Should the LDS baptize by proxy non-Mormons?

[higherednerd]

The Church keeps records, they wouldn’t have to ask why I left. It’s all in the database that I requested name removal. The only tests I would face is to be sure of the same things as with any convert. Do I have a testimony? Will I agree to follow the rules? Anything more would be curiosity on the part of the Bishop. Some Mormons look down on those who leave as apostates, and such old fashioned attitudes might cause some squinting. But Mormons don’t even guard their communion as carefully as some churches, i.e. Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. You just aren’t supposed to partake if there is any problem. Nobody is supposed to ask. And no, some sins will get you extra scrutiny or probation if you try to come back. It all depends. The personalities of the local authorities enter into it too.

 

[gearhead]

I have no problem with COMPLAINING about it, as long as I have equal rights to argue back.

Of course!

 

[dianaiad]

The Church keeps records, they wouldn’t have to ask why I left. It’s all in the database that I requested name removal. The only tests I would face is to be sure of the same things as with any convert. Do I have a testimony? Will I agree to follow the rules? Anything more would be curiosity on the part of the Bishop. Some Mormons look down on those who leave as apostates, and such old fashioned attitudes might cause some squinting. But Mormons don’t even guard their communion as carefully as some churches, i.e. Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. You just aren’t supposed to partake if there is any problem. Nobody is supposed to ask. And no, some sins will get you extra scrutiny or probation if you try to come back. It all depends. The personalities of the local authorities enter into it too.

The church records would say that you asked…and that’s all. But they DO say that you asked…and so the interview would include the question 'why did you leave?" and “have those doubts/ problems been resolved?”

Which, by the way, is pretty much what a person with a church initiated excommunication would be asked, too.

Though I think we may be talking about different things, the point I’m attempting to make is that your process for coming back would not be quite the same as the baptism of a new member.

 

[higherednerd]

But I would not be under any cloud. I would be tempted to answer “duh” to the questions about doubts, if I was announcing a testimony and a desire to return.

 

[twopekinguys]

Snip to here.

Excommunication is not a legal matter, Anna. The fact is, if you resigned from the church, then you are excommunicant. As in; you were a member and now you are not. As well, if someone has broken the rules to the extent that he or she would have been subject to church discipline, then resigning doesn’t legally require that this discipline NOT be taken. In other words, that same freedom of religion you are talking about also means that the church can say “resign if you wish, but we are also going to ‘fire’ you.” More or less. there is no law that says a church MUST accept a resignation instead of dealing with the situation through disciplinary action, y’know.

QUOTE]

While there may not be a “law” regarding this, there is legal precedence.

THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
In 1985 the Mormon church ‘excommunicated’ Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case. The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn’t want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an ‘excommuication’: the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for ‘name removal’).

Also

There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church’s vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.

GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE
Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989
Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication. The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the ‘excommunication’ and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.

Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.

In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.

dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/11624/597/670/629888

So, you see, legal action can be taken against any church that does anything relating to the individual once the resignation has been tendered.

 

[kalt]

You are contradicting yourself. I wasn’t referring to the idea that this indelible mark on the soul was salvific; that’s irrelevant to the point. It is a strawman.

You have here re-affirmed that Catholic baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul–and the infant who has it was not consulted as to whether he or she wanted that mark. No matter what happens to that child, or what he or she does in life, that mark is, as you claim here, permanent. Indelible…whether the person whose soul is marked with it WANTS it, or not. No choice there.

I am pointing out that what we do is absolutely a matter of choice. We aren’t either one of us talking about whether the ordinance of baptism is salvific in and of itself. We both know that it is not. Rather, it is like reading a book. No matter what, if you are going to read a book, you must open it. Opening it doesn’t guarantee that you will read it, but you aren’t going to read it if you don’t open it. Baptism isn’t going to gaurantee salvation, but it is required. YOU, as a Catholic, believe it is (that indelible mark) and so do we.

The difference here is that while we hand someone a book that they can pick up or put down, you have tattooed it on their…souls, will they, nill they. Therefore I find it ironic that any of you should criticize us for ‘disrespecting the dead,’ or ‘ignoring their expressed wishes’ or anything else.

Diana

PS…your faith is your faith; believe as you will, baptise whom you will. If you are correct, you are doing these infants a favor. But do NOT criticize the Mormons for what we do, when you neither ask permission for, nor allow for the refusal of, baptism for your own members.

Again, and again, and again, we aren’t complaining about this because we think your rite has any effect. Even you have admitted that it doesn’t. Our complaint–the disrespect–comes in taking the name of someone who has already made a choice and changing that choice on paper.

FWIW, a baptized Catholic may leave the Church at any time. The baptism isn’t a guarantee of salvation, and anyone who decides that Christianity is bunk has nothing to worry about. If they turn their backs on God, even after baptism, they won’t have to worry about going where they don’t want to go - Heaven.

Their names are listed in the Catholic register, because they (they, not somone else, for crying out loud) was actually validly baptized in the Church. For infants and very young children, this responsibility properly belongs to the parents. An infant may not want to eat peas, but if his mother decides that peas are good for him, even if he doesn’t like them, he’s eating them.

Constrast this with an adult having himself baptized for someone else who is already dead.

Get real.

 

[kalt]

Yes, you do. And when you do, you become ‘excommunicant.’ Whether the church kicks you out or you decide to leave, it results in the same thing; you become an ‘ex’ communicant.

Excommunication is not a legal matter, Anna. The fact is, if you resigned from the church, then you are excommunicant. As in; you were a member and now you are not. As well, if someone has broken the rules to the extent that he or she would have been subject to church discipline, then resigning doesn’t legally require that this discipline NOT be taken. In other words, that same freedom of religion you are talking about also means that the church can say “resign if you wish, but we are also going to ‘fire’ you.” More or less. there is no law that says a church MUST accept a resignation instead of dealing with the situation through disciplinary action, y’know.

In fact, some churches (not ours…) have, quite literally, gone after people and excommunicated them postumously, going so far as to dig 'em up, rescinding their burial in sanctified ground, and dispose of their bodies elsewhere. Freedom of religion goes both ways here.

Good idea. Or, if you no longer believe that your membership means anything (as in, it’s not ‘true,’ ) you can just, y’know…leave and join another church. Saves time and aggravation.

There’s no law that says they can’t, either.

You sure about that? What would you win?

Oh, baloney, Anna. Everybody in this nation knows that you can change religions, leave religions, join others…it’s right there in the bill of rights. What YOU seem to be forgetting is that your freedom of religion does not trump mine, nor mine yours. In other words, the government can’t dictate what you believe, and religions cannot force you to join them or stay in them once you wish to leave, but just as there is no law against your leaving, there is also no law against them kicking you out. There is also no law against a church contacting you. No law against missionaries knocking upon your door.

By the way, as it happens, once your resignation was in and official, you would not have been excommunicated. WE aren’t the ones who do that sort of thing, though I have heard of many other faiths that have done precisely that. It is quite possible that you joined one.

And so, though the priests and nuns had clearly chosen their religion, their rights cease at death, when you, like the creeps who peruse the death notices to rob houses and steal identities, confiscate the name and change that decision on paper in your church. When the nuns’ and priests’ rights end (at death you say, though you supposedly believe in an afterlife) yours begin. While you’re alive, you claim the right to change any dead person’s religious affiliation as listed on the Mormon rolls.

Face it. Your church is wrong. You’ve gone 'round in circles trying every which way to defend this offensive practice, but nothing has justified your actions.

Saying, “It’s my right to change the regligious decison (on the Mormon books) of any dead person.” is hardly a defense. In fact, I will stick my neck out and say that that sentiment makes people sick.

How badly do the Mormons need members that they’ll even sign-up dead people?
Can’t you increase your membership honestly?

Is the Mormon church one of the subsidiaries of ACORN? If dead people can vote, why can’t they accept baptism? Sign 'em up.

 

[higherednerd]

When the LDS church reports membership stats, they are not including dead people. Temple work for the dead is reported separately. It may even be repeated, as many names are extrated from records of varying accuracy.

 

[gearhead]

FWIW, a baptized Catholic may leave the Church at any time. The baptism isn’t a guarantee of salvation, and anyone who decides that Christianity is bunk has nothing to worry about.

Only because the civil authority of the Church has greatly decreased since the days when it was deemed to rule over any baptized person.

Their names are listed in the Catholic register, because they (they, not somone else, for crying out loud) was actually validly baptized in the Church.

Right - because when someone else gets dunked in water to get you into a better afterlife, that’s silly… but when your parents have it done to you as an infant to make up for the fact that your great-great-… grandparents ate an apple at the suggestion of a talking snake, that’s perfectly reasonable.

For infants and very young children, this responsibility properly belongs to the parents. An infant may not want to eat peas, but if his mother decides that peas are good for him, even if he doesn’t like them, he’s eating them.

And even if the infant doesn’t want a tattoo, if his mother wants to get him one (a “special” tattoo that only Jesus can see), he’s getting one, right?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, you do. And when you do, you become ‘excommunicant.’ Whether the church kicks you out or you decide to leave, it results in the same thing; you become an ‘ex’ communicant.

Excommunication is not a legal matter, Anna. The fact is, if you resigned from the church, then you are excommunicant. As in; you were a member and now you are not.

As well, if someone has broken the rules to the extent that he or she would have been subject to church discipline, then resigning doesn’t legally require that this discipline NOT be taken.

In other words, that same freedom of religion you are talking about also means that the church can say “resign if you wish, but we are also going to ‘fire’ you.” More or less. **there is no law that says a church MUST accept a resignation instead of dealing with the situation through disciplinary action, y’know. **

In fact, some churches (not ours…) have, quite literally, gone after people and excommunicated them postumously, going so far as to dig 'em up, rescinding their burial in sanctified ground, and dispose of their bodies elsewhere. Freedom of religion goes both ways here.

. . . your freedom of religion does not trump mine, nor mine yours. In other words, the government can’t dictate what you believe, and religions cannot force you to join them or stay in them once you wish to leave, **but just as there is no law against your leaving, there is also no law against them kicking you out. There is also no law against a church contacting you. No law against missionaries knocking upon your door. . **

dianaiad:

I didn’t say anyone, including the government, can tell a person what to believe. My religion does not trump yours. However, I do have the legal right to resign from a religion, without any further action taken against me and without further contact from the church.

The law does not allow “excommunication” or any other action against a person who has formerly resigned from a religion/church.

The following link provides a simple summary of 2 court cases, proving exactly what I said.

dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/11624/597/670/629888
Emphasis is mine.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS

There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church’s vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.

GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE
Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989
Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication.

The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the ‘excommunication’ and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable.

In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.

Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.
**
In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.
**
THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
**In 1985 the Mormon church ‘excommunicated’ Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church.

Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. **

The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case.

The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn’t want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an ‘excommuication’: the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for ‘name removal’).

. . .The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The church began having a process it calls ‘name removal’.

However, the church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is ‘transgressing’ should not be allowed to resign, that “name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline”.

If you’ve paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the church is wrong about that and they can be sued for ‘excommunicating’ someone who already resigned. At church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to ‘discipline’ proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are.

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC

So, we are protected by the laws of our country. We have freedom of religion, which includes the right to resign from any religion, without the church taking any further action.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

While there may not be a “law” regarding this, there is legal precedence.

THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
In 1985 the Mormon church ‘excommunicated’ Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case. The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn’t want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an ‘excommuication’: the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for ‘name removal’).

Also

There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church’s vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.

GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE
Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989
Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication. The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the ‘excommunication’ and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.

Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.

In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.

dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/11624/597/670/629888

So, you see, legal action can be taken against any church that does anything relating to the individual once the resignation has been tendered.

twopekinguys:

I just posted the same lawsuits. I didn’t notice you had already posted this. I was starting with the earliest responses and working my way to latest post.

Appreciate the support.

Anna

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys:

I just posted the same lawsuits. I didn’t notice you had already posted this. I was starting with the earliest responses and working my way to latest post.

Appreciate the support.

Anna

Not a problem.

I do believe that with these cases, your ancestors could have a case against the lds should they choose to do a proxy baptism after you die.

“On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned.”

With the statement that she could sue for anything the church did after her resignation, then it follows that the estate/decendents could do the same thing with regard to a proxy baptism.

These 2 cases also provide an insight into why the guy at the records office got all quiet when you were talking to him.

 

[higherednerd]

Well, no, all rights of a living person do NOT pass to the estate. For example a deceased person is specifically exempted from the tort of slander or libel, as they cannot suffer harm from it, they are beyond harm. In no sense does the practice of proxy posthumous baptism cause or create a Mormon church membership where it is not desired. It would be like someone going to a Catholic church and arranging for a candle to be burnt for me or prayers to be said. I’m not sure any action could be brought on that basis, because no obligation is created. Much like, if a company sends you merchandice you didn’t order, you can keep it and don’t have to pay. A few states allow limited rights to sue for slander of the deceased, but usually there is a severe time limit or it must have caused material damage to the value of the estate.

 

[twopekinguys]

Well, no, all rights of a living person do NOT pass to the estate. For example a deceased person is specifically exempted from the tort of slander or libel, as they cannot suffer harm from it, they are beyond harm. In no sense does the practice of proxy posthumous baptism cause or create a Mormon church membership where it is not desired. It would be like someone going to a Catholic church and arranging for a candle to be burnt for me or prayers to be said. I’m not sure any action could be brought on that basis, because no obligation is created. Much like, if a company sends you merchandice you didn’t order, in hopes that you will pay for it, you don’t have to, you can keep it or whateve3r.

A dead man is popularly believed to be capable of experiencing both good and ill fortune – honor and dishonor, and prosperity and the loss of it among his children and descendants generally – in exactly the same way as if he were alive but unaware or unobservant of what was happening.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1.10

I never said they would win. Although, they very well might. You never know with this type of litigation. Case law precedence is created all the time. It is proven in the cases cited.

Remember the old lady that sued McDonalds over the hot coffee spill a few years back? No one thought she would win now did they?

If I knew (and I do) that my parents didn’t want a proxy anything done by the LDS, and found that it had been done. I would not hesitate for a moment to go after them. As executor of their estate, I have a legal responsibility to do so. Not to mention, a moral responsibilty to respect their last wishes.

 

[higherednerd]

According to Mormon doctrine, if your folks didn’t want to be Mormons, baptising them would have no effect, no matter when it was done. Therefore, there would be no tort (damage). Certainly not posthumously. Nor would it do anything to them. They would not be listed or counted as members. They would not be expected to tithe, bear their testimonies, or any such thing. Nor would the church have any way of knowning what their wishes were, as most posthumous baptisms (and sealings, and endowments) are done from data extracted from public records, such as the census. If the person sending in the name is not a near relative, there has to be a long waiting period such as with the census - the newest census available is 1930, and they have to have a death record or it has to be a certain length of time after the birth. If your relatives have been baptised posthumously, the only way to find out about it if you didn’t send the names in yourself would be to look on the LDS genealogy site.

 

[twopekinguys]

According to Mormon doctrine, if your folks didn’t want to be Mormons, baptising them would have no effect, no matter when it was done. Therefore, there would be no tort (damage). Certainly not posthumously. Nor would it do anything to them. They would not be listed or counted as members. They would not be expected to tithe, bear their testimonies, or any such thing. Nor would the church have any way of knowning what their wishes were, as most posthumous baptisms (and sealings, and endowments) are done from data extracted from public records, such as the census. If the person sending in the name is not a near relative, there has to be a long waiting period such as with the census - the newest census available is 1930, and they have to have a death record or it has to be a certain length of time after the birth. If your relatives have been baptised posthumously, the only way to find out about it if you didn’t send the names in yourself would be to look on the LDS genealogy site.

I think the thing that you are missing in this is the “perception” that they are mormon. Many people of different faiths, not just Catholics find this offensive.

Part of the perception is that down the road somewhere, an ancestor doing research runs across a family record showing the baptism and sealing. If you notice, there are no disclaimers stating that this is merely an offer, and the person listed is not mormon. You did see where the lds have been doing baptisms on jewish haulocost victims, even after they said they wouldn’t right? Their claim is that is offensive, and that future generations could perceive their ancestors as being mormon, and not jewish.

As far as the name submissions, that is another fallicy. Granted the mormons say they have rules or guidelines for submissions, but they are clearly not being followed, and it appears that no discipline is being taken with regard to these submissions. You did see the thread where St. Damien was recently baptized and sealed to a wife posthumously right? Now can you tell me how it could be misconstrued that a Catholic priest would not want a mormon baptism, let alone to be sealed to a wife he never had on this earth? Also, can you explain how President Obama’s mother was baptized posthumously? You don’t think he submitted her name now do you?

The whole point is, if a person resigns from the mormon church, that should be sufficient means to trigger no proxy ordinances at all for that person. It is just common sense.

As far as using the information on the mormon website. I suggest you do a search on Abraham Lincoln. They have him born in numerous places, and married to two different women. I’m sure you will find, to say the least, their records are far from accurate.

 

[higherednerd]

Early Mormons were very careless about sending names in. I was an extractor in the early 1980s and by then there were all sorts of rules. You can tell by looking on the Mormon geneaology web site when the ordinance was done. You could not send in just anybody. If they were your relative, you’d have to have a certain standard of records. The early Mormons were much more lax about this. Mormons mostly get their non relative’s names from public vital statistic records. Census, civil, church, that sort of thing. You are supposed to have a marriage record or some proof that they were married nowadays to send in for a marriage sealing.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Not a problem.

I do believe that with these cases, your ancestors could have a case against the lds should they choose to do a proxy baptism after you die.

“On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned.”

With the statement that she could sue for anything the church did after her resignation, then it follows that the estate/decendents could do the same thing with regard to a proxy baptism.

These 2 cases also provide an insight into why the guy at the records office got all quiet when you were talking to him.

twopekinguys:

I think you are right about the LDS records guy. The Mormon Church knows the law.

I do plan to send them another letter stating that no proxy work is to be done after my death; and I plan to add this to my Last Will & Testament also. Wills are recorded as public record, after they are settled/probated, etc. I will include a request that my descendants check to make sure no proxy work is done, after my death; and if it is, they are to sue the Mormon Church.

I really think I am going to start writing letters to Senators, Congressmen, etc. requesting a law that protects one’s religious rites after death. Something needs to be done.

Anna

 

[dianaiad]

Again, and again, and again, we aren’t complaining about this because we think your rite has any effect. Even you have admitted that it doesn’t. Our complaint–the disrespect–comes in taking the name of someone who has already made a choice and changing that choice on paper.

IF that is what it did, you’d have a point, but it does no such thing. The fact that the notation very clearly states that the work was PROXY work (which automatically indicates that it is subject to the acceptance of the person for whom it was done) and that the work is done considerably after the death of the person for whom it is done is proof enough, to anybody with half a brain, that we are not ‘changing that choice’ for ANYBODY. Only THEY could do that. WE know this. Why don’t you?

FWIW, a baptized Catholic may leave the Church at any time.

Yes, but that Catholic baptism remains an ‘indelible mark,’ right? So that if the baptized Catholic wants to come back, he doesn’t need to be rebaptized?

HERE is where you are contradicting yourself.

The baptism isn’t a guarantee of salvation,

There is that strawman again.

and anyone who decides that Christianity is bunk has nothing to worry about. If they turn their backs on God, even after baptism, they won’t have to worry about going where they don’t want to go - Heaven.

Their names are listed in the Catholic register, because they (they, not somone else, for crying out loud) was actually validly baptized in the Church. For infants and very young children, this responsibility properly belongs to the parents. An infant may not want to eat peas, but if his mother decides that peas are good for him, even if he doesn’t like them, he’s eating them.

Constrast this with an adult having himself baptized for someone else who is already dead.

Get real.

I’m the one who is being 'real. you are the one who is making up stuff.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t really care. No dead person is harmed by the Mormon proxy baptisms. No living person should care. It’s a worthless ceremony so ignore it.

AND the “sealing” to a wife or husband?
The baptism is a preclude for “Endowments”. They can’t give the “endowment”… “sealing”…“binding” to a husband or a wife unless “baptism by proxy” has been done first.

IMHO, Every person of faith…should care. Including LDS.