Proxy Baptisms - Act Of Love Or Arrogance?

[JAHS]

For us church members baptisms performed for our ancestors is most definately an act of love. But for those critical of the church or who simply don't understand the doctrine, it is considered a very arrogant thing to do. To assume that because ours is the true religion all must be baptized regardless of what their beliefs are; regardless of how faithfully they lived their own religion their whole lives.  Even when we explain to them that the deceased will have the choice to accept or reject it, they are still deepy offended by the practice.

Are they right? Should we mind our own business and leave their ancestors alone? What do we say to these people to calm their fears?  I wonder how many really are upset about the doctrine or do most simply not care?

 

[omni]

I've never understood why some people get upset over this. Why not see it as an act of goodwill rather than take offense. There are so many things in this world to get upset about, this isn't one of them.

[Duncan]

It all makes sense to me, if the Gospel is for me then it's for everyone. The Gospel isn't just a sunday church thing, it's a worldwide, now and forever for everyone who wants to accept it

[bluebell]

Most of the people who take offense to it believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

[Brian 2.0]

It all makes sense to me, if the Gospel is for me then it's for everyone. 

 

I get that if it's for you then you want to share it to everyone because it might be great for others.

 

But I don't buy that just because it works for you means it will work for everyone.  Other paths may very well make that person "better."

[rodheadlee]

What does Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father think about it?

[Kenngo1969]

I get that if it's for you then you want to share it to everyone because it might be great for others.

 

But I don't buy that just because it works for you means it will work for everyone.  Other paths may very well make that person "better."

Fine.  A person who has departed mortality retains free will to choose whatever path he wishes, even in the life after this one: he can accept the ordinances performed on his behalf, or he can reject them.  Simple.

[JAHS]

Fine.  A person who has departed mortality retains free will to choose whatever path he wishes, even in the life after this one: he can accept the ordinances performed on his behalf, or he can reject them.  Simple.

It's not that simple for those who don't believe in the doctrine and practice. They see it as an intrusion on their family and faith. 

[rpn]

We brought it on ourselves --- we didn't just seek out our ancestors so we could be sealed to them.   We went beyond that to categories that were likely to cause upset.    Kind of an overzealousness that tends to get people of faith in trouble in all generations and circumstances.

 

But the doctrine is often the one that resonates most for converts --- universal salvation.  It is among the most clear differences of the LDS faith.

Edited April 28, 2015 by rpn

[Duncan]

I get that if it's for you then you want to share it to everyone because it might be great for others.

 

But I don't buy that just because it works for you means it will work for everyone.  Other paths may very well make that person "better."

 

I was saying the first part but not the second part, God knows that not everyone will accept it

[JAHS]

Most of the people who take offense to it believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

I think it is also possible that those who claim to be offended by it might not relly care that much, but find the subject a good source of amunition to use against the church.

[The Nehor]

I would rather worry about people getting out of hell rather then people's feelings getting hurt. Just a personal preference.

[Robert F. Smith]

Most of the people who take offense to it believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

False.  The most offense has usually been taken by Jews who do not like their kinfolk lost in the Holocaust being made into Christians, even if by proxy.  The LDS Church has taken measures to honor those sentiments.

[Teancum]

Most of the people who take offense to it believe that Christianity is the only true religion.

Well not always. Jewish groups formally protested twice I believe about baptizing holocaust victims by proxy.

[longview]

If the nonbelievers do not accept LDS Church truth claims, then proxy baptism should be of non-effect to them or their families.  Or utterly meaningless as far as they are concerned.  However, they might be annoyed at seeing Temple icon thingys next to their ancestors' names if they were to browse FamilySearch.  Otherwise, how would they know?

[Robert F. Smith]

If the nonbelievers do not accept LDS Church truth claims, then proxy baptism should be of non-effect to them or their families.  Or utterly meaningless as far as they are concerned.  However, they might be annoyed at seeing Temple icon thingys next to their ancestors' names if they were to browse FamilySearch.  Otherwise, how would they know?

The temple icon thingees do not appear to non-members, so they have no direct way of knowing who has received the ordinances.  The LDS Church has rules in place to prevent such annoyances from taking place for the recently dead non-members.

[bluebell]

Well not always. Jewish groups formally protested twice I believe about baptizing holocaust victims by proxy.

Yes, that's why I said "most people" and not "all people".

[Vance]

But for those critical of the church or who simply don't understand the doctrine, it is considered a very arrogant thing to do.

Yeah, BUT are they consistent in their criticism?  Or are they hypocritical?

 

Do they also claim that it was a "very arrogant thing to do" when Christ suffered for ALL of the sins of all of the people in the world? To assume that because He is the savior of all, people's sins must be suffered for regardless of what their beliefs are; regardless of how faithfully they lived their own religion their whole lives?  Even when we explain to them that the deceased will have the choice to accept or reject it, are they still deeply offended by it?

 

Can we just say "HYPOCRITES"?

Edited April 28, 2015 by Vance

[bluebell]

I think it is also possible that those who claim to be offended by it might not relly care that much, but find the subject a good source of amunition to use against the church.

 

I think that most people (not all people) who are offended or annoyed by it are so because of pride.  I know that sounds judgmental but i just mean that when you think someone is saying 'i'm right, and you're wrong, and when you get to heaven you are going to agree with me!' it can naturally push some buttons.  

 

Humans don't like to be told that we are wrong and that if we just knew better we would agree with the person we seriously disagree with, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.  It ruffles our pride.

 

Even though it's not rational to be upset, or even to care, it's a normal human reaction.

[JAHS]

The temple icon thingees do not appear to non-members, so they have no direct way of knowing who has received the ordinances.  The LDS Church has rules in place to prevent such annoyances from taking place for the recently dead non-members

Yes there are rules in place which should take care of most problems, but these rules are not always followed. And the fact that the temple icons don't show up for nonmembers seems to suggest that we are trying to hide something from them so they don't find out what we are doing behind their backs. All they need to do is have a member check on this for them to find out what temple work has been done. 

[Rain]

It is an act of love, but sometimes the problems come from acts of arrogance - members who repeatedly tell their relatives and sometimes even friends that they will baptize them when they are dead id they don't choose that now. Members who KNOW their relative was completely against it yet jump on it the first chance they get. These stories get passed on and others assume that is how it is with everyone. Why would they trust the person would get a choice in the matter when the member is so thoughtless about it beforehand?

A member who does it as an act of love will also love the living relatives and respect them.

Just to be clear the vast majority of work is done out of love. The others just give it a bad name.

[ALarson]

I know that it is offered as an act of love, but I do understand how people who have strong beliefs that their religion is the true religion can take offense.

 

I have an in-law who is a staunch Catholic.  Their baptism into their church is very sacred to them and they take all their vows very seriously.  They have made us promise that we won't baptize them into the Mormon church after they die and it's actually a big issue for them.  

 

If you knew you were going to be baptized into another church after your death, I'd imagine many wouldn't like that either.  Of course, we know our baptism into the Mormon church would still be valid, but I do understand how it makes them feel.  

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I think it is also possible that those who claim to be offended by it might not relly care that much, but find the subject a good source of amunition to use against the church.

 

And the church acknowledges this to some degree. Take the example of doing baptisms for the dead of jewish holocaust victims. Jews were deeply offended by this and the church agreed to discontinue the practice for that population. It's a sensitive subject for some and we should try to be sensitive about it. Thanks for bringing up the topic JAHS.

[Hillel2]

False.  The most offense has usually been taken by Jews who do not like their kinfolk lost in the Holocaust being made into Christians, even if by proxy.  The LDS Church has taken measures to honor those sentiments.

Do You recall if it was a general segment of the Jewish population or did it come from a particular quarter? In orthodox and ultra-orthodox circles i have NEVER come across any real rancor. The rabbis i know simply shrug their shoulders and say, well, the LDS are wrong so it doesn't matter. On the other hand, some of my less observant acquaintances do get somewhat riled up by baptisms for our deceased members whether they were victims of the genocide or not. They are not favorably disposed towards Mormon Christianity, in any event, so the proxy baptisms are just another item on the list. That is the pattern that i have noted.

 

On a personal level, i understand the motivation behind the practice and believe that it is done from kindness. If the LDS are mistaken, it cannot matter. If the LDS are correct. we will have reason to be grateful later on.

 

On the other hand, as Reb Tevye says, if the LDS are correct and they cease this practice, would it not be an abnegation of their responsibility to the dead? I comprehend the great value in being sensitive to the needs of the living but, theologically speaking, how can one cease ministering to a group of people because it is unpopular?

 

It seems the issue stands on the horns of a dilemma.

[thesometimesaint]

I know that it is offered as an act of love, but I do understand how people who have strong beliefs that their religion is the true religion can take offense.

 

I have an in-law who is a staunch Catholic.  Their baptism into their church is very sacred to them and they take all their vows very seriously.  They have made us promise that we won't baptize them into the Mormon church after they die and it's actually a big issue for them.  

 

If you knew you were going to be baptized into another church after your death, I'd imagine many wouldn't like that either.  Of course, we know our baptism into the Mormon church would still be valid, but I do understand how it makes them feel.  

 

I don't see the point in having a religion you don't believe is true.

 

Proxy baptism after death doesn't make anyone Mormon. Does me eating a nice meal fill your stomach?

 

Wow; someone saying a few nice words after my death about me in a private gathering, which have absolutely no bearing on me. Somehow offends me? NOT!

IE; Even if the First Satanic Church of Beelzebub thinks I become a member after I die if they say a few words about me. What is it to me?