Mike Otterson Of Lds Public Affairs Blogs On Baptisms For The Dead

[Scott Lloyd]

In his regular blog today on the Washington Post website, Michael Otterson of LDS Public Affairs has written of his personal experience with baptism for the dead.

Here's a snippet:

This entire labor of love, as Mormons view it, rests on the premise that those who have passed on have the choice to accept or reject the gesture. I knew when I performed the proxy baptism for my father that he was a devout Christian, christened as a baby in the rites of the established Church of England. My gesture in his behalf took nothing away from him, the life he lived and who he was at his core. If there is an afterlife - a belief clearly shared by both of us - then I added opportunity to the goodness of a short but purpose-filled and worthy life. In the doctrines embraced by my particular faith, my offering opened up eternal possibilities, including the eternal “sealing” of his marriage to my mother. Far from slighting my father’s religious persuasions, he retains every ounce of his own free will and moral agency to accept what I did on his behalf. In my own heart, I want to believe he accepted it, but I cannot know that now. What I am certain of, however, is that in whatever cognizance of this life that exists in heaven, that my father will not be offended for a gift generously intended and sincerely given by his son. The worst I can imagine is a “Thanks, but no thanks.”

So far, no snarky reader comments, or comments of any kind.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

In his regular blog today on the Washington Post website, Micahael Otterson of LDS Public Affairs has written of his personal experience with baptism for the dead.

...

So far, no snarky reader comments, ... .

Well, as long as Mormons are completely disrespecting the Jewish (and other) dead out of a "spirit of love", then how can anyone fault them? Afterall, like Donny and Marie Osmond, those Mormons are all so "nice" - except Mitt Romney.

Forget the complete arrogance, condescension, and patronizing basis of this "act of love" whereby they are trying to convert your dead ancestors away from the religious faith that gave them identity, and for which they were slaughtered!

Mormons, in this "spirit of love" just insist that, if you are offended by their violation of the names and memory of your dead, you should just "get over it". It is, afterall, "harmless" - at least THEY think it is!

I have been among Mormons most of my life, but I must say I rarely see them so blatantly UN-loving, inconsiderate, patronizing, arrogant, and insensitive as they are in reaction to this offensive practice!

That didn't last too long, did it? "Vanka" is just one of a myriad of examples. No miracles here, folks.

Lehi

Edited February 23, 2012 by LeSellers

[Calm]

In his regular blog today on the Washington Post website, Micahael Otterson of LDS Public Affairs has written of his personal experience with baptism for the dead.

Here's a snippet:

So far, no snarky reader comments, or comments of any kind.

Since I read it a little over an hour ago and there were lots of comments, I think you likely hadn't enabled the comments yet. I know my security program blocks them automatically until I not only allow the whole page, but some individual programs as well.

add-on: I think there are currently still no "top comments" which is what is shown first. You have to click on "all comments" to view any right now....there are currently 164 starting at 10:52 MST.

Edited February 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

... So far, no snarky reader comments, or comments of any kind.

Hmmm ... Miracles really do happen!

[MorningStar]

Very beautifully written. I have seen people ranting because they say their relatives wouldn't wish to be baptized, but what are we supposed to do? We believe Heavenly Father requires us to do temple work so His children can return to Him. I don't know how many others ways we can say that we don't believe it forces a person to be Mormon.

[Calm]

Hmmm ... Miracles really do happen!

Not this time unfortunately. However, when I read it, there were plenty of positive to go along with the negative.

[altersteve]

You have to wonder how people would react if the Catholic Church, for example, had a similar practice to our baptism for the dead.

[Calm]

Part of the offense may be the idea that we have the last word, so to speak. If other prominent faiths, especially Christian, also engaged in ceremonies that implied conversion of the dead, I think it would regarded more like missionary work for the living, not that big of deal since so many do it, less offensive because of the perception of more options being offered, even if all but one---if any--- of the options actually is valid as a possible choice.

Someone else wondered in another conversation on this topic what the reaction would be if the LDS Church on its own had decided to exclude Jewish victims of the Holocaust from proxy baptisms (given that we believe all over the age of accountability must partake of the ordinance). It's an interesting scenario to think about.

[Scott Lloyd]

Very beautifully written. I have seen people ranting because they say their relatives wouldn't wish to be baptized, but what are we supposed to do?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. It is the ranters, not we, who would deprive the dead of their right to choose.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since I read it a little over an hour ago and there were lots of comments, I think you likely hadn't enabled the comments yet. I know my security program blocks them automatically until I not only allow the whole page, but some individual programs as well.

add-on: I think there are currently still no "top comments" which is what is shown first. You have to click on "all comments" to view any right now....there are currently 164 starting at 10:52 MST.

Ah, got it. It did seem too good to be true when it appeared there were no comments.

[Calm]

I found a site that claims the problem with LDS baptizing Jews is that it changes the actual historical record and in the future they will not be able to tell someone was a Jew during their lifetime. It does not say how they reached that conclusion since the record of baptism is clear that it is a proxy baptism having taken place after death.

Also, they imply that since the Jews we are currently baptising all had the chance to convert to Christianity while they were alive (since they were born after Christianity was established), they have already had the chance to accept Christ or reject him and we should respect that choice.

Understandably conversion is a huge problem for Jews as it breaks not only the bonds of faith, but of family if I understand the teaching correctly. In some of the more orthodox cases a Jewish family may even "sit shiva" for the converted individual, which is the mourning ceremony for the dead so the idea that we are attempting (intentionally or not) to rob the Jews of their ancestors by conversion is understandable and that it might be done with the approval of the dead relative is not going to make it look any more appealing, in my opinion, after all if a person converted while he or she was alive, this would be a terrible occurrence for the Jewish community as well.

If the first is the primary reason that some are offended, it seems to be based on a mistaken understanding of the records. If the second, that makes better sense, but since LDS do not view all Christian faiths' doctrine as equal in teaching how Christ is the Saviour, we do not view them as having had the choice that Jews would see as them having (a fair chance of accepting or rejecting Christ).

I do think LDS need to keep in mind what conversion to Christianity means to the Jewish family and community even if we don't believe the breaking of bonds actually happens, but instead can actually be strengthened.

http://www.jewishgen...s/ldsagree.html

Edited February 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Flyonthewall]

I too have seen that most of the protestations are over things that we don't believe.

We force a converstion upon the deceased who are not around to protest... no, we don't.

We strip the deceased of the beliefs they held in this life... no, we don't.

We add them as members to our rolls... no, we don't

It's like we say, we believe XYZ.

Them: well we are mad because of ABC

US: Well we don't believe ABC, we believe XYZ.

Them: Well we are mad because of DEF...

Us: We don't believe DEF, we believe XYZ.

Them: There is also GHI

US: sigh...

Perhaps if there were a Jewish prayer, or Catholic, or Evangelical etc, prayer or rite to negate our proxy baptisms they could rest at ease...?

[cinepro]

Very beautifully written. I have seen people ranting because they say their relatives wouldn't wish to be baptized, but what are we supposed to do? We believe Heavenly Father requires us to do temple work so His children can return to Him. I don't know how many others ways we can say that we don't believe it forces a person to be Mormon.

Depending on what the after-life conversion rates are, I can't help but wonder if it might be more efficient to wait until we can have the post-mortal spirit accept the gospel before performing the work.

If 90% are converting, that's great. If it's 10%, that's a lot of proxy work done in vain.

[robuchan]

Depending on what the after-life conversion rates are, I can't help but wonder if it might be more efficient to wait until we can have the post-mortal spirit accept the gospel before performing the work.

If 90% are converting, that's great. If it's 10%, that's a lot of proxy work done in vain.

About 50M people die every year. How many endowments do we do in the church per year? I'm guess 5M or 10% of those that die every year would be an aggressive number. It's kind of a head scratcher why we even do it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was once walking along when I saw five people drowning in a river. I knew I could save only one of them. So I figured "Why bother?" and I kept walking.

Note: This will probably show up eventually as a true snippet from Darth Peterson's autobiography.

[Avatar4321]

About 50M people die every year. How many endowments do we do in the church per year? I'm guess 5M or 10% of those that die every year would be an aggressive number. It's kind of a head scratcher why we even do it.

That would probably be why much of the work will be done in the Miillenium. More time to take care of things.

[Calm]

If it's 10%, that's a lot of proxy work done in vain.

If the only reason we are doing the proxy work is for them.

And besides, I think it's important for the choice to there in front of them, knowing among other things that it matters to more than just them, for it to be considered as fully as it should.

I think there is at least one more reason besides the individual as well.

Edited February 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

Part of the offense may be the idea that we have the last word, so to speak. If other prominent faiths, especially Christian, also engaged in ceremonies that implied conversion of the dead, I think it would regarded more like missionary work for the living, not that big of deal since so many do it, less offensive because of the perception of more options being offered, even if all but one---if any--- of the options actually is valid as a possible choice.

Someone else wondered in another conversation on this topic what the reaction would be if the LDS Church on its own had decided to exclude Jewish victims of the Holocaust from proxy baptisms (given that we believe all over the age of accountability must partake of the ordinance). It's an interesting scenario to think about.

But that is just it...conversion to what? To the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? To enter Heaven? The Church is a mortal organization and is not part of the eternities; they do not become members of the LDS Church, but of the Kingdom of God.

[Calm]

But that is just it...conversion to what? To the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? To enter Heaven? The Church is a mortal organization and is not part of the eternities; they do not become members of the LDS Church, but of the Kingdom of God.

No argument from me, but it seems there is a lot of misunderstandings out there about how LDS actually view it, especially when some think that we add their names to our memberships lists or don't differentiate between living and proxy baptisms so it appears they converted while they were living (not realizing that besides the dates not working out, no living baptisms are done within our temples).

I think if we can convey that LDS do not see ourselves as in possession of the full knowledge, that even LDS are going to have to learn a lot in the next life to come to a position where we make our own choices about how much we are willing to accept what God has to offer, that baptism is merely seen as the opening of a door and not the whole process of accepting God, it is just one of the choices we all have to make sometime. And also make clear that the reason why we wish to do proxy baptisms for everyone who has ever existed who has not been baptized before death (not just those who have not had a chance during mortality) is not because we are so certain that we are right and we are secondguessing their life choices, but because we believe God has given us that as a commandment and we do not complain about it as being work in vain because we make absolutely no judgment about someone's worthiness either in this life or the next and that we assume that all have the potential to desire and courage to seek the truth of the Divine whatever that may be.

[Buzzard]

At some point, you just have to say, sorry if this offends you, that's not our intent. After all, redeeming the dead is one of the central missions of the church, not some peripheral doctrine like the WOW. (I believe in the WOW and practice it, but it's not a doctrine central to the church.) After all, if we relinquished this practice, according to Malachi, "the entire earth would be wasted at his coming". Now THAT is accountability!

[altersteve]

About 50M people die every year. How many endowments do we do in the church per year? I'm guess 5M or 10% of those that die every year would be an aggressive number. It's kind of a head scratcher why we even do it.

Wait, "we"? Are you a member of the Church? It seems kind of strange if you are, since you seem to believe the Church is false.

[Scott Lloyd]

Depending on what the after-life conversion rates are, I can't help but wonder if it might be more efficient to wait until we can have the post-mortal spirit accept the gospel before performing the work.

If 90% are converting, that's great. If it's 10%, that's a lot of proxy work done in vain.

Ultimately, we do it because God commands it. If he were to rescind or alter the commandment in any way, we would alter our behavior accordingly, I suppose.

On my mission, the ratio of conversions to contacts was extremely low. I consoled myself in the fact that I was obeying the commandment of God to spread the gospel, and that I wasn't just there to convert, but to give everyone I contacted the opportunity to accept the restored gospel. Thus, I found meaning even in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rejections.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I too have seen that most of the protestations are over things that we don't believe.

We force a converstion upon the deceased who are not around to protest... no, we don't.

We strip the deceased of the beliefs they held in this life... no, we don't.

We add them as members to our rolls... no, we don't

It's like we say, we believe XYZ.

Them: well we are mad because of ABC

US: Well we don't believe ABC, we believe XYZ.

Them: Well we are mad because of DEF...

Us: We don't believe DEF, we believe XYZ.

Them: There is also GHI

US: sigh...

Indeed. It seems inherent within the human condition that people cherish their prejudices and grudges so highly that rather than let go of them, they will resort to incoherent argumentation to try to rationalize them.

[wenglund]

Depending on what the after-life conversion rates are, I can't help but wonder if it might be more efficient to wait until we can have the post-mortal spirit accept the gospel before performing the work.

If 90% are converting, that's great. If it's 10%, that's a lot of proxy work done in vain.

In addition to Dr. Peterson's salient point, your conclusion seems to presuppose (falsely, in my opinion) that the proxy work is only beneficial for the converted portion of those for whom the proxy work is being done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

But that is just it...conversion to what? To the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? To enter Heaven? The Church is a mortal organization and is not part of the eternities; they do not become members of the LDS Church, but of the Kingdom of God.

It was Analytics, I believe, who correctly pointed out on another thread that the wording of the confirmation ordinance states explicitly that the person is being confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It was Christ who established the Church and restored it in the latter days. The Church is the appointed instrument through which the ordinances of salvation are performed and bestowed. Thus I don't find your argument here persuasive.