few hours) my uncle stood in front of a justice of the peace and was married to her; a cousin ‘stood in for’ the bride.

Now, the bride did not actually marry her brother, though he said all the words as if he were the groom. The groom did not actually marry his cousin, though she stood in for the bride. Many thousand miles apart, the bride and groom married each other BECAUSE they both accepted the actions of their proxies on another continent. If either one says 'no, s/he didn’t speak for me," the marriage would have been null–as if it had never taken place, In reality, it never would have. Everything depended upon the agreement and acceptance of those for whom the proxies spoke.

It works EXACTLY the same way for us. The one for whom the work is done may not be the one getting wet, but if s/he accepts the actions of the one who DID, it is as if s/he had been the one dunked. If s/he says ‘this person did not speak for me,’ it is as if nothing had been done, because, in reality, nothing was. Everything depends upon the acceptance of the one for whom the work is done, and the choice is, completely, his or hers.

 

[mjf001]

I voted no, it’s disrespectful. My concern is not the effectiveness of the proxy baptisms. They can have no effect since baptism is only effective during life. Once a person dies, there will is locked in, the choice has been made - it’s either heaven or hell, period.

My concern is the scandal. Whether a reasonable person will assume there is some affiliation with the LDS, is up for debate. If the records shown on the previous thread are accurate, maybe a reasonable person won’t. However, a reasonable person who sees baptism as the initiating sacrament into Christianity, seeing that a person has been baptized by proxy could assume there is an affiliation, there. Particularly someone who’s not familiar with the process.

My other concern is that a person’s legacy is important. The choices a person made during his/her life, are important. However, well meaning the LDS may be, the fact of the matter is this proxy baptism may not reflect the choices a person made in real life. The LDS may not agree with those choices, that’s their right. It’s my right, as a Catholic, to worry about my family members being in a religion that I see as untrue. I can pray for them, I can let them know I’m here if they have questions. What I can not do is offer them a choice they do not want. Unless they come to me and ask for my help, all I can do is try to be the best example I can and pray. The proxy baptism, in my opinion does the opposite of this. It tries to say, “I disagree with the choices you made in life so much, I’m going to offer you one more chance, whether you want it or not.” Is this their right? Yes. As I mentioned above, according to Catholic belief, it’s meaningless. The choice is already made, they are already where they are going to be, or at least on their way.

I agree with the comments others have made. This is about a lack of understanding. The LDS on this site, without exception, seem to be demanding we see their side of things, while completely discounting our side. I see the LDS side, I just completely disagree with it. I think it’s wrong.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[dzheremi]

Well said, Michael. I don’t know why because we disagree with them suddenly it means that we’re being unfair and are therefore unable to see things from their side. There is such a thing as honest disagreement, but maybe the Mormons are seeing some maleficence where the rest of us do not.

 

[kalt]

…and you guys think it’s about you; you aren’t insulted for them; after all, you wouldn’t be this insulted at a couple of missionaries knocking upon their door during their lifetimes, especially if that visit resulted in those missionaries marking their names upon a permanent list that they were offered the chance, and that no more visits would be made to them.

You think so? We hate it when these “missionaries” knock on our doors. They have no right to know our names or to come knocking, much less to put our names on any kind of list.

Make it easy on yourselves, leave non-Mormons alone. Don’t knock on our doors. Don’t offer us your “baptism”. Don’t put our names on any of your lists for any reason.

If you agree to leave people alone (dead and alive) you have no need of any list of any kind.

 

[kalt]

Would you consider it insulting and disrespectful to baptize someone after they’ve said, No to your offer?

If you do, and I think most civilized people agree that performing a religious rite “for” someone who doesn’t want it is off-the-charts arrogant, rude, and disrespectful, how can you justify baptizing anyone you can’t get an answer from?

In Baptism, the person has to agree to it, therefor the “Yes” comes before the rite. If the rite comes before you get a “Yes” (which you can never get) or after a “No”, performing the rite is pressumptuous and disrespectful. It’s effectiveness is irrelevant. All Catholics know that these baptism have no effect, and your insistance that a “No” will invalidate the rite is irrelevant for that reason. The rite has no effect ever–that is not debated. What is in question is the arrogance and disrespect involved in performing a relgious rite in someone else’s name (who is not a member of your church) and putting that name on a list of those baptized by proxy by your church.

 

[kalt]

I may get into trouble for saying this here, but I have similar objections to infant baptism… or at least the assumption that a person who was baptized Catholic as a baby is a Catholic (though perhaps a heretical or apostate Catholic) for life.

How a person lives their life determines who they are. A person who lived as a Muslim, Jew, atheist, Scientologist or what-have-you is no more a Catholic because they were dunked in water as a baby than they are Mormon because their grand-nephew was dunked in water “on their behalf” after they were dead.

If a person who was baptized as a Catholic decides to live as a Catholic, fine, but the aspects of our identity that flow from our beliefs actually do flow from our beliefs and not other people’s suppositions and rituals that may or may not reflect what we actually think.

I don’t. I have no problem with a Mormon baptizing his own dead child by proxy. I have a problem with him baptizing a distant relative and any adult relative who had nothing to do with the Mormon church.

I have no problem with Jews, Protestants, or Muslims bringing their children in their faith.

More similar to the Mormons’ baptizing non-Mormons would be a Catholic’s baptizing non-catholic infants who are temporarily in his care (foster care or wartime situations, for example) or a Protestant’s rebaptizing a Catholic or Jewish child temporarily in his care.