Baptisms For The Dead

[Koneko]

You are asking for Private Church records of a Catholic from a Catholic parish or similar. I think respect should be shown.

I agree that respect for the keepers of such personal records should be shown, and personally I would not request or use such records that I did not have permission for. I am aware that this situation is probably your most common dealing with LDS baptisms for the dead. However, having done a moderate amount of family research myself, I personally have never had occasion to request them. And I have quite a few Catholic relatives on all sides. Generally these things can be found through other methods such as government and family records. Although, I am sure these records would be very helpful to us, hence why they are pursued, I agree that we should respect your decision to not to share them unless an amiable agreement can be reached. Do you also strike issue with those names acquired through family or other avenues, or is it mostly a matter of respect for the privacy of information given to one's chosen church? That much I understand. However, I have many ancestors who have no indication of religion. It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario to avoid any baptisms of any Catholic member without knowing that the Catholic church records them as being Catholic.

I do respect your beliefs, and your right to privacy, but not necessarily your wishes. As your wishes don't respect my beliefs. It's a difficult scenario indeed to resolve conflict when both sides are acting according to what they believe God asks of them. Which makes it even harder if at all possible to compromise, for who would compromise their beliefs? I guess if this were an easy compromise both Churches would have done so long ago.

[Calm]

That's what I was thinking. To be so against the idea of LDS doing baptisms for the dead one must have some belief (conscience or subconscience) that LDS baptisms have SOME validity.

I don't think it has to be that way (though some appear to feel even acknowledging the existence of authority as viewed within an organization gives it power over you (I have heard this given as a reason to not go through the process of having one's name removed as that would mean to that individual that the Church had some authority over oneself and that name on the record actually meant something). It could be viewed much like taking someone's name in vain, using it with vulgarity, etc....that has no power over that person but is still seen as insulting.

They may also see it as a refusal to respect someone's choices in their lives....kind of like you're at a restaurant with your family including your parents and your mom insists the waiter changes your order to chicken and a salad when you've already ordered that 1/2 lb of steak with fries on the grounds that she thinks it's better for you...and you are 40 years old with your own kids and are even paying for the meal for everyone and....well, just keep adding stuff until you can imagine yourself getting annoyed and even insulted by her actions even if the waiter is ignoring her.

OTOH, since LDS do not believe our choices end with this life, we see it as respect to give someone this choice that they may not have received effectively yet, if at all, iow we see it as inviting people to a feast and putting them names on an invitation list but they can refuse to come or come and not join in the feast or join in for part of it and not the rest or be a full participant and move in so the feasting can continue 24/7.

[Scott Lloyd]

In our last discussion about this, I brought up that at our parish, we prayed for the soul of Gordon B. Hinckley, during Mass.Some LDS were quite offended at this, and it isn't even a rite (or ordinance), only a prayer.

I have some recollection of that discussion. I don't remember Latter-day Saints taking offense. I do remember some sense of inconsistency where one would, on the one hand, pray for the soul of President Hinckley while, on the other hand, object to LDS performing proxy temple rites for the dead, when both have essentially the same intent.Perhaps you can link us to an instance of a Mormon taking offense, as my memory may be clouded by the passage of time.

They were dumb to be offended, in my opinion. It just goes to show that just because someone is offended by something that we do, doesn't mean the act itself is actually offensive.

Please see my post. I don't believe saemo's recollection of the discussion is altogether accurate.

[Scott Lloyd]

In our last discussion about this, I brought up that at our parish, we prayed for the soul of Gordon B. Hinckley, during Mass.

Some LDS were quite offended at this, and it isn't even a rite (or ordinance), only a prayer.

An LDS proxy ordinance for the deceased is not binding unless the deceased person accepts it.

I don't know whether that's considered to be the case with a Catholic prayer for someone's soul.

In either instance, I don't see that any harm is done.

[bluebell]

Parish records are an indication that the person chose Catholicism, you are second-guessing your ancestors, which is disrespectful to many cultures.

No offense meant by this, but, if i understand correctly (and i might not so feel free to correct if i've got it all wrong) but aren't parish records from centuries ago a collection of who was baptized as an infant into the Catholic church and not an automatic endoresment of that person's actual faith?

Also, speaking about records that are centuries old, can lack of other religious choices really be an indication of what that person would have chosen had other options been available?

I can recognize that the Catholic church has the right to do what they will with their private records and i have no doubt that many people in those records died firm in their faith of the teachings of the Catholic church. I really don't have any ill feelings about such things.

It seems a stretch though for the Catholic church to claim that all people who are recorded in their parish records (again, if i correctly understand what parish records are) have proven that they died believing that the Catholic church was God's true church on the earth.

Even the LDS church acknowledges that just because someone it's on it's roles doesn't equate to them having a full testimony in the truthfulness of the church.

[bluebell]

I have some recollection of that discussion. I don't remember Latter-day Saints taking offense. I do remember some sense of inconsistency where one would, on the one hand, pray for the soul of President Hinckley while, on the other hand, object to LDS performing proxy temple rites for the dead, when both have essentially the same intent.Perhaps you can link us to an instance of a Mormon taking offense, as my memory may be clouded by the passage of time.

Well yes, when you put it that way, it does come across as hypocritical of Catholics to pray that someone will see the error of their earthly beliefs in the afterlife while also suggesting that LDS desires for the same thing through baptism for the dead is disrespectful of their beliefs.

For the Catholics in the discussion, how do you reconcile the apparent contradictions in such cases?

[Koneko]

As a former atheist, if I found myself in after life being taught about God, there wouldn't really be any question that God exists.

It isn't a question, at that point of whether He exists, it's a question of whether you choose to follow him and obey his laws. Even many LDS may not be able to do so. Certainly many who have been raised with a different religious point of view will also have difficulty in accepting it. And there are those who don't believe they need or want God's help.

If you did a proxy baptism for me or any of my non-LDS relatives now, while we are living, I would be livid. I can't imagine it would be any different when I am dead.

When my sister and I were young (and agnostic I might add) we used to play a game where we would baptize each other in the swimming pool. As I remember we heard a friend got baptized and it sounded like a good idea. We wanted to save each other and I think we even did it to a few of our friends so that they would be saved too. Would you be pissed at a young friend of your child's who did such? Even though you believe it to have absolutely no meaning? In God's eyes we are all children. I guess I don't see why it's any different for you to say no thanks than it is for me to turn the Jehovah's Witnesses away from my door. Whether it is now, or in the hereafter. They are doing what they feel God wants them to, in order to help me. Their intention is a righteous one. And I appreciate their sincerity and their faithfullness even if I disagree with their doctrine and beliefs.

You seem very nice, but when it comes down to it...I'd rather have you livid with me than have God livid with me. If it has no effect on your eternal salvation, and the issue is the herecy...should not you leave it to God to be livid with me?

[Stargazer]

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

I think I understand why some people don't like what the LDS do. But if I decide to pray for you in the privacy of my home, Thinking, are you entitled to forbid me from doing so?

Edited to add: I believe the Catholic Church is entitled to do anything it likes with its records. Including keeping them out of LDS hands. But if the LDS happen to baptize Pope John Paul II by proxy, I'd say it would be something well within the rights of the LDS who did so. And if someone wants to hold a memorial Mass for me after I croak, I see nothing wrong that, either.

[Thinking]

An analogy: My mother and father are happily married and live long lives, but eventually pass on. After some time, a neighbor decides that her sister who has passed on would have been a better spouse for my father and vicariously marries her to him. Am I offended? Absolutely! The vicarious marriage, like a vicarious baptism, sends the message that the original was invalid.

[saemo]

No offense meant by this, but, if i understand correctly (and i might not so feel free to correct if i've got it all wrong) but aren't parish records from centuries ago a collection of who was baptized as an infant into the Catholic church and not an automatic endoresment of that person's actual faith?

Also, speaking about records that are centuries old, can lack of other religious choices really be an indication of what that person would have chosen had other options been available?

I can recognize that the Catholic church has the right to do what they will with their private records and i have no doubt that many people in those records died firm in their faith of the teachings of the Catholic church. I really don't have any ill feelings about such things.

It seems a stretch though for the Catholic church to claim that all people who are recorded in their parish records (again, if i correctly understand what parish records are) have proven that they died believing that the Catholic church was God's true church on the earth.

Even the LDS church acknowledges that just because someone it's on it's roles doesn't equate to them having a full testimony in the truthfulness of the church.

We see in an infant's baptism the faith of the parents. Also, they are in communion with the whole Church, including us, today.

You also use our marriage records which are seen the faith of a couple.

These records are part of our Sacred Tradition, as they testify to the faith of Catholics and the living Church through the ages.

[Daniel Peterson]

An analogy: My mother and father are happily married and live long lives, but eventually pass on. After some time, a neighbor decides that her sister who has passed on would have been a better spouse for my father and vicariously marries her to him. Am I offended? Absolutely!

Really?

Wow.

I would just find it strange. And then I'd forget about it.

[saemo]

For the Catholics in the discussion, how do you reconcile the apparent contradictions in such cases?

A prayer to God is not an assumption that what the deceased had believed or devoted their whole life to was in vain because they were not Catholic.

You, on the other hand, are doing a rite for the deceased person that is based on a belief that that person's beliefs were useless.

[Daniel Peterson]

You, on the other hand, are doing a rite for the deceased person that is based on a belief that that person's beliefs were useless.

Do I believe that Catholicism is useless?

I guess that's why I keep coming here: I'm always learning new things.

[saemo]

It isn't a question, at that point of whether He exists, it's a question of whether you choose to follow him and obey his laws. Even many LDS may not be able to do so. Certainly many who have been raised with a different religious point of view will also have difficulty in accepting it. And there are those who don't believe they need or want God's help.

These are the choices of the living, not the dead.

When my sister and I were young (and agnostic I might add) we used to play a game where we would baptize each other in the swimming pool. As I remember we heard a friend got baptized and it sounded like a good idea. We wanted to save each other and I think we even did it to a few of our friends so that they would be saved too. Would you be pissed at a young friend of your child's who did such? Even though you believe it to have absolutely no meaning?

A child's game is not the same a religious teaching. I think you know that.

In God's eyes we are all children. I guess I don't see why it's any different for you to say no thanks than it is for me to turn the Jehovah's Witnesses away from my door. Whether it is now, or in the hereafter. They are doing what they feel God wants them to, in order to help me. Their intention is a righteous one. And I appreciate their sincerity and their faithfullness even if I disagree with their doctrine and beliefs.

The JW's aren't throwing water on you as soon as you open your door pronouncing your baptism...and oh by the way do you accept it?

You seem very nice, but when it comes down to it...I'd rather have you livid with me than have God livid with me. If it has no effect on your eternal salvation, and the issue is the herecy...should not you leave it to God to be livid with me?

Well, I would be livid and ask God to help me forgive you.What God does with you is up to Him.

Do I believe that Catholicism is useless?I guess that's why I keep coming here: I'm always learning new things.

It is obvious you believe it is so, otherwise you wouldn't feel a need to do rites for our dead.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is obvious you believe it is so, otherwise you wouldn't feel a need to do rites for our dead.

Whatever.

I have to admit that I always find it amusing when others presume to inform me what I believe. But, for some reason, such people don't appear to get the joke. (Of course, I guess that's why they do it in the first place.)

[cjcampbell]

People may give all kinds of excuses (and that is exactly what they are) about why they do not want us performing baptisms for the dead. But the real reason they oppose this ordinance, and nearly everything else we do as well, is that it is different from what they do. Therefore, it must be evil. Therefore it must be stopped. Therefore they have to come up with excuses for believing that it is evil and must be stopped. They cannot appeal to God or the scriptures -- God and the scriptures do not support their view. Neither do the doctrines of their own religions support their opposition to us. So, in order to explain what is little more than outright bigotry, they have to come up with 'reasons,' but 'reason' has nothing to do with it at all.

The key, you see, to understanding their motives is to understand the order in which they do things:

First: Be offended, even when no offense is intended.

Second: Invent some excuse to justify being offended.

That is what is going on here. Everyone knows it. The people who are offended by the fact that we have not yet been wiped off the planet would find some other excuse to be mortally offended by us if we stopped practicing baptisms for the dead tomorrow.

[LeSellers]

These are the choices of the living, not the dead.

Unless you believe the dead cannot make choices, then there is no reason to suppose that anything we do (with the caveat that it must be accepted by the principal) has any effect whatsoever. If they cannot make choices, the whole issue becomes moot, since it is our doctrine that they can.

The JW's aren't throwing water on you as soon as you open your door pronouncing your baptism...and oh by the way do you accept it?

Assuming it isn't mid winter when this happens, so what? I'd say, "No," and that would be the end of it. (Ignoring the fact that the Witnesses use full-immersion for their baptismal ritual, making your scenario rather obtuse.)

Well, I would be livid and ask God to help me forgive you.

He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is still a fool.

What God does with you is up to Him.

That is either very pragmatic or very condescending of you. Either way, I suppose we should be grateful.

It is obvious you [all LDSs or just Dr. Peterson?] believe [Catholicism] is [useless], otherwise you wouldn't feel a need to do rites for our dead.

"Useless" is a very strong word. There are dozens of alternative positions. That you cannot understand this is not because of anything we have done or failed to do.

Lehi

[Lightbearer]

From the story found Here.

I know there has been the ongoing battle from the Jewish community and the church about doing proxy work for Holocaust victims. In the article above it states that even Catholic Dioceses worldwide were told NOT to allow Mormons to have the names of their members.

My question is, what's the big deal? If they don't believe the LDS baptism really has any merit/ effect, who cares if someone is dunked in the name of someone from another religion? Maybe I am just more laid back about it (which is why I am interested in your thoughts), but if some other religion got a hold of my name after I died and baptised me by proxy into their religion, I wouldn't care. Sure, partly because I would be dead , but my knowledge of the gospel is such that I know no other baptism other than one done with the priesthood authority matters anyway.

Does the outrage from non-LDS about proxy baptisms mean that, in reality, they actually DO believe there is some validity to a LDS baptism? If a LDS baptism is not recognized and of no value/ efficacy in THEIR eyes, why even worry about it?

I think it goes back to the war in heaven, Satan is a spiteful, vengeful being who wants everyone to be miserable like himself. It follows that he would inspire his servants to be just as spiteful and does all he can to rage in their hearts. I think it is that simple, why do the enemies of the Church come here to do battle? It is not to learn, it is to undermine faith, to mock and ridicule that which is sacred and holy. (I am not speaking of all nonbelievers or even all critics) I am talking about the spiteful hatefilled rabble that constantly lift their heel at the Lord's anointed who hate the restored Gospel and everything it stands for... that is why they oppose it.

[Koneko]

The JW's aren't throwing water on you as soon as you open your door pronouncing your baptism...and oh by the way do you accept it?

Saemo, I really don't mean offense when I say this, but I'm with Daniel Peterson on this one...I would just find it strange. Probably have a good chuckle about it and then forget about it. LOL thanks for the image though, that gave me a few minutes of giggles after a long day of work.

An analogy: My mother and father are happily married and live long lives, but eventually pass on. After some time, a neighbor decides that her sister who has passed on would have been a better spouse for my father and vicariously marries her to him. Am I offended? Absolutely! The vicarious marriage, like a vicarious baptism, sends the message that the original was invalid.

I'm either easily amused or thick skinned, because again I would find this downright hilarious.

[Hoops22]

[

People may give all kinds of excuses (and that is exactly what they are)

According to you. So that may or may not be a valid appraisal

about why they do not want us performing baptisms for the dead. But the real reason they oppose this ordinance, and nearly everything else we do as well, is that it is different from what they do.

Ah, so you have been in on the secret meetings. Or have at least some kind of surveillance device to gleen what the real reasons are. Heaven forbid you take them at their word.

Therefore, it must be evil.

That is quite a leap.

Therefore it must be stopped.

Well, yeah, I guess if it actually is evil, then we all should work to stop it. Is it evil? You say no. But, perhaps, others differ.

They cannot appeal to God or the scriptures

Certainly they can. And do.

-- God and the scriptures do not support their view.

Really. Millions tend to view it as at least unusual. many of those use scripture as support.

Neither do the doctrines of their own religions support their opposition to us.

Actually, it is those very Biblically based doctrines that do exactly that.

So, in order to explain what is little more than outright bigotry,

More persecution. Because we/they do not want you to perform a foreign ritual on our/their members YOU are the one being persecuted. Does your beaker of abuse have no top?

they have to come up with 'reasons,' but 'reason' has nothing to do with it at all.

Sure they do. You just don't like the reasons.

The key, you see, to understanding their motives is to understand the order in which they do things:

Okay, let's use this key to unlock some understanding.

First: Be offended, even when no offense is intended.

I see. So because you do not intend to offend then we/they should not be offended. Does that also hold true for the non-lds on this board? Or on Carm? I'm quite sure that many there do not mean to offend. Or is guaging offense the strict purview of lds?

Second: Invent some excuse to justify being offended.

Inventions are not necessary. It's plain as day and understandable.

That is what is going on here. Everyone knows it.

Really? I don't know it.

The people who are offended by the fact that we have not yet been wiped off the planet

What's with the death imagery here lately? You think we want to wipe you off the planet - a difficult proposition in its practicality indeed, despite the fact that this runs counter to what are cherished principles.

(We will casually stroll by another poster who, apparently, wants to line us up against a wall and shoot us.)

would find some other excuse to be mortally offended

No, mormonism doesn't quite have that reach. Yet. Do you know something we don't about exactly how long the tenticles of mormonism really is?

by us if we stopped practicing baptisms for the dead tomorrow.

Let's try it and see. You've been asked nicely by some in the Jewish community to stop. Isn't that enough?

[Zakuska]

Let's try it and see. You've been asked nicely by some in the Jewish community to stop. Isn't that enough?

Lets translate...

"You've been asked nicely by some in the Jewish community to stop practicing your religion. Isn't that enough?"

What is wrong with this picture?

PS. I hear Christians pray on tv all the time for the world to beleive in Jesus Christ. How is that any different than Mormons performing BFD?

[semlogo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most proxy baptism names submitted by direct relatives of the dead? Don't they have a right to submit the names of their own family members?

[LeSellers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most proxy baptism names submitted by direct relatives of the dead? Don't they have a right to submit the names of their own family members?

Would that it were so.

However, the Church has an official "Name Extraction [from publicly available records] Program". Once someone is dead over 99 years, he is presumed to have no living relatives near enough to have a legitimate claim to be able to object to the ordinances.

We, as a Church, must do this because we, as individuals, are not doing enough Family History work for our own ancestors and relatives.

Lehi

[cdowis]

An analogy: My mother and father are happily married and live long lives, but eventually pass on. After some time, a neighbor decides that her sister who has passed on would have been a better spouse for my father and vicariously marries her to him. Am I offended? Absolutely! The vicarious marriage, like a vicarious baptism, sends the message that the original was invalid.

Here is another analogy: Someone offers you a baloney sandwich, and you are offended. (is this person telling me I am full of baloney). You then tell this person that he can no longer make baloney sandwiches because he is "insensitive" and may offend someone.

[Scott Lloyd]

A prayer to God is not an assumption that what the deceased had believed or devoted their whole life to was in vain because they were not Catholic.

But surely you can see that, from an LDS perspective, the notion that the soul of someone like President Hinckley needs praying for is curious. As I said, though, the act doesn't bother me. Certainly it doesn't make me "livid."

You, on the other hand, are doing a rite for the deceased person that is based on a belief that that person's beliefs were useless.

Dr. Peterson has already addressed this quite well.

But you haven't addressed the question of whether a Catholic prayer for someone's soul trumps that person's own desires in the matter. Certainly, an LDS proxy rite for the deceased does not. If the Catholic prayer does, well, on a scale of presumptuousness, I would view that as much farther along than the Mormon temple rite.

And we've yet to see you link to an instance on the past thread where a Mormon supposedly took offense to your or your parish's prayer for President Hinckley's soul. Can I assume you are merely misremembering?

Finally, as I ponder the matter, I can't think of a better example of a double standard on this subject than praying for the soul of a prominent Mormon Church leader while at the same time objecting to Mormon rites that merely offer a deceased person the opportunity to accept ordinances of salvation. That this would make you "livid" is a reaction I find hard to sympathize with. Inscrutable, really.