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

[MorningStar]

I don't really understand the tenacity of believers arguing against Mr. Expositor's request. Considering the absolute impossibility of baptizing the entire Human Family, it seems a small request to leave out the minuscule number of people who object to it. For example, Pre-Columbian Americans didn't keep birth records. A steady population of several million, living and dying, generation after generation for thousands of years, all unavailable for proxy baptism. In fact, most of the people who've lived and died on this planet left no genealogical records, and many births and deaths still go unrecorded, making the goal of vicariously baptizing every last soul a fool's errand.

So, since you're never going to baptize everyone anyway, why not humor those who wish to opt out? Just add them to the millions upon millions of other people whose names will never grace LDS genealogical records. It's no skin off your nose, and it will make Mr. Expositor feel better, so why all the fuss?

We will have the whole Millenium to do the work for those there are no records for and we will have Heavenly help to do it. Remember, Jesus will be here during that time.

Expositor doesn't need to worry. His proxy baptism will be quick and painless.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't really understand the tenacity of believers arguing against Mr. Expositor's request.

I don't see his request as having any serious moral basis, and I don't believe that it has any practical possibility of being honored. He cannot seriously expect to bind potentially many thousands and tens of thousands of future relatives for centuries to come. There's no point in even thinking about such a thing, and, in any event, they will do him utterly no harm at all if they perform a vicarious ordinance for him.

Considering the absolute impossibility of baptizing the entire Human Family

Since we believe in angels, revelation, and a future Millennium, we don't believe it to be impossible. In fact, we see it as inevitable.

[Oracle]

It is non-invasive because neither his kin nor he can know what he will want after his death, and neither his kin nor he will likely be able to communicate about his preferences at that time, but his believing kinfolk will probably offer a postmortem baptism to him that he will continue to be free to reject if he so chooses. That's called religious liberty. People are free to pray, say masses, burn candles, spin prayer wheels, and baptize for anybody they want. Doing so hurts nobody.

If anything, it reduces the believer to a gamer. But, with Claremont's Stephen Davis, I don't think it does even that.

We will have to agree to disagree. I am betting that Expositor feels like this particular thread has been an invasion on his personal rights..as a living, expressing, lucid person. All of the part about people being able to do whatever they want on behalf of the dead is true enough. But Expositor is not dead. So he does have the opportunity to express his wishes while alive. And he does have that religious liberty to do so. Why is it the moment he is dead, his thoughts all of the sudden are free and open game for speculation?

I don't know Claremont's Stephen Davis. But I do believe that God, if there is one, is looking at the merits and values of a person's heart as opposed to a minute ordinance performed by proxy by someone else when determining an individual. If God gets hung up on these types of things, he's a God I'd not want to be associated with.

[Daniel Peterson]

We will have to agree to disagree. I am betting that Expositor feels like this particular thread has been an invasion on his personal rights..as a living, expressing, lucid person.

Should people have refrained from replying to him, lest they trample his rights?

Why is it the moment he is dead, his thoughts all of the sudden are free and open game for speculation?

For the same reason that, in a person's absence here in this life, with the passage of time and the change of circumstances it becomes less and less easy to guess what that person is thinking,

If God gets hung up on these types of things, he's a God I'd not want to be associated with.

Look on the bright side: If you ultimately conclude that you're wiser than God, and a better person, perhaps you won't have to associate with him. You can bid each other farewell and go your separate ways.

[Oracle]

We will have the whole Millenium to do the work for those there are no records for and we will have Heavenly help to do it. Remember, Jesus will be here during that time.

Expositor doesn't need to worry. His proxy baptism will be quick and painless.

Have you ever wondered why the burden of all of humanity's ordinances in this life seem to have fallen on less than 1% of the LDS population? Just think! Over 99% of all humanity have been blissfully unaware that "this life is the time to prepare to meet God!" Talk about a free pass. They have been able to live, breathe, act in any manner of unenlightened, uneducated ways. It's only the special less than 1% shlubs who are lucky enough to bear the enormous burden of taking care of these "necessary ordinances," so those who have gone on have the appropriate hall pass to the higher kingdoms.

Apparently this critical testing time of life isn't so critical after all. It's a little unfair, don't you think, that God hatched a Plan of Happiness and then only distributed it to the smallest minority of his children?

[Daniel Peterson]

Talk about a free pass.

If you think that growing up in medieval Europe, or as an Untouchable in Bombay, or as a suicidal nihilist in Sweden, or as a peasant in ancient China, constituted having a "free pass," you and I will, as you say, simply have to agree to disagree.

[MorningStar]

Have you ever wondered why the burden of all of humanity's ordinances in this life seem to have fallen on less than 1% of the LDS population? Just think! Over 99% of all humanity have been blissfully unaware that "this life is the time to prepare to meet God!" Talk about a free pass. They have been able to live, breathe, act in any manner of unenlightened, uneducated ways. It's only the special less than 1% shlubs who are lucky enough to bear the enormous burden of taking care of these "necessary ordinances," so those who have gone on have the appropriate hall pass to the higher kingdoms.

Apparently this critical testing time of life isn't so critical after all. It's a little unfair, don't you think, that God hatched a Plan of Happiness and then only distributed it to the smallest minority of his children?

It's a wonderful plan! Everyone on this planet who ever lived or will live will have an opportunity to accept the gospel. Whether they have a chance to hear it in this life or not, they have been through the trials of life. Some people believe that this life is the only chance to accept Christ, which is a real bum deal for people who never heard of Him. It's a privilege to take care of the ordinances because those are my brothers and sisters.

[Oracle]

Should people have refrained from replying to him, lest they trample his rights?

For the same reason that, in a person's absence here in this life, with the passage of time and the change of circumstances it becomes less and less easy to guess what that person is thinking,

Of course not. It would have been far more impressive, however, had his concern for being baptized after he "croaked" been met with at least a modicum of respect for his position. Believe it or not, there are people out there who put the LDS baptism by proxy along the same lines of the Satanic baptism I previously posted. Regardless of the authenticity or effectiveness of any of these baptisms, I think his concerns could have been acknowledged rather than dismissed because its much more fun to gamble.

Look on the bright side: If you ultimately conclude that you're wiser than God, and a better person, perhaps you won't have to associate with him. You can bid each other farewell and go your separate ways.

That is a bright side indeed! Just imagine, I've gone my entire years of parenting without killing any of my children, mass-drowning them because they so incensed me, insisting one kill another as a stipulation that the others be saved. I have managed to communicate with my children in such a way that they are clear on the directive and do not run in 20 different directions when given explicit instructions. I've taken great care to ensure my children are armed with the tools they need so they do not starve, go naked, get diseases or are left to wander homeless in this world.

There are many upsides to disassociation with this type of fellow, least of not a greater respect and value for life.

[Mighty Curelom]

Considering the absolute impossibility of baptizing the entire Human Family

Since we believe in angels, revelation, and a future Millennium, we don't believe it to be impossible. In fact, we see it as inevitable.

Which only makes genealogy work that much more absurd. If the total records of human existence will one day simply be magicked into existence, why are faithful Mormons wasting time collecting names the old fashioned way? It's like those awful game shows where each team has accumulated 100 or so points, and then the final question is worth 10,000 points, making the entire game up to that point superfluous.

What about a compromise? How about this: agree to baptize Expositor's soul during the Millennium. Since the Millennium will never happen, Expositor's wish is fulfilled, and you get to pass through life believing you'll get him in the end. Everyone wins.

[Baurak Ale]

Expositor: what is it you believe or imagine could happen to your soul in the afterlife if a lds proxy baptism is done on your name? I am curious what your thoughts are?

[Calm]

I actually attend the first church of beelzebub. We also have an ordinance that binds people by proxy, however the cool thing is in my church they don't have to be dead yet to bind people to the first church of beelzebub. I already have on record Daniel peterson, pahoran and charity. I am adding more each day to the church of beelzebub. They may not be interested now, but later oh boy they'll thank me for it.

I'll be happy to thank you now. It's quite kind of you to go to all this trouble.

[Pahoran]

It does seem to me to be a question of religious liberty.

Surprisingly, you are for once right. It is indeed a matter of religious liberty.

Among other things.

Does one have the right to determine the treatment of one's own soul?

Absolutely.

The LDS position that baptisms for the dead can either be accepted or rejected doesn't strike me as a very strong defense.

Y'know Curelom, if you had ever shown the slightest inclination to recognise a strong LDS defense, your failure to do so now might actually mean something.

But since you have shown yourself constitutionally incapable of recognising such, your present failure is merely what we expect.

An action is still being performed on a soul--the subsequent meaning of that action is irrelevant

The action can only possibly impact Expositor's soul if in fact LDS proxy ordinances are effectual. Which only happens if LDS truth claims are true.

American jurisprudence has determined that religious freedom is not extended to practices which involuntarily invade an individual's person. If such practices involving the physical body can be limited, it stands to reason that practices involving the soul could similarly be limited, especially in cases where the individual has expressed his will that his soul not be subjected to a religious ritual.

Regrettably, the Union of American Socialist Republics has yet to be established. Come that day, I'm sure the religious liberty of the Latter-day Saints will indeed be trammelled as much as even you could wish.

Until then, we still have religious liberty. And no lawmaker has yet been evil enough to try to pass a law that would prohibit us from mentioning the name of a deceased person in a private, harmless religious ritual.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Obiwan]

But what if it does? Suppose you croak and find out that the big G upstairs looks in your records and sees you are in a list that doesn't make it.

I don't suppose LDS members would like The Church if Satan baptising their members without a say in the matter for the same reason.

I think OUR level of "tolerance" is much higher than you give us credit. We wouldn't care one wit.

But, let's try to get you think more logically.

What actually occurs in a "baptism for the dead"?

1. A prayer is said.

2. An intersession on behalf of someone.

2. A sort of "kneeling" is done, but in water.

That's it....

So, if your being consistant. Why don't you whine to the Catholic Priest that you've known your whole life, that HE CAN'T kneel down and give and intersessory prayer for you, or your dead mother? Or how bout the Jew who bangs his head against the wall a 1000 times in prayer for whatever and whomever, or the Buddhist who writes your name on a paper and places in a Temple/Shine and proceeds to kneel and pray to and for you?

Yes, there's maybe a little more "symbolizm" used in what we do with the Baptizing and all, but are you getting at all that your making a mountain out of a mole hill?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It does seem to me to be a question of religious liberty. Does one have the right to determine the treatment of one's own soul? The LDS position that baptisms for the dead can either be accepted or rejected doesn't strike me as a very strong defense.

This is a great issue to show the true colors of anti-Mormons such as Mighty Curelom. His response strikes me as weak. I've already explained why.

So far LOaP has shown insensitivity, insincerity and rudeness...all in one thread. By their fruits, I suppose.

Isn't it sad that one would have to even think about resorting to such action in order to ensure his wishes are respected by his family.

[/sidestepping the issue]

[LifeOnaPlate]

I actually attend the first church of beelzebub. We also have an ordinance that binds people by proxy, however the cool thing is in my church they don't have to be dead yet to bind people to the first church of beelzebub. I already have on record Daniel peterson, pahoran and charity. I am adding more each day to the church of beelzebub. They may not be interested now, but later oh boy they'll thank me for it.

This joke was already made.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have a solution for Oracle, Mighty Curelom, Francom, and other critics in behalf of Expositor:

Perform an "un-baptizm" for Expositor, and anyone else you want. Don't forget to keep tabs on him until he's dead, wait a year or so, keep up on the records to know when he's proxy baptized, and then perform your own unbaptizm for him.

Everyone's happy!

[MorningStar]

I have a solution for Oracle, Mighty Curelom, Francom, and other critics in behalf of Expositor:

Perform an "un-baptizm" for Expositor, and anyone else you want. Don't forget to keep tabs on him until he's dead, wait a year or so, keep up on the records to know when he's proxy baptized, and then perform your own unbaptizm for him.

Everyone's happy!

*singing*

A very merry unbaptism to you, to you.

A very merry unbaptism to you,

It's great to drink to someone and I guess that you will do.

A very merry unbaptism to yoooooou!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Even better, you can perform an un-baptizm for the entire world and all who ever have or will live in it, all in one quick ceremony. Why not?

Or if that's too invasive, invent a "neutralizing" ordinance of some kind.

[RDL]

My 2 cents, because I've thought of this before.

I'm an ex-member, from a very faithful LDS family. I'm sure that as soon as possible after I die, me and my wife will (by proxy) be hurried through the temple ordinances. I don't like it. I've rejected Mormonism, outright. I find it (absolutely in its earliest form, and to a lesser extent its current form) offensive. I want nothing to do with it personally, I don't want to be associated with it personally. I find the thought of my name being uttered in a temple, and somebody being baptized in my place, disturbing. I don't want it to happen.

That's how I feel. I know most people on this board certainly don't feel that way, and think that I should not. But I do find just about everybody's dismissive attitude about Oracle's (and presumably my) affirmative desire not to be rushed through the temple by proxy to be pretty arrogant, and certainly thoughtless. The "if it's true, great, if it's not, it won't matter" argument avoids the point I think Oracle was making and the one that I do--I don't want it to happen, period. Your agreement with the reasons why really shouldn't matter. Like Oracle said, it's a matter of respect, which this thread has been entirely lacking.

And as to baptizing in the name of Satan, what's the problem with baptizing living persons into the Church of Satan by proxy? How would you feel if evangelicals started "saving" Mormons by going through LDS membership rolls and casting out devils by proxy, and then baptizing by proxy? Would you not be offended? Would you not be outraged if it was done on your behalf despite your attempt to stop it? Wouldn't the argument that it's harmless if it's bogus and great if it's not seem arrogant to you? How is that any different whether somebody is alive or dead?

Unfortunately, I think the notion of most here that Mormonism is "true" and eternal makes it difficult to understand why people like me would not want it to occur, and therefore rather dismissive of any request we'd make in that regard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, that is not the case as Mr. Expositor is still on the thread. I do think he is getting a much better understanding of the belief, however, by the tone and responses of those who are on this thread.

Well since I really cant speak for him. What do his post say? Have you read them? Care to summarize them? Im still amazed that you are trying to grind the axe here. Oh well. If some one says a prayer for me and I dont want them to then what. Can I make them not do it?

[selek]

Unfortunately, I think the notion of most here that Mormonism is "true" and eternal makes it difficult to understand why people like me would not want it to occur, and therefore rather dismissive of any request we'd make in that regard.

To the contrary- each of us understands why you feel as you do. Unfortunately, your aversion to the idea is no more binding upon our right to worship as we please than is your aversion to lima beans binding upon our dietary choices.

The odds are very, very good that your Temple proxy work will not be done anytime soon- nor by anyone you choose to harangue on these boards. The Church has been very clear- Temple work is to be done for our kindred dead. Names are to be submitted by family members.

Make your wishes clear to them, and it is up to them to decide whether to honor those wishes.

We no more likely to abandon the practice of proxy baptism on your say so than you are to give up breathing simply because we ask you to.

We understand your objections. We simply don't find them compelling.

If you decide to opt out, that's entirely your business. You should talk to the people responsible for your proxy work (ie, your descendents and relatives) instead of lambasting total strangers.

[SolarPowered]

Actually, there is a way to avoid posthumous baptism.

That way is to be baptised while you are still living.

[cdowis]

I actually attend the first church of beelzebub.

I sincerely hope that they are able to give you the support and friendship that you are seeking.

We also have an ordinance that binds people by proxy, however the cool thing is in my church they don't have to be dead yet to bind people to the first church of beelzebub. I already have on record Daniel peterson, pahoran and charity. I am adding more each day to the church of beelzebub. They may not be interested now, but later oh boy they'll thank me for it.

Why should I care? You can do pretty much anything you want in your religious practices, as long as it is not illegal.

That is what makes this country great.

And we expect the same freedom and consideration.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My 2 cents, because I've thought of this before.

I'm an ex-member, from a very faithful LDS family. I'm sure that as soon as possible after I die, me and my wife will (by proxy) be hurried through the temple ordinances. I don't like it. I've rejected Mormonism, outright. I find it (absolutely in its earliest form, and to a lesser extent its current form) offensive. I want nothing to do with it personally, I don't want to be associated with it personally. I find the thought of my name being uttered in a temple, and somebody being baptized in my place, disturbing. I don't want it to happen.

I am not convinced proxy work would even be worth performing at that point; it's not for a "second chance." That being said, I still think it's silly to worry about such things if you disbelieve in them to begin with. What's it to me if my name is uttered in heaven, earth, or hell? What's it to me if some person around the world after my death goes into the worst place in the world and mentions my name, etc.? If it is mumbo jumbo, what's it to me? Especially if I am dead, of all things! I realize this sounds insensitive. For that, I can only say I'm sorry I have to offend you by my beliefs, but methinks you are being over-sensitive on the issue. It is no different than someone calling me a nanny-nanny-doo-doo head. What do I care? Honestly?

Everytime I eat dinner at my grandma's house she tries to force feed me a large amount of vegitables, which I find to be quite repulsive. I know she does this because she loves me and is concerned for my health. I always decline, but nonetheless she still always offers. Some of my siblings have teased about this tendency of my grandmother, but as for me, what do I care? I hate veggies, but she's just doing what she thinks will help me. But what do I care? I just decline!

I know most people on this board certainly don't feel that way, and think that I should not. But I do find just about everybody's dismissive attitude about Oracle's (and presumably my) affirmative desire not to be rushed through the temple by proxy to be pretty arrogant, and certainly thoughtless.

To the contrary, I find it thoughtfull that someone would care enough to trouble about you after you've passed on. And if their work is all a hoax or in vain, what's it to you? Honestly, come on. Complaining about the issue is akin to me whining that my granny always tries to force her veggies on me, or whining that "billy is making faces at me!" Who cares if he does?

The "if it's true, great, if it's not, it won't matter" argument avoids the point I think Oracle was making and the one that I do--I don't want it to happen, period. Your agreement with the reasons why really shouldn't matter. Like Oracle said, it's a matter of respect, which this thread has been entirely lacking.

I don't believe it voids the argument at all, it sidesteps it. I really think it's childish to be that adamant about it like it is some gigantic deal, and all the Mormons just can't wait for you to die so we can waste our time trying to give you ordinances. I realize respect is lacking, but keep in mind conflicting opinions don't need to be disrespectful in and of themselves.

And as to baptizing in the name of Satan, what's the problem with baptizing living persons into the Church of Satan by proxy? How would you feel if evangelicals started "saving" Mormons by going through LDS membership rolls and casting out devils by proxy, and then baptizing by proxy? Would you not be offended? Would you not be outraged if it was done on your behalf despite your attempt to stop it? Wouldn't the argument that it's harmless if it's bogus and great if it's not seem arrogant to you? How is that any different whether somebody is alive or dead?

Quite the contrary, as I believe they possess no authority to perform such ordinances I most honestly couldn't care less. Not only would I not be offended, I'd be glad they accept the principle of proxy and see it's merciful applications, no matter how misdirected it is. It might cause me a moment of alarm, and then I say "who cares? That is their religion to do so, I don't have to accept it."

Unfortunately, I think the notion of most here that Mormonism is "true" and eternal makes it difficult to understand why people like me would not want it to occur, and therefore rather dismissive of any request we'd make in that regard.

I'm sitting at my desk right now calling you a nerd. Does that offend you? If so, you may be a little over-sensitive. Do you really care if I call you a nerd? What the heck do I know about you, anyway? It reminds me of Marty McFly, who couldn't stand to be called "yellow." He'd fight everytime, and why? It's not even a big deal!

What makes it difficult for me to understand is how someone could hate the LDS Church so bad, and disbelieve it so much, that they would make extreme efforts to go out of their way to not have the Mormons perform an ordinance they believe has no effect upon them, after they are dead, nonetheless!

Lastly, RDL: What is your real name? I will gladly promise you that I personally will never do any proxy work for you whatsoever, or encourage it by anyone else.

[cdowis]

If you decide to opt out, that's entirely your business. You should talk to the people responsible for your proxy work (ie, your descendents and relatives) instead of lambasting total strangers.

Well stated.

The responsibility for proxy work lies with the family. As you say, we will not give up our religion because someone objects or is "offended". Make your feelings clear to your family.