Baptizing Dead Quakers

[Sky]

I believe the thing that irritates people the most about the LDS practice of Baptisms for the Dead is the implication of the LDS having exclusive authority to baptize in the first place.

The idea that a person must be baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to receive a fullness of salvation, and that any other baptism performed by any other church is essentially invalid, just rubs people the wrong way. And in a way I can understand why it would.

The LDS practice of Baptism for the Dead for every soul that ever lived is both exclusive and inclusive at the same time.

I personally feel that it’s a beautiful doctrine and practice, even though it is widely misunderstood. Many people don’t realize that the person being baptized for still has their agency – or the ability to accept or reject the ordinance performed on their behalf.

The New Testament is clear on the requirement of baptism:

John 3:5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Glenn101]

If it is absolutely meaningless, then why did the LDS church agree to quit performing baptisms for the dead for Jews killed in the Holocaust? Obviously, a number of Jewish organizations, and the LDS church themselves, do not consider these actions meaningless, and in fact, a number of Jewish organizations found these activities to be downright offensive.

The question is, logically, why would anyone object to something they believe has absolutely no effect in this life or the next?

Would an atheist object to having proxy baptism done for any of their ancestors?

Glenn

[Calm]

So they admit that our proxy baptism has power?

Interesting argument.

The person writing the article was agnostic so I doubt very much that was the position being taken.

As far as Quakers, it looks more about making a personal choice not to be baptized, much like JWs (IIRC) refuse to take oaths. It is not that the baptism has actual power, it is seen as inappropriate to undergo a (false) rite of baptism.

[Log]

This sounds good, until you factor in that people have LOTS of relatives and there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name.

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

[Calm]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

It is unfortunate that some may have to balance their concerns about their living relatives with their dead ones, if we truly believe that the ordinances will be welcomed by our dead relatives, do we have the right to delay them receiving the chance? Is it worth them waiting in hopes of softening the hearts of those now living, but rejecting of the faith?

I think this must be decided by the individuals directly involved in each case through prayer and hopefully family discussion, but I would never suggest a family member not inform another who has charge of the records of their purpose in asking for them, if the records are their family stewardship, they have a right to know what is meant to be done with them, imo.

[Sky]

My understanding is that in order to be able to perform a baptism on behalf of a deceased person – at least 95 years has to pass from the time that person died. You have to be able to verify their identity – or prove that they are a real person and that they really lived on the earth.

The only exceptions to this rule are if the person was your direct relative (such as a parent or grandparent), or if you happen to get permission from a living relative. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.

95 years or more may seem like a long time to have to wait to be baptized, but it’s really only a speck in the grand scheme of eternity. No matter how long it takes, it will get done, and everybody will have the opportunity. It’s only fair and it is God’s work.

[Log]

Is it worth them waiting in hopes of softening the hearts of those now living, but rejecting of the faith?

The Church has already answered that question in the affirmative.

[Sleeper Cell]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

“Arrogance” is not a word I associate with Bluebell.

[Jeff K.]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

Family can be offended by a number of different acts. And it is true, no one member or groups of members in a family have exclusive rights to decide what the person is doing in the next life, or for that matter what someone might do to their name in this life. I do think that such issues should be handled with a sensitivity for all involved, but in the end the spirit will dictate how the one family member feels.

We do not shout these things from the tops of our lungs, we do not hold the names out in pride, these are private family matters and should be treated as such. I do think in the past the church has been more vocal regarding baptisms for the dead when perhaps it should have treated it more as a family matter rather than something more public. It perhaps should be much more private than it was, and is much more private now.

[mfbukowski]

While I totally understand the LDS frustration in not seeing the harm in performing Baptisms for the Dead, members should be consistent in not being offended if they have satanic family members perform similar intentions. My experience says that many LDS would prefer these intentions to not be performed though.

Just saying....

I would have not control over such nonsense, and believe it would have no power. In fact it might be kind of funny.

So go ahead with my relatives if you like! Knock yourself out!

[Calm]

The Church has already answered that question in the affirmative.

While it has discontinued some proxy baptisms for a specific group, it has continued them for others in spite of protests (for example, in the case of Russian Orthodox IIRC) so it would seem that it has answered in the negative as well...and if members were to follow its lead, it would seem appropriate to decide on a case by case basis.

[Scott Lloyd]

While I totally understand the LDS frustration in not seeing the harm in performing Baptisms for the Dead, members should be consistent in not being offended if they have satanic family members perform similar intentions. My experience says that many LDS would prefer these intentions to not be performed though.

Just saying....

I agree with you about consistency. But my experience contradicts yours. I have never seen a Mormon object in principle to proxy baptism by other faiths. In fact, the attitude I have consistently seen from my fellow Latter-day Saints is that reflected in my sig line (and in mfbukowski's post above).

[Scott Lloyd]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

Suppose I am Catholic and want to pray in my Catholic way for my departed relatives. Do I refrain from doing so just because some of my living relatives who are anti-Catholic object to it? At what point does freedom of religion/conscience enter into the picture? Would you call me arrogant just because I as a Catholic desire to exercise my freedom to worship or engage in religious rites as I see fit?

[Scott Lloyd]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

Here's another hypothetical scenario.

A beloved relative has passed away. You have a relative whom we shall call Cousin A. Due to a deep-seated antipathy toward the LDS faith and a general ignorance about LDS belief, Cousin A objects to having temple work performed for the departed relative. To accommodate Cousin A's feelings, you agree not to have the temple work performed.

But you have another relative whom we shall call Cousin B. Cousin B is a Latter-day Saint. She had a very close relationship with the departed relative. She loved him deeply and mourns his passing intensely. It would bring her great comfort to have the temple ordinances performed for the departed relative, though she knows the choice is entirely his on the other side of the veil whether to accept the work.

Out of sensitivity for the way Cousin A feels, do you try to talk Cousin B out of having the ordinance work done? Do you regard Cousin B as arrogant because, out of love, she wants to have the temple work done? If so, what gives the feelings of Cousin A precedence over or greater claim on your respect than the feelings of Cousin B?

[Robert F. Smith]

It does not matter if you, whoever you are, can rationalize that "there is no good reason for one family member to believe they have sole claim on the use of an ancestor's name." They feel differently! In the end, the Gospel is about creating happy families, who like to be together, and who knows, but by your arrogance in your conduct towards their feelings about their family, you will offend some such that they will not embrace the Gospel, at least on this side of the veil. Rationalizations don't cut it in the realm of reality.

In the 2nd century B.C., when Yehuda the Maccabi and his troops came upon the bodies of recently killed Jewish warriors, they sought to bury them. On each body of the slain, however, they discovered small pagan idols hidden under their coats. Since this was not in keeping with Jewish Law, Yehuda took up a collection so that a sin-offering could be made on behalf of the dead sinners at the Temple in Jerusalem, i.e., making a vicarious atonement for those dead so that they might be delivered from their sin on behalf of the day of their resurrection. As the King James Version of II Maccabees 12:43-45 puts it,

And when he had made a gathering throughout the company, to the sum of two thousand drachmes of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well, and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.) And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly. (It was an holy, and good thought) whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

As in I Corinthians 15:29, the rationale for vicarious atonement is the resurrection, and that was the whole point of the sacrificial rites at the Jerusalem Temple anyhow. Indeed, the late James Barr frankly stated that St. Paul must have had this Maccabean incident in mind when he wrote that obscure item in I Corinthians. The parentheses in the KJV quote, by the way. are original and not inserted by me.

[Robert F. Smith]

However, there is also the problem that LDS believe that their past relatives who sought God to the best of their abilities in the past would desire to continue to seek God to the best of their abilities in the next life, we don't believe their attitude is identical to what existed in this life...as this individual imagines....so we are presented with the problem of do you deprive your dead of what they desire because it will offend your living?

My thought also.

I have a large number of direct relatives who were hard core Methodist and Presbyterian ministers going back several centuries. I have made sure that LDS temple work has been done for all of them and their families, and much of it I have done personally -- including my own grandpa and his eldest son, who were both Methodist ministers. In fact, when I was young, that latter uncle of mine used to complain to me bitterly that Mormons were "sheep stealers," but I was too young to argue the point effectively with him then. However, the fundamental goodness of these men was never in question and I feel certain that they have accepted their endowments on the other side. It is a great solace to me that those families who so much enjoyed each other's company in this life will be together in the next.

Once when I finished baptizing and was in the midst of confirming another of my Smith relatives (a man who had served 26 years as a Methodist missionary to Japan, Korea, and Manchuria before WW II), I was nearly overcome and speechless -- realizing by that witness of the Holy Spirit that he was one of God's noble and great ones, a man who never hesitated to devote his entire life to God.

[Flyonthewall]

If anyone objects to Proxy baptism for the dead that we perform, why don't they perform their own ordinance/ritual to nullify it?

I don't mean this in any disrespectful manner, but wouldn't that give everyone peace of mind?

Those that object can feel better knowing they nullified our ordinance, and we wouldn't mind because we know they don't have the authority to do so.

[mfbukowski]

Suppose I am Catholic and want to pray in my Catholic way for my departed relatives. Do I refrain from doing so just because some of my living relatives who are anti-Catholic object to it? At what point does freedom of religion/conscience enter into the picture? Would you call me arrogant just because I as a Catholic desire to exercise my freedom to worship or engage in religious rites as I see fit?

As a convert, all of my blood relatives are Catholic; my mother passed away last year. I paid the priest to have masses said on her behalf because I knew she would want that, and I know her relatives have done the same. Obviously I have no objection to that, since I myself paid to have some of the the masses done.

Additionally, we will soon have her temple work done, and if we had a Buddhist or a Hindu who wanted to remember her in their way, I would have no problem with it.

I suppose some of her relatives would object to me doing her temple work, and in fact I have found some of my Catholic relatives reticent to help me with genealogical information because they suspect, correctly, that I would use it to have further temple work done for others. I would be glad to discuss it with them, of course, if it ever came up- but it is the 800 pound gorilla in the room no one discusses

I chalk it up to their misunderstanding, and lack of willingness to even listen to my side of the story.

I can't understand why one who believes their religion is correct- and why would you join or be a member of a religion which you do not think is "correct" in some way- would think that some OTHER religion would have power over their dead ancestors!

If that other religion has such a power why don't you join it?? On the other hand, if you believe YOUR religion has such a power, why would you worry about anyone else also having such a power?

To me, frankly it is kind of silly to worry about who is uttering the name of your dead ancestors. If you think you can summon spirits, what does that have to do with me?

[cdowis]

I would prefer my name to not show up on any Baptism for the Dead list even if there is no harm in performing it. But I know as a technically 6th generation family member, the chances are slim to none that my wishes would be honored.

This is interesting. Since all temple work has to be done thru new.familysearch.org, it is technically possible to lock out a name from ordinances being performed. If you feel strongly enough, I think you could lock out your name from having ordinances through the web site.

Why don't you look into it and let us know what happens.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

I don't know for sure but I don't believe just anyone can do that. I pretty sure you have to have a church member number to enter Temple Work in to the system.

[Storm Rider]

While I totally understand the LDS frustration in not seeing the harm in performing Baptisms for the Dead, members should be consistent in not being offended if they have satanic family members perform similar intentions. My experience says that many LDS would prefer these intentions to not be performed though.

Just saying....

So, I should be offended when a Catholic prays to one of their Saints in my behalf? I should equally be offended if my Muslim friend prays to Allah to bless me? In fact, I should be offended if a anyone that is not LDS prays for me? This logic really faulty and boils down to a single issue, I will be offended if I choose to be and I will not be offended if I choose not to be.

[Storm Rider]

cdowis:

I don't know for sure but I don't believe just anyone can do that. I pretty sure you have to have a church member number to enter Temple Work in to the system.

That is correct.

[blueadept]

So, I should be offended when a Catholic prays to one of their Saints in my behalf? I should equally be offended if my Muslim friend prays to Allah to bless me? In fact, I should be offended if a anyone that is not LDS prays for me? This logic really faulty and boils down to a single issue, I will be offended if I choose to be and I will not be offended if I choose not to be.

It is apples and oranges in trying to compare what the purpose a Catholic praying for a soul in minimizing the time one has in purgatory (because they are guaranteed that the next stop is heaven irregardless) versus the intent LDS have in performing Baptisms for the Dead for their ancestors. Catholics should have no issues with other faiths praying for their dead. IMO, this is not the reason why LDS perform proxy baptisms so it's not a reasonable comparison IMHO.

[ELF1024]

It is apples and oranges in trying to compare what the purpose a Catholic praying for a soul in minimizing the time one has in purgatory (because they are guaranteed that the next stop is heaven irregardless) versus the intent LDS have in performing Baptisms for the Dead for their ancestors. Catholics should have no issues with other faiths praying for their dead. IMO, this is not the reason why LDS perform proxy baptisms so it's not a reasonable comparison IMHO.

Uh... ok... then what is the reason (IYHO) that LDS perform proxy baptisms....

(unlike the government we don't get tithes or votes from dead people *grin* )

[blueadept]

Uh... ok... then what is the reason (IYHO) that LDS perform proxy baptisms....

(unlike the government we don't get tithes or votes from dead people *grin* )

While you may disagree, associating baptisms in regards to membership of a church is not a stretch of the imagination. Due to my divorce with my LDS wife last year, please don't mind if I prefer not having the ties to the LDS church irregardless of what my LDS portion of the family may do for me.