Proxy Baptisms - Act Of Love Or Arrogance?

[JAHS]

Anyone want to bet it'll be done anyway?

It's not like he'll be around to check and the Church doesn't check the will of everyone that is proxy baptized.

True. I suppose it could also still happen; especially after the 110 years waiting period is over.

[Calm]

He put into his will that not proxy baptism action would take place under threat of the law.

 

I don't see how the law could enter into a religious act done for someone who was dead, it would have no legal effect for one thing.

 

I could see forfeiting an inheritance, but nothing else really.

[Storm Rider]

I  wonder how I would feel if the Catholics started performing their sacraments for my ancestors.

 

I have Catholic friends that have implored/pleaded with their saints to assist in blessing me in this life.  I know they have prayed on behalf of my parents after they died.  I don't recall being upset about their prayers.  For some strange reason I just assumed they were doing it out of their desire that me and mine would be blessed.  

 

I had a friend in France from Madagascar that had some very different religious practices and he asked his divinities to bless me.  I have Muslim friends here in the Middle East that have said they prayed for me and entire family.  

 

I guess it all boils down to how individuals want to view life and view the actions of others.  

 

I try not to live my life to please others, but to do what I believe is right.  If they have a personal problem then that issue begins and ends with them. 

[Damien the Leper]

Anyone want to bet it'll be done anyway?

It's not like he'll be around to check and the Church doesn't check the will of everyone that is proxy baptized.

But a lawyer paid to uphold a person's wishes will. Ignorance and negligence do not dismiss poor conduct. Plain and simple.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't see how the law could enter into a religious act done for someone who was dead, it would have no legal effect for one thing.

 

I could see forfeiting an inheritance, but nothing else really.

I don't see how the law could enter into a religious act done for someone who was dead, it would have no legal effect for one thing.

 

I could see forfeiting an inheritance, but nothing else really.

Living or deceased, if a person does not wish for any religious action taken on their behalf then that must morally and lawfully be upheld. To proxy baptize someone again their clear wishes is tantamount to Satan's plan of salvation and robs the individual of their agency. For a church that proclaims agency, this ethic must be upheld in the face of opposition. To forfeit a person's wishes because one thinks they "know better" is an act of oppression.

[Calm]

I am not saying it is right to do it, though a proxy baptism has no significance for someone who does not accept it so I don't see how it can rob them of their agency.  Just because a proxy baptism has taken place does not mean any covenant between God and the individual is put in place unless the individual and God choose to make one (assuming there is any reality to a proxy baptism in the first place besides a ritual living people do on behalf of dead).  

 

How do we know for sure someone won't change their mind sometime in the eternities?  (assuming LDS belief in the next life is semi accurate)  If they made a choice based on limited information, should they never be allowed to change their mind?

 

Say someone decides in their 20s they never want to be baptized and somehow informs the Church and gets it to agree to never send missionaries.  They change their minds when they are in their 60s having more time on their hands and developing curiosity about faith, so they ask the local leaders to send the missionaries their way.  Would it be respectful of their agency to tell them "sorry, we can't, you told us to never send missionaries to you 40 years ago and we respect you too much to do it now even if you want them to come by?"

 

Back to the will....I just don't see how it could be legally enforced...at least not in the US...except as attached to a condition of inheritance.

Edited April 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

If you told me not to do something on your behalf, I am morally obligated to adhere.

The will is bound be precepts of the law as it is a legal document.

Speculation concerning the eternal salvation of a person from a temporal perspective of someone who does not believe is irrelevant. What ifs are meaningless.

[Damien the Leper]

A person who wishes to be cremated as mandated by will must be allowed such a service. Refusal to adhere to legal writ on the matter can lead to prosecution of those who would prefer to refuse that wish. Agency cannot be robbed. The same stands true for proxy baptism.

[Calm]

CFR please.  I don't know the law, I would see how prosecution could be done.

[sjdawg]

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.

Would you be ok if someone was posthumously converting your family members to scientology or baptizing them as Jehovah's Witnesses?    I see both sides of the argument.    I'm not sure either side is wrong in their belief.

Edited April 30, 2015 by sjdawg

[Damien the Leper]

CFR please. I don't know the law, I would see how prosecution could be done.

Your CFR is too generalized. In order to understand and interpret law you must be educated in such. If your CFR requires legal advice then I'll be willing. If it is due to ignorance of law then I will not. That will be your responsibility and not mine. It is not my job to educate. Human rights apply whether living or dead. Edited April 30, 2015 by Valentinus

[Calm]

Let me be specific, hypothetical....I am about to die. I want to insist that my family goes to the park yearly for a family reunion after my death just as they've always done at my command (i am mot the type but a know a few men and women who do rule their families this way) while living for the past 60 years and I want them prosecuted by the law if they refuse to do so.

How would I go about doing that?

[Damien the Leper]

You are mistaken. A will consists of the orders concerning the individual who is about to pass or has passed concerning themselves. A will can enforce the wishes of the deceased as it is a lawful document. The will has no binding force on others but only the author and personal wishes concerning his/herself. Outside such is unlawful coercion and a violation of agency. If a man explicitly prohibits proxy baptism in his will then there is nothing his family or the church can do about it according to the law. End of story. No what ifs, no excuses, nothing. Violation of such can bring legal repercussions due to violation of the will. This is why we have our laws in place.

[CCRW]

Face it Valentinus, you are getting done after you are dead, no if's and's or butts

[JAHS]

You are mistaken. A will consists of the orders concerning the individual who is about to pass or has passed concerning themselves. A will can enforce the wishes of the deceased as it is a lawful document. The will has no binding force on others but only the author and personal wishes concerning his/herself. Outside such is unlawful coercion and a violation of agency. If a man explicitly prohibits proxy baptism in his will then there is nothing his family or the church can do about it according to the law. End of story. No what ifs, no excuses, nothing. Violation of such can bring legal repercussions due to violation of the will. This is why we have our laws in place.

The only way such a will like that might be inforced is if there is some kind of annotation made in the Family Search program that would prevent someone from submitting the name for temple work. They would have to rewrite the program to accomodate that, but I doubt that will happen unless enough people start requesting.such a thing. Then who knows what will happen a hundred years from now?

[JAHS]

Would you be ok if someone was posthumously converting your family members to scientology or baptizing them as Jehovah's Witnesses?    I see both sides of the argument.    I'm not sure either side is wrong in their belief.

I would be OK with them doing it if it were part of their religious practices, because it would have no effect on me at all, since I don't recognize their practice as having any validity in my eternal life. However we are not "converting" them to Mormonism. Converting implies a choice made by the recipient to belong to the faith the same as converts do here in this life.  All we are doing is giving them a gift that they have the choice to open or not open in the next life. The converting would happen there if they choose. 

[Calm]

Can some legally prevent another from praying for him (assuming there were proper notifications)?

Can a person legally prevent the use of his name in any fashion or are there limitations?

I am still trying to figure out how the use of a name in a ritual that has no legal standing and no religious standing outside that faith community and no assumed impact whatsoever on an individual who is buried or ashes, who is no longer existing in the mortal realm as a living being is a legal issue. It has no effect on the person's estate. It is not a legal contract.

Serious question..what would be the process of legal enforcement and penalty? Assuming one family member found out another did it, who would he report this occurrence to and what would happen then? Would it be a criminal or civil case? Would there be damages needing to be paid or jail time?

It would be equivalent in my view of a person writing in his will forbidding any friends or relatives from speaking his name or writing it down in a family bible or on a genealogy sheet. If the LDS belief is invalid, there is nothing happening besides a ceremony that includes a name. If the belief is valid, the individual is still fully capable of rejecting it...just like having to put one's phone number into a telemarketers do not call list if one gets a new number.

I am not suggesting because I don't see it as coercion in any form save for the choice all must make at judgment time (but this we accepted as part of the process of agency) that such wishes should be disregarded. I have no problem with adding a do not submit this individual's name due to personal request and not doing the work unless the individual shows up during the millennium and personally requests his name be taken off the do not baptized or proselyte list.

I would hope in the cases where allowing proxy baptism would provide great comfort to a grieving spouse, parent or child, the nonbeliever would reconsider as a final demonstration of his own love and compassion to his beloved ones, to give them a hope even if he sees it as empty. If he does see it as somehow having an impact on him, like a soul be possessed unwillingly by an evil spirit (perhaps there are those out there who think they can be damned and lost through no fault of their own), then it would be a great comfort and kindness to remove that fear. In the case of someone bragging they were going to get him in the end and making a joke over it or gloating, I think it is just fine if the individual attempts to teach humility and real compassion to the person who is looking at proxy work in an improper, profane way.

Edited April 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Face it Valentinus, you are getting done after you are dead, no if's and's or butts

Not gonna happen. LOL. I was LDS for 27 years. That was enough. It's not a spiritual home for me. No disrespect to ot bit I'll take OD before I suffered in a kingdom.

[Damien the Leper]

The only way such a will like that might be inforced is if there is some kind of annotation made in the Family Search program that would prevent someone from submitting the name for temple work. They would have to rewrite the program to accomodate that, but I doubt that will happen unless enough people start requesting.such a thing. Then who knows what will happen a hundred years from now?

Or the law firm keep an eye on the provisions of the will. Ignorance and negligence will not be excuses for any party.

[Damien the Leper]

Can some legally prevent another from praying for him (assuming there were proper notifications)?

Can a person legally prevent the use of his name in any fashion or are there limitations?

I am still trying to figure out how the use of a name in a ritual that has no legal standing and no religious standing outside that faith community and no assumed impact whatsoever on an individual who is buried or ashes, who is no longer existing in the mortal realm as a living being is a legal issue. It has no effect on the person's estate. It is not a legal contract.

Serious question..what would be the process of legal enforcement and penalty? Assuming one family member found out another did it, who would he report this occurrence to and what would happen then? Would it be a criminal or civil case? Would there be damages needing to be paid or jail time?

It would be equivalent in my view of a person writing in his will forbidding any friends or relatives from speaking his name or writing it down in a family bible or on a genealogy sheet. If the LDS belief is invalid, there is nothing happening besides a ceremony that includes a name. If the belief is valid, the individual is still fully capable of rejecting it...just like having to put one's phone number into a telemarketers do not call list if one gets a new number.

I am not suggesting because I don't see it as coercion in any form save for the choice all must make at judgment time (but this we accepted as part of the process of agency) that such wishes should be disregarded. I have no problem with adding a do not submit this individual's name due to personal request and not doing the work unless the individual shows up during the millennium and personally requests his name be taken off the do not baptized or proselyte list.

I would hope in the cases where allowing proxy baptism would provide great comfort to a grieving spouse, parent or child, the nonbeliever would reconsider as a final demonstration of his own love and compassion to his beloved ones, to give them a hope even if he sees it as empty. If he does see it as somehow having an impact on him, like a soul be possessed unwillingly by an evil spirit (perhaps there are those out there who think they can be damned and lost through no fault of their own), then it would be a great comfort and kindness to remove that fear. In the case of someone bragging they were going to get him in the end and making a joke over it or gloating, I think it is just fine if the individual attempts to teach humility and real compassion to the person who is looking at proxy work in an improper, profane way.

I can empathize with your perspective. However, the wishes and provisions of a legal document such as a will must be upheld. If the will says no posthumous baptism then I would hope all family or friends or others would have the moral decency to honor a request and lawful document. Violation of such a legal document can be dealt with in civil court. The demand that a person makes not to be baptized cannot be violated by the pride of those who think they know better. A choice was made and others must get over it. Deal with the hypotheticals later if Mormonism is right.

[JAHS]

Or the law firm keep an eye on the provisions of the will. Ignorance and negligence will not be excuses for any party.

I would be interested to know if any law firm would actually be willing to add such a clause to a will and then actively monitor the activities of the Family Search program to look for violators. 

[Damien the Leper]

I would be interested to know if any law firm would actually be willing to add such a clause to a will and then actively monitor the activities of the Family Search program to look for violators.

Why not if they were paid to do so?

[JAHS]

Why not if they were paid to do so?

Because they may have to defend it in a court of law to  a judge who would not be willing to rule against a religious practice.

[Calm]

"Violation of such a legal document can be dealt with in civil court"

So basically the estate would sue the submitter of the name and claim damages, right?

Are there any similar precedents out there that show a judge would not throw it out as a case of religious freedom or freedom of speech?

[Damien the Leper]

"Violation of such a legal document can be dealt with in civil court"

So basically the estate would sue the submitter of the name and claim damages, right?

Are there any similar precedents out there that show a judge would not throw it out as a case of religious freedom or freedom of speech?

It would not be thrown out on the grounds that the wishes were legally documented, annotated and submitted. Freedom of religion be damned in the case of secular liberty in this case.