Baptisms For The Dead

[abqfriend]

I know that Baptism by proxy for the dead is an ordinance of your church-and I highly respect your church's teachings and doctrines.

There is much good about the LDS faith tradition-its history and people.

I have no problem with your desire to carry out your work.

My only concern was in the initial OP where the writer gave a link as to other churches/synagogue not wishing to release Private Records. The OP wondered why another faith tradition would care.

Other faith traditions do care about their Private records-and it is their choice to keep them private if they desire-that is the issue I see.

So-Baptize all you want using public records and geneology records publically available.

I applaud your efforts-in wanting to carry out the work you feel is asked of you.

-Carol

I am apathetic towards other churchs concern. At most I find it silly that they even care. If they believed their church was true and correct then what we do as LDS does not matter, but still they mettle.

I agree with Mormon Mason when he replied to Zakuska;

What else could it be? They are just whining, yes I said whining and could careless about hurting your feelings. Yes, I know that's not very Christian of me but I have never claimed to be perfect and until that day comes I will just say how I feel now.

We as LDS will never change this BFD one of our fundamental doctrines and yield to outsiders who have been offended.

Oh I'm sorry that offends you well let me change heaven forbid I offend someone anyone... cant you see the silliness?

I am offended about transubstantiation please stop that unholy and non scriptural doctrine. If this were true your church is not going to stop and I really am not offended that you believe this. I sleep at night and I have not visited even one RCC message board to complain or voice my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't empathize because anyone demands it from me. Empathy should not be confused with capitulating or being weak.

Nor should it be confused with granting that they have a rational case when they, in fact, do not.

[selek]

So-Baptize all you want using public records and geneology records publically available.

And that's the heart of it Carol.

We've never done otherwise- all of the geneological records we've used have either been publically available or were shared with us willingly.

[JDave]

Nor should it be confused with granting that they have a rational case when they, in fact, do not.

Would you please state what degree of empathy is deserved, if any? If someone has concerns with baptisms for the dead, can someone empathize with them and still be following our Savior's example?

You seem to be fighting against everything I say, even with my statements that are merely agreeing with things you have said. You seem to be tightening your defenses when I am standing inside the fort with you. What exactly are you worried about with what I am proposing? That someone might move from empathy to sympathy to agreement? Right now you're just leaving me guessing and perplexed why you seem so antagonistic.

[LeSellers]

Would you please state what degree of empathy is deserved, if any? If someone has concerns with baptisms for the dead, can someone empathize with them and still be following our Savior's example?

In most cases, empathy has some use, some value.

I can't see how it would accomplish anything here. It could be little more, in my view, than meaningless hand wringing and "tut, tut, it'll all be okeh."

Sympathy would be even worse.

We can explain what we do, how we do it, and why it's important. It is up to them, those who choose to be offended, to improve their mental states, because there is nothing we can do for them that will make them feel better about it.

There are people who are offended by a cheeseburger.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

JDave:

Nothing wrong with empathy, but it should not override every other consideration.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you please state what degree of empathy is deserved, if any?

I look at it this way: When someone is wrong, I don't do him any favor by pretending he is not wrong or that his lack of understanding in the matter makes his stance in any way acceptable. I would not want to be so patronized.

[Scott Lloyd]

I only just now saw this post from yesterday:

What part of "The deceased may accept or reject the ordinance" do you fail to understand?

It is a pointless comment. If you did not believe that it is required for a person's salvation, why do it at all?

I do believe it is required for a person's salvation. If I'm wrong, I've merely wasted my time; the deceased person is not harmed in the least. If I'm right, the deceased person is still not harmed by my action, because he retains his freedom of choice in the matter. So what's all the complaining about?

I leave the judgment to God.

Which requires no work to be done for the dead.

God has decreed that everyone must receive the ordinances for salvation -- including baptism -- and that living proxies are to perform them in behalf of the dead. So yes, work for the dead is a requirement.

But again, if I'm wrong, that's my business. No one is being harmed by my actions: not the deceased person, and certainly not you.

As a Catholic, I could never say one prayer for the dead. We do so because we believe God hears our prayers, not because we believe it is required for that persons salvation.

You must think it makes some difference, or you wouldn't do it. But whether or not you think it is required for the person's salvation, it is matter between you and God. No third party has a right to tell you who or what you can or cannot pray for or to otherwise interfere in the matter.

Same with Mormon vicarious ordinance work for the dead.

I am only commanded to extend the opportunity by performing the ordinance.

fine.

I take, it then, that you will refrain from vilifying Mormons for the harmless practice of their religious beliefs in this matter.

[saemo]

God has decreed that everyone must receive the ordinances for salvation -- including baptism -- and that living proxies are to perform them in behalf of the dead. So yes, work for the dead is a requirement.

So I understand you believe.

I take, it then, that you will refrain from vilifying Mormons for the harmless practice of their religious beliefs in this matter.

Probably not.

When someone is wrong, I see no reason to pretend they are right.

[LeSellers]

When someone is wrong, I see no reason to pretend they are right.

And you are free to imagine we are wrong.

You are also free, but wholly illogical, to be offended when we perform an act which you believe is completely useless. You are free to hinder our doing so (as long as that hindrance does not involve fraud or violence), but you are totally unreasonable to demand that we stop doing it because it hurts your sensibilities.

Lehi

[saemo]

And you are free to imagine we are wrong.

You are also free, but wholly illogical, to be offended when we perform an act which you believe is completely useless. You are free to hinder our doing so (as long as that hindrance does not involve fraud or violence), but you are totally unreasonable to demand that we stop doing it because it hurts your sensibilities.

Lehi

Fraud or violence? Hi, I'm sitting at a computer typing. Did you get a paper cut or something?

I find no reason to be all warm and fuzzy over something I find unreasonable.

Anything else?

[LeSellers]

Fraud or violence? Hi, I'm sitting at a computer typing. Did you get a paper cut or something?

As long as you continue to use any method other than fraud or violence, you may do anything you like to convince me.

I find no reason to be all warm and fuzzy over something I find unreasonable.

You are free to imagine the our baptisms by proxy for the dead are unreasonable. We do not require nor request (nor even expect) you to "be all warm and fuzzy". You can be anything you choose.

But just as you need not feel warm and fuzzy, neither should you expect us to cave in to your obstreperous demands to stop being what we, at the innermost cores of our beings as Saints, are: doers of the word of God. He commands: we do. You need neither understand nor accept.

Just as a Catholic (not you, since you don't do such things) might pray for my soul in the expectation of its doing me some celestial good as he sees it, and, if, against all evidence, the Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ, and that prayer actually assists me in any way, I would be most grateful. When, however, it turns out that we are right, those persons for whom we have done this work will fall at our knees and kiss our feet for our efforts, irrespective of how they may have felt in this life.

Lehi

[saemo]

As long as you continue to use any method other than fraud or violence, you may do anything you like to convince me.

What the heck? Feeling paranoid tonight or what?

When, however, it turns out that we are right, those persons for whom we have done this work will fall at our knees and kiss our feet for our efforts.

Talk about imagination.

[Phinehas]

I understand that it is the LDS belief that persons for whom these vicarious baptisms are done will have a choice of whether or not to accept these baptisms done in their behalf.

It is my contention that there really isn't a choice to the whole thing.

I mean, IF these people are in eternal torment - a place like Spirit prison - or like the Luke 16 story of Lazarus and the rich man - who would NOT jump at the chance-- any chance-- to get the heck out of there???

Live like the ****ens their whole lives, but now they get a pass to heaven after they made their choices and lived their lives in an ungodly way?

That is not a choice but a wish! They probably cannot believe their luck!

Who would say NO to this???

It's like a get -out -of -Hell -free card. IMHO

Not something a Just God would condone

[Daniel Peterson]

In answer to a question about whether he would stop vilifying Latter-day Saints:

Probably not.

When someone is wrong, I see no reason to pretend they are right.

I hope saemo's being facetious, that he doesn't really believe that the opposite of pretending that someone is right -- the only genuine alternative to such insincerity -- is to vilify that person.

[Daniel Peterson]

Not something a Just God would condone

And not something that any knowledgeable and communicant Mormon would recognize.

It's a caricature of our doctrine.

[saemo]

In answer to a question about whether he would stop vilifying Latter-day Saints:

I hope saemo's being facetious, that he doesn't really believe that the opposite of pretending that someone is right -- the only genuine alternative to such insincerity -- is to vilify that person.

I don't believe I am vilifying. That is Scott Lloyd's assertion. I disagree with your practice and see no reason to agree with it. Or pretend that I do. Seems to me that if you call everyone who disagrees with you as slanderous...you'll have a hard life. Or maybe start believing that those who disagree with you are fraudulent and violent.

(fyi, saemo is a she.)

[SteubieU]

Okay, we'll trade...

we'll let you start baptizing our dead when you let us start baptizing your babies.

[SteubieU]

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?

The difference is that in no way did we ask you to cooperate in the action, nor would we because we recognize that you do not recognize "purgatory" or "praying for the dead" as valid.

If you want to "baptize the dead" in the privacy of your temples without in anyway involving us, feel free. Your false baptism does nothing to the souls of the people that you "baptize."

But don't expect me or Christ's Church to involve itself in false rituals. By doing that, you are asking us to admit that there might be some validity to your rituals. We don't believe that can in any way be the case... it is 100% impossible. That is part of our faith: we accept all that the Catholic Church teaches becauase it has been revealed by God and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. By asking us to participate, in any way, with you. you are asking us to admit the possibility that we might be wrong. In essence, you are asking us to betray the Catholic faith and, in consequence, God.

To sum up, we refuse to cooperate, not because of their souls, which you cannot touch, but because of our souls, which we can shipwreck to our own damnation.

[JDave]

I look at it this way: When someone is wrong, I don't do him any favor by pretending he is not wrong or that his lack of understanding in the matter makes his stance in any way acceptable. I would not want to be so patronized.

I can see where the confusion was. I had a long reply that I lost, but a short reply will work.

You are referring to sympathy, and I agree that it would be improper and patronizing. Sympathy would be having some agreement with another's plight, or regret for your actions.

I am talking about empathy, which is trying to understand another's feelings -- seeing things from someone else's point of view. This does not require changing your point of view, nor does it validate their point of view. It is merely the start of a conversation.

The OP asked why anyone would be upset about it. Several people responded why. It seems some people are trying to explain away their feelings, but it doesn't make much sense. They feel the way they do and we can either understand it or not. After all, aren't we arguing that they should try to understand our point of view as well? Do we expect empathy but not reciprocate?

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, we'll trade...

we'll let you start baptizing our dead when you let us start baptizing your babies.

You'll let us start baptizing your dead when there's freedom of religion.

Which, whaddya know?, there is, at least where I live.

And I know of several cases where babies born to LDS parents in Catholic hospitals have been baptized. But I don't know of any Mormon who's made much of a fuss about it.

[SteubieU]

You'll let us start baptizing your dead when there's freedom of religion.

Which, whaddya know?, there is, at least where I live.

And I know of several cases where babies born to LDS parents in Catholic hospitals have been baptized. But I don't know of any Mormon who's made much of a fuss about it.

Daniel,

all I'm saying is that you should not expect us to participate in your rituals, which we consider false, heretical, damnable. It's ridiculous to expect us to help you out to baptize as many people as you want. Do whatever the heck you want. All I know is that, if the last moments of my death, an angel of light appears to me and offers me a gospel any different from that of the Catholic faith, I will reject them for the sake of my soul, God-willing.

[LeSellers]

all I'm saying is that you should not expect us to participate in your rituals, which we consider false, heretical, damnable.

Damnable?

Wow!!

We see your baptizing our infants* in your hospitals as a needless waste of your efforts.

* Thank you, Dan, for helping me remember this event.

Most of us would, I'm sure, look at it as a gracious gesture (however meaningless), and even thank you for your concern.

Actually, at least at one point back in the 50s or 60s, any employee of a Catholic Hospital involved with a child who was "fixin' to die" (in the words of one of those LDS employees) was required to baptize the child. The employee was my mother's Visiting Teacher, and I overheard the conversation. It has always struck me as incompatible with any concept of Priesthood authority. But that's another question.

Please do not talk to me about getting people to participate in false, heretical and wasteful rituals.

It's ridiculous to expect us to help you out to baptize as many people as you want. Do whatever the heck you want. All I know is that, if the last moments of my death, an angel of light appears to me and offers me a gospel any different from that of the Catholic faith, I will reject them for the sake of my soul, God-willing.

Which is, of course, the LDS position: neither you nor anyone else will be required to accept the Gospel, nor to accept the baptism or other Temple work we will do for you. It's our gift to you. You can refuse it, and we will not be hurt if you do not receive it. But we will not defy God when He has asked us to lend a hand to each of His children.

Lehi

[SteubieU]

Damnable?

Wow!!

We see your baptizing our infants* in your hospitals as a needless waste of your efforts.

* Thank you, Dan, for helping me remember this event.

Most of us would, I'm sure, look at it as a gracious gesture (however meaningless), and even thank you for your concern.

Actually, at least at one point back in the 50s or 60s, any employee of a Catholic Hospital involved with a child who was "fixin' to die" (in the words of one of those LDS employees) was required to baptize the child. The employee was my mother's Visiting Teacher, and I overheard the conversation. It has always struck me as incompatible with any concept of Priesthood authority. But that's another question.

Please do not talk to me about getting people to participate in false, heretical and wasteful rituals.

Which is, of course, the LDS position: neither you nor anyone else will be required to accept the Gospel, nor to accept the baptism or other Temple work we will do for you. It's our gift to you. You can refuse it, and we will not be hurt if you do not receive it. But we will not defy God when He has asked us to lend a hand to each of His children.

Lehi

LeSellers,

again, the problem is not you doing these rituals. The problem is you asking us to help you do them. Of course we are not going to help you do something that we think is heretical and damnable. And no, I don't use that word lightly. Truth leads to salvation. Error leads to damnation.

If I was in a hospital or any other situation, and I saw a baby or young child dying, and I knew their parents were LDS or agnostic or atheist or any other religion and unbaptized... well, I'm not going to ask anyone's permission, I'm just going to baptize the child. It is a matter of salvation, and I don't care what anyone says or thinks. However, I'm not going to go up to the parents and expect them to hand the child over to me to do something they think is wrong and useless. Nor am I going to grudge the Baptism if, afterwards, I receive some sort of penalty for doing something that the parents did not want me to do to their child. I don't expect any sympathy from them for my actions... I simply did what was right.

That's one thing I've noticed on these boards... LDS like to play the victim. If you think you have the truth, then suck it up like a follower of Christ. Remember that Christ spoke no word of reproach to those who crucified Him. He did not say, "But I just came here to save you from your sins." He just took the punishment without opening his mouth. Don't expect to receive sympathy from the world or others that you consider false religions. I don't.

[LeSellers]

again, the problem is not you doing these rituals. The problem is you asking us to help you do them. Of course we are not going to help you do something that we think is heretical and damnable. And no, I don't use that word lightly. Truth leads to salvation. Error leads to damnation.

Yet, in thousands of cases (and I believe throughout the RCC), "you" allowed us to microfilm your records. Unless you believe that "you" were so incredibly n