Baptism For The Dead 2

[pushka]

I asked a question on the other Baptism for the Dead thread, but only received a mildly amusing, sarcastic reply from one poster...

I wondered if it was 'normal practise' to Baptise by Proxy those people whom we consider 'evil', such as Hitler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Idi Amin...

I was prompted to ask this because of an article I found, which I will post a link to, which talks of the recent Baptism by Proxy and sealing of Hitler and his partner Eva and which I think some people outside of the church find a little distasteful...

Would any one like to comment?

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitler...rtemplework.htm

[Outshined]

I'd say it's policy to baptise anyone, as Christ's atonement is sufficient to save anyone, right?

I mean, we don't get to decide who is or is not worthy to get a chance to hear the gospel.

[pushka]

Thank you Outshined.

[Jenda]

I thought they had to be related in order to do temple work for someone who is dead.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM

I thought they had to be related in order to do temple work for someone who is dead.

No. Otherwise there would be very few who ever went to the temple. They have people called to be name extractors who work daily extracting thousands of names for temple work. That way, if I want to go to the temple and do some work for the dead, there are names for me to take through, without having to have my own.

My parents exhausted our genelogical line, there just isn't anyone else for me to find that there are records for. Plus there are many other family members doing work on that same line.

So it is very possible, and more than plausable that when you go to the temple, you are doing a name of someone you aren't directly related to.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Mar 8 2005, 08:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Mar 8 2005, 08:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM

I thought they had to be related in order to do temple work for someone who is dead.

No. Otherwise there would be very few who ever went to the temple. They have people called to be name extractors who work daily extracting thousands of names for temple work. That way, if I want to go to the temple and do some work for the dead, there are names for me to take through, without having to have my own.

My parents exhausted our genelogical line, there just isn't anyone else for me to find that there are records for. Plus there are many other family members doing work on that same line.

So it is very possible, and more than plausable that when you go to the temple, you are doing a name of someone you aren't directly related to.

Is this true? Anyone else? Because I read somewhere that many baptisms that were done were overturned because they found out there was no relationship between the people doing the temple work and the people the temple work was done for.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 8 2005, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 8 2005, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 8 2005, 08:01 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM

I thought they had to be related in order to do temple work for someone who is dead.

No. Otherwise there would be very few who ever went to the temple. They have people called to be name extractors who work daily extracting thousands of names for temple work. That way, if I want to go to the temple and do some work for the dead, there are names for me to take through, without having to have my own.

My parents exhausted our genelogical line, there just isn't anyone else for me to find that there are records for. Plus there are many other family members doing work on that same line.

So it is very possible, and more than plausable that when you go to the temple, you are doing a name of someone you aren't directly related to.

Is this true? Anyone else? Because I read somewhere that many baptisms that were done were overturned because they found out there was no relationship between the people doing the temple work and the people the temple work was done for.

pure fiction Jenda. All that is done in the temple is by proxy and you do not have to be related.

I have been going to the temple for over 30 years and I have yet to do any work for my kindred dead.

And if you want to get technical, we are all related from NOAH ~

Just as an extra piece of information, I used to be an extractor ~

[Jason]

I'd say it's policy to baptise anyone, as Christ's atonement is sufficient to save anyone, right?

I mean, we don't get to decide who is or is not worthy to get a chance to hear the gospel.

I agree that Christ's atonement can save anyone, even the likes of a Hitler or Stalin. But Mormon doctrine seems to reject the completeness of our Lord's Passion for anyone who IS a Mormon:

D&C 132: 19

"...then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

D&C 132: 26

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God."

D&C 132: 27

"The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 8 2005, 08:11 AM

Is this true?  Anyone else?  Because I read somewhere that many baptisms that were done were overturned because they found out there was no relationship between the people doing the temple work and the people the temple work was done for.

Hey Jenda - www.lds.org says this:

Do I have to bring my own family names to the temple?

Often you will see others come to the temple with pink- or blue-colored cards with names on them. These are the names of those who have died and need baptism and other temple ordinances done for them. You are not required to bring your own names, but it is wonderful when you do. Often the temple has names of people you may be baptized for that others have submitted. It is best to call ahead to find out if you need to bring your own names.

What if I bring my own names?

When you bring your own names to the temple, the order in which you are baptized and confirmed is different. First you are baptized, then you are confirmed. This is because you are doing both ordinances for the same person and must do them in that order. This also means that you will need to ask for two sets of baptismal clothing so that you have dry, white clothes to be confirmed in. When you use names provided by the temple, you are first confirmed for one group of people, then baptized for another. In this case you will only need one set of baptismal clothing.

“Baptisms for the Dead: What to Know Before You Go,” New Era, Apr. 2004, 34

M.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 8 2005, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 8 2005, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 8 2005, 08:01 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM

I thought they had to be related in order to do temple work for someone who is dead.

No. Otherwise there would be very few who ever went to the temple. They have people called to be name extractors who work daily extracting thousands of names for temple work. That way, if I want to go to the temple and do some work for the dead, there are names for me to take through, without having to have my own.

My parents exhausted our genelogical line, there just isn't anyone else for me to find that there are records for. Plus there are many other family members doing work on that same line.

So it is very possible, and more than plausable that when you go to the temple, you are doing a name of someone you aren't directly related to.

Is this true? Anyone else? Because I read somewhere that many baptisms that were done were overturned because they found out there was no relationship between the people doing the temple work and the people the temple work was done for.

Dawn,

Amillia is correct on this one, however there is one exception...and this may be the one you are remembering.

Recently there have been some articles written about the LDS church doing Temple work for Jews....in particular Holocaust victims.

The LDS church entered into an understanding with the Jewish organization (I cant remember their official name...sorry) that said in effect....Our people will not perform the Temple work for these Jews unless the person performing the work is a direct ancestor and the deceased has been dead "x" number of years, or not a direct descendant but has gotten permission from the surviving spouse if living, or the extended family.

In short...with respect to the Jewish people there have been some guidelines set forth. I may be wrong in the particulars...but I believe I got the jist of it correct.

randy

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by pushka@Mar 8 2005, 06:02 AM

I asked a question on the other Baptism for the Dead thread, but only received a mildly amusing, sarcastic reply from one poster...

I wondered if it was 'normal practise' to Baptise by Proxy those people whom we consider 'evil', such as Hitler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Idi Amin...

I was prompted to ask this because of an article I found, which I will post a link to, which talks of the recent Baptism by Proxy and sealing of Hitler and his partner Eva and which I think some people outside of the church find a little distasteful...

Would any one like to comment?

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitler...rtemplework.htm

I'd submit that it's appropriate to baptise infamous historical figures, if only so they can be properly damned.

Dunk 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[Jenda]

Randy, you are right. That is the case I was thinking of.

Thanks.