Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[Jay53]

That is an inconsistent reply. You are not being logical here. Your question was:

Why does God need earthly people to do work in order to extend His mercy to someone who has died? Why would He not accept a deceased person’s repentance at the time of their death?

I could ask you the same question about baptisms for the living:

Why does God need earthly people to do work in order to extend His mercy to someone who is living? Why would He not accept a living person’s repentance at the time of their baptism?

Your reply that “because Jesus said so (John 3:5)” does not address the question. I can give you the same reply about the dead that you have given about the living. God has commanded it to be done that way (1 Corinthians 15:29).

Then you need to educate yourself more before asking such questions. Protestants bring the same argument against baptisms for the living that you being against baptisms for the dead. They say that God doesn’t need people to do such “earthly work” in order to extend His mercy to those who believe and repent.

It is not inconsistent at all. Jesus (who IS God) clearly addresses baptism in John 3:5. Jesus does not say anything about baptism from the dead. St. Paul (who IS NOT God) makes a statement in Corinthians that *Joseph Smith and Mormons *have interpreted to mean the dead should be baptized, but it is not the correct interpretation according to Jesus’ Church.

I said I don’t know about the Protestant’s argument because I am obviously not Protestant and Jesus is very clear about baptism of the living. My statement was more because I think they are flat out wrong and I don’t know why they argue the way they do - I don’t think there is anything they can say that would convince me they are right when Jesus is clear.

 

[AJTheMan]

Thank you. So you basically believe that it is not possible for someone after death to “change their mind”. And you are certainly right in saying that our view of life after death is vastly different from yours. But that is what we do believe! We believe that our personality remains intact after death; that our recollection of events in this life will remain the same; and we will be able to “change our minds” there just as much as we are able to do here. That is our religious belief. So what is to be done? We believe that we have a religious duty to do this work for our own deceased ancestors. And who is to say that your religious tradition is any better than ours? I wouldn’t try to stop you from practicing the rites of your religion, so why should you try to stop mine? After all, it doesn’t do you any harm. If I went to some remote corner of Africa, and discovered an African tribe who believe in doing tribal dances for my deceased ancestor to save their souls, and I didn’t believe that it did anything of the kind, why should I try got stop them? It is their tradition, and it doesn’t do me any harm, and they do it with the best of intentions, so why should I be upset or offended by it? And in any case, we do this work for our own ancestors, not yours—unless they happen to be the same, which doesn’t happen very often—so why should you be offended by it?

Let me be clear here – if there’s anyone on this board who completely respects the beliefs of others, it would definitely be me. I respect people’s right to believe things so long as it does not interfere with others.

That’s my problem with Baptism by proxy. I do not want my great great grandsons to look at my history and say “AJTheMan was a Mormon? I had no clue!” whenever it just happened to be that one of my ancestors decided to ‘baptize’ me.

Furthermore, look at the case of the recently canonized St.Damien. He has no sons. He was a Catholic priest and yet now he could be associated with Mormonism. Or all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I don’t even think that their families wanted them to be baptized.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the spiritual aspects of it, which is what you are saying. I recognize that baptism won’t do anything spiritually. Socially, however, it could have repercussions. I don’t want one of my great great grandsons deciding to ‘baptize’ me and then everyone thinks me a Mormon.

Religious affiliation is an important thing in people’s lives. It’s possible that many deceased persons who were never even remotely Mormon are now associated with the LDS church simply because their lineage decided to baptize them.

So, to answer your question fully, no, the family does not have the right to baptize a deceased person. Simply because religious affiliation is something only we can pick – not our great great great grandsons. That is where I think Mormons and the rest of the world differ – most people recognize that only we can pick our religious affiliations, not our great great grandsons, people who probably wouldn’t even know us.

 

[zerinus]

It is not inconsistent at all. Jesus (who IS God) clearly addresses baptism in John 3:5. Jesus does not say anything about baptism from the dead. St. Paul (who IS NOT God) makes a statement in Corinthians that *Joseph Smith and Mormons *have interpreted to mean the dead should be baptized, but it is not the correct interpretation according to Jesus’ Church.

I said I don’t know about the Protestant’s argument because I am obviously not Protestant and Jesus is very clear about baptism of the living. My statement was more because I think they are flat out wrong and I don’t know why they argue the way they do - I don’t think there is anything they can say that would convince me they are right when Jesus is clear.

Then we disagree about how we interpret the scriptures. I think that my interpretation is correct and yours isn’t.

 

[Jay53]

Then we disagree about how we interpret the scriptures. I think that my interpretation is correct and yours isn’t.

Fair enough. That would obviously be part of why you are not Catholic and I am not Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

I’m sure there is…on thier side of the veil. After all, if there were such a place, there wouldn’t be the need for a PROXY, would there? Proxy weddings performed here on earth lack such a ‘part,’ as well. It is sufficient that neither ceremony (our proxy work or very mortal proxy weddings) become valid UNTIL they are formally accepted by the other party, when and wherever that is done.

 

[Jay53]

I’m sure there is…on thier side of the veil. After all, if there were such a place, there wouldn’t be the need for a PROXY, would there? Proxy weddings performed here on earth lack such a ‘part,’ as well. It is sufficient that neither ceremony (our proxy work or very mortal proxy weddings) become valid UNTIL they are formally accepted by the other party, when and wherever that is done.

Thanks for the response, but this particular question was about the living person being baptized. I was just curious about whether there was a difference in the two different ceremonies - baptism for the living vs baptism by proxy for the dead.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

People keep asking stuff like this, as if it would somehow make us ‘see the light’ of where the offense lay. You still don’t GET it.

None of us would be bothered by that at all, especially if they did their posthumous proxy work the same way we did ours…making certain that the dates were accurate. We MIGHT have a problem if they went back and changed facts, such as making it look like we changed religions BEFORE our death dates, but that’s an entirly different problem, isn’t it?

 

[dianaiad]

This is true. But it dishonors their beliefs, as they were clearly not mormon.

How does it dishonor their beliefs, if they were, indeed, “CLEARLY” not Mormon? We do not change their birth or death dates. We don’t misrepresent their religious affiliation during their lives and at their deaths. They were who they were and we do not in any way attempt to change that.

 

[AJTheMan]

How does it dishonor their beliefs, if they were, indeed, “CLEARLY” not Mormon? We do not change their birth or death dates. We don’t misrepresent their religious affiliation during their lives and at their deaths. They were who they were and we do not in any way attempt to change that.

Because LDS is essentially letting random people change the religion of their ancestors. Only we can decide what religion we belong to.

 

[dianaiad]

Continued, again:

I have no idea whether it has an effect or not. It’s not my decision, in those situations I always put my hope in the Lord.

To you, it may not be. I, as a Catholic believe there is only one baptism. That baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Once it’s there, nothing can change that. The person can choose God or not, but the effect on the soul remains. Baptism, in traditional Christian understanding is the initiating Sacrament. I find it offensive that you would offer a useless ordinance, to someone who is already baptised (a sacrament).

And there you go. You have just proven my point utterly. You baptise infants…who do NOT have the ability to say yes or no; it is something done to them completely without their (name removed by moderator)ut, never mind their permission, and you believe that it has an 'indelible mark on the soul. Once there, nothing can change that."

…and you are offended because we merely OFFER a 'useless ordinance." Please excuse me if I find that the argument is ironic…and incredibly hypocritical.

 

[dianaiad]

Other than the non-consenting deceased person who clearly didn’t want to be affiliated with Christianity or Mormonism? It’s not up to the descendants to decide what that person believes in. It’s up to the person. If they die a hindu, Muslim, anything, then it’s clear that they wanted no part of Christianity.

Even if they were never exposed to Christianity? How can you decide that they wouldn’t have had any interest in it, if they never knew about it?

I would hate to die and then some of my lineage come and try to ‘baptize’ me into Christianity. I would be somewhat angry because they would have misrepresented my religious affiliations.

If you are right, you wouldn’t ever know about it. If WE are, you have a choice. (shrug) I honestly don’t see a down side to you in this.

 

[dianaiad]

Let me be clear here – if there’s anyone on this board who completely respects the beliefs of others, it would definitely be me. I respect people’s right to believe things so long as it does not interfere with others.

That’s my problem with Baptism by proxy. I do not want my great great grandsons to look at my history and say “AJTheMan was a Mormon? I had no clue!” whenever it just happened to be that one of my ancestors decided to ‘baptize’ me.

You have a singularly pessimistic view of the intelligence of your descendents, sir.

How anybody could look at a record like this: (and I’m making this up, but it’s typical of the information your descendents MIGHT see)

b. 1950
(somewhere in there there is a field for 'faith.") Budhist.
d. 2040
proxy Temple work done 2056

Do you think that your descendents will, though able to read and write, be utterly unable to add and subtract? That they can’t see that you were 16 years dead before your Temple work was done?

If they see the above information, and conclude from it that you were a Mormon, then perhaps you need to consider whether you should bring this level of idiocy into the world.

I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but I mean…really?

Furthermore, look at the case of the recently canonized St.Damien. He has no sons. He was a Catholic priest and yet now he could be associated with Mormonism. Or all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I don’t even think that their families wanted them to be baptized.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the spiritual aspects of it, which is what you are saying. I recognize that baptism won’t do anything spiritually. Socially, however, it could have repercussions. I don’t want one of my great great grandsons deciding to ‘baptize’ me and then everyone thinks me a Mormon.

]

How could they, if even WE don’t? WE believe that it’s not a done deal until you accept it personally, and we won’t know whether you have or not until WE croak.

Religious affiliation is an important thing in people’s lives. It’s possible that many deceased persons who were never even remotely Mormon are now associated with the LDS church simply because their lineage decided to baptize them.

No. It’s not, unless people who look at the records are too stupid to READ them.

So, to answer your question fully, no, the family does not have the right to baptize a deceased person. Simply because religious affiliation is something only we can pick – not our great great great grandsons. That is where I think Mormons and the rest of the world differ – most people recognize that only we can pick our religious affiliations, not our great great grandsons, people who probably wouldn’t even know us.

But that’s the point. We are NOT 'pick[ing their] religious affiliations. Not even close. We simply offer them something that the vast majority of them were not offered here on earth. It is THEIR choice whether to accept or reject it, not ours.

If anybody is being heavy handed and picking religious affiliation for those who are dead, it is those who prevent the offer from being made; after all, do YOU know what they would have chosen, had they been given the choice? You think you do, for a few—but are you absolutely certain of it?

Really? Can you make that decision for any other person? I don’t believe that we can. So…we make the offer. They make the choice.

 

[gearhead]

If you are right, you wouldn’t ever know about it. If WE are, you have a choice. (shrug) I honestly don’t see a down side to you in this.

But it’s not like those are the only two options. Once we allow for the possibility that the Mormon view is right, I don’t have any reason to exclude any possibility at all. IMO, it seems just as likely that proxy baptism would make the deceased reincarnate as a cockroach as it would give them a chance to enter the highest level of heaven.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the response, but this particular question was about the living person being baptized. I was just curious about whether there was a difference in the two different ceremonies - baptism for the living vs baptism by proxy for the dead.

Then I’m not sure I understand your question. If it is what I think it is…then the answer is still no, just as there is no such ‘part’ in a purely mortal proxy wedding. It would be useless to have one, when the whole idea is that the person for whom the ceremony is being done isn’t, actually, THERE.

 

[gearhead]

Then I’m not sure I understand your question. If it is what I think it is…then the answer is still no, just as there is no such ‘part’ in a purely mortal proxy wedding. It would be useless to have one, when the whole idea is that the person for whom the ceremony is being done isn’t, actually, THERE.

Wait a minute - a few pages back, didn’t you appeal to the correctness of proxy marriage for the living in defense of proxy marriage for the dead?

 

[dianaiad]

Because LDS is essentially letting random people change the religion of their ancestors. Only we can decide what religion we belong to.

That’s right. Only we can. But we are not changing the religion of our ancestors. We can’t do that. All we can do—all we DO do–is offer them a chance to change their own religions. Their choice, always.

In other words, it is not we who are forcing anything, or restricting anything. It is quite the other way around.

 

[Jay53]

Then I’m not sure I understand your question. If it is what I think it is…then the answer is still no, just as there is no such ‘part’ in a purely mortal proxy wedding. It would be useless to have one, when the whole idea is that the person for whom the ceremony is being done isn’t, actually, THERE.

No that was not the question. It was more along the lines of “Is there a formal acceptance by the living person in a baptism?”

I think someone answered it that the two ceremonies are the same. It might have been actually answered in another thread - I think there are a couple with similar topics.

 

[dianaiad]

But it’s not like those are the only two options. Once we allow for the possibility that the Mormon view is right, I don’t have any reason to exclude any possibility at all. IMO, it seems just as likely that proxy baptism would make the deceased reincarnate as a cockroach as it would give them a chance to enter the highest level of heaven.

Do you know of any belief system on the planet that actually states that our proxy baptism has any actual affect upon the dead person, except ours?

I realize that you are an atheist.
I realize that you believe that all religion is made up…or man made, whatever.

However, whether that is true or not, you ARE restricted to examining beliefs that are actually OUT there. So go ahead. If you can find a belief system that actually thinks that LDS proxy baptisms work in a manner that WE, who do them, don’t believe they do, then your point might be valid. Sort of. Maybe.

If not, then…not.

And if you can’t respect the beliefs themselves, respect those who believe, please.

 

[dianaiad]

Wait a minute - a few pages back, didn’t you appeal to the correctness of proxy marriage for the living in defense of proxy marriage for the dead?

Yes…your point?

This also uses proxy marriage here as an example of how proxy work for the dead works. Mortal proxy marriages are performed, and only after they are completed is the information about them conveyed to the person who is not present to be confirmed/accepted by that person. There isn’t anything in the middle that invites (name removed by moderator)ut from the person who can’t give it, because, well, s/he’s not THERE.

If s/he WERE, there would be no need for a proxy wedding, would there?

 

[dianaiad]

No that was not the question. It was more along the lines of “Is there a formal acceptance by the living person in a baptism?”

I think someone answered it that the two ceremonies are the same. It might have been actually answered in another thread - I think there are a couple with similar topics.

They are the same…and the very fact that the person is actually there in the water is formal acceptance enough, seems to me. We don’t go kidnapping people off the street in order to dunk them in the nearest body of water.

I dunno, perhaps I still don’t quite understand the question.