Objections To Baptisms For The Dead...

[Calm]

As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic truth."

I think this is pretty clear that the CC doesn't think it's appropriate for them to contribute to a false teaching, even at 'once removed'...which makes perfect sense to me.

[Calm]

I feel worse about the fact that so many feel that doing proxy ordinance work is the same as desecrating a grave.

Yes, this is unfortunate. A better analogy would be taking a record of the gravesite for personal use and adding additional material to the inscription on that record that may or may not be accurate.

[blueadept]

Permit me to apply to apply my Catholic interpretation

The order came in light of "grave reservations" expressed in a Jan. 29 letter from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the clergy congregation's letter said.

...

As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic truth."

"Grave reservations" is equivalent to things that could lead to mortal sin that separates us from God.

The RCC obviously does not accept the LDS proxy baptisms.

The intention is that Catholics should not cooperate with your intentions. As I told my LDS wife, please go to the Temple and do what you need to do in regards to your Catholic relatives. Just don't tell me about it and don't ask me to cooperate.

[Saints Alive]

No they don't want non-members and ex-members to come in and try to do what Radkey has done. Proxy baptisms are still going forward so I don't know why you would say this. What they want is for people to do their own genealogy especially since we have so many resources available today.

did you read the statement? It has already been quoted once. They were pretty explicit that they dont want LDS to preform proxy baptisms. The fact that they won't provide records is secondary to wanting to prevent proxy work. You have to remember that the catholic church considers masons a cult so I doubt they think too highly of our temple practices. Edited March 15, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Pahoran]

"Grave reservations" is equivalent to things that could lead to mortal sin that separates us from God.

And here I thought it was booking a cemetery plot in advance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

did you read the statement? It has already been quoted once. They were pretty explicit that they dont want LDS to preform proxy baptisms. The fact that they won't provide records is secondary to wanting to prevent proxy work. You have to remember that the catholic church considers masons a cult so I doubt they think too highly of our temple practices.

Who pray tell will perform proxy baptisms if not LDS? There is no one else.

[Saints Alive]

Who pray tell will perform proxy baptisms if not LDS? There is no one else.

That is largely irrelevant

[Deborah]

That is largely irrelevant

How is it irrelevant. The letter says nothing about doing your family genealogy and getting the work done. Temples are still using names that have been gathered and getting the work done. I seriously don't understand your point.

[Saints Alive]

The statement the catholic church made was that they block LDS researchers from their records for the sole purpose of preventing LDS from performing proxy baptisms. That is the only statement I made.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Saints Alive

[LDSGuy]

First, not everyone is Christian. The Jewish community is one that has been vocal in their offence at the practice.

Second, it is not necessarily that they think the deceased are being forced to become Mormon.

Part of it is that records can become confusing for future researchers. There was one concern I read that people would think that the LDS ordinances happened during the lifetime of the person (for whom they were done vicariously). They absolutely do not want future people to think that their loved ones were Mormons in life.

Another concern is that there is a lack of respect for the life and beliefs of the dearly departed. If the person lived and died for their beliefs it seems to some a slap in the face to do vicarious LDS ordinances for that person. These people do not believe they need to have extra things done for their salvation, either they get in on the Atonement, or in the case of a non-Christian the get in on their own merit or by their god. They don't appreciate LDS attempts to save them...or exalt them.

Of course everyone is not Christian! I never implied such. My point is that Christians don't believe that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are forced to become Christians in life or death because of Christ's vicarious/proxy atonement on behalf of ALL mankind including the faiths mentioned. Accepting Christ's vicarious atonement rests solely on the individual as it does with LDS vicarious baptism for the dead.

[selek1]

First, not everyone is Christian.

Which is, quite frankly irrelevant.

The Jewish community is one that has been vocal in their offence at the practice.

This is incorrect. There have been militant segments of the Jewish community that have been vocal in their offense- but there is no consensus on the issue among the Jewish community as a whole.

Furthermore, most of the objections are driven from fear and ignorance rather than informed opposition.

In point of fact, none of the critics have been able demonstrate actual harm done by the Temple ordinances.

"But I don't like it!" is not a particularly cogent argument for infringing upon the Constitutional rights of others.

Even your "the records can become confusing" argument is predicated upon a profound ignorance of how the rites are recorded and indexed, and presumes that future researchers will remain as willfully uninformed as are the most vocal protestors today,

[Zeta-Flux]

I have to admit, I don't understand why the Catholic church does not let genealogists access their records. Giving access to their records in no way implicates their church in the behaviors of those who access those records.

[Zakuska]

I have to admit, I don't understand why the Catholic church does not let genealogists access their records. Giving access to their records in no way implicates their church in the behaviors of those who access those records.

And yet when Mormons put up safe guards so people cant submit bogus names they are blamed for "blocking acess" to ms. Radkey and other Researches linke Tornoto. :Palm Face:

[blueadept]

I have to admit, I don't understand why the Catholic church does not let genealogists access their records. Giving access to their records in no way implicates their church in the behaviors of those who access those records.

It's about the act of the Catholic that 'gives' the record for something the RCC obviously disagrees with since they believe it's not the truth.

It's not about what 'you' do with it.

As I told my LDS wife, go do what you need to do at the Temple. Just don't tell me (or ask for my cooperation) when you baptize your Catholic relatives

Edited March 15, 2012 by blueadept

[Zeta-Flux]

blueadept,

But, as I understand it, they are not *giving* the record for that purpose. They are only giving the records so genealogists can get their family trees together. The fact that some of the records might be used, eventually, for baptisms for the dead is secondary; just as someone might use life-saving drugs illegally is secondary.

[Zeta-Flux]

And, by the way, we don't "baptize [our] Catholic relatives." We do baptisms for them.

[zerinus]

Christians do not believe that everyone is forced to be a Christian because of Christ's vicarious/proxy atonement for the sins of ALL mankind. If they can understand this notion, then why can they not understand that vicarious/proxy baptism performed by members of the church on behalf of deceased relatives does not force deceased persons to become Mormons?

There are two points here. 1. Some Christians (Calvinists, which includes Baptists and others) don't believe that Jesus' atonement was universal in that sense of the term. They believe that Jesus's atonement was selective, and was made only to cover the sins of those would "believe". Jesus knew in his foreknowledge who would believe and who wouldn't; and only bore the sins of those who would believe. 2. Their objections to LDS baptisms for the dead is not based on the assumption of "forcing" anyone to accept the gospel, or become Christians in the afterlife; but on the theological supposition that (a) it is not a biblical doctrine, and (b) in the case of Protestants, that baptism is not a necessary ordinance for salvation. You don't need to be baptized, in this life or the next, in order to be saved.

[blueadept]

Well, I've explained the thought and they've given the guidance.

You can twist it all you want.

I perfectly understand the LDS intent,

Edited March 16, 2012 by blueadept

[blueadept]

blueadept,

But, as I understand it, they are not *giving* the record for that purpose. They are only giving the records so genealogists can get their family trees together. The fact that some of the records might be used, eventually, for baptisms for the dead is secondary; just as someone might use life-saving drugs illegally is secondary.

Well, we won't have to worry about how they're used by simply following the guidelines of our bishops...

And, by the way, we don't "baptize [our] Catholic relatives." We do baptisms for them.

I understand your best intentions. Have fun. I promise not to cooperate.

Edited March 16, 2012 by blueadept

[Zeta-Flux]

Well, we won't have to worry about how they're used by simply following the guidelines of our bishops...

I can understand that. I'm just confused at the fact that this same justification isn't used in other situations. What principle leads you to decide to do some things even though others can respond in ways you don't agree with, but in other cases you don't act because you are "worried" about what might happen?

[blueadept]

I can understand that. I'm just confused at the fact that this same justification isn't used in other situations. What principle leads you to decide to do some things even though others can respond in ways you don't agree with, but in other cases you don't act because you are "worried" about what might happen?

On faith and moral issues, I follow the guidance of the church.

I've learned that I rarely agreed with my LDS wife on what a faith and moral issue is. So be it.

The Vatican had "Grave reservations," as described in the article, fall in the category of faith and morals. We should follow their intent.

I don't expect LDS would understand why there would be "grave reservations." It's not my position to challenge their guidelines.

My wife didn't understand why all uses of ABCs was a moral issue either and I've debated the issue here. I've come to the conclusion that if something is a 'faith or moral' issue for me and the proper understanding of my faith, others tended to not be in agreement. Oh well.

Edited March 16, 2012 by blueadept

[Zeta-Flux]

I've learned that I rarely agreed with my LDS wife on what a faith and moral issue is. So be it.

I don't expect LDS would understand why there would be "grave reservations."

blueadept,

You keep dodging the issue. I already said I understood why they had grave reservations about directly providing help in performing what they view as a false ordinance. Similarly, I will not go to a catholic church and partake of their sacrament. I would consider that mockery to God (on my part, not yours). On the other hand, it is my impression that the Catholic church would not be for legislating against us having the ability to worship according to our beliefs. They would not deny us that right. They would not deny us access to public records.

What I said I did not understand was: (1) why the Catholic church thought that providing these records would be directly aiding in our baptisms for the dead rather than simply making records open to the public at large (for genealogical research), and (2) why they don't view providing the records as a positive thing for humanity. As a corollary, I wonder what principle they use to decide when the negative actions of some should prevent them from providing a service.

[blueadept]

. I already said I understood why they had grave reservations about directly providing help in performing what they view as a false ordinance.

At least we got to this point......thank goodness.

After this, it's a slippery slope since it IS a 'moral issue' for us that I don't expect LDS to understand. It doesn't matter what your good intentions are past this for us.

Go practice as you wish.

Edited March 16, 2012 by blueadept

[Scott Lloyd]

They didn't really give a reason other than they simply dont want Mormons to do proxy baptisms. I'll admit that angered me at first but I can't help but think that the LDS church would probably never release its membership records for any reason.

In point of fact, the LDS Church already does that with regard to people who have been dead for more than a century. Most anyone can find from FamilySearch.org the date of someone's baby blessing, baptism and confirmation, ordination to the priesthood, dates of temple ordinances, etc.

The LDS Church does not seek records of living members of the Catholic Church. So what we would desire from others is really no different than what we already provide to others.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Saints Alive]

Didn't think about that, good point