Church Toughens Stand Against 'Improper' Proxy Name Submissions

[Fly Fisherman]

http://www.mormonnew...-baptism-policy

http://www.deseretne...ubmissions.html

[Duncan]

well good for them! I wonder if the Bishops are to read this in sacrament meetings

[Calm]

Good.

[Zeta-Flux]

Bravo.

[blackstrap]

This seems to suggest that there is an effort by a few"zealots" (I really must stop such silliness) to intentionally submit improper names.I think that the Church should do its own geneological research on the holocaust names and put a permanent hold on any such names at least until the millenium.How the Church will disciple former members is unknown.

[Storm Rider]

I assume then that the Church accepts not doing the work for a set group with the understanding that during the Millenium the work will be done for them anyway. I must say that I bristle at bowing to any outside influence when it comes to the saving ordinances of Eternal Life. Policies already exist to prevent these types of things (the 100 year rule for example). This is one of those things that I will accept, but do not understand.

[BCSpace]

This seems to suggest that there is an effort by a few"zealots" (I really must stop such silliness) to intentionally submit improper names.

Maybe. But there are also ex Mormon zealots as well:

[Calm]

I assume then that the Church accepts not doing the work for a set group with the understanding that during the Millenium the work will be done for them anyway. I must say that I bristle at bowing to any outside influence when it comes to the saving ordinances of Eternal Life. Policies already exist to prevent these types of things (the 100 year rule for example). This is one of those things that I will accept, but do not understand.

The DN article states that it is still allowed by direct line descendants, IIRC.

the unauthorized submission of the names of Holocaust victims for proxy baptism.

That policy establishes that the names of Holocaust victims will not be accepted for proxy baptism unless the person submitting the name is a direct descendant of the victim.

[Saints Alive]

I really, really don’t understand this at all…

From reading the DN article, there seems to be the feeling that these baptisms are somehow offensive. Im sorry, I just don’t get that.

The examples offered usually go along the lines of, “how would you feel if you were baptized into the church of satan (or catholic, etc.) after your death” I understand the sentiment but ultimately there are only one of two outcomes: 1, the baptisms are effective and they are provide an opportunity for my salvation (even if it is in the church of satan) or 2, they are not effective and I am no worse off than I was before the baptism.

One example that was offered on the blogger-sphere made a little more sense but still not quite there. I guess the sometimes even those who were baptized and sealed in life are sometimes erroneously baptized and resealed with the new dates being recorded. I can understand the offense in this instance a little bit more. But still, the erroneous rebaptism and sealing does not undo the first and I am sure there is still some record of it as well.

It seems to me that the true source of offense is a knee jerk, emotional response to the practice of a marginalized religion. Which causes me to question why the Church kowtows to these illogical responses? Is this purely a PR move? How long until we are no longer permitted to baptize our own dead if they were not Mormon? Is Baptism for the dead offensive?

[Calm]

How long until we are no longer permitted to baptize our own dead if they were not Mormon?

There has never been anytime we cannot baptize our own ancestors, it's other people's ancestors that there has been some restriction on.

[Saints Alive]

I realize that, My point is that If we allow outsiders to tell us how to practice our religion it won’t be long until we will not be able to baptize our ancestors.

[Jaybear]

I realize that, My point is that If we allow outsiders to tell us how to practice our religion it won’t be long until we will not be able to baptize our ancestors.

Oh no, the dreaded slippery slope.

[Zeta-Flux]

I realize that, My point is that If we allow outsiders to tell us how to practice our religion it won’t be long until we will not be able to baptize our ancestors.

They don't tell us how to practice our religion. Rather, our leaders want to be sensitive to their concerns. Our doctrine is not simply that we should just go out and do baptisms for the dead for everyone, but to do it in order and at the right time.

[blueadept]

Baptism for the dead offensive?

As a Catholic, I was amused by my LDS wife's reaction when I endorsed her going to the Temple but asked her to refrain from sharing which Catholic relative's she performed the proxy baptisms for. I've always marked that moment as the beginning to the end of my civil marriage. Oh my. I don't believe that others should be dictating to you how you should be practicing your faith. In the same sense, sensitivity should be shown others. Not everyone sees it as a gift that you are offering.

[Saints Alive]

Exactly, however if Jews wanted to circumcise my ancestors by proxy why should that offend me?

[blueadept]

Exactly, however if Jews wanted to circumcise my ancestors by proxy why should that offend me?

No other faith performs ordinances or sacraments for others as LDS do in regards to the dead. So I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Since you're the only Christian faith that's doing that, why would you take any offense if someone else took up the practice?

[LeSellers]

No other faith performs ordinances or sacraments for others as LDS do in regards to the dead. ... Since you're the only Christian faith that's doing that, why would you take any offense if someone else took up the practice?

Then try this: Jews perform circumcision for the dead on Catholics, Buddhists and anyone else they can identify (with the same kind of attention to family and name extraction—which I consider to be a poor and misleading choice of terms*—we Saints use to identify people not generally related to us). Would you be offended?

*It would be more useful if we called it something like "Individual Record Identification". We do not baptize for "names": we baptize for individual people.

Lehi

[blueadept]

Then try this: Jews perform circumcision for the dead on Catholics, Buddhists and anyone else they can identify (with the same kind of attention to family and name extraction—which I consider to be a poor and misleading choice of terms*—we Saints use to identify people not generally related to us). Would you be offended?

*It would be more useful if we called it something like "Individual Record Identification". We do not baptize for "names": we baptize for individual people.

Lehi

Are you saying the Jews actually do this? ....or are you talking about a 'what if' scenario?....which I'm not a proponent of.

[Saints Alive]

What it boils down to is this: either it is universally wrong to preform act / sacrament / ordinances by proxy for the dead or it is not. It doesn't matter if LDS are the only ones currently doing it

[LeSellers]

Are you saying the Jews actually do this? ....or are you talking about a 'what if' scenario?....which I'm not a proponent of.

The issue is whether the pique of Jews and others over our practice of baptizing by proxy is understandable or justified. Since, as you pointed out, we are the only ones doing anything like this, we must resort to hypothetical situations to draw any sort of parallel. And, by the way, this is in direct fulfillment of a prophecy made by Christ Himself. (See Matt 16:13~19. It is our church and our church alone, in your own words, who are attacking the gates of hell and they are not prevailing against us.)

So, the question is, assuming Jews would perform proxy circumcisions on behalf of dead people, including Catholics, would that offend you? If so, on what grounds?

Lehi

[blueadept]

What it boils down to is this: either it is universally wrong to preform act / sacrament / ordinances by proxy for the dead or it is not. It doesn't matter if LDS are the only ones currently doing it

....and please practice your faith as you seem as you deem necessary since no one should be dictating to you in how to do so.

As I told my LDS wife, please go to the Temple and do what you need to do..........just don't tell me about the Catholic relatives you performed proxy baptisms for since it goes against my beliefs. To each their own since we both believe we belong to the Lord's Church.

[emeliza]

I believe people are justifiable in feeling our proxy baptisms can be considered offensive, especially when the proxy baptism is for people who died in the name of their religion or their heritage by people who were supposedly Christian.

I am glad the Church is trying to stop people from baptizing names outside of their direct family history for the time being.

This being said, no, I do not personally think that proxy baptism is offensive and I have no issues if someone felt the need to do proxy ordinances for me or my ancestors in their own faith, especially if they felt what they were doing was to help the soul of the person. But just because I don't think something is offensive, doesn't mean I can't understand how someone else might find it offensive.

Remember when George Bush flashed the peace sign when he was in a foreign country (I believe somewhere in South America) thinking he was giving everyone the peace sign and come to find out the gesture was considered vulgar and like a curse word? Obviously I don't find the peace sign two finger symbol to be offensive, but I can completely understand why this other culture might. It is basically the same idea here.

[Calm]

I realize that, My point is that If we allow outsiders to tell us how to practice our religion it won’t be long until we will not be able to baptize our ancestors.

I suspect that there was much prayer and pondering before a decision was made to place any limits on baptizing. Do you really think our leaders took this step just without going to the Lord about it first? That they were more concerned with what "outsiders" thought about how we should practice our religion than the Lord?

And as far as the slippery slope...there are those who point to the cessation of plural marriage as the Church allowing outsiders to tell us how to practice our religion. Certainly outsiders did figure into the equation since that is the reason the Lord gave for allowing the Church to cease the practice. And while sometime in the future it may come to the point that our marriages require a civil ceremony prior to the sealing like in many countries in the world already, I highly doubt that the reason this occurred is that the Church leaders allowed outsiders to tell them how to practice their religion back in the late 1800s.

Do you think it is appropriate for people to choose who they do proxy work based on whether or not the individual is a celebrity?

[Saints Alive]

Using your example, yes the Aussies might have been offended at first but surely after the President’s intentions and understanding was explained, they were no longer offended. People unintentionally do offensive things all the time. If we understand their intent and they do no real harm why should we concern ourselves?

[Saints Alive]

I suspect that there was much prayer and pondering before a decision was made to place any limits on baptizing.

Do you think it is appropriate for people to choose who they do proxy work based on whether or not the individual is a celebrity?

On a personal level, I think your first priority should be your own ancestors. On a societal level, it should not matter who you do baptisms for. We should baptize for the dead out of love and genuine concern for the departed, it should make no difference whether they were famous or not. If you want to posthumously baptize Elvis so that you can say you did, that is probably the wrong reason.