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

[Scott Lloyd]

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!

Disobeying the Word of Wisdom deprives you of a temple recommend and keeps you from serving in Church callings. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if you were neglecting to do family history work or attend the temple.

I get what you're saying. But given its status as a determiner of standing in the Church, I don't think I would go so far as to call the Word of Wisdom peripheral.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

Disobeying the Word of Wisdom deprives you of a temple recommend and keeps you from serving in Church callings. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if you were neglecting to do family history work or attend the temple.

I get what you're saying. But given its status as a determiner of standing in the Church, I don't think I would go so far as to call the Word of Wisdom peripheral.

I may have made a poor choice in choosing a "peripheral" doctrine. Perhaps because I was thinking that for a long portion of church history, the WOW was only a guideline. You are correct that today, disobeying it will keep you from full activity. But my point still stands that as much as we want to be nice, work for the dead is very much one of the core doctrines/missions of the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I may have made a poor choice in choosing a "peripheral" doctrine. Perhaps because I was thinking that for a long portion of church history, the WOW was only a guideline. You are correct that today, disobeying it will keep you from full activity. But my point still stands that as much as we want to be nice, work for the dead is very much one of the core doctrines/missions of the church.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[Verum]

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.

interesting example. I can only save one from drowning, but the rest will drown; however, If we can only do baptisms for a very small portion of those who have died, we don't really believe the rest will be damned? I guess this is why we believe that baptisms for the dead will have to occur throughout the millenium.

Is it possible that baptism for the dead has more to do with what it teaches the living us as opposed what is required for the dead? It just seems greatly inefficient for God to make exaltation so dependent on such a technicality that is proxy baptism to require that we all do it for a thousand years to ensure every single one receives it....

[Calm]

interesting example. I can only save one from drowning, but the rest will drown; however, If we can only do baptisms for a very small portion of those who have died, we don't really believe the rest will be damned? I guess this is why we believe that baptisms for the dead will have to occur throughout the millenium.

Is it possible that baptism for the dead has more to do with what it teaches the living us as opposed what is required for the dead? It just seems greatly inefficient for God to make exaltation so dependent on such a technicality that is proxy baptism to require that we all do it for a thousand years to ensure every single one receives it....

It has been calculated (I believe by urroner) how long it would take with a reasonably projected amount of temples worldwide operating at full capacity to baptize all those who have ever lived. It was only a couple of hundred years or so...maybe less.

A thousand years is like a day to God...even if one doesn't take that as literal, don't see how that is inefficient.

And until we know exactly what happens during baptism and proxy baptism----is it purely symbolic or is something else involved---why assume it is simply a "technicality"?

Edited February 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

interesting example. I can only save one from drowning, but the rest will drown; however, If we can only do baptisms for a very small portion of those who have died, we don't really believe the rest will be damned? I guess this is why we believe that baptisms for the dead will have to occur throughout the millenium.

Is it possible that baptism for the dead has more to do with what it teaches the living us as opposed what is required for the dead?

I think it has more to do with the bond of love that is forged between the living and the dead when we become "saviors on Mount Zion" for our honored kindred and for those who died without the opportunity to receive the gospel or its ordinances.

It just seems greatly inefficient for God to make exaltation so dependent on such a technicality that is proxy baptism to require that we all do it for a thousand years to ensure every single one receives it....

As I've observed the amazing explosion in technological resources available for the preservation and acquisition of genealogical records in very recent times, the more I've become convinced of the folly of saying what is inefficient about the way the Lord does things.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

I am personally grateful for the experiences I have had as a result of offering these ordinances to my own ancestors. Many of them are very sacred and special to me- but suffice it to say the work was not purely symbolic, it had real meaning to the quick and the dead involved and my family is tied closer together through the eternities because of it.

Critics can snark away but it wont turn my heart away from my fathers.

I also figure my work in the millenium will be greatly aided by multiplying the preisthood available by 1500+ in this life.

[Daniel Peterson]

Our own Bill Hamblin and a BYU colleague take a look at efforts to "rescue the dead" in various world religions:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765553855/Man-has-long-believed-in-an-afterlife.html

[Calm]

it was commonly said in medieval times that Pope Gregory I, through divine intercession, resurrected Trajan from the dead and baptized him into the Christian faith. An account of this features in the Golden Legend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

Interesting.

As the reader continues into Paradise, he discovers that there are indeed some pagans who have risen to Heaven, but only because they were allowed the mercy to be baptized after death.

http://www.123helpme...ew.asp?id=21276

The presence of virtuous pagans in Heaven, therefore, can be explained by assuming they were able to embrace the idea of Christ without the knowledge of him and received the cleansing of baptism without being baptized. The obtaining of these ideals, then, along with the possession of certain moral qualities which are found in the virtuous pagans who reached Heaven, become the prerequisites of entrance to heaven and what determine a virtuous pagan’s destiny.

This would be the concept of baptism by desire, I believe?

Does a baptism by desire said to actually take place at a certain time after death? or it is just a state of being that is deemed acceptable and no actual baptism takes place?

This goes directly against the words of Pope Boniface VIII who made it clear that "Outside the Church is no salvation nor remission of sins". This must obviously mean that those who are justified without water baptisms are indeed members in some sense of the term or else one could never admit that a person could be justified (have the remission of their sins) before baptism (by water).....This teaching of the Church far from taking away the obligation to be baptized or to enter the Church rather affirms to us not only the necessity for entering the Church but also the necessity for baptism. It shows us the real implications for willfully neglecting to receive baptism and enter the Church, which is the sole ark of Salvation. Even if the Church teaches that it is possible to attain salvation by of the "baptism of desire" or "Baptism of Blood", she is not teaching that it is the ordinary means of salvation for anyone. It would only be by a moral miracle that a person could be saved in such a manner, since what is by definition beyond the ordinary is extraordinary. There is no question of individuals being saved by their own efforts, without God's grace, and therefore outside the Church. On the contrary, it is stated that because these individuals are holding to the true teaching of Christ that they are joined invisibly to the Church. Thus, strictly speaking, one does not say "non-Catholics may be saved" or "Protestants can go to heaven." There are no non-Catholics in the Church and there are no non-Catholics in heaven. The only souls in heaven are those who have joined themselves to the Church in fact or desire.

http://www.catholica...s/bapdesire.htm Edited February 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

It really is sad to see the ignorance and then outright lying that is done about baptisms for the dead. For example, the following is from a supposed ex-Mormon:

"I realize the baptisms mean nothing....but it was the method, getting hold of our sacred records, and then the latter one of getting 1,000 year old records of priests and religious who were consecrated souls.....it is nearing sacrilegious to me...the Vatican already told all parishes to longer give records to those seeking ancestor records...."

"And the other issue is that Mormons are taught they have to participate in these activities to get to celestial heavens, and it is giving the appearance they are running out of names because people are being re-baptized up to 6 times, as John Paul II....so I am also now seeing more issues being put on the Mormon followers themselves."

Another reads, "As a Catholic, I hold that an LDS baptism is completely inefficacious, hence it has absolutely zero religious value to me whatsoever. However, as a gesture, it is deeply offensive, as applies a faith which my relatives and I wholly reject. All this talk about the "person in the afterlife" being given a choice is absolutely meaningless because a posthumous baptism will never translate to my dead relatives in heaven, much less one we consider false. As a Catholic, I believe that it is about as real a choice to us as meeting Hades."

:It is analogous to somebody giving me a Chick Tract and absolving themselves of all blame by simply saying that I have "a choice to accept or reject it". Of course I reject it - by its very existence it is meaningless drivel to me and offends my beliefs, and it is disappointing that somebody would wish to apply it to me. Simply saying that it contains an element of choice does not make it any less offensive, because by itself it encapsulates false beliefs, and applying false beliefs are the issue to me. The same principle applies for LDS baptisms."

"In the end, the issue is not about how their rites interact with my beliefs - because as a Catholic I hold these rites to be false anyway - but the fact that they want to involve their faith in non-Mormons under the veneer of "giving a choice". In my view, that alone is offensive. They can have their faith, but just keep it out of my relatives' and mine."

I don't know how the first individual could have possibly been LDS in her past because of how ignorant she is of LDS teachings, but that does not stop her from a constant flow if misinformation. This is but a small taste of what is constantly put out in the religious and secular worlds.

As I have tought of about this I have concluded that it will be a long battle for the Church to repeatedly correct those who lie in wait deceiving the uninformed. It will demand that members that are interested and in a position to share correct information be vigilant in correcting. We do not apologize for our efforts to allow all to come unto Christ. In that we believe that baptism is a requirement by Jesus to enter his Kingdom, we seek all to have the opportunity to receive it. They do not become Mormons, they are only given the chance to accept to enter the Kingdom of Heaven or not. That is our belief and we will serve the living and the dead to answer Jesus' call to come unto him.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Storm Rider