Is There A Way To Block Mormon Relatives From Baptizing Me When I Croak?

[AddamS]

And another thing... how to get myself removed from the direct mail marketing and telemarketing lists... This is something that bothers me here - before I die!!!

I knew we could find something we can all agree on

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand your frustration, but it really is the first time someone brought up that it is in your doctrine to baptise the dead, and not a choice made by well-meaning family members.

If you believe that this is something that must be done to account for your own salvation, I can understand that. At least you are gtting something out of it.

I guess I get to frustrated sometimes. Im glag we could help. Sometimes people can put things in such away that other people can understand it. Im not that good sometimes. Oh well.

[Pahoran]

Something else this question brings to mind.

Frequently on this forum, we are treated to anti-Mormons screaming at us that we're all so closed-minded and brainwashed that we'd never change our minds about anything no matter what information we were given. And yet those very people frequently express the same sentiment Expositor has given us here: they don't want an opportunity to change their minds about the ordinances of salvation, because their hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ is so compelling that they can't imagine themselves ever changning their minds, no matter what information they received!

So guess where their criticism of us comes from?

(Not to single you out, Expositor. You weren't the first to raise this question, and you won't be the last.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

I understand your frustration, but it really is the first time someone brought up that it is in your doctrine to baptise the dead, and not a choice made by well-meaning family members.

If you believe that this is something that must be done to account for your own salvation, I can understand that. At least you are gtting something out of it.

One quick correction... its Baptism for the dead, not Baptism of the dead. We aren't into Necrophilia, and Niether was Paul

1 Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

[Calm]

It just seems like a waste of time. Why would I want someone spending the energy doing something that not only goes against my desires, but enforces belief in them I don't believe to be true for my "benefit"?

Did that make any sense?

Its the same reason I asked the church not to send Missionaries over to my house. I'm polite enough to not want them to waste their time.

To us it is not a waste of time even if the person does not accept. We are not only getting a chance to follow a commandment of God, but also getting a chance to exercise pure charity. If you read of the experiences of those who search the records and do the work, you will see that they take great delight in the thought they are helping others and often have experiences that they believe are confirmation that some of those they have done the work for have accepted it and are joyful and grateful for their efforts.

Easy there tiger, I'm pragmatic enough to know that I can't stop someone from praying. I just wanted to kno w if there was a way to block it from being practiced as an official function of the church.

Only if you create laws that are intended to block the free practice of someone's religious beliefs. Are you sure you want to do that? It seems contrary to your position about having choice.

I just have a healthy fear of those that believe their path is the only way with such determination that they do not consider the wishes of others important.

You are completely misunderstanding the doctrine if this is how you are interpreting it. Not only are we not considering other people's wishes important, we are doing all we can to make sure that their wishes have the chance to be fulfilled.

We believe that without an authorized baptism no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet it should be obvious that the vast, vast majority of those who have experienced mortality have not received what we believe is a valid baptism. Therefore all those who wish to accept the Atonement, accept Christ as their Saviour and follow his commandments...yet did not have the chance to do so in mortality would NOT be able to have their wish granted.

Since we desire everyone to have the full opportunity of their desires for themselves to be met, we do baptisms for the dead. Since, as said multiple times on the thread, the final effectiveness of the baptism rest in the individual and God's hands, nothing we do does anything besides provide another choice for that individual.

Thus people's wishes are being considered, NOT being ignored.

To use the cookie analogy made before, there is only one company that makes a particularly delicious cookie and they have such a special technique and access to unique ingredients, no one else is able to make that cookie. However, most people don't live close enough to the factory and outlet store to drive over to pick some up. If they wish to try them, it doesn't matter. They can't. Their desire must remain unfulfilled. But the cookie people enjoy their own cookies so much that they want to make sure that anyone who might also enjoy them has a chance to eat them, so they provide a delivery service to anywhere in the world and just to make sure they don't miss anyone, they'll place a sack of cookies on every doorstep with or without that person asking for it. And they'll do it for free or at least free to that individual. Costs them quite a bit, but they don't mind though they are saddened if the cookies get left out in the rain not because their work was wasted, but because that individual isn't going to have as much enjoyment as those who decided to eat them.

As stated before, you don't have to eat the cookies if you don't want to, but at least you have a choice now where you had none before.

I think a closer analogy to what LDS see they are doing would be a life-saving medicine provided by a rather unusual pharmaceutical company (in that the only 'profit' they were looking for was more customers...)

===

Now you may not see it this way, but this is how LDS see it. There is no force, instead more freedom. There is no ignoring of an individual's wishes, instead providing for those wishes to be met no matter what they might be. There is no belief that our wishes are more important than another's, instead we consider the other's wishes to be so important that we give of our time and money now to make sure that they can be fulfilled in any way in any time in the future.

[AddamS]

Something else this question brings to mind.

Frequently on this forum, we are treated to anti-Mormons screaming at us that we're all so closed-minded and brainwashed that we'd never change our minds about anything no matter what information we were given. And yet those very people frequently express the same sentiment Expositor has given us here: they don't want an opportunity to change their minds about the ordinances of salvation, because their hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ is so compelling that they can't imagine themselves ever changning their minds, no matter what information they received!

So guess where their criticism of us comes from?

(Not to single you out, Expositor. You weren't the first to raise this question, and you won't be the last.)

Regards,

Pahoran

As your board defines it, Apologetics is "Defense of Faith" not "Promotion of Faith".

It just may be that you get frustrated that you are not able to convince people who come here to sign up. I could understand how that might be trying for you, but the site isn't Peoplethatwanttobecomeldsmembers.com.

If I put up a sign in my front yard that said "Ask me why Athiesm is correct" I would expect people to knock on my door asking the presented question and telling me why I was wrong.

I came here because every time I ask anybody I know of about these issues they look at it as "hate speech" instead of answering the questions. It is such a personal thing that they cannot be objective.

I'm not here to change anybody's mind, I just want to understand how people can come to these conclusions as a way to live their lives.

[AddamS]

Only if you create laws that are intended to block the free practice of someone's religious beliefs. Are you sure you want to do that? It seems contrary to your position about having choice.

I should probably clarify, I don't want laws preventing the practice. i just wanted to know if there was some form I could send the church that would stop it for myself. Again and again people here have brought up religios freedom and the first amendment. I have never once suggested these things be repealed. I just wanted to know if there was an existing process within the LDS structure.

Thanks for the clarification.

***************

Also, thank you to all who clarified the water-logged corpses issue. I have never believed that you guys dunked corpses. I should have said "for" insted of "of". My bad.

[Pahoran]

As your board defines it, Apologetics is "Defense of Faith" not "Promotion of Faith".

It just may be that you get frustrated that you are not able to convince people who come here to sign up. I could understand how that might be trying for you, but the site isn't Peoplethatwanttobecomeldsmembers.com.

Who's frustrated? I'm amused by the phenomenon I described.

If I put up a sign in my front yard that said "Ask me why Athiesm is correct" I would expect people to knock on my door asking the presented question and telling me why I was wrong.

I came here because every time I ask anybody I know of about these issues they look at it as "hate speech" instead of answering the questions. It is such a personal thing that they cannot be objective.

I'm not here to change anybody's mind, I just want to understand how people can come to these conclusions as a way to live their lives.

Well, as others have pointed out, your question was answered on the first page.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On one visit to my wife's family in St. George a few years ago I got into a conversation with her Uncle about geneology. At the time I just thought it was an interesting discussion but thought it was odd that he was writing all of the information down. I assumed it was for personal family record (and it may have been). If he did take the information to submit it to the church, I understand he meant no harm by it. But would rather not it happen just the same.

I have since found that sometimes this information is submitted for baptism of the dead. Is there any way to stop this from happening? I know a lot of Jewish people made an issue about it at one point in time so I assume there has to be some sort of process.

No offense, I just would rather make my own choices about my soul when I bite the dust (assuming the church is still around by then). I'm also concerend about those that have passed before now that were mentioned.

Don't die...remain until the resurrection.

[AddamS]

Who's frustrated? I'm amused by the phenomenon I described.

Well you must be the only one. Some people around here act like I punched their mothers in the jaw!

Well, as others have pointed out, your question was answered on the first page.

Regards,

Pahoran

Maybe it was answered in a way that fulfilled your curiousity, but not mine. Not until page 4 did anyone say anything about it being a duty, with documentation. That really helped.

If there are people that think the question was already answered and get annoyed by follow-up questions, they have the right to stop answering or responding to them.

[AddamS]

Don't die...remain until the resurrection.

Sounds like a plan, but I don't want to live forever

[Zakuska]

Also, thank you to all who clarified the water-logged corpses issue. I have never believed that you guys dunked corpses. I should have said "for" insted of "of". My bad.

No problem. But also remember that the Jews did "wash" their dead before they put them in the tomb. Remeber what marry was doing on easter morning?

[Oracle]

Five pages and there is still talking past each other?

Expositor is not some dead person who never got the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel. Expositor is a very live person who has expressly made it known that he does not want ordinance work performed for him after he is dead.

Is this not a case where a person's express wishes are being ignored just because you guys think this work is so important? Exclude the part where you think it is important. You are STILL ignoring a clearly expressed desire to not have this work done. I don't think this is a matter of agency being taken away. I think this is a matter of respect.

Expositor. Francom's suggestion was good. Or perhaps you could get your hands on all of the membership records of the LDS church and give them a satanic baptism. By proxy. Of course, they will be dead, but will still have the opportunity to accept the satanic work for them if it turns out that mormonism was an "oops" religious choice. That might perhaps insult the church enough to where they don't want you in the afterlife with them so they won't do your work.

Here's the ceremony:

[Deleting the satan worship rituals - real or parodies. Not necessary here.]

[Calm]

A very good source for LDS belief and practices is at www.lds.org. It has the manuals used to Sunday teaching, just go to "Gospel Library" and then "Lessons". ldsces.org has the manuals for seminary and institute classes (basically high school and college course level 'bible study' but we study all aspects of our church including history as it relates to the doctrine).

The Gospel Principles manual is the one used by new members and investigators. It is a quick read and will provide a great overall framework for our beliefs and practices.

If you want to know a particular topic without going through a lot of material, the Gospel Topic section has short explanations that can be expanded into research into more sources if you desire.

[MorningStar]

Five pages and there is still talking past each other?

Expositor is not some dead person who never got the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel. Expositor is a very live person who has expressly made it known that he does not want ordinance work performed for him after he is dead.

Is this not a case where a person's express wishes are being ignored just because you guys think this work is so important? Exclude the part where you think it is important. You are STILL ignoring a clearly expressed desire to not have this work done. I don't think this is a matter of agency being taken away. I think this is a matter of respect.

Expositor. Francom's suggestion was good. Or perhaps you could get your hands on all of the membership records of the LDS church and give them a satanic baptism. By proxy. Of course, they will be dead, but will still have the opportunity to accept the satanic work for them if it turns out that mormonism was an "oops" religious choice. That might perhaps insult the church enough to where they don't want you in the afterlife with them so they won't do your work.

Here's the ceremony:

Go for it! It has no more meaning than someone wishing on a star.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Five pages and there is still talking past each other?

Expositor is not some dead person who never got the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel. Expositor is a very live person who has expressly made it known that he does not want ordinance work performed for him after he is dead.

Hence my suggesting it won't matter anyway, either way.

[Zakuska]

Deleting the satan worship rituals - real or parodies. Not necessary here.

[Calm]

Sounds like a plan, but I don't want to live forever

Get the State to pass a law declaring cyrogenically frozen people still living and then set yourself up to become a human popsicle right before you die.

[selek]

Go for it! It has no more meaning than someone wishing on a star.

Though I do want to be there at the great gittin' up day so Oracle can attempt to justify his mockery and bitterness.

[Pahoran]

Five pages and there is still talking past each other?

Expositor is not some dead person who never got the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel. Expositor is a very live person who has expressly made it known that he does not want ordinance work performed for him after he is dead.

And cannot imagine any circumstances in which he could possibly change his mind.

But that's okay. We won't hold his lack of imagination against him. We are more charitable than that.

Is this not a case where a person's express wishes are being ignored just because you guys think this work is so important? Exclude the part where you think it is important. You are STILL ignoring a clearly expressed desire to not have this work done. I don't think this is a matter of agency being taken away. I think this is a matter of respect.

That's because what you "think" is based upon profound and all-encompassing ignorance. You are raising a question that has not seriously been canvassed, and that is whether it is actually possible to ensure that all Expositor's relatives, for all future time, know that he doesn't want this work to be done. It's not a "lack of respect" at all, it's a lack of resources to ensure that this information gets propagated and remembered forever. How unrealistic is that, really?

But hey--you don't really care whether the Church's resources are equal to the task of making sure people like Expositor are never forgiven for their small-mindedness, do you?

Expositor. Francom's suggestion was good.

Only to people who think evil is good.

Or perhaps you could get your hands on all of the membership records of the LDS church and give them a satanic baptism. By proxy. Of course, they will be dead, but will still have the opportunity to accept the satanic work for them if it turns out that mormonism was an "oops" religious choice. That might perhaps insult the church enough to where they don't want you in the afterlife with them so they won't do your work.

Actually we wouldn't really care enough to remember who was dumb enough to pull such a silly stunt.

Here's the ceremony:

And it's just as vile as I'd expect it to be, given your enthusiastic recommendation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

This reminds me of J. Golden and his thoughts on baptizing the wicked. You can baptize them a hundred times and they'll be just as wicked afterwards as they were before. Baptizing them by immersion isn't going to help...unless you keep them under.

Francom's suggestion was good? I guess lying against the Lord is alright for Francom and Oracle.

[Pahoran]

Though I do want to be there at the great gittin' up day so Oracle can attempt to justify his mockery and bitterness.

In the interests of accuracy, Oracle is a she.

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

On one visit to my wife's family in St. George a few years ago I got into a conversation with her Uncle about geneology. At the time I just thought it was an interesting discussion but thought it was odd that he was writing all of the information down. I assumed it was for personal family record (and it may have been). If he did take the information to submit it to the church, I understand he meant no harm by it. But would rather not it happen just the same.

I have since found that sometimes this information is submitted for baptism of the dead. Is there any way to stop this from happening?

Not really.

I know a lot of Jewish people made an issue about it at one point in time so I assume there has to be some sort of process.

This issue has been discussed many times on this board:

Anger Over 'baptism' Of Simon Wiesenthal, - comments?

Can The Lds Church Be Sued For Vicarious Baptisms?, Follow-up to "Resignation Vs. Excommunication"

Helen Radkey letter to the editor, Stirring up trouble

Jewish proxy baptisms resolved., Everyone happy.

Mormons and Jews, kudos and hisses

Baptisms at Issue Once Again, Jews, Mormons, and the Dead

A few comments:

1. There is no uniform "Jewish" objection to LDS proxy baptisms. Eugene Volokh and Erik Jaffe, both of The Volokh Conspiracy [and both of whom are Jewish], don't see anything objectionable out it:

Volokh: If you're Mormon, then presumably you'd want your relatives baptized. If you're not Mormon, then presumably you would think that some Mormon in some temple somewhere going through some ritual while mentioning people's names would be spiritually pointless. It would have no effect on the people, on their afterlives (if you think they have afterlives), on God, or on anything else. So what's the problem?

...

The Mormons aren't forcing anything on any living person. They're not exhuming anyone's body. They aren't insulting anyone, except insofar as they're suggesting that their religion is the right one, and that people ought to want to convert to it -- and if that itself qualifies as an insult, then it seems to me that people are too easily insulted.

Jaffe: I actually find it somewhat endearing that Mormons are concerned enough about my erstwhile soul to try and protect it in a non-intrusive manner after my death. Other religious groups are not so considerate and instead seek to intimidate the @#%$ out of you or otherwise confront and demean you while you are alive in a supposed effort to save your soul. I have my doubts about the true motives of the hell-and-brimstone types, but the Mormons seem perfectly genuine to me. At worst it is no-harm, no-foul; at best they do me a great service.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is similarly unimpressed with complaints about vicarious baptism:

I could not care less if the Mormons baptize me after I'm dead. It won't affect me. I'll always be a Jew, in this life and the next. If this is part of Mormon practice and belief, and they do it in the privacy of their own ritual, and it doesn't affect me in the slightest, why should I care? People's beliefs are their own business. It's how they treat others that is everyone's business. What I care about is how much the Mormons support Israel today, not what they do with Jewish souls in what they regard as the afterlife.

2. The objection discussed here makes no sense. A person who objects to proxy baptisms would have to admit that the LDS Church and its truth claims are what they claim to be. Such a person would have to admit that vicarious baptisms do have an effect in the hereafter. Such a person would also have to admit that this "effect" would be a benefit to one's ancestors, not a detriment.

3. Helen Radkey is an agenda driven anti-Mormon. In 2003 she spoke at a 2003 Convention of American Atheists, at which she vilified the LDS Church (see here). She is a former (that is, excommunicated) Latter-day Saint. She has approached the LDS Church some years ago and offered her ongoing services to keep an eye on the Church's proxy work and alert the Church to any "Jewish-sounding" names ("Learning about Jewish names,"according to Radkey, "is a specialized skill, which took me years to develop, and it is not always possible to know by a name if the person was Jewish."). She wanted, according to this article, $30,000 for her work from 1993 to 2003 and to be paid $18 per hour thereafter for her continuing research. The church did not express interest in her offer.

In short, Helen Radkey has been trying to make money out of this. Isn't that just a wee bit odd? If she really found vicarious baptism to be so odious, why not simply turn over her research? Why insist on trying to make a buck off the names of dead people?

Ms. Radkey is also not above attacking Jews who attempt to resolve this issue. See here:

Last Tuesday, church officials met with Ernest Michel, chairman of the World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, and representatives of other Jewish groups to discuss problems that may have arisen from the practice.

...

In an e-mail sent to Aaron Breitbart, senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Radkey lashed out at Michel, saying he did not understand the complexities of the Mormon database system and was too invested in the 1995 agreement to challenge the church hierarchy when it is being less than candid.

Michel defended himself in an interview with the Forward. "I have an established relationship with the church," he said. "They are not antisemites, and they want to work with us. I'm not coming in like a bull in a china shop. I'll let Helen Radkey speak for herself."

Ms. Radkey seems to be a rabblerouser. Her treatment of Mr. Michel was shameful.

4. I am genuinely curious as to how far Jews who object to proxy baptism expect the LDS Church to go. Some seem to want no Jews baptized. At all. Gary Mokotoff, the publisher of Avotaynu, the International Review of Jewish Genealogy, once said (speaking of LDS proxy baptisms): "Baptism is the second ugliest word in the English language to a Jew. The first is gassed. The third is raped."

5. I am also curious as to whether Jews who want the LDS Church to alter its practices and beliefs so as to not cause offense to Jews are willing to abide by their own counse. By way of example, consider the controversial Jewish religious practice, known as metzitzah b'peh. From Wikipedia:

Metzitzah b'peh ("suction by mouth") is a practice in certain Haredi and Hasidic circles in which, after removing the foreskin, the mohel sucks out the blood from the wound to clean it}} The mohel spits the blood into a receptacle provided. Afterwards the circumcised penis is bandaged, and the brit considered complete. Because the practice may spread diseases to the babies from the mohel's mouth (such as herpes), most mohelim ensure that their mouths are sanitized and washed out by rinsing with alcohol to disinfect the mouth.

The foundation for the ritual of metzitzah bâ??peh is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists metzitzah bâ??peh as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite...

"Most" mohelim, but not all. As a result of this religious practice, some babies have contracted diseases. See this blog entry:

"Bloodsucking Circumcision," as Slate characterizes it; according to this New York Times article,

A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes -- one of them fatal -- in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. . . .

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died. . . .

The health department, after the meeting, reiterated that it did not intend to ban or regulate oral suction. But Dr. Frieden has said that the city is taking this approach partly because any broad rule would be virtually unenforceable. Circumcision generally takes place in private homes...

So, if Mormons have an obligation to alter their religious practices so as to not offend another religious group, wouldn't there be an even greater obligation upon Jews to change their religious practices so as to reduce health risks to newborn infants?

-Smac

[Oracle]

Hence my suggesting it won't matter anyway, either way.

Before you get to the part where we agree it doesn't matter, what are you saying to a real live person? You are saying "I know you think you don't want the opportunity to make a choice in the afterlife as I know it, but I am so sure of my afterlife that I am going to bypass your wishes and do whatever I want regardless of what you say. Just to hedge bets on your behalf, ya know."

That, my friend, is disrespect of the clear wishes of Expositor.

This reminds me of J. Golden and his thoughts on baptizing the wicked. You can baptize them a hundred times and they'll be just as wicked afterwards as they were before. Baptizing them by immersion isn't going to help...unless you keep them under.

Francom's suggestion was good? I guess lying against the Lord is alright for Francom and Oracle.

Who is lying?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Before you get to the part where we agree it doesn't matter, what are you saying to a real live person? You are saying "I know you think you don't want the opportunity to make a choice in the afterlife as I know it, but I am so sure of my afterlife that I am going to bypass your wishes and do whatever I want regardless of what you say. Just to hedge bets on your behalf, ya know."

That, my friend, is disrespect of the clear wishes of Expositor.

Who is lying?

Im sorry if you feel it disrespectful. My beliefs dictate to me otherwise. Can I now claim you disrespectful because my beliefs contratdict yours?