Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[kalt]

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.

A baptism for a dead person has nothing to do with that dead person.

LDS, and this practice, is looking worse with every post by an LDS member.

If anyone ever had any doubt, we now know with 100% certainty that it really is all about padding the roster. the LDS member’s “right” to perform this act trumps all other relative’s, “And just try to stop them from the grave.”

Where is that thumbs down icon!

The LDS need as many of these as they can get.

 

[zerinus]

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.

That assumes that everybody else is as crazy as you are. Unfortunately for you, they aren’t.

 

[gearhead]

Who is Siddatha?

Buddha, basically.

I have a similar wonder about other religious figures and leaders: Baha’u’llah, Confucius, Muhammad, the deceased popes, the deceased Dalai Lamas, the Sikh gurus, etc. Their religious identities are extremely important to multitudes of people.

 

[Contarini]

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).

Doesn’t bother me, as long as you don’t try to put it into effect somehow.

And that’s where the rubber hits the road. For Catholics, baptism has practical effects. Until recently–and perhaps to a limited extent still in some countries–it has effects in terms of one’s civil status. Witness the kidnapping of Edgardo Montara in the 19th century. *That *kind of involuntary baptism is clearly wrong. But just adding someone’s name to a list because in *your *belief system it’s a good thing to do for that person is not something to which anyone ought to object–except of course on strictly theological grounds.

I can’t see that your objections are any different than atheist objections to being prayed for. Do we really want to see atheists suing us to make us stop praying for them?

Edwin

 

[maryjk]

I can’t see that your objections are any different than atheist objections to being prayed for. Do we really want to see atheists suing us to make us stop praying for them?

Edwin

Praying for someone doesn’t put their name out there as a believer. I pray for my husband, an atheist, every day. He doesn’t know it. In fact, no one knows it but God and me. My husband is never listed as a member, simply because I prayed for him.

When the Mormons baptize by proxy, the name is written in their rolls as a member, baptized by proxy.

 

[gearhead]

Praying for someone doesn’t put their name out there as a believer. I pray for my husband, an atheist, every day. He doesn’t know it. In fact, no one knows it but God and me. My husband is never listed as a member, simply because I prayed for him.

When the Mormons baptize by proxy, the name is written in their rolls as a member, baptized by proxy.

Like how someone goes in the parish membership lists when they receive Catholic baptism as an infant, even if they reject the Church when they can decide for themselves, right?

While Mormon proxy baptism concerns me, I have bigger problems with the Catholic practice. The same issues are present about “claiming” someone for a religion that they may not believe in, but in the Catholic case, it has real practical effects: historically, the fact of someone’s baptism was the deciding factor in whether the Church had authority over someone, which was a real issue in the days when that authority included the power to try, convict and sentence people… sometimes to death.

Today, while the effect is lessened, there are still practical considerations. For instance, in some countries (Ireland, for instance, IIRC), churches get subsidies from the government based on the number of members they have; inflated membership rolls mean more money for the church.

All in all, I have more of a problem with Catholic infant baptism than I do with Mormon baptism of the dead. At least the Mormons don’t get taxpayer money through the practice.

 

[manualman]

I vote no opinion.

We as catholics have no voice on how they setup their (strange) theology.

We need to be consistent on this folks!

1. Do we want people of other religions objecting to our ‘refusal’ to ordain women as priests? NO! Back off!
2. Do we want to be criticised for refusing to accept the claim of ‘normalcy’ for sexual promiscuity (hetero or homo)? No!
3. Are we going to stop sharing the faith of Christ with, say, Jewish people because the anti-defamation league is offended by it? No!

Let people practice their religion, folks. We’ll be better witnesses by living ours than by objecting to theirs.

 

[zerinus]

I have finally managed to read through this another long and boring thread. I am focusing here exclusively on the posts by gearhead:

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.

What if it is true? What if after death they have in reality changed their minds (as Mormons believe they can)? Your argument is based on the underlying false assumption that the atheist world view is superior to a believer’s one. I don’t accept that as a valid assumption.

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. . . .

Thank you, that is a valid point—but not quite! LDS proxy baptisms are based on the assumption that the dead have a choice to accept or reject the ordinance performed on their behalf here on earth; whereas an infant has no ability to make such an informed choice. Therefore the objection in the case of infant baptisms is valid, whereas in the case of LDS proxy baptisms it is not.

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.

How is a person’s reputation affected by LDS proxy baptisms?

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?

The analogy is not a valid one. The two situations are not comparable. And in any case, as I had previously mentioned the choice is made by their rightful descendants, who have the right to make that choice.

Nothing we do makes them ‘not Jew.’

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

We call into question their religious beliefs here on earth. There is nothing to be embarrassed about that. People call into question each other’s religious beliefs all the time. Everybody who professes a religion makes a statement that his religious beliefs is the right one, and nobody else’s is. You by declaring yourself to be an atheist are calling into question all other religious beliefs; yet nobody is saying that you shouldn’t.

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?

You are now entering into the theology of Mormonism. The short answer is that the Lord has commanded us to do it that way. LDS (like Catholics) believe that baptism is a sacrament that is essential for salvation. Baptism is a rite that can only be performed here on earth. So what becomes of those who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel or be baptized here on earth through no fault of their own? According to God’s revelations to us, proxy baptisms is the Lord’s way of taking care of those contingencies; and He has placed the burden of responsibility of doing that work on the descendants of the deceased. I am responsible to do the work on behalf of my own ancestors, not yours; and vice versa. Furthermore, we jeopardize our own salvation if we neglect this duty. That is what the Lord has revealed to us. This of course does not deprive them of the right of choice. They are free to accept or reject this offer in the spirit world if they choose to. Now you may not believe any of this; but that does not give you the right to deprive us of the right to believe it.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/…Continued

But this rationale would apply to a stranger as well. Why not baptize non-relatives on this basis?

See above. That is how the Lord has commanded us to apply that doctrine.

Wait a minute: this doesn’t mesh up with what I know of Mormon theology from talking to other Mormons. You believe that virtually everyone, baptized or not, will get into some form of eternal heaven, don’t you?

Not exactly—but be that as it may, baptism (and other ordinances of the gospel) are required for exaltation in the celestial Kingdom. It is not a requirement for one of the lower kingdoms. We do the work for them in order to exalt them and save them in the celestial kingdom (if they accept the requirements in the spirit world, as we believe they are able).

I must have missed that before. I’ve never heard of “proxy marriage” before; I’m sure it’s nt legal where I live. In any case, I don’t think the practice should be legal.

Edit: thinking over the story, though, something in it doesn’t make sense to me: I can’t see how the presence of the “proxy bride” and “proxy groom” would have been necessary at all. Their signatures would have carried no legal weight whatsoever. Am I wrong?

In our temples we perform by proxy for the dead all of the ordinances of the gospel that are required for salvation and exaltation, including baptism, confirmation, ordination to the priesthood, and sealing of married couples for eternity. We don’t give them a new wife! We seal (make eternal) the marriages that they already had entered into while they were alive here on earth.

So… proxy baptism works just like something else I consider inappropriate. I still consider it inappropriate.

Too bad you can’t do nothing about it!

Something else occurred to me: you’ve repeatedly presented proxy baptism as a choice on the part of the deceased; well, what if someone makes that choice while they’re alive?

If I were to make it clear that do not want proxy baptism after I die, will my wishes be honoured?

That decision would have to be made by your descendants. What if your son became a Mormon after you died, and then claimed that he had had a dream in which you appeared to him and told him that you had repented of your atheism in the spirit world, and would like him to disregard your will and perform proxy baptisms on your behalf? What judge is there in the world who can argue against that?

dianaiad;5851737:

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

How could I do this?

The short answer is that you can’t; see above. As I said in another post, when you are dead, you basically have no legal rights in this world.

Virtually every legal marriage has witnesses; we call them witnesses, not the “proxy bride” or “proxy groom”.

Sealing marriages by proxy also required witnesses.

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

I certainly don’t; and I think you misunderstand the concept, otherwise you wouldn’t either.

 

[twopekinguys]

Dead people do have legal rights in this world.

Why do you think there are laws regarding grave desecration, moving graves, etc.

Why do you think there are laws regarding distribution of assets and liabilities regarding their estates. Whether there is a will or not. Suing an estate is suing the deceased.
That is why there are laws regarding wills that people who have no legal standing (not related, not addressed in the will) cannot sue the estate, etc.

Just like your proxy baptisms, an executor is acting as a proxy for the deceased.

Veterans and some civilians receive medals and awards that they were legally entitled to after their death.

So yes, the dead do have rights.

 

[gearhead]

What if it is true? What if after death they have in reality changed their minds (as Mormons believe they can)? Your argument is based on the underlying false assumption that the atheist world view is superior to a believer’s one. I don’t accept that as a valid assumption.

No, I’m accepting people’s actual, explicit declarations of faith while alive over your suppositions about how they might feel after death.

How is a person’s reputation affected by LDS proxy baptisms?

Like this:

Before proxy baptism:

Q: “Is the late Mr. X a Mormon?”
A: “No. He went to a Catholic church his whole life, publicly declared his faith on many occasions, and even specifically stated his disbelief in Mormon teachings a few times. He never received any baptism or rites in the LDS Church. He never even set foot inside a Mormon meeting house.”

After:

Q: “Is the late Mr. X. a Mormon?”
A: “Maybe. Depends.”

The analogy is not a valid one. The two situations are not comparable.

I disagree. I think the parallel is very strong.

And in any case, as I had previously mentioned the choice is made by their rightful descendants, who have the right to make that choice.

Depends what you mean by “right”. I suppose people are free to do any foolish thing they want to unless there’s a good reason to stop them, but I disagree with the notion that the Mormon descendent’s opinion should have some special weight.

We call into question their religious beliefs here on earth. There is nothing to be embarrassed about that. People call into question each other’s religious beliefs all the time. Everybody who professes a religion makes a statement that his religious beliefs is the right one, and nobody else’s is. You by declaring yourself to be an atheist are calling into question all other religious beliefs; yet nobody is saying that you shouldn’t.

I think you misunderstood me. I’m not saying that we call into question the correctness of a person’s beliefs, but the conviction with which they held them.

Yes, I’m an atheist. That doesn’t mean I don’t think that many (most?) religious people really are devout and sincere.

You are now entering into the theology of Mormonism. The short answer is that the Lord has commanded us to do it that way.

Your short answer isn’t an answer at all, unless you really do mean that you’re performing the ritual to appease an arbitrary god.

LDS (like Catholics) believe that baptism is a sacrament that is essential for salvation. Baptism is a rite that can only be performed here on earth. So what becomes of those who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel or be baptized here on earth through no fault of their own? According to God’s revelations to us, proxy baptisms is the Lord’s way of taking care of those contingencies; and He has placed the burden of responsibility of doing that work on the descendants of the deceased.

Again, you didn’t really answer the question. I’m asking why this would be a good method for God to go about things; you’re just saying that God instituted the method. I get that you believe this; my question is why it would make sense for God to do things this way.

I mean, it doesn’t make a good deal of sense, IMO. There are people who had no descendants. There were people for whom there are no records whatsoever. Even if proxy baptism did have an effect, it would be impossible to do it for everybody who ever lived.

And are you even keeping up with the backlog? I mean, there were almost 140 million births last year. You didn’t do 140 million proxy baptisms, did you? And as time goes on, this backlog will get worse and worse.

The idea of proxy baptism doesn’t make sense on a number of levels.

I am responsible to do the work on behalf of my own ancestors, not yours; and vice versa.

But what if your ancestors and my ancestors are the same people?

Furthermore, we jeopardize our own salvation if we neglect this duty. That is what the Lord has revealed to us.

So… it’s not out of altruism that you do it, but out of fear of punishment for yourself?

This of course does not deprive them of the right of choice. They are free to accept or reject this offer in the spirit world if they choose to. Now you may not believe any of this; but that does not give you the right to deprive us of the right to believe it.

OTOH, I do have the right to voice my disapproval, and to not help you in any way whatsoever.

 

[gearhead]

Not exactly—but be that as it may, baptism (and other ordinances of the gospel) are required for exaltation in the celestial Kingdom. It is not a requirement for one of the lower kingdoms. We do the work for them in order to exalt them and save them in the celestial kingdom (if they accept the requirements in the spirit world, as we believe they are able).

In our temples we perform by proxy for the dead all of the ordinances of the gospel that are required for salvation and exaltation, including baptism, confirmation, ordination to the priesthood, and sealing of married couples for eternity. We don’t give them a new wife! We seal (make eternal) the marriages that they already had entered into while they were alive here on earth.

I think there’s a contradiction here. You say you do all the “required” ordinances by proxy to let someone be exalted in the celestial kingdom. From what I read, this includes a sealed marriage.

However, you also say that you don’t give the deceased a “new wife”.

Exactly how is this requirement fulfilled for people who had no wife on Earth? Catholic priests, for instance. If you don’t give a dead priest a wife, then apparently he can’t be exalted… and if that’s the case, what’s the point of baptizing him by proxy?

That decision would have to be made by your descendants. What if your son became a Mormon after you died, and then claimed that he had had a dream in which you appeared to him and told him that you had repented of your atheism in the spirit world, and would like him to disregard your will and perform proxy baptisms on your behalf? What judge is there in the world who can argue against that?

Judges don’t argue, they hear arguments. And they typically only hear arguments that have to do with secular law.

However, just to play along, if my son had a dream that I came back from the dead and told him that I really wanted him to have the grandfather clock instead of his sister like my will said, no judge would grant his request to get it. My stated wishes while alive would still be respected.

The short answer is that you can’t; see above. As I said in another post, when you are dead, you basically have no legal rights in this world.

So it’s not really about respect for the deceased at all.

Sealing marriages by proxy also required witnesses.

And?

I certainly don’t; and I think you misunderstand the concept, otherwise you wouldn’t either.

No, I understand it just fine; I just value things differently from you.

 

[Rustic_Papist]

It is disrespectful in my opinion and so theologically unsound that I would laugh at it if I did not know they were serious. However, seeing as it has no power or effect whatsoever, they can live in their delusion until their heart’s content.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rustic Papist.

 

[Jerusha]

At tis worst, I see it as a dangerous practice, related to the occult, similar to necromancy. Having said that, there is nothing we can do to prevent LDS from doing it. All we can do is warn them that to some vulnerable people, it can be dangerous. Maybe it can explain some of the nuttiest LDS. Or at least allow them to cop out on personal responsibility until such a time as they are willing to accept personal responsibility.

 

[AJTheMan]

Who is Siddatha?

One of the greatest, if not the greatest, teachers to ever live. You may know him as Gautama Buddha..

I was simply saying that I would not feel comfortable with the LDS trying to ‘baptize’ him. I wonder how Muslims would feel if Mohammad was to be ‘baptized’ as well.

 

[PaulDupre]

One of the greatest, if not the greatest, teachers to ever live. You may know him as Gautama Buddha..

I was simply saying that I would not feel comfortable with the LDS trying to ‘baptize’ him. I wonder how Muslims would feel if Mohammad was to be ‘baptized’ as well.

The LDS would have to beef up security around the temples, that’s for sure.

 

[AJTheMan]

The LDS would have to beef up security around the temples, that’s for sure.

Exactly. It’s just down right offensive to go around doing all sorts of nonsense to people who didn’t even believe in the religion. It would certainly offend me if the LDS baptized my personal teacher for they are a far cry of the ideals that he taught of. So when I put it in those terms, I can see why families would be a bit bothered with LDS baptizing their family members.

 

[zerinus]

One of the greatest, if not the greatest, teachers to ever live. You may know him as Gautama Buddha..

I was simply saying that I would not feel comfortable with the LDS trying to ‘baptize’ him. I wonder how Muslims would feel if Mohammad was to be ‘baptized’ as well.

I agree that he was a great teacher. “LDS” as such wouldn’t baptize him. But what if he had surviving relatives or descendants who were able to trace their genealogy to him, who had become Mormons; and they decided as part of the work on their own deceased ancestors to perform this rite for him? What do you think gives you the right to tell them that they shouldn’t?

 

[AJTheMan]

I agree that he was a great teacher. “LDS” as such wouldn’t baptize him. But what if he had surviving relatives or descendants who were able to trace their genealogy to him, who had become Mormons; and they decided as part of the work on their own deceased ancestors to perform this rite for him? What do you think gives you the right to tell them that they shouldn’t?

The Buddha did not have much of a family. The two most important family members of his, Yasodharā and Rahula, his wife and son, both joined the Sangha (Clergy or monkhood) and thus were celibate, leaving the Buddha with no grandchildren or further descendants.

You know how Jesus remained celibate and thus had no extended family past his lineage? Same with Buddha.

Edit: But I see the point that you are trying to make. I don’t believe that a man’s affiliations should be decided by people he never even knew. (Ie: His grandson’s sons sons sons…etc)

What if your sons were to somehow become members of the church of Satan and decide to ordain you and your grandfathers into their church posthumously?

 

[zerinus]

The Buddha did not have much of a family. The two most important family members of his, Yasodharā and Rahula, his wife and son, both joined the Sangha (Clergy or monkhood) and thus were celibate, leaving the Buddha with no grandchildren or further descendants.

You know how Jesus remained celibate and thus had no extended family past his lineage? Same with Buddha.

Edit: But I see the point that you are trying to make. I don’t believe that a man’s affiliations should be decided by people he never even knew. (Ie: His grandson’s sons sons sons…etc)

What if your sons were to somehow become members of the church of Satan and decide to ordain you and your grandfathers into their church posthumously?

I wouldn’t be bothered, because I know it wouldn’t have any effect. The only time you would be worried would be if you believed that it had, or might have, some kind of an effect.