Baptisms For The Dead

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Here's one I've used in the past. I'm about to exit a store. A stranger approaches the door, her arms full of groceries. Out of courtesy, I hold it open for her. Unbeknownst to me, there is a bystander who is a 1970s-style feminist. She tears into me for being a male chauvinist pig and berates me for presuming that the person wanted the door held open for her.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Certainly as much right as others have to assume that the deceased person would not want the vicarious ordinances performed for them, ordinances which, according to Mormon belief, they are free to either accept or reject.

[Anijen]

I have always found this argument ridiculous from the side that wants to fight against LDS baptism for the dead.

1) First off it is a non LDS who wants us to stop.

a. Why should we even listen other than being courteous?

b. Its not like they believe in our church and we are going to convert their ancestors (from their point of view).

2) Isn't this like us telling the Catholics not to pray to Saints because we don't think that is the correct way to pray?

a. What do you think their response to us would be?

b. Should we accept their response as what dictates our actions as members?

c. Should they out of politeness stop that practice?

[Garden Girl]

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.

Hello Thinking...

It doesn't work that way... people are not sealed willy-nilly... family units are sealed, i.e. parents, children of a "family line" through the generations.

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

Hello Thinking...

It doesn't work that way... people are not sealed willy-nilly... family units are sealed, i.e. parents, children of a "family line" through the generations.

GG

It's another case of creating an irrelevant scenario as an analogy in an effort to make it seem more sensational. Reminds me of those who compare what we do to devil worship. They ugly it up as much as possible in an effort to give their case greater validity.

[Anijen]

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.

It by no means sends that message, if you knew LDS theology it would send a message as what nerve but the original invalid, hardly.

Are you offended, then whos fault is that yours or your neighbors?

[abqfriend]

Thank you for sharing.

It is simply showing respect toward another faith tradition than your own.

In my opinion-The Catholic/Jewish/Orthodox, etc. etc. are not the enemies of the church or linked somehow to Satan.

It is just about showing respect toward the Private records of another faith tradition than your own.

-Carol

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.

[Hoops22]

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?

Great. Then you'll have all kinds of tolerance for those who prosyletize in ways you find uncomfortable.

[Anijen]

Thank you for sharing.

It is simply showing respect toward another faith tradition than your own.

In my opinion-The Catholic/Jewish/Orthodox, etc. etc. are not the enemies of the church or linked somehow to Satan.

It is just about showing respect toward the Private records of another faith tradition than your own.

-Carol

At what cost? To the point of eliminating a basic doctrine of our church just to be respectful? Do I expect the EV to stop telling me I am going to hell or I am not a Christian out of respect. Do I expect the Catholic church to change its transubstantiation because I feel its is wrong and I'm offended?

[Scott Lloyd]

Great. Then you'll have all kinds of tolerance for those who prosyletize in ways you find uncomfortable.

Such as lying about and otherwise misrepresenting Mormon belief? Such as denying the Christianity of professed Christians? That's not the same thing, and I think you know that.

[Anijen]

Great. Then you'll have all kinds of tolerance for those who prosyletize in ways you find uncomfortable.

Yes, I believe we as members of tCoJCoLDS do show an extraordinary amount of tolerance already, but thanks for noticing. We may not like the different ways they choose to proselyte but we do not take that choice away from them or ask to have that choice taken away from them either.

[Zakuska]

Thank you for sharing.

It is simply showing respect toward another faith tradition than your own.

In my opinion-The Catholic/Jewish/Orthodox, etc. etc. are not the enemies of the church or linked somehow to Satan.

It is just about showing respect toward the Private records of another faith tradition than your own.

-Carol

I was unaware that these where "Private Records". All births deaths marriages etc are registered with the state and are public record.

[abqfriend]

Posting this again-as my first got lost.

I personally would not pray for the soul of any deceased who is LDS. That would be imposing my religious views on another faith tradition.

Should my Curch pray in such a manner-and was asked to stop such a practice-my guess is they would oblige.

In the case of the late Gordon B. Hinckley-whom I greatly admired-I would pray for his family and the LDS Church at large in their time of need.

Praying for someone in public or private is quite different than requesting the records of a deceased Catholic from the Catholic Church then baptizing them by proxy by a temple recommend member in a Temple ordinance of the LDS Church.

Catholics do not pray for someone to "see the error of their earthly ways." They too well already know them-as they have been Judged. This is some of the "pain" of purgatory. Catholics pray and offer Masses for their deceased in Purgatory in our hope and prayers and vicarious good works that this person will go to heaven. This Christian person will never go to hell, but he will progress to heaven.

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?

[abqfriend]

I did not know that a doctrine of your church included asking for the Private records of deceased members of the Catholic Church or Jewish Synagogue.

Much information that is publically available on people-including my own deceased parents is publically available.

So the infringement is on another Private record request of another religious tradition.

By all means-perform your Temple ordinances-but do not tread on the religious faith of others in doing so-and ask to be given Private records of another faith tradition.

-Carol

At what cost? To the point of eliminating a basic doctrine of our church just to be respectful? Do I expect the EV to stop telling me I am going to hell or I am not a Christian out of respect. Do I expect the Catholic church to change its transubstantiation because I feel its is wrong and I'm offended?

[LeSellers]

I did not know that a doctrine of your church included asking for the Private records of deceased members of the Catholic Church or Jewish Synagogue.

We do ask. The other party is always permitted to say, "No."

Of late the Catholic Church has done so. There were no tantrums, although I have to admit that there was a certain level of confusioin, since this refusal was new at the time. They, the RCC, were quite happy in the past to share their records because we gave them something of value in return: we made a microfilm copy of the records for ourselves, and gave them one as well.

It was not as though they did not know what we were doing and why we were doing it. Only recently has this become a problem. And, as I said, it is perplaxing as to why.

Lehi

[Zakuska]

I fail to see how offering help in preserving records = "treading on the religious faith of others in doing so"

If you don't want the help... thats fine. But don't take my rights away of offering help.

[abqfriend]

I think the problem may have been lack of uniformity. Perhaps some Dioceses/Churches were allowing it-and others did not-so to be uniform in its approach-the Church had to give an official pronouncement on the matter.

-Carol

We do ask. The other party is always permitted to say, "No."

Of late the Catholic Church has done so. There were no tantrums, although I have to admit that there was a certain level of confusioin, since this refusal was new at the time. They, the RCC, were quite happy in the past to share their records because we gave them something of value in return: we made a microfilm copy of the records for ourselves, and gave them one as well.

It was not as though they did not know what we were doing and why we were doing it. Only recently has this become a problem. And, as I said, it is perplaxing as to why.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Posting this again-as my first got lost.

I personally would not pray for the soul of any deceased who is LDS. That would be imposing my religious views on another faith tradition.

Pray all you like and for whatever you like; I don't mind. My point is that saemo exhibits a double standard when doing such a thing while objecting to Mormons doing what essentially has a similar intent.

Should my Curch pray in such a manner-and was asked to stop such a practice-my guess is they would oblige.

It is inconceivable to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would ever make such a request. To do so would be unreasonable, in my opinion.

In the case of the late Gordon B. Hinckley-whom I greatly admired-I would pray for his family and the LDS Church at large in their time of need.

And such a prayer would be appreciated, I'm sure.

Praying for someone in public or private is quite different than requesting the records of a deceased Catholic from the Catholic Church then baptizing them by proxy by a temple recommend member in a Temple ordinance of the LDS Church.

What goes on in Mormon temples with the performance of vicarious ordinances is also a private matter which harms the deceased person or his relatives not at all and which, in the view of Mormons, only offers the deceased person an opportunity to receive blessings, an opportunity he is free to reject.

Catholics do not pray for someone to "see the error of their earthly ways."

That's not the intent of vicarious temple ordinances.

[LeSellers]

I personally would not pray for the soul of any deceased who is LDS. That would be imposing my religious views on another faith tradition.

No, it would not.

"Imposing [your] beliefs on another faith tradition" would involve guns and compulsory attendance at Mass. Your prayer affects me or the one for whom you would pray not in the least. I'd say, "If you feel so inclined, please, go ahead." At worst, you will have wasted your time and energy. At best, if you're right, who knows what good it would do? If you believe it would be beneficial, it seems you are being selfish for failing to do so.

We LDSs do baptisms and other ordinacnes for the dead out of a sense that these acts will be of immense worth to the principals. We send a huge amount of money and immeasurable amounts of time doing it. It does us no tangible good, but we do it because we believe, as I have said, that it may be useful, worthwhile, to those for whom we dedicate those resources.

If others are offended, their offense is an issue for them to deal with. There are people who would be offended at a cheeseburger. That does not mean I have to forgo my favorite sandwich, even if my grocer is orthodox Jewish.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I think the problem may have been lack of uniformity. Perhaps some Dioceses/Churches were allowing it-and others did not-so to be uniform in its approach-the Church had to give an official pronouncement on the matter.

As I recall, it was back in the '60s, the Catholic Church was very eager to have us preserve their records. And it was a general RCC approval. I'd have to check, but my uncle and aunt (both now deceased) were a part of the teams that did German records from Catholic churches.

Lehi

[OMWO2]

First of all I am a "postmormon" having resigned formally almost 3 years ago. My wife and 4 children also left. However, we have a LARGE extended family who are almost all LDS. So when my wife and I pass will my family members (brothers, nieces/nephews) be doing our work? My wife and I were endowed temple married couple. IF we are rebaptized by proxy and work is done for us what would be the point? Anyone have experience or knowledge of the policy and procedure? Thanks.

[abqfriend]

Yes, I would like to see that reference.

If it were a general RCC approval there would be a Vatican link on the subject as all general RCC approvals come out of the Vatican.

-Carol

As I recall, it was back in the '60s, the Catholic Church was very eager to have us preserve their records. And it was a general RCC approval. I'd have to check, but my uncle and aunt (both now deceased) were a part of the teams that did German records from Catholic churches.

Lehi

[saemo]

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."

We do not believe that anyone has an automatic pass to Heaven. All sin.

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.

We are not asking the deceased if they want to be Catholic. We are not asking them anything, at all. We are asking for God to recognize the good the person has done and to have mercy re: their sins.

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.

You think? I believe that God will judge you, for who you are, and you may very well be in Heaven. If I were to pray for you, it would be that God judges you with mercy and forgiveness. There is no belief on my part that you need to believe anything of the Catholic Church, at all, in order for my prayer to be heard.

LDS on the other hand believe that a good Catholic, who leads a good life needs to accept a baptism that is in direct conflict with the beliefs they held throughout their lives, in order to be with God. How is this less presumptious?

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?

No you may not assume...as it is clear here that you do indeed find our prayers for Pres. Hinckley offensive, as you indicate below....

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.

[Zakuska]

We are asking for God to recognize the good the person has done and to have mercy re: their sins.

Isn't that exactly what Mormons are doing... in a more literal way... washing away their sins in the blood of the Lamb (ie the waters of Baptism)?

[saemo]

Isn't that exactly what Mormons are doing... in a more literal way... washing away their sins the the blood of the Lamb?

You are doing more than that, you are enforcing a requirement that an already baptized Christian must accept a Mormon baptism in order to be with God. (And, using our baptismal records in the process!)

We are not enforcing anything on the deceased.