Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[zerinus]

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

I doubt if there were any. If there were, it would have been accidental. The objections were not based on the sensitivities of the relatives.

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

Remember, once you are dead, you have no legal rights in this world.

 

[gearhead]

I doubt if there were any. If there were, it would have been accidental. The objections were not based on the sensitivities of the relatives.

“Baptism of a Jewish Holocaust victim and then merely removing that name from the database is just not acceptable,” said Michel, whose parents died at Auschwitz. He spoke on the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against Jews.

“We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion,” Michel said in a statement released ahead of the news conference. “We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough.”

Article

Remember, once you are dead, you have no legal rights in this world.

What are you on about now? Who said anything about legal rights?

According to dianaiad, proxy baptism is about respect for the deceased. Going against my wishes would be disrespectful.

 

[zerinus]

Article

There may have been a very small minority of the relatives of the deceased involved in that. In the vast majority of the instances the relatives were not the ones who were voicing the objections.

What are you on about now? Who said anything about legal rights?

According to dianaiad, proxy baptism is about respect for the deceased. Going against my wishes would be disrespectful.

Proxy baptisms are not about “respecting the deceased”. It is a commandment of the Lord. We do it because the Lord has commanded us to do it. And the commandment is directed specifically at the relatives of the deceased. It is their responsibility to search out their dead and do the work for them.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Well, you are “arrogant” enough to declare that even if we are correct that you don’t want anything to do with it. You do realize that this is what you just said, right?

…and your reaction is precisely why we are very clear about this part; those to whom we make the offer have the absolute right to say ‘no.’

 

[gearhead]

There may have been a very small minority of the relatives of the deceased involved in that. In the vast majority of the instances the relatives were not the ones who were voicing the objections.

Keep telling yourself that. The fact of the matter is that many people are opposed to proxy baptisms for their relatives.

Proxy baptisms are not about “respecting the deceased”. It is a commandment of the Lord. We do it because the Lord has commanded us to do it. And the commandment is directed specifically at the relatives of the deceased. It is their responsibility to search out their dead and do the work for them.

Well, at least you’re up front (after a fashion) that respect doesn’t enter into it.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

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. . . .?

I don’t have details on that ruling. However, it is my thought that they were forbidding Catholics to cooperate in the rites of another religion; not trying to prevent you from doing anything. Is that a reasonable distinction?

 

[Jay53]

Is there a part of the Mormon baptism (of a living person) where the person being baptized formally accepts the baptism and explicitly declares that they believe/accept all of Mormonism?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I am reminded of Luke 9:30-31

49* * John answered, “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you.”

I would read this to say don’t block the efforts of one who is trying to do good. We may believe he is doing it all wrong, but I suspect that God will honor his good intentions.

 

[AJTheMan]

No. I try to put it in perspective. "How would I feel if they decided to ‘baptize’ Siddatha?

I try to think of it in those terms.

 

[Junebug999]

Of course, I don’t believe a LDS baptism is a valid baptism anyway, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[benidict]

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

thank you for turning me on to catholic tv. have been looking for something like this. much appreciated love in Christ

 

[zerinus]

Is there a part of the Mormon baptism (of a living person) where the person being baptized formally accepts the baptism and explicitly declares that they believe/accept all of Mormonism?

That takes place during the conversion process, while they are being taught by the missionaries. They are baptized when they come to a realization of its truth and want to be baptized.

 

[zerinus]

No. I try to put it in perspective. "How would I feel if they decided to ‘baptize’ Siddatha?

I try to think of it in those terms.

Who is Siddatha?

 

[kalt]

That takes place during the conversion process, while they are being taught by the missionaries. They are baptized when they come to a realization of its truth and want to be baptized.

So how can any baptismal rite (which is performed by people) for someone who the person performing the rite (or the approving official) doesn’t know the answer from be a legitimate rite? Even assuming that a “Yes” answer makes the baptism of a dead person valid, the rite, according to what you just said, is performed after the conversion process and only when they “come to a realization of its truth and want to be baptized”.

If there is no way to know if the person has come to this realization, performing the rite is pressuming that the person has said yes. To perform the rite, which you say is performed after conversion, one has to assume that the person has said, Yes already. In fact, performing the rite, which is done after conversion, requires a “Yes” answer, and yet we hear of a loophole for “No” answers, which is an invalidation of the rite itself.

All that and yet according to you, who is a LDS member, the baptismal rite is performed after conversion.

 

[kalt]

I hope so, if you have made them clear to those who would be submitting your name.

However, even if you didn’t, and the work was done for you, all you have to do is say ‘no’ one last time. It’s not like you would be forced into it.

And your name will be on the list of those baptized by proxy in the Mormon faith anyway. We need a thumbs down icon.

 

[kalt]

If we are speaking of respect, which is more disrespectful: to assume that someone is able to make his or her own decisions, and to offer something precious to us–a thing to which they may freely say "no,’ --or to assume that you have the right to decide for them what they MUST think and believe about religion–and to make their decisions for them?

I know which I think is the most desrespectful action.

You offer it, but you don’t wait for the answer before your perform the rite and list the name as baptized by proxy in the Mormon faith.

This is clearly not just an offfer. You offer baptism and perform the rite regardless of the answer.

And the real problem is the poor victim’s name will appear on your list of baptized by proxy people, even if he did say, “No”.

 

[kalt]

You add uncertainty to people’s memory.
quote]

Exactly. Sort of.

They are deciding for the dead person that he didn’t know what he was doing and so will give him another shot at getting it “right”.

But make no mistake, this is not merely an offer. An offer can be refused. If someone offers to cut your hair and you say no, they don’t cut your hair anyway. According the the LDS members on this site, regardless of the dead person’s answer, the rite (haircut) is performed.

And then there’s that little business of listing that person’s name as having had the haircut (the rite performed) even if the person said no, as priests, nuns, and Jewish Holocaust victims would without doubt.

The LDS here have talked about respecting family and how that’s why they offer this to their relatives. What about the non-Mormon relatives of the victims of this listing? If a non-Mormon objects to the rite being performed in a dead relative’s name, though a LDS member requests it, will the rite before performed and the name listed?

And since what we really object to is the listing of the names, will the names be removed from the list if a non-LDS family member makes the request?

 

[kalt]

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?

You’re really saying that you have more right than any other relative.

Say a relative decides, 100 yrs from now, to baptize me by proxy, and another non-LDS relative objects. Be sure that I do consider my name being listed as a baptized (by proxy) mormon harmful to my memory, and even defamatory, since I consider this religion a cult–claiming that a person is baptized in a cult is not a compliment to their memory. The LDS would be listing my name against my wishes and ignoring my more intelligent and respectful relatives besides.

But you are saying, clearly, that the LDS family member’s right trumps the non-LDS family member’s. Can you explain why that should be?

 

[kalt]

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

I am hereby adding your name to the list of Baptized by Proxy Catholics. Your new spouse is Madonna of the Bullet Bra, no offense to you or your spouse (or SO).

 

[kalt]

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.

We should try this? I wonder if a lawyer who is a former Mormon would be willing to take the case without fee.

What if everyone who has a relative who is listed on the LDS site (baptized by proxy) against their wishes gets together and decides to take the LDS church to task for it? Daytime television and talk radio would be a good place to bring this abuse up, too. Someone from the ADL and the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC would make excellent speakers on the subject. Relatives whose family is listed as baptized LDS would have to speak, too, of course. And Holocaust survivors can give their opinon on how likely it is that their friends and relatives who died in the camps or ghettos, or on the way there, or who were shot and whose bodies were allowed to drop into mass graves would find the practice disrespectul to the memory of their lives as they lived and died.

I would like to see this brought to the wider public’s attention. I asked a few people if they had heard of it, but none of them had. No one was impressed with the practice–to say the least.