Church Investigates Proxy Baptism of President's Mother


KeithLBrown
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is investigating a report that a posthumous temple ordinance was performed for President Barack Obama's deceased mother.

Salt Lake researcher Helen Radkey says she found proxy baptism ordinance records for Stanley Ann Dunham while doing research in the LDS Family History Library.

You can read the entire story by going to: Church Investigates Proxy Baptism of President's Mother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There have been issues with doing baptisms and other ordinances for people whom you are not related to. I've heard rumors that Hitler was done (maybe? what do I know) and other prominent figures in history.

There's also issues between Jews and Mormons in the baptizing of those who were in the holocaust.

Holocaust Survivors to Mormons: Stop Baptism of Dead Jews (AP) | wowOwow

Church Responds to Jewish News Statements - LDS Newsroom

The fact is that ordinances for the dead are limited to your own ancestors for numerous reasons. Unwanted press is one of them.

The Lord is merciful and will see to it that everyone who has lived and will yet live on the earth will have the chance to hear the gospel and accept it and the ordinances of salvation. The Lord invites us to help Him, but we don't need to overstep our bounds - particularly with those who are deceased that are not in our own lineage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the church still submit names from extraction programs? I know that many non-relative names have been done that way. With the current computer programs in place it should be fairly easy to discover if this was done by an individual or an extraction program.

It's unfortunate.

Heavengaurd, skippy answered your question, but I just want to reiterate that the issue is permission was not asked for. You can only submit names of your direct ancestors and their families. There are various rules about it that all submitters should become familiar with. HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been issues with doing baptisms and other ordinances for people whom you are not related to. I've heard rumors that Hitler was done (maybe? what do I know) and other prominent figures in history.

From what I read in newspaper accounts, Adoph had his work done on eight separate occasions. Sealed to Eva Braun on numerous occasions as well. Perhaps this was by relatives. Anne Frank had her work done too.

Has the Obama family expressed any objections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the facts. I believe that someone dead for more than 50 years does not have to be direct lineage. Other than holocaust victims. I also know that back more than 500 years unless it is direct lineage there is a group of geneology missionaries that do the names over 500 years old, for extraction.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away. Who cares if we do baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims? Since the Jews don't believe our church is true then our ordinances should have no meaning to them.

Who cares if Barack Obama's mother was vicariously baptized. He shouldn't, he's not LDS. Our ordinances shouldn't have any significance for him as far as he views his mothers salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with it from my understanding is it's a respect issue. It is common courtesy to get families permission.

I do have a question , If it is found that it was done wrongly does that mean his mother could not accept it on the other side? Just curious...

Nope. That would be cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away. Who cares if we do baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims? Since the Jews don't believe our church is true then our ordinances should have no meaning to them.

.

The church DOES have the right to perform these ordinances. But the fact is that they choose not to, and discourage us from doing it. By baptizing the president's mother, they were going against counsel given to us by the church to NOT perform ordinances for non-relatives.

The church is VERY smart by asking us not to do this.

Who cares? These families do, and they ultimately have the right to ask us to not use their deceased loved one's names for any reason. These deceased are not going to miss their chance at salvation because their kids didn't want us baptizing them. Heavenly father gives us a chance to help him with his work, but it doesn't mean he won't set any unfinished or imperfect work straight in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away. Who cares if we do baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims? Since the Jews don't believe our church is true then our ordinances should have no meaning to them.

Who cares if Barack Obama's mother was vicariously baptized. He shouldn't, he's not LDS. Our ordinances shouldn't have any significance for him as far as he views his mothers salvation.

I don't think you'd be very impressed if a church you disliked tried to claim your deceased parents as baptised into their church without your familes authorisation. You need to look at it from the other persons perspective as well. I'm not saying everyone dislikes the church, but a lot of people do and therefore it would cause unwanted attention. The last thing the church wants is a very public legal battle and the media really do like a challege at how well they can destroy a person or organisation.

The other thing is that people would constantly be choosing to be baptised on behalf of famous people. Imagine how many times famous popstars would be baptised by the youth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church DOES have the right to perform these ordinances. But the fact is that they choose not to, and discourage us from doing it. By baptizing the president's mother, they were going against counsel given to us by the church to NOT perform ordinances for non-relatives.

The church is VERY smart by asking us not to do this.

Who cares? These families do, and they ultimately have the right to ask us to not use their deceased loved one's names for any reason. These deceased are not going to miss their chance at salvation because their kids didn't want us baptizing them. Heavenly father gives us a chance to help him with his work, but it doesn't mean he won't set any unfinished or imperfect work straight in the end.

I think it is not just so we don't offend other people. But we are supposed to be researching our own ancestry. Whoever submitted Obama's mama was doing it not for the sake of her, but more likely, because he or she wanted some kind of glory or kudos for submitting such a prominant person. The prominant people are easy to find. Their records are easily accessable. Anyone can find the records of Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein, or even Adolf Hitler, but what about the millions of others who we cannot easily find. We have so little time and so much work to do, we shouldn't waste it by spending time on perfect strangers. Instead spend it on your own ancestors, as they are who we are told to find. Who is going to do the work of your great-great-great second cousin once removed, if not you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think a good deal of it is to avoid upset and offense.

Our temple recorder gives great lessons. He said he cannot count the number of times he has had a child or grandchild in his office crying because some random non-relative did the work for their family. They were not given the opportunity to do it themselves. Now, right or wrong this is how people feel.

Then, yes, we have promised the Jews that we will not do proxy work for the Holocost victims. Yet, members take it upon themselves to submit them (more than one). This is not okay.

There are rules for a reason. You should do your direct line and their children and no further. If the person has a living spouse or child (or parent) you need permission. If the relative had no children then by all means, do the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you'd be very impressed if a church you disliked tried to claim your deceased parents as baptised into their church without your familes authorisation.

I would not care in the slightest. They can perform their voodoo rituals and poke straw dolls with pins to their heart's content. Won't affect my deceased loved ones in the slightest. Anyone with an IQ of 70 or better can see this.

You need to look at it from the other persons perspective as well.

In this case, the "other perspective" you mention is purely hogwash. There is no possible reasonable excuse to object to the LDS program of baptism for the dead; hatred and antiMormonism are the sole reasons.

Exactly one of two possibilities is true:

  • The LDS Church is exactly what it claims to be: God's kingdom on earth.
  • The LDS Church is not what it claims to be.

If #1 is true, then the LDS Church has the Priesthood of God and performs actual saving ordinances for people, both living and dead. Thus, temple work, including baptism for the dead, is divinely ordained and sanctioned.

If #2 is true, then the LDS Church is simply a mass delusion. None of its ordinances has any effect whatsoever. No dead people are harmed in the making of vicarious baptisms.

In either case, baptism for the dead and other temple ordinances cannot be considered harmful in any possible (reasonable) way.

Having said this much, I do agree that those who rush in to baptize the famous, semi-famous, or related-to-famous deceased are deluded. It's not their place to do so. The Church has clear policies in place that prevent such things, if only the "faithful" members would bother to learn and follow those policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away.

As Rachelle noted, the Church does have the right to perform the ordinances. But in the interest of not offending our neighbors, the Church has agreed to restrict certain segments, such as Holocaust victims, from baptism and other ordinances unless submitted by a direct descendant. Doing work for one's own ancestors and relatives has always been the plan, anyway. Those who insist on doing yet another baptism/sealing/whatever for Adolph Hitler or John Wayne are (forgive the pun) missing the spirit of the thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away. Who cares if we do baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims? Since the Jews don't believe our church is true then our ordinances should have no meaning to them.

Who cares if Barack Obama's mother was vicariously baptized. He shouldn't, he's not LDS. Our ordinances shouldn't have any significance for him as far as he views his mothers salvation.

This is an innocent point of view, but an incorrect and one-sided view.

The Jews have felt that they (as a religion and as a nation) have been under attack and they are trying to keep the Jewish faith and people alive, preserved and to continue on for generations.

Well, they feel that they're under attack while they're living... and now they learn that Mormons will baptize them when they're dead? If they don't understand what the gift is that we are offering, it feels like we're going to get them one way or another and that their traditions won't be preserved in THIS life OR the next.

2 Nephi 29:5

O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

3 Nephi 29:8

Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

While the Book of Mormon is written for the convincing of the Jew and Gentile, they need to do so under the spirit of love... not out of a perceived spirit of fear - that they feel towards our practices regarding the dead.

I recently had this conversation with a devout orthodox Jewish lady whom I worked with. It was the first time I had heard of these things, but I explained how we believed that they are handled - and that the baptism is done as a gift - a gift that can be freely rejected. She seemed content with my response to her.

Edited by skippy740
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church should have the right to perform these ordinances for anyone who has passed away. Who cares if we do baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims? Since the Jews don't believe our church is true then our ordinances should have no meaning to them.

Who cares if Barack Obama's mother was vicariously baptized. He shouldn't, he's not LDS. Our ordinances shouldn't have any significance for him as far as he views his mothers salvation.

I couldnt agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jews have felt that they (as a religion and as a nation) have been under attack and they are trying to keep the Jewish faith and people alive, preserved and to continue on for generations.

Well, they feel that they're under attack while they're living... and now they learn that Mormons will baptize them when they're dead? If they don't understand what the gift is that we are offering, it feels like we're going to get them one way or another and that their traditions won't be preserved in THIS life OR the next.

Then they are fools.

If they really and truly believe that Mormon vicarious baptism "makes" their Jewish ancestors Mormons, then they are admitting that Mormons have authority that extends beyond this life, and their Jewish heritage is worthless, per se. On the other hand, if they disbelieve the efficacy of Mormon vicarious baptism, then they cannot possibly believe that it will somehow "unmake" the Jewishness of their ancestors.

I understand that feelings and logic don't always go hand in hand. People feel strongly about some issues, even when they don't have logical reasons for those feelings. I respect that, as far as it goes. But at some point people need to grow up and see things as things really are, not merely as they happen to feel about them.

You want to perform voodoo rituals over the names of my dead ancestors to save them from the vicious Mormon hell (or to send them there)? Be my guest. I might think it weird, or perverse, or laughable, but I won't pretend there is anything illegal about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the facts. I believe that someone dead for more than 50 years does not have to be direct lineage. Other than holocaust victims. I also know that back more than 500 years unless it is direct lineage there is a group of geneology missionaries that do the names over 500 years old, for extraction.

Ben Raines

It is 90 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then they are fools.

If they really and truly believe that Mormon vicarious baptism "makes" their Jewish ancestors Mormons, then they are admitting that Mormons have authority that extends beyond this life, and their Jewish heritage is worthless, per se. On the other hand, if they disbelieve the efficacy of Mormon vicarious baptism, then they cannot possibly believe that it will somehow "unmake" the Jewishness of their ancestors.

I understand that feelings and logic don't always go hand in hand. People feel strongly about some issues, even when they don't have logical reasons for those feelings. I respect that, as far as it goes. But at some point people need to grow up and see things as things really are, not merely as they happen to feel about them.

You want to perform voodoo rituals over the names of my dead ancestors to save them from the vicious Mormon hell (or to send them there)? Be my guest. I might think it weird, or perverse, or laughable, but I won't pretend there is anything illegal about it.

There needs to be an Agree button along with the laugh and thanks button

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share