Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[gearhead]

WHAT? What IS it that we are supposed to be forcing upon anybody?

You add uncertainty to people’s memory.

Very different scenario. Those shut-ins may not be able to get out, but someone can certainly get IN.

Indeed. A neighbour who cared enough could go by and ask the shut-in if that’s how they really felt, so at least there’s a chance that the shut-in’s true feelings might be known. The dead don’t even have that option.

Ok, but that’s not what the problem is. This is not about non-Mormons saying that they disagree with it, or that it’s wrong. It’s about them telling us how offensive we are, and how much we are forcing something on them (when we are not) and then taking physical and legal steps to prevent us; in other words, the irony of their using force to keep us from offering a free choice to their ancestors is pretty obvious.

Exactly who is taking physical and legal steps to prevent you, and what steps are they taking?

…and on a personal level, I find it ironic and incredibly offensive to be told that I must agree with them that their religion trumps mine, even though I believe firmly in what we do. Even though what we do does not affect them, or deny their own beliefs (or those of their ancestors!) Even though what we do does not (as do their prayers and baptisms) do ANYTHING those who don’t want it. A simple ‘no’ makes the whole thing moot.

Apparently it doesn’t. You’ve indicated that I would need much more than a simple “no” to prevent myself from being baptized by proxy.

In the end, what is more disrespectful; to learn about, remember and honor the lives of those who lived before us…and to give them a free choice…or to ignore them, forget them, and not learn from the very interesting and vital lives they lived? In many cases, the only reason our opponents know anything ABOUT those relatives they claim to be protecting is because we found them. We remember them. We honor them, and the lives they actually lived.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. We can memorialize the dead without evangelizing to them.

…and we believe that those people’s rights to live, make decisions and learn do not end at death, and that their rights to make decisions remain THEIR right to make decisions. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs.
I think this is inconsistent, given what you’ve said in the thread. You have my decision: I don’t want a proxy baptism. Apparently, though, I’ll be getting one anyway… right?

 

[dianaiad]

I voted “no,” but I want to clarify my vote.

I voted “no” for the obvious reason that I do not accept Mormon baptism in the first place, and certainly don’t think that Christians should be rebaptized as Mormons alive or dead. In other words, I answered “no” from the standpoint of orthodox Christianity.

I think it is silly to condemn the practice as “disrespectful” or to pretend some neutral stance from which to judge the practices of other religions, except where those practices do violence to others or otherwise violate natural law.

If what Mormons believe is true, then the practice is a good one. Since I don’t think it is, I disagree with the practice. There is no way to judge a practice like this independently of our beliefs about the truth or falsehood of Mormonism as a whole.

Edwin

Edwin, bringing actual logic into this is refreshing–but dangerous. You know that, right? Now everybody will be mad at you.

Well, almost everybody. As for me, your objection is one I CAN understand. “I don’t think this should be done because their beliefs are wrong and mine are right.” is reasonable. It is about what you believe to be true, and is valid.

“You MAY NOT DO THIS because doing so is disrespectful of the dead” is not reasonable. It’s false–it is coercive; it’s another way of saying ‘you are wrong, and I am right, and I’ll do or say whatever it takes to keep you from practicing your faith.’

There is a very large difference between the two positions.

 

[dianaiad]

Growing up, when a door-to-door salesperson would come asking “are your parents home?” and offering something that I knew they didn’t want, I had no issue with turning them away and I didn’t feel that I was disrespecting my parents by doing so.

Ah, but you KNEW they didn’t want it. …or perhaps they did want it. You didn’t ask them; you simply made the decision for them. Unless they gave you specific instructions to turn the vacuum cleaner salesman away, whether you believe you were being disrespectful or not, you WERE being disrespectful.

You never know; perhaps this time, after manhandling that Sears vacuum cleaner around the house one, last, frustrating time, perhaps your mother would have liked to hear about the Kirby.

Her decision.

Not yours.

…after all, I used to sell Kirbies. I’ve owned my expensive Kirby for over fifteen years. I just got an Oreck…and I’m tickled.

 

[gearhead]

Ah, but you KNEW they didn’t want it. …or perhaps they did want it. You didn’t ask them; you simply made the decision for them. Unless they gave you specific instructions to turn the vacuum cleaner salesman away, whether you believe you were being disrespectful or not, you WERE being disrespectful.

I disagree. I think that calling my parents up from the office (they had a home-based business) from their work to say “no thank you” to the salesperson themselves would be disrespectful to their stated desire to get their work done.

You never know; perhaps this time, after manhandling that Sears vacuum cleaner around the house one, last, frustrating time, perhaps your mother would have liked to hear about the Kirby.

Her decision.

Not yours.

…after all, I used to sell Kirbies. I’ve owned my expensive Kirby for over fifteen years. I just got an Oreck…and I’m tickled.

Going with the analogy for a minute… when you were selling vacuum cleaners, if you came to a house that had a “no solicitors” sign on the front door, would you ring the bell anyway?

OT: one of my friends worked for Electrolux for a while after he graduated from high school. One day when we (all high school or university students without any real money) were all over at his house, he pulls out this fancy vacuum cleaner that he has as a demonstrator and starts showing us how it works. I told him, “you know that nobody here can afford this vacuum cleaner, right? There’s no point trying to sell us one.” He responded, “I know. I’m just really excited about it!”

 

[Jerusha]

1. It is disrespectful.
2. They have every right to do that disrespectful act.
3. The consequences may seriously affect them.
4. I will neither help or hinder them.

It is sort of like allowing a person to drink a fifth of whisky every day. If they refuse to accept my warnings, their action does not adversely affect me, I can’t stop them, even though I know it is wrong.

Both can be called “playing around with spirits”.

 

[dianaiad]

You add uncertainty to people’s memory.

How on earth do we do that? We do not change birth or death dates. We don’t claim to change who and what they were in life. The only uncertainty would be if those who see that the proxy work has been done is if they a: don’t think we are right, but b: think it works anyway.

…and frankly, that’s pretty silly.

Indeed. A neighbour who cared enough could go by and ask the shut-in if that’s how they really felt, so at least there’s a chance that the shut-in’s true feelings might be known. The dead don’t even have that option.

Yes, they have precisely that option, The scenario you set up with these shut ins assumed that nobody WOULD contact them, and that they had no knowledge, or choice, in accepting or rejecting that invitation. However, just as the shut-ins can say ‘no,’ so can the dead for whom we do the work.

Exactly who is taking physical and legal steps to prevent you, and what steps are they taking?

The Vatican has instructed that parishes refuse access to parish records to Mormon genealogists. The Jews are trying about everything they can to keep us from doing proxy work for Holocaust victims. They aren’t suing…yet…but they certainly have been using every bit of political and social pressure to stop us. As well, the laws in Israel regarding LDS activity there are very, very strict.

Apparently it doesn’t. You’ve indicated that I would need much more than a simple “no” to prevent myself from being baptized by proxy.

But that’s all you need to say to keep it from meaning anything.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. We can memorialize the dead without evangelizing to them.

True. But we believe we should also evangelize to them…especially if they never got a chance to hear about the gospel in life.

dianaiad:

…and we believe that those people’s rights to live, make decisions and learn do not end at death, and that their rights to make decisions remain THEIR right to make decisions. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs.

I think this is inconsistent, given what you’ve said in the thread. You have my decision: I don’t want a proxy baptism. Apparently, though, I’ll be getting one anyway… right?

I don’t know. Do you have relatives who are going to want to do it for you?

 

[gearhead]

How on earth do we do that? We do not change birth or death dates. We don’t claim to change who and what they were in life. The only uncertainty would be if those who see that the proxy work has been done is if they a: don’t think we are right, but b: think it works anyway.

…and frankly, that’s pretty silly.

You really don’t see how the practice disrespects a person’s legacy?

Yes, they have precisely that option, The scenario you set up with these shut ins assumed that nobody WOULD contact them, and that they had no knowledge, or choice, in accepting or rejecting that invitation. However, just as the shut-ins can say ‘no,’ so can the dead for whom we do the work.

My point was that no recipient of a proxy baptism is going to show up amongst the living and say “nope! I refuse!” And no living person would be in a position to ask the deceased if he accepts the baptism or not.

The Vatican has instructed that parishes refuse access to parish records to Mormon genealogists. The Jews are trying about everything they can to keep us from doing proxy work for Holocaust victims. They aren’t suing…yet…but they certainly have been using every bit of political and social pressure to stop us. As well, the laws in Israel regarding LDS activity there are very, very strict.

Except for the last item you mentioned (and I have to admit I’m not familiar with the Israeli laws you refer to), all these have a common theme: people or organizations hold information, you want it, but they don’t want to give it to you.

But it’s their right to do so, isn’t it? Parish records belong to the parish; they’re free to show them or refuse them as they see fit. If it’s not a public record, you don’t have any right to it. Your access to it is at the discretion of the record’s owner.

Are you saying that you want to force private organizations to release their records to you?

But that’s all you need to say to keep it from meaning anything.

That’s not what I asked for, though. I don’t want a proxy baptism. If you give me one, you have gone against my wishes.

True. But we believe we should also evangelize to them…especially if they never got a chance to hear about the gospel in life.

But I did. I’ve read the Bible and rejected it.

I have been evangelized to. You already have my answer.

I don’t know. Do you have relatives who are going to want to do it for you?

None that I know of, but who knows what the future will bring. I don’t expect that the LDS Church will disappear or stop attracting converts within my lifetime.

 

[zerinus]

You are quite right. Z did post this. I don’t think he said it in quite the same way you meant it when you were talking about it, but …he certainly said it.

What I meant was that a dead person has no legal rights (or responsibilities) in this world after he is dead. You cannot sue a dead person in court for example, because he is not there to answer the charges, or be punished if found guilty. If he had committed any crimes it could be investigated, and necessary adjustments made; but himself cannot be “charged” under the law. If he had stolen any money for example, and it can be proved in court, the money is recoverable; but it would have to be recovered from those who inherited it from him, not from himself. His rightful heirs and descendants become responsible for his estate after he is dead.

The point I was trying to make is that all of this talk about being “disrespectful to the dead” by the people who are not related to the deceased is nonsense, because the only people who have the right to make that decision are his descendants; and if they think it is okay, nobody else has the right to say it isn’t. The baptisms are done by the descendants of the deceased; it has nothing to do with anybody else. If I wanted to be baptized for my dad, what has that got to do with somebody else? He is my dad, not their dad! If somebody else doesn’t like it, or is “insulted” by it, too bad, who cares? They can go jump of the Brooklyn Bridge if they really feel bad about it; why should I care? It has nothing to do with them. That is the point I was trying to make.

As far as the people of this world is concerned, it is the right of the descendants that is paramount, not the right of the deceased. The deceased has no legal rights in this world once he or she is dead.

The problem here is that it is not WE who are denying the dead their rights.

Who are “WE”?

 

[gearhead]

The point I was trying to make is that all of this talk about being “disrespectful to the dead” by the people who are not related to the deceased is nonsense, because the only people who have the right to make that decision are his descendants; and if they think it is okay, nobody else has the right to say it isn’t. The baptisms are done by the descendants of the deceased; it has nothing to do with anybody else. If I wanted to be baptized for my dad, what has that got to do with somebody else? He is my dad, not their dad! If somebody else doesn’t like it, or is “insulted” by it, too bad, who cares? They can go jump of the Brooklyn Bridge if they really feel bad about it; why should I care? It has nothing to do with them. That is the point I was trying to make.

It’s not as always as clear as that.

What if, say, your sister feels insulted. Whose opinion wins?

What if the person you’re baptized for is a more distant relative? Do you, the second cousin once removed of the deceased, get to have your way over the wishes of the grandson?

 

[dianaiad]

You really don’t see how the practice disrespects a person’s legacy?

No. I honestly don’t. the most it could possibly do is mess up OUR legacy. After all, if this work is done after your ancestor’s death, the only thing is says is about US, not about your ancestor. If that work is accepted, only your ancestor would know.

My point was that no recipient of a proxy baptism is going to show up amongst the living and say “nope! I refuse!” And no living person would be in a position to ask the deceased if he accepts the baptism or not.

So? Are you then assuming that they all accept this offer?

Except for the last item you mentioned (and I have to admit I’m not familiar with the Israeli laws you refer to), all these have a common theme: people or organizations hold information, you want it, but they don’t want to give it to you.

Yes. However, we are the only people they don’t give it to, and the reason they don’t give it to us is to prevent us from doing proxy work.

But it’s their right to do so, isn’t it?

Didn’t say it wasn’t.

Parish records belong to the parish; they’re free to show them or refuse them as they see fit. If it’s not a public record, you don’t have any right to it. Your access to it is at the discretion of the record’s owner.

Are you saying that you want to force private organizations to release their records to you?

I didn’t say that they were not within their legal rights. You asked if anyone was physically attempting to prevent us from practicing our religion, and this is doing that. Given that they will allow non-Mormon genealogists to see those records, but will not allow Mormons access (even if those Mormons are close family members of the deceased) proves that the reason they do it is to stop us from doing proxy work.

That’s not what I asked for, though. I don’t want a proxy baptism. If you give me one, you have gone against my wishes.

…and I hope your wishes are honored. I can’t guarantee that they will be. I’m not going to misrepresent that, y’know. You have too many relatives, and there are too many years ahead of us. there might be, someday, someone who does the work for you because they didn’t get the memo.

What I AM saying to you is that even if the work is done, all it could POSSIBLY mean to you is that–you get to say no one last time. That’s all anybody could read on your record, too.

Of course, if you are in a poistion to say that at the time, you will be in a very different space, mentally. After all, I don’t think you ARE expecting to be in a postion to say anything, or even know if the offer is made, are you?

But I did. I’ve read the Bible and rejected it.

I have been evangelized to. You already have my answer.

None that I know of, but who knows what the future will bring. I don’t expect that the LDS Church will disappear or stop attracting converts within my lifetime.

Probably not.

 

[zerinus]

It’s not as always as clear as that.

What if, say, your sister feels insulted. Whose opinion wins?

What if the person you’re baptized for is a more distant relative? Do you, the second cousin once removed of the deceased, get to have your way over the wishes of the grandson?

As a descendant I have as much right as they do. They have no right to object. My action does not do any harm to the memory of the deceased. It is not like publishing a defamatory article about the deceased for example. It does not affect the status of the deceased in this world at all. Vicarious baptisms affect the deceased in the next life, not in this life; and if you do not believe in the next life, or don’t believe that it has any effect on it, what do you care?

 

[gearhead]

I didn’t say that they were not within their legal rights. You asked if anyone was physically attempting to prevent us from practicing our religion, and this is doing that. Given that they will allow non-Mormon genealogists to see those records, but will not allow Mormons access (even if those Mormons are close family members of the deceased) proves that the reason they do it is to stop us from doing proxy work.

This isn’t “physically attempting to prevent you from practicing your religion”; it’s just failure to materially help you. The way you described the situation before, it seemed like it was a matter of lawsuits and restraining orders.

If you were to ask a Catholic parish whether you could have Mormon Sunday services in their church, I’d bet they’d say no… but this doesn’t mean they’re “preventing” you from worshipping.

…and I hope your wishes are honored. I can’t guarantee that they will be. I’m not going to misrepresent that, y’know. You have too many relatives, and there are too many years ahead of us. there might be, someday, someone who does the work for you because they didn’t get the memo.

But something occurs to me: I assume that the LDS Church keeps some sort of record of who’s been proxy baptized, right? In theory, it would be easy enough for the Church to “get the memo” and make a note in whatever records they have that I don’t want to be baptized. AFAIK, they don’t provide this opportunity. Or do they?

 

[gearhead]

As a descendant I have as much right as they do. They have no right to object.

What?! Here’s what you just said:

If I wanted to be baptized for my dad, what has that got to do with somebody else? He is my dad, not their dad! If somebody else doesn’t like it, or is “insulted” by it, too bad, who cares? They can go jump of the Brooklyn Bridge if they really feel bad about it; why should I care? It has nothing to do with them.

So… if my cousin decides to be baptized for my Dad, does he suddenly stop being “my Dad and not their Dad”? Why shouldn’t I be able to tell my cousin to jump off the Brookyn Bridge?

You just finished explaining how it’s proper for heirs make decisions for the deceased. Well, if the heir decides one thing, then why is it the place of some other relative to decide otherwise?

My action does not do any harm to the memory of the deceased. It is not like publishing a defamatory article about the deceased for example. It does not affect the status of the deceased in this world at all.

It doesn’t harm the memory of the deceased in any way you care about. Other people might feel differently.

Vicarious baptisms affect the deceased in the next life, not in this life; and if you do not believe in the next life, or don’t believe that it has any effect on it, what do you care?

I care because my reputation and legacy matters to me.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

As a descendant I have as much right as they do. They have no right to object. My action does not do any harm to the memory of the deceased. It is not like publishing a defamatory article about the deceased for example. It does not affect the status of the deceased in this world at all. Vicarious baptisms affect the deceased in the next life, not in this life; and if you do not believe in the next life, or don’t believe that it has any effect on it, what do you care?

Yes but how about someone who DOES care about their own afterlife? For example, as a Catholic I expect to go to either purgatory or heaven, of course, preferably heaven, but I may not be that good.

I don’t want to go to one of the Mormon heavens, and I know that God/Jesus/HolySpirit is one in Catholic Heaven, but you say they are separately ruling over 3 different heavens which sounds very odd to me, and totally conflicts with my belief system.

So I find it rather frightening, even more than offensive, that you could possibly baptize me after death. Actually, I don’t think you could, but the fact that you are arrogant enough to think you could is wrong.

 

[zerinus]

What?! Here’s what you just said:

So… if my cousin decides to be baptized for my Dad, does he suddenly stop being “my Dad and not their Dad”? Why shouldn’t I be able to tell my cousin to jump off the Brookyn Bridge?

You just finished explaining how it’s proper for heirs make decisions for the deceased. Well, if the heir decides one thing, then why is it the place of some other relative to decide otherwise?

It doesn’t harm the memory of the deceased in any way you care about. Other people might feel differently.

I care because my reputation and legacy matters to me.

Two answers to that. The first answer is: try and stop me! If you think what I am doing is immoral or objectionable, you should be able to take some kind of legal action to stop it. If you can’t, then too bad. I don’t agree with you, so why should I care? The second answer is: if it is a matter between the relatives of the deceased, then let them argue it out among themselves. I have yet to hear the relatives of the deceased objecting to other relatives doing this work. All the arguments are coming from people who are not related to the deceased. I have never known relatives objecting to other relatives doing this work for their dead. So again, still it has nothing to do with you.

 

[gearhead]

Two answers to that. The first answer is: try and stop me! If you think what I am doing is immoral or objectionable, you should be able to take some kind of legal action to stop it. If you can’t, then too bad. I don’t agree with you, so why should I care?

Great attitude.

I’m not interested in taking legal action against you. You have your right to do what you want, and I have my right to say that it’s offensive and inappropriate.

And no, I can’t make you care. However, the fact that you’re here defending the practice says to me that you do care what other people think.

The second answer is: if it is a matter between the relatives of the deceased, then let them argue it out among themselves.

And if that means the Mormon relative gets the proxy baptism done over the objections of the non-Mormon relatives, that’s just fine by you, isn’t it?

I have yet to hear the relatives of the deceased objecting to other relatives doing this work.

You’re joking, right? Off the top of my head, the outcry against proxy baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims was led by their descendants and relatives.

All the arguments are coming from people who are not related to the deceased. I have never known relatives objecting to other relatives doing this work for their dead. So again, still it has nothing to do with you.

When some distant relative of mine decides to “baptize” me after I’m dead, will it still have nothing to do with me?

 

[TheosisM]

Yes but how about someone who DOES care about their own afterlife? For example, as a Catholic I expect to go to either purgatory or heaven, of course, preferably heaven, but I may not be that good.

I don’t want to go to one of the Mormon heavens, and I know that God/Jesus/HolySpirit is one in Catholic Heaven, but you say they are separately ruling over 3 different heavens which sounds very odd to me, and totally conflicts with my belief system.

So I find it rather frightening, even more than offensive, that you could possibly baptize me after death. Actually, I don’t think you could, but the fact that you are arrogant enough to think you could is wrong.

You may be interested in reading Doctrine and Covenants section 76, which mentions this concept:
scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76

Those in the Celestial Kingdom dwell in the presence of the Father and Jesus (and I assume the Holy Spirit) forever. Those in the Terrestrial Kingdom receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fullness of the Father. Those in the Telestial Kingdom receive of the Holy Spirit “through the ministration of the terrestrial”, and cannot go where the Father and Jesus dwell.

For Catholics, although we believe that there are many dwelling places (I believe the KJV translates this as ‘mansions’) in Heaven, all in Heaven are in the eternal presence (beatific vision) of all three Divine Persons.

As far as the OP, I think that LDS should be allowed to proxy baptize non-Mormons, at least according to their official rules. We don’t believe that it works, so I see no reason to get annoyed about it. If a Mormon wants to proxy baptize his Catholic mom, that’s fine, he believes that he’s helping her. I don’t think that they are trying to be offensive, but that in their worldview, only their church can validly perform ordinances.

 

[zerinus]

Yes but how about someone who DOES care about their own afterlife? For example, as a Catholic I expect to go to either purgatory or heaven, of course, preferably heaven, but I may not be that good.

I don’t want to go to one of the Mormon heavens, and I know that God/Jesus/HolySpirit is one in Catholic Heaven, but you say they are separately ruling over 3 different heavens which sounds very odd to me, and totally conflicts with my belief system.

So I find it rather frightening, even more than offensive, that you could possibly baptize me after death. Actually, I don’t think you could, but the fact that you are arrogant enough to think you could is wrong.

You are confusing or misunderstanding a lot of things. First of all I wouldn’t baptize you. Your descendants or close relatives might if they became Mormons. It would be their responsibility to do it, not mine. Secondly, do you honestly think that Mormon proxy baptisms “forces” anybody to go to the “Mormon heaven”? If you do, then you attribute more power to Mormon proxy baptisms than Mormons do themselves.

 

[zerinus]

And if that means the Mormon relative gets the proxy baptism done over the objections of the non-Mormon relatives, that’s just fine by you, isn’t it?

No, what I am saying is, let them argue it out if they want. As it happens I don’t know of any that have. Therefore it has nothing to do with you.

You’re joking, right? Off the top of my head, the outcry against proxy baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims was led by their descendants and relatives.

Actually it wasn’t. It came from some Jewish rights organization.

When some distant relative of mine decides to “baptize” me after I’m dead, will it still have nothing to do with me?

No! Once you are dead it has nothing to do with you! If you think it does, try stop it (from the grave)! It will have something to do with your descendants, however. Now if your immediate descendants (your kids for example) objected to it, and only a distant relative wanted to do it, then he should ask their permission; and if they refused he shouldn’t do it. The Lord has placed the burden of this responsibility on the rightful descendants of the deceased. If I had a really close friend who died, and wanted to do this work for him, I would have to ask permission of his living relatives. If they objected, then I couldn’t do it.

 

[gearhead]

Actually it wasn’t. It came from some Jewish rights organization.

And who belongs to Jewish rights organizations? Do you think that they might include a large number of relatives and descendants of Holocaust victims?

No! Once you are dead it has nothing to do with you! If you think it does, try stop it (from the grave)!

Okay… now you’re not even trying to make sense.