Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[dianaiad]

I think it’s disrespectful to those who chose another religion. They are “baptizing” (actually listing) priests and nuns. We all know (even the Mormons admit it) that this “baptism” does nothing. Nonetheless, the names of good Catholics (nuns and priests included) are listed as baptized in the Mormon faith, even if “by proxy”. The mormons say that they can’t know if the baptism was accepted, but they do list it in their records as being performed.

The argument is that these nuns and priests are free to accept or reject the “offer”. (Baptism is offered by God, not people, but that’s for another thread.)

Indeed. That is absolutely true.

Yet people are the ones who must actually DO it, and accept it.

Are they merely offering baptism, though?

Yep. Why? Because it is of no effect unless it is wanted and accepted by the person for whom it is done. All the records HERE state is that the work was done, so it need not be done again, or offered again.

Not really, when they say that they are “baptizing by proxy”. The Baptism is performed, though they have no evidence that the person has said yes. So, the so-called baptism is performed without a confirmed, Yes, or in a worst case scenario, despite the person’s having said, No. (And this is all only if you believe in this stuff. Even if you believe, the practice is disrespectful.)

There IS no ‘worst case scenario’ such as you describe. If WE, who are actually DOING it, do not believe that it has any effect whatsoever upon those who do not actively want and accept it, then why would anybody else think it does? I mean, sheesh.

They can’t know the person’s response to this “offer”

Well, no. They are, after all, dead.

, and yet that perform the ritual anyway

Yes. They cannot accept (or reject, for that matter) an offer that is NOT made, after all.

. They are therefor “baptizing” someone who they don’t know has said yes, and they could be baptizing by proxy someone who has said, No. It’s disrespectful. Presumptuous, too.

Would be, IF we presumed that all those for whom this work is done are then forced to be, or agree with, something they don’t want. Since we do not presume acceptance, or figure that the work forces anybody to be anything they don’t want to be, where is the disrespect to them? Where is the presumption, when we don’t presume anything? The most WE presume is that they will actually get to hear the offer. (of course, that brings up a whole 'nuther discussion…)

I can see where you might think it is disrespectful to you…but you aren’t the one to whom we are making the offer, so what business is it of yours, anyway?

Yes. That is blunt. Sorry about that…but since when do you get to be the owner of your ancestors, so that you can force religious beliefs upon them, will they, nill they?

…because WE aren’t doing that when we do proxy work. YOU are, when you forbid it. At least we give 'em a choice.

Again, we all know (even the Mormons–though in their case only because they believe in it but can’t confirm that anyone has actually been baptized) that this practice means nothing.

That’s right. It means nothing—UNLESS the person for whom it is done actively accepts and wants it. THEN it means something, and it is, after all, their decision. Not ours—and not yours.

Back to reality, No one who is already dead is actually baptized in this ritual.

You believe that. That’s fine. WE believe that–unless of course the person for whom it is done accepts it.

That’s not the point.

Well yeah, actually, it is the point.

The point is that the person’s name is added to their list of “baptized by proxy Mormons”. Their name is showing up as converts (possibly, presumptuously),

No, it is showing up as having been offered proxy baptisms. There is NO assumption of acceptance.

when these people, especially the nuns and priests, did not choose Mormonism.

What, you have suddenly decided that nuns and priests can’t think for themselves either? Trust me, they can. If they don’t want anything to do with it, they’ll say so. Or, if you are right and we are not, they won’t even know about it. Either way, if I were a nun or a priest, I wouldn’t look to kindly on some descendant of a relative of mine thinking he or she can make my decisions for me. I would be even LESS thrilled at some stranger deciding this.

We find families and roots of families all over the world. We share freely–and genealogists freely use it. In a HUGE number of cases the people who are most adamant in criticizing this wouldn’t even know who these people ARE without the work we do; their ancestors would be forgotten–and you wouldn’t have a clue what religion they believed in, in life.

Let’s pretend that you are wondering where you came from. You find your many times great grandfather, born in Salisbury, was baptized a Catholic, converted to Puritanism Cromwell’s time, then back to Catholicism with Charles II, splitting the family: half now Catholic, half CoE (persecuting each other depending upon who was in power at the time.) You find all these wonderful stories, and relatives you never knew you had. You understand where your name comes from. You know more about your heritage; things you would other wise never know.

Oh. one of the things you are going to see on that record, perhaps, is that because one of this man’s decendents is a Mormon, that his proxy work has been done-- 300 years later. Do you honestly think that anybody is going to look at that record and suddenly decide that he was a MORMON CONVERT?

REALLY?

 

[dianaiad]

I understand your POV, Publisher. However, I voted disrespectful. They SHOULD not, but they will, because they think they have the right to force others into their religion.

Except that we don’t believe that it forces anything. We believe that those for whom proxy work is done must fully and willingly accept it and want it before it means anything at all. So how are WE forcing anything?

If anybody is forcing something, it’s you. After all, we are giving these people a choice. You are insisting that they not have that choice.

However, my own personal belief is that by doing so, they anger the spirits of the dead, so they do it at their own risk. Let them go ahead and do it.

How can we do that? If we are correct, it can’t possibly anger them.They are quite free to laugh at us, or say ‘no.’ If we are NOT correct, none of them will even know about it.

 

[dianaiad]

If the dead are aware of such proxy baptisms…my wife and child may smile…she was a Friend and never baptised with water…we didn’t allow anyone to baptise our child before he died…he died in a Catholic hospital. I suspect my nephew will be baptised on my behalf when I die…as I’ve never been baptised in water either.

Well, if that’s so…then you will smile either way. I do believe that you will see your wife and your child again, as I will see my husband and grandchild.

 

[dianaiad]

I would assume that most people disagree with you on this. When we pray for someone who is deceased, we are praying for the repose of their soul! If they are in a purification state in purgatory, we are praying that God would allow them into the fullness of His Presence! Praying for the souls in purgatory is really important, and it is nothing close to only beneficial to those who are praying. When I pray for my family and friends, I am certainly not doing it for my benefit. If I ask for their intercession, then sure…but that doesn’t sound like what you are saying. I actually find it a little offensive for you to say that everyone who prays for the dead is only doing so for their benefit.

Interesting. Can those people in purgatory for whom you pray ignore, or dismiss, the prayers you say on their behalf? Can they refuse to allow them to have an effect upon them?

 

[Publisher]

Well, if that’s so…then you will smile either way. I do believe that you will see your wife and your child again, as I will see my husband and grandchild.

I smile now at the joy of what I had and I am blessed to have known a wonderful woman and fathered a son. I’m not worried one way or another…beliefs in life after death are for the living…not the dead…we grieve in this life because the relationship we had with our loved one is over…never to be taken up again…I grieve the “death” of the relationship as well as the loss of the lives I loved…and the life I never saw grow to manhood. I one day will be Called. I know in the Presence there is no parting again…and we will be “complete”. It is a faith statement…that we all will be Called and none of us face anything those who have gone before us has faced gives me some comfort…I am in good company.

 

[twopekinguys]

So what you’re saying is that the mormon church is spending millions and millions of dollars building temples, gathering records, maintaing a huge database, etc. all on a “maybe”?

Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won’t? Ok, fine Doesn’t sound too logical to me.

Based on what I’ve learned, even most bad people that haven’t been baptized mormon don’t go to outer darkness or spirit prison, but yet are sent to one of the 3 levels of mormon heaven. So what’s the point?

The thing about baptisms is this. If a person goes to the Methodist church and gets baptized, they’re Methodist. If a person goes to the Presbyterian church and gets baptized, they’re Presbyterian. So on, and so on.

Baptizing a person dead or alive ties them to that religion. That is one thing that most people find objectionable.

Also, if all you’re doing is baptisms which the deceased can or cannot accept, why do posthumous sealings to family and spouses? Aren’t sealings just reserved for temple worthy mormons?

So, when the average joe/jane sees that their loved one was “sealed” to someone, it sure gives the impression that they were a mormon in good standing doesn’t it?

 

[kalt]

I voted “Yes” because what it being asked is “Should a Mormon practice one of the ordinances of their faith?” As I understand baptism for the dead as practiced by Mormons, it is part of their view of the communion of saints…namely that we are in this whole “thing” together and by performing the proxy baptism they are offering those who have died another chance at “something” they wouldn’t necessarily have if they did not practice proxy baptism.

No Catholic would want to be told they could not seek the intercession of a saint on behalf of a non-Catholic departed loved one. Yet someone could claim “it is disrespectful” to do so since the departed loved one wasn’t Catholic.

Proxy baptism is something the religious do to make sense of their lives…it is for the living…not the dead…IMO…praying for those who have died is for the living…not the dead…it is a ritual practice that seeks to make sense of death and comfort those who are still here…IMO.

I understand what you’re saying about Catholics and praying for the dead. Catholics know that prayer for he dead is effective, so we do it. However, if a Catholic were told by a non-Catholic not to pray for their relative, I can’t think of a Catholic I know who would pray anyway. That would be disrespectful.

The comparison ends there, though, since praying for a person’s wellbeing isn’t the same as converting them to your religion. (Or listing them as baptized in your religion.)

 

[Guyonthestreet]

However, if a Catholic were told by a non-Catholic not to pray for their relative, I can’t think of a Catholic I know who would pray anyway. That would be disrespectful.

Im not sure Im following this correctly.

Private prayer is between the person and God.

So in what way would it be disrespectful to pray for someone, even if you were told not to?

And how could you not pray for those that need prayer?

Regardless of what a relative may have asked?

Surely all the living and the dead need our prayers? Save for the saints in heaven?

 

[kalt]

Indeed. That is absolutely true.

Yet people are the ones who must actually DO it, and accept it.

Yep. Why? Because it is of no effect unless it is wanted and accepted by the person for whom it is done. All the records HERE state is that the work was done, so it need not be done again, or offered again.

There IS no ‘worst case scenario’ such as you describe. If WE, who are actually DOING it, do not believe that it has any effect whatsoever upon those who do not actively want and accept it, then why would anybody else think it does? I mean, sheesh.

Well, no. They are, after all, dead.

Yes. They cannot accept (or reject, for that matter) an offer that is NOT made, after all.

Would be, IF we presumed that all those for whom this work is done are then forced to be, or agree with, something they don’t want. Since we do not presume acceptance, or figure that the work forces anybody to be anything they don’t want to be, where is the disrespect to them? Where is the presumption, when we don’t presume anything? The most WE presume is that they will actually get to hear the offer. (of course, that brings up a whole 'nuther discussion…)

I can see where you might think it is disrespectful to you…but you aren’t the one to whom we are making the offer, so what business is it of yours, anyway?

Yes. That is blunt. Sorry about that…but since when do you get to be the owner of your ancestors, so that you can force religious beliefs upon them, will they, nill they?

…because WE aren’t doing that when we do proxy work. YOU are, when you forbid it. At least we give 'em a choice.

That’s right. It means nothing—UNLESS the person for whom it is done actively accepts and wants it. THEN it means something, and it is, after all, their decision. Not ours—and not yours.

You believe that. That’s fine. WE believe that–unless of course the person for whom it is done accepts it.

Well yeah, actually, it is the point.

No, it is showing up as having been offered proxy baptisms. There is NO assumption of acceptance.

What, you have suddenly decided that nuns and priests can’t think for themselves either? Trust me, they can. If they don’t want anything to do with it, they’ll say so. Or, if you are right and we are not, they won’t even know about it. Either way, if I were a nun or a priest, I wouldn’t look to kindly on some descendant of a relative of mine thinking he or she can make my decisions for me. I would be even LESS thrilled at some stranger deciding this.

We find families and roots of families all over the world. We share freely–and genealogists freely use it. In a HUGE number of cases the people who are most adamant in criticizing this wouldn’t even know who these people ARE without the work we do; their ancestors would be forgotten–and you wouldn’t have a clue what religion they believed in, in life.

Let’s pretend that you are wondering where you came from. You find your many times great grandfather, born in Salisbury, was baptized a Catholic, converted to Puritanism Cromwell’s time, then back to Catholicism with Charles II, splitting the family: half now Catholic, half CoE (persecuting each other depending upon who was in power at the time.) You find all these wonderful stories, and relatives you never knew you had. You understand where your name comes from. You know more about your heritage; things you would other wise never know.

Oh. one of the things you are going to see on that record, perhaps, is that because one of this man’s decendents is a Mormon, that his proxy work has been done-- 300 years later. Do you honestly think that anybody is going to look at that record and suddenly decide that he was a MORMON CONVERT?

REALLY?

And still you refuse to see that these dead people may not have wanted to be connected in any way to Mormonism. These people were Catholics by choice. You are ignoring that choice by listing them in your religion’s records.

Chrisitan batpism is offered to all by God. Do you think that means that because the Catholic Church is open to anyone who says, Yes, to god, that every person’s name in the world should be listed as “offered” baptism?

Why list a name as “offered baptism” (baptized by proxy as you describ it) at all, if everyone in the world is offered it by God?

Since I assume that Mormon baptism is always offered to anyone who says, Yes, to your founder’s theology (and the many changes since), why do you need a list? That baptism has already be offered - and refused.

 

[kalt]

Interesting. Can those people in purgatory for whom you pray ignore, or dismiss, the prayers you say on their behalf? Can they refuse to allow them to have an effect upon them?

The prayers are offered to God, not them. People can’t decide what prayers God will “ignore or dismiss”. Don’t we all agree that God hears all prayers, anyway? I hope so.

 

[gearhead]

Unless you believe that these by-proxy baptisms have any real effect, what does it matter?

It can have a real effect on a person’s legacy, which I do think has value.

If a person held their beliefs very closely in life, it disrespects their memory to suggest that in death, perhaps, they’ve thrown those beliefs away and adopted other ones.

The cases that I found most disturbing were the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. In most of these cases, these people not only were Jews but died for being Jewish. I think it’s inappropriate for people to suggest that maybe those people aren’t so Jewish after all.

Now… I realize that proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have been stopped, but from what I understand, this is temporary, and I think similar situations exist for other people; if a deceased person’s beliefs were a key element of their life, then trying to remove that aspect of their life harms their memory.

I think that proxy baptism is the theological equivalent of that commercial where an image of Fred Astaire was digitally manipulated to get him to dance with a vaccuum cleaner.

 

[kalt]

So what you’re saying is that the mormon church is spending millions and millions of dollars building temples, gathering records, maintaing a huge database, etc. all on a “maybe”?

Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won’t? Ok, fine Doesn’t sound too logical to me.

Based on what I’ve learned, even most bad people that haven’t been baptized mormon don’t go to outer darkness or spirit prison, but yet are sent to one of the 3 levels of mormon heaven. So what’s the point?

The thing about baptisms is this. If a person goes to the Methodist church and gets baptized, they’re Methodist. If a person goes to the Presbyterian church and gets baptized, they’re Presbyterian. So on, and so on.

Baptizing a person dead or alive ties them to that religion. That is one thing that most people find objectionable.

Also, if all you’re doing is baptisms which the deceased can or cannot accept, why do posthumous sealings to family and spouses? Aren’t sealings just reserved for temple worthy mormons?

So, when the average joe/jane sees that their loved one was “sealed” to someone, it sure gives the impression that they were a mormon in good standing doesn’t it?

Sure does sound like they believe that these dead people say, Yes.

 

[kalt]

It can have a real effect on a person’s legacy, which I do think has value.

If a person held their beliefs very closely in life, it disrespects their memory to suggest that in death, perhaps, they’ve thrown those beliefs away and adopted other ones.

The cases that I found most disturbing were the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. In most of these cases, these people not only were Jews but died for being Jewish. I think it’s inappropriate for people to suggest that maybe those people aren’t so Jewish after all.

Now… I realize that proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have been stopped, but from what I understand, this is temporary, and I think similar situations exist for other people; if a deceased person’s beliefs were a key element of their life, then trying to remove that aspect of their life harms their memory.

I think that proxy baptism is the theological equivalent of that commercial where an image of Fred Astaire was digitally manipulated to get him to dance with a vaccuum cleaner.

The proxy baptismal records are really revisionist history mixed with identity theft of a kind. These people lived and died whatever religion they were. End of story. The Mormons want to pad the roster, so they’re stealing identities (using the person’s name, striping it of it’s original essence (the actual religion of the person), and using it for their own purposes) and calling them Mormon, even giving them wives and husbands they didn’t have in life. Sick.

 

[gearhead]

The proxy baptismal records are really revisionist history mixed with identity theft of a kind. These people lived and died whatever religion they were. End of story. The Mormons want to pad the roster, so they’re stealing identities (using the person’s name, striping it of it’s original essence (the actual religion of the person), and using it for their own purposes) and calling them Mormon, even giving them wives and husbands they didn’t have in life. Sick.

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.

 

[dzheremi]

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?

 

[dianaiad]

I smile now at the joy of what I had and I am blessed to have known a wonderful woman and fathered a son. I’m not worried one way or another…beliefs in life after death are for the living…not the dead…we grieve in this life because the relationship we had with our loved one is over…never to be taken up again…I grieve the “death” of the relationship as well as the loss of the lives I loved…and the life I never saw grow to manhood. I one day will be Called. I know in the Presence there is no parting again…and we will be “complete”. It is a faith statement…that we all will be Called and none of us face anything those who have gone before us has faced gives me some comfort…I am in good company.

Yeah, we all are.

 

[dianaiad]

It can have a real effect on a person’s legacy, which I do think has value.

If a person held their beliefs very closely in life, it disrespects their memory to suggest that in death, perhaps, they’ve thrown those beliefs away and adopted other ones.

Only if the living don’t have enough faith in the steadfastness of the faith of those who passed before. In fact, the more I see of objections, the more I realize that the offense is taken–not in behalf of the dead, but on behalf of the living, as if there is no afterlife.

It’s as if everybody thinks this stuff works—and works better than WE think it does.

It The cases that I found most disturbing were the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. In most of these cases, these people not only were Jews but died for being Jewish. I think it’s inappropriate for people to suggest that maybe those people aren’t so Jewish after all.

Nothing we do makes them ‘not Jew.’

Now… I realize that proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have been stopped, but from what I understand, this is temporary, and I think similar situations exist for other people; if a deceased person’s beliefs were a key element of their life, then trying to remove that aspect of their life harms their memory.

We do not remove anything. We don’t attempt to remove anything. We do not change anything. Nothing about their lives, their deaths, who they were or what they believed is altered in any fashion.

I think that proxy baptism is the theological equivalent of that commercial where an image of Fred Astaire was digitally manipulated to get him to dance with a vaccuum cleaner.

Except that it isn’t.

 

[lizaanne]

Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-mormons?

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.

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

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

~Liza

 

[gearhead]

Only if the living don’t have enough faith in the steadfastness of the faith of those who passed before. In fact, the more I see of objections, the more I realize that the offense is taken–not in behalf of the dead, but on behalf of the living, as if there is no afterlife.

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 as if everybody thinks this stuff works—and works better than WE think it does.

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?

Nothing we do makes them ‘not Jew.’

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

 

[dianaiad]

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 agree with you. I find it extremely ironic to see the arguments against proxy baptism that are made by Catholics, who baptize infants, since the arguments they make against proxy work are just as effective (or not…) against infant baptism.

You are also correct that our lives “flow from our beliefs.” …and they flow from OUR beliefs, not the beliefs of those who come after us and wish to set our memories in tombstone cement.

The logical problem is this: if one truly does believe in an afterlife, and in an afterlife where the individual has any sense of self (and in order to be condemned to hell, or to purgatory/heaven, the idea that we retain a sense of self is obvious; otherwise the entire idea of heaven and hell is useless), then one MUST believe that the spirit also retains some ability to think, reason—and MAKE NEW DECISIONS.

It is, after all, an afterLIFE, not a gallery of still life portraits frozen in plaster.

That is…if you believe in an afterlife.

If that is so; if there is an afterlife where the people continue with a sense of self and an ability to think and reason, then they also have the ability to make their own decisions. Therefore it is no more disrespectful to them to offer a choice than would have been to offer them the same choice before they died.

My father is in his 80’s. He’s frail. He’s ill sometimes. His knees need replacing, he only has one kidney, he’s had major heart surgery and it looks as if he may be diabetic. Oh, and he has chronic leukemia. He’s also a rocket scientist and has an IQ of 140 something. there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with his mind, and he still works as a consultant to JPL from time to time, and they call him “Dr.” and treat him with respect.

However, most people who see him now treat him as if he is a brain damaged five year old. Perfect strangers; receptionists and nurses, clerks in stores, anybody he deals with in person, call him by his first name, and if I’m with him, they automatically turn to ME to ask questions that he should be answering. Now, THAT is disrespect, and that is the disrespect I see from those who are offended by what we do.

These people who are offered this choice…and it is a choice…have the right to make their own minds up, no matter WHAT YOU think they would have said about it in life. Do not treat your loved ones, even if you can’t communicate with them at the moment, with that sort of disrespect. Trust them. If we are correct about our beliefs, then you would want them to have the choice; if we are correct about our beliefs, then it is not WE who are being disrespectful of their wishes. If we are not correct about our beliefs, then they cannot be insulted by something they will never know about, or see. Any insult, if insult there is, would be to you, the living—and it isn’t ABOUT you, the living. You can make up your own minds.

If you don’t believe in an afterlife, of course, the situation is different…but again, it isn’t about what you believe. It’s about what THEY do…or did…or, in this case, might come to believe.

I’m still of the opinion that the biggest problem people have with what we do is that they have a sneaking suspicion that it just might work, and that their ancestors might actually accept those baptisms. Of course, that involves a set of circular reasoning that boggles the mind, but hey…

…and I can’t put myself in their shoes figure that I would be insulted if they returned the favor,and did the same thing for me after I die, because, frankly—I wouldn’t. I’d be fine with it. (shrug)

Oh, well.