Baptisms For The Dead

[Mudcat]

But, why would that be offensive in that sense? People in most religions believe that their religion is the right path and that others are not in the right path. And so they 'evangelize' or they 'witness' to others. It isn't offensive and judgemental to want what you believe to be the truth given to others.

I wished I could explain it better than I already have, but I don't think I can.

It may not make sense to you, that others are offended by this... but that does not nullify their feelings.

As a non-mormon, do you believe the LDS beliefs are good enough for Mormons to be saved in the Kingdom of God?

I consider the LDS I know personally, to be Christian.

[thesometimesaint]

What does it matter if some group after I am dead to mumble a few words, and claim I am now one of them? I really don't care.

[bluebell]

Incapable? Perhaps it is this brand of arrogance that turns people off.

I'm just going off of the discussions i have with people who disagree with the practice of baptism for the dead. I realize you were not part of the conversation so you can't judge, but honestly, there is no other way to describe their behavior except for 'incapable' of seeing it from any other view point but their own.

Whether or not i'm arrogant cannot be determined by an honest assesment of a conversation you have no knowledge of.

[Mudcat]

They are still too easily offend. Deal with it.

TSS:

Is it that they are to easy to offend?

Or is that LDS find being offensive (in regards to proxy baptism) to easily justifiable?

[Catholic Girl]

But, why would that be offensive in that sense? People in most religions believe that their religion is the right path and that others are not in the right path. And so they 'evangelize' or they 'witness' to others. It isn't offensive and judgemental to want what you believe to be the truth given to others.

As a non-mormon, do you believe the LDS beliefs are good enough for Mormons to be saved in the Kingdom of God?

Which is why the Vatican mandated Catholic parishes to not "cooperate with the erroneous practices" of Mormons.

[selek]

Again. The offending party is deciding whether its actions are offensive.

Your gums keep flapping, but you're still not saying anything.

We understand that others find our efforts offensive.

The question asked, however, was WHY.

If you don't have anything to say towards answering the question, find another thread in which to leave your spoor.

[bluebell]

What does it matter if some group after I am dead to mumble a few words, and claim I am now one of them? I really don't care.

I agree with TSS. People can baptize me into any group they want after i'm dead. If the 'membership' has no mortal consequences for me or anyone that i love, there is logically, in my opinion, no reason to care.

If they were baptizing me out of love and honest concern about my soul, then not only would i not be offended, i would be thankful for their love, even if i felt their actions were misplaced.

It's the same reason that i don't get offended when the JW's come to my door or someone of another faith sincerely offers to pray for me because i'm mormon and they are worried about my soul. Though i know their actions imply that they believe i'm wrong and can't see the true errors of my ways and that i need 'help' from THEM to find God's truth, i see no reason to be offended.

I'm more offended by people who believe i'm going to hell and don't care and don't expend any of their personal energy to try to save me, honestly. THAT'S the ultimate unChristian attitude in my opinion. They obviously don't love me as they love themselves in any sense of the word.

[Garden Girl]

they are giving proxy baptisms because they believe the beliefs of others are invalid.

Mudcat...

No one thinks you're an idiot...

Not so much invalid, as incomplete...

And yes, we do believe in proper priesthood authority...

How is Mrs. Mudcat feeling? I hope she will be comfortable and healthy these next months... all good wishes to you both...

from the beach on a windy, rainy day... The Garden Girl

[Flyonthewall]

Baptism for the dead has nothing whatsoever to do with the deceased's mortal beliefs. It is simply an act done on behalf of the dead. The dead can accept or reject it. If they would not have accepted it here, then feel confident that they will not accept it there.

Would I object if a family member of mine was in an accident and a Catholic priest was on the scene before me and performed the "last rites" for them? Absolutely not. If the Catholic church were to use the LDS church's geneoligical data base and perform last rites for all LDS people, it would not offend me.

I do not believe a Catholic priest has any priesthood authority to do anything that will impact me or my family members' beliefs in the afterlife....and I am sure that Catholics feel the same about mormons. (I'm not trying to single out Catholics, substitute "Catholic" with any other faith, and it would be the same).

[Garden Girl]

If it's true (as the article suggests) that even a small number of Holocaust victims are still finding their way into temples despite the Church's good faith efforts to prevent it, I

IIRC Michael W, the agreement was that LDS would not use Holocaust records in general, regardless of family lines... but that individual Church members would continue to do ordinance work for their immediate pedigree lines, and if some happened to be Holocaust victims, so be it.

Garden Girl

[abqfriend]

I believe the Catholic Church has officially spoken on the issue and given their reasons why.

Please consider respecting their wishes on the matter.

FYI-Catholic Priests do not perform the Last Rites of our Church on everyone at any accident scene or tragedy.

We consider such Rites as Sacraments of our Church.

Sacraments are sacred-and we treat them that way-as sacred.

Once again-it is all about respecting the religious traditions of another-even if you do not agree with them.

-Carol

Baptism for the dead has nothing whatsoever to do with the deceased's mortal beliefs. It is simply an act done on behalf of the dead. The dead can accept or reject it. If they would not have accepted it here, then feel confident that they will not accept it there.

Would I object if a family member of mine was in an accident and a Catholic priest was on the scene before me and performed the "last rites" for them? Absolutely not. If the Catholic church were to use the LDS church's geneoligical data base and perform last rites for all LDS people, it would not offend me.

I do not believe a Catholic priest has any priesthood authority to do anything that will impact me or my family members' beliefs in the afterlife....and I am sure that Catholics feel the same about mormons. (I'm not trying to single out Catholics, substitute "Catholic" with any other faith, and it would be the same).

[Kyle]

This issue just like many others, seems to deal with people's rights. Does the LDS churh have the right to baptize people after they died? They think so.

Here's my question to LDS members. Will baptism for the dead continue in the second coming? If so, why is it so important to do it right now?

[selek]

This issue just like many others, seems to deal with people's rights. Does the LDS churh have the right to baptize people after they died? They think so.

Here's my question to LDS members. Will baptism for the dead continue in the second coming? If so, why is it so important to do it right now?

Because there's a lot of work to do and only a limited amount of time to do it.

The Second Coming is a major milestone, not the end of the road.

[Koneko]

Perhaps as a convert I can shed some light as to why the offense. Before I converted my very very dear Great Aunt passed away. She had been a Catholic Nun her whole life, and a very spiritual and dedicated person. She was a great example to her family and in fact was a lot of the reason I ended up converting to Mormonism eventually. I was extremely upset after she passed away. My husband in an attempt to make me feel better tried to explain what he believed would happen to her after death. This was all very comforting until he got to the part about performing ordinances for her. To someone who did not understand the gospel or the ordinances themselves this was shocking! It felt like a betrayal of all that she was. I felt I would be dishonoring her memory. Here was this woman who dedicated her life to the Catholic Church and my husband wanted to make her a Mormon!

What we eventually discussed put my mind at ease, but not every person in the world has a loving LDS partner to explain the ordinances and beliefs. They only info they come across is inaccurate at best. What finally convinced me that nothing was wrong with performing these ordinances was when my husband explained free agency to me. That each person upon hearing the full gospel had the CHOICE whether they would accept the ordinances. The ordinances are not done to them, but rather for them. And furthermore that each person retained their personality in the hereafter. So if my Great Aunt found these ordinances to be unnecessary or offensive, she could simply say no thanks. I also didn't realize that the church makes no record as to whether the person has accepted or rejected the ordinances. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe we consider them LDS just because they have the work done for them.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who does not fully understand your intentions. There are alot of emotions attached to death, and in fact even the traditions of where one's family comes from. To them, it seems as though you are aggressively converting people when they are not living and able to say no for themselves. Of course, I understand now that this is not the case. But not everyone takes the time to research or understand the philosophy behind vicarious ordinances. It's alot of work for people who mostly are uninterested in Mormonism and want nothing to do with it themselves or for their ancestors.

[abqfriend]

So-even if you tread on another Religion and wish private records from that religion-no matter how you may offend that Religion---is tht OK or Justified?

I have no problem with a member of the LDS seeking Public records-but I have a big problem with some wishing to tread on other religion in seeking Private church/synagogue/mosque records or similar.

-It is all about respect of anothers Religion.

-Carol

Because there's a lot of work to do and only a limited amount of time to do it.

The Second Coming is a major milestone, not the end of the road.

[cksalmon]

It's a matter of respect, to my thinking.

If a group consistently insists that LDS not perform vicarious baptisms for its deceased, isn't that enough?

On the other hand, I hereby grant exclusive permission for any temple-worthy Latter-day Saint anywhere in the world to perform vicarious rites for me, Chris Salmon, in the inevitable event of my death.

Personally, I believe it to be a colossal waste of time, energy, and resources, eschatologically bankrupt, and futile. I have no problem donating my permission in pursuit of its ultimate, eschatological debunking. Faithful temple-going LDS, after all, could be doing much worse things with their time than engaging in fruitless rituals on my behalf.

cks

[Koneko]

Carol,

I agree, I think that we should only use records that are freely given. I don't believe any of us wish to roll over the Catholic church on our way to the Millenium. I would guess the conflict comes from mixed families and acquaintances where some individuals feel it is their right to share information that they have on their family regardless of what the original source is. I'm not sure in that case if the rights of the individual supercede the rights of the author? That's a tough one, hence why I'm glad both churches are working together to come to an amiable solution. There is alot of work to be done, but it must be done righteously and in good faith, for we believe it is God's work.

[Thunderfire]

Baptism for the dead has nothing whatsoever to do with the deceased's mortal beliefs. It is simply an act done on behalf of the dead. The dead can accept or reject it. If they would not have accepted it here, then feel confident that they will not accept it there.

I hope my comments are taken in the spirit in which they are given. A few months ago I was taken in the "night visions" and taught an extraordinary lesson by the Lord.

In the vision I was standing over a man filled with a demonic presence and I was "battling" the demon and pulling it out of the individual. Just about the time I had it completely out, the Lord stopped me. Actually, he pleaded with me to stop which really puzzled me (because I thought I was doing this man a great favor). Basically, I was going against the agency of the man and this is something that even the Lord would not do! While this is an authority granted us, I was required to seek the persons permission first or wait for him to ask me before I could do this.

There is more to the lesson, but this is enough to share regarding this topic of baptism for the dead. We do this for the dead because we believe it really does have eternal ramifications! We say that the individual can choose to accept it or not, but in the vision, the person had no choice in the matter (I took his agency in the matter away)...the deliverance was done for him.

So is there really any difference between this and baptism for the dead? No, because it was already done for them. Now if angels came to earth with a list of those seeking this sacrament done for them, then it would carry more authority because it was requested by the dead seeking baptized. Again, I offer this in all loving kindness. Just offering another perspective to considerâ?¦

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

Really if some other group wants to mumble a few words about my soul, and claim I am one of them after I am dead, it doesn't offend me in the slightest.

Now if they try to coerce me while I'm am a living breathing person here on this earth. Then I will object it the strongest possible terms.

[Koneko]

There is more to a covenant than just the ritual. Just because someone was baptized does not necessarily mean that they will agree to or hold up their end of the agreement. There is the ritual, the acceptance, and also the follow through. That is a choice on each individual, not only to accept it but to live by it. We cannot do that for any other person. I respect your interpretation of your night vision, but proffer that in your dream God had not given you the authority to perform this act. That is not the case for ordinances performed by those who hold priesthood keys.

[LeSellers]

we need to look deep and ask ourselves how we would feel if the Baptist, Methodist, Catholics (or any denomination) started baptizing by proxy members of the LDS for similar reasons! Would it be a big deal or would we simply pass it off? My guess is that we would probably do the same thing and ask them to stop (believing that our baptism was sufficient).

I doubt it.

The very fact that we view their baptisms as ineffectual makes anything they do nothing but a waste of their time and other resources. They can have at it all they'd like.

In fact, since it would dilute their campaigns to convert us (by diverting resources from this to the other effort), I'd encourage them to do the wasteful, useless act, rather than one that would actually affect LDSs by prodding them toward apostasy.

Let them baptize, let them shake rattles, pour water on rocks, or whatever else they choose. It is a pointless endeavor, from our vantage point, but I would wish them well in their work. And let them expend as much of their resource base as possible in doing so.

The fact that they spend so much energy being offended in the first place and fighting against it in the second is, in my view, just another indicator that they must secretly fear the efficacy of our ordinances. (Although, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why. Even though we do baptisms for the dead, putting myself on their side of the argument, I cannot imagine anything they could do that would make me believe their hypothetical ordinances would have the least benefice.)

The weirdest thing I have heard about this, however, is that we do it to swell the rolls of Church membership. While the proxy confirmations do provisionally make them members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (contingent on their acceptance of the ordinances), their names never appear as members of the Church. But this lie still circulates among the more rabid and unthinking of our enemies.

Lehi

[selek]

It's a matter of respect, to my thinking.

If a group consistently insists that LDS not perform vicarious baptisms for its deceased, isn't that enough?

No- it is not.

There is no "Jewish authority" authorized to speak for all Jews everywhere- nor one for the Baptists, nor even one for the Mormons.

No one has the right to deny anything on behalf of others simply because they were members of a certain group.

If someone wishes to perform a rite on my behalf, I can reject that rite- you have no authority to accept or reject it for me.

And when you consider that the Church guidelines specify that the work must be done by family members, it becomes clear that we have as much claim to those names as the people agitating against the work.

If I wish to do the Temple work for my grandmother, who are you to tell me no? If I wish to do the work for my great-great-grandmother, who is fit- and legitimately authorized- to deny me?

The United States Constitution is very, very clear: your religious beliefs in no way constrain mine- except where they would interfere with yours.

If you believe sincerely and earnestly that the moon is made of cheese, my belief that it is made of rock in no way constrains yours.

My belief that proxy-baptisms are both efficacious and desirable is in no way trumped by your belief that they are not.

Your belief that proxy-baptisms are foolish, offensive, or even blasphemous does not trump my First Amendment rite to conduct them.

I find it interesting that those screaming loudest about our pluralistic society and the need for respect seem to view those values as license to interfere with my Constitutional rights.

Personally, I believe it to be a colossal waste of time, energy, and resources, eschatologically bankrupt, and futile. I have no problem donating my permission in pursuit of its ultimate, eschatological debunking. Faithful temple-going LDS, after all, could be doing much worse things with their time than engaging in fruitless rituals on my behalf.

cks

Condescension aside, thank you.....thank you.......thank you for not interfering in my God-given and Constitutionally protected right to worship as I please.

Your gracious, and ever so generous resistance to theocracy shines past the condescension and sneering.

Thank you....thank you.....oh, thank you....!

[cksalmon]

Thank you....thank you.....oh, thank you....!

You gots a quote in there that ain't mine, selek.

Also, my question was not a constitutional one, FYI--just a very general one.

Best. (Whoever thought I wanted to abrogate anyone's constitutional rights in the first place? Good gravy.)

cks

[Flyonthewall]

I believe the Catholic Church has officially spoken on the issue and given their reasons why.

Please consider respecting their wishes on the matter.

FYI-Catholic Priests do not perform the Last Rites of our Church on everyone at any accident scene or tragedy.

We consider such Rites as Sacraments of our Church.

Sacraments are sacred-and we treat them that way-as sacred.

Once again-it is all about respecting the religious traditions of another-even if you do not agree with them.

-Carol

Forgive my ignorance on Last Rites, I was merely trying to illustrate a point.

I believe the LDS church goes out of their way to respect the religious traditions of others. However, as has been brought up in a previous post, one of our beliefs is that we must redeem the dead by doing proxy work for them.

I have Catholics in my family tree. These are my family members. Do I not have the right, moral or otherwise, to perform proxy work on behalf of my own family? In doing my geneological work on my family, it may require me to use Catholic records to track down my own family. I would not be going into Catholic records with the intent to do work for everyone in those records, but just the people belonging to my family. Is it not possible for me to use Catholic records in the search for my family, and still respect Catholic tradition?

[selek]

You gots a quote in there that ain't mine, selek.

Also, my question was not a constitutional one, FYI--just a very general one.

Best. (Whoever thought I wanted to abrogate anyone's constitutional rights in the first place? Good gravy.)

cks

Thanks, misplaced a 'quote' tag.

It's fixed now.

And no- I don't think you wish to abrogate our Constitutional rights, but there are clearly others who do.