Church Investigates Proxy Baptism of President's Mother

[spiritseeker]

My question is how did it get leaked in the first place? Isn't the things done in the temple supposed to be kept sacred? I really don't think President Obama really cares. If he does he hasn't made any reference to it in his daily addresses. So where is all the hoopla coming from?

[Wingnut]

My question is how did it get leaked in the first place? Isn't the things done in the temple supposed to be kept sacred? I really don't think President Obama really cares. If he does he hasn't made any reference to it in his daily addresses. So where is all the hoopla coming from?

The records are public, I believe. It wasn't "leaked" You can read more on it here.

[skippy740]

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.

Then you are insensitive to the feelings of others. (Just the response I would expect when someone would call them a fool - particularly when you're speaking about religious beliefs.)

Your points are correct, but as someone wisely said once:

"Your actions speak so loudly that your words I cannot hear."

Remember - without Judaism there wouldn't have been any Christians. They believe that they are the only true religion following the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

You can only attract bees with honey, not with vinegar. And truth is in the eye of the beholder.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

[pam]

My personal opinion is it all comes down to having respect for others. Whether WE feel it's a big deal or not is beside the point. Those of the Jewish faith have asked the Church to please stop doing ordinances for Jews. We are complying with their wishes. It should be the same for anyone else. If there is a living descendent...their permission should be required.

[Vort]

Then you are insensitive to the feelings of others.

No, I am not. I simply don't believe that my rights to practice my religion are, or ought to be, forfeit any time some overly emotional non-thinker takes exception to my beliefs and practices. I support our LDS leaders in their instructions to avoid doing temple work for Holocaust victims, but I most certainly do not support those who wish to take personal offense at my religious practices, claiming that those practices somehow "dishonor" their ancestors. That is an absurd statement, and my pointing out its absurdity does not make me "insensitive". It just makes me correct.

Remember - without Judaism there wouldn't have been any Christians. They believe that they are the only true religion following the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

So therefore...what? Whether "they believe that they are the only true religion" is completely irrelevant. The only relevant point is that my religious practices do not negatively affect them (or their dead relatives). Period. End of discussion.

You can only attract bees with honey, not with vinegar.

I'm not looking to attract bees.

And truth is in the eye of the beholder.

If you really believe this, then you do not understand or believe LDS doctrine.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

Whatever makes you think I don't understand? I understand perfectly their reasons for taking offense. I simply reject them.

[Guest pimpberries]

Stanley Anne Dunham; that confused woman, she may have never found what she was looking for spiritually. Perhaps she was grounded.

-----

That's it obama..

Make it rain..

[skippy740]

I support our LDS leaders in their instructions to avoid doing temple work for Holocaust victims,

but I most certainly do not support those who wish to take personal offense at my religious practices, claiming that those practices somehow "dishonor" their ancestors.

Your statements are in conflict with one another.

The difference you're pointing out is between "religious institution relations" and personal practice.

If it was part of your own way of practicing religion was to look up ANYONE'S ancestors to do their work, I would say that that is an overzealous attitude. Particularly because another religion has been so against it.

Remember that we ALL represent the Church and our Faith to everyone around us.

I respect other people's opinions on what they believe the truth is... for them.

AoF 11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

You may reject their reasons all day long. I just hope that you aren't called to be on an inter-faith relations committee for the Church in relations to our Jewish brothers.

(BTW, I have Jewish ancestry and had relatives that were in Auschwitz. I've been to Jewish worship services and I think I understand them. I don't AGREE with them doctrinally, but understanding and empathy makes the whole world a better place to live.)

[Moksha]

Stanley Anne Dunham; that confused woman, she may have never found what she was looking for spiritually. Perhaps she was grounded.

-----

That's it obama..

Make it rain..

This post is really offensive.

[Guest pimpberries]

This post is really offensive.

If it was so offensive; why then did you repost it all in a quote ?

What exactly is bothering you about it anyhow ?

[pam]

Personally I don't understand the post. I'm not sure what it has to do in relation to the topic. Perhaps someone could explain it to me?

[Guest TheLutheran]

Perhaps there is something about proxy baptism of a deceased person, who was known to be a faithful follower of a religion other than Mormonism, that smacks of arrogance. In my faith, for example, I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins so any posthumous activity (or 'voodoo', as Vort would say) is irrelevant.

I do find the practice disrespectful and somewhat inconsistent with your 11th Article of Faith:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Emphasis added.)

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience -- even if you do plan to hit me with your truth and light again after I've kicked the bucket.

For those who don't 'cyberknow' me, I came to this site to learn more about the teachings of the LDS church as our youngest daughter is dating a fine LDS boy. I have learned a lot but, since I haven't posted in a while, thought perhaps some would question my motives. I don't have a soapbox and I'm not looking for a fight -- just curious and open-minded. Pam can vouch for me if necessary.

[Guest pimpberries]

I do find the practice disrespectful and somewhat inconsistent with your 11th Article of Faith:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Emphasis added.)

Way to go Lutheran.

Live and let live!

[Vort]

I do find the practice disrespectful

Please explain in what sense it can possibly be considered disrespectful to offer someone (who is not even alive any more, but already dead!) the choice of accepting LDS ordinances.

If we were proxy baptizing the living, I could perhaps see where someone might take offense. But proxy baptizing dead people so they can have that choice if they want it? How can any rational mind take offense at that? Seriously, I want to know.

and somewhat inconsistent with your 11th Article of Faith:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Emphasis added.)

Please explain how proxy ordinances do not allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. How does proxy baptism prevent anyone, living or dead, from worshiping God however they wish?

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience -- even if you do plan to hit me with your truth and light again after I've kicked the bucket.

So you think that "hitting someone with truth and light...after [they have] kicked the bucket" is disrespectful?

Maybe I just don't understand what other people find offensive. I have always thought of "disrespect" as failing to show respect, or showing an overt lack of respect, to others. Apparently, other people think of "disrespect" in another way altogether.

[Guest pimpberries]

Maybe I just don't understand what other people find offensive. I have always thought of "disrespect" as failing to show respect, or showing an overt lack of respect, to others. Apparently, other people think of "disrespect" in another way altogether.

There is no choice after death unless ofcourse you mean in the afterlife [which would be still; Stanley Anne Dunham's choice]

So one might go as far as to say that you are not honoring their wishes, and that can be considered disrespectful as spitting on their grave.

I thought choice was part of process by which God teaches us ? Without choice; there would be no room for spiritual growth IMO.

Edited May 10, 2009 by pimpberries
spelling

[Vort]

There is no choice after death unless ofcourse you mean in the afterlife [which would be still; Stanley Anne Dunham's choice]

If there is no choice after death, then how can proxy baptism for the dead be offensive? No one can choose to be Mormon, so no harm done.

So one might go as far as to say that you are not honoring their wishes, and that can be considered disrespectful as spitting on their grave.

Yes, and one might also go so far as to say that you are a cheese and bacon sandwich. But that doesn't make you a cheese and bacon sandwich. The fact that someone says some absurd thing does not magically give that absurdity some sort of life.

I thought choice was part of process by which God teaches us ? Without choice; there would be no room for spiritual growth IMO.

I agree with your O, but I don't understand the relevance to the present discussion -- unless you are saying that proxy baptism for the dead is Godly because it offers choice to those who otherwise would have no choice. In which case, I agree.

[Guest pimpberries]

How are they choosing when their spirit has left their body ?? Shouldn't she have made that choice while she still was breathing ?

On second thought maybe the woman would have wanted people making her decisions for her, after all; didn't she belong to the CPUSA ?

[Vort]

How are they choosing when their spirit has left their body ??

I can't say, because I don't know the nature of the mechanism of choice. I bet you don't, either. What has that to do with the topic of discussion?

Shouldn't she have made that choice while she still was breathing ?

Ideally, yes. Again, what has that to do with the topic of discussion?

On second thought maybe the woman would have wanted people making her decisions for her, after all; didn't she belong to the CPUSA ?

Snarkiness noted (and appreciated).

[Guest TheLutheran]

. . . Maybe I just don't understand what other people find offensive. I have always thought of "disrespect" as failing to show respect, or showing an overt lack of respect, to others. Apparently, other people think of "disrespect" in another way altogether. . . .

**BINGO**

Maybe if I type with a bigger font, Vort with the Big IQ, might gain a glimmer of understanding. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a fundamental tenant of my faith is that I believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins. This is a very sacred sacrament and the LDS practice of proxy baptism clearly shows an overt lack of respect for that sacred sacrament. Accordingly, I find the practice of proxy baptism DISRESPECTFUL.

Non-LDS Christians may, over the course of their faith journey, choose to participate in a different faith tradition than the one in which they were baptized (i.e., baptized Methodist but become Nazarene), however, their original baptismal vow is always honored and respected -- NOT REDONE!!

[Mahone]

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.

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.

Okay first of all, not everyone has your point of view. While it wouldn't bother me, it bothers a lot of people and that's the point. The last thing the church wants is to be in headlines in the media.

Secondly, why is it that I so regularly I see the kind of statement I've highlighted in bold on this forum? It wasn't really directed at me as I don't hold the views you were bashing, however you are basically saying "oh they don't agree with me, they must be stupid". I'm sick of reading comments like that. Do you really have nothing more related to facts to support your argument that you have to resort to personal attacks?

I apologise if this seems an extreme response, but I really cannot stand ad-hominem.

[Dravin]

Non-LDS Christians may, over the course of their faith journey, choose to participate in a different faith tradition than the one in which they were baptized (i.e., baptized Methodist but become Nazarene), however, their original baptismal vow is always honored and respected -- NOT REDONE!!

Thing is in LDS doctrine that baptism has no efficacy not having been performed by one with proper authority whether they are dead or alive. Unless you are equally offended by the fact that say a Baptist who converts is baptized then there is something more at play here.

[Vort]

**BINGO**

Maybe if I type with a bigger font, Vort with the Big IQ, might gain a glimmer of understanding.

Ah. This is what is now passing for polite discourse. Thanks so much, Lutheran.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, a fundamental tenant of my faith is that I believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins. This is a very sacred sacrament

So far, this makes sense.

and the LDS practice of proxy baptism clearly shows an overt lack of respect for that sacred sacrament.

How?

You believe in ONE baptism. Accordingly, you received your ONE baptism. So how do LDS beliefs or practices have any effect on your ONE baptism?

Accordingly, I find the practice of proxy baptism DISRESPECTFUL.

You have already stated this. I already know you find it "disrespectful". What I don't understand is why.

Non-LDS Christians may, over the course of their faith journey, choose to participate in a different faith tradition than the one in which they were baptized (i.e., baptized Methodist but become Nazarene), however, their original baptismal vow is always honored and respected -- NOT REDONE!!

This is false. If they choose to participate in the LDS Christian faith tradition, they must indeed be baptized by LDS authority, since their original baptismal vow was not performed under any divinely sanctioned authority. In point of fact, this is why Latter-day Saints do proxy baptismal work.

[spiritseeker]

I don't think you understand Lutheran about what our Church teaches. To begin with with the restoration of the Gospel came authentic Priesthood authority. Hence, we believe that any baptism done without said authority is unacceptable. Whether you accept it or not it is fundamental to our faith that our Church is true. We believe that even though a person has died and perhaps did not have a chance to accept the gospel or even did have the chance but didn't take advantage of it. They have another chance in the Spirit World. Think about the peoples who died before Christ's wonderful Atonement. Do you believe that they should be condemned for that? No, They get that chance in the Spirit World also. I think that is the most beautiful thing... Don't you?? So, anyway to get back to the point. We baptize for the dead because we believe there is no remission of sins without it. We perform all of the ordinances so that our ancestors and others may have the chance at Eternal progression. Now I am of the viewpoint that permission must be had before it is done proxy for someone. But , please understand we do these because we care not because we get anything out of it. It is truly a selfless act on our part. Now some may be overzealous but their hearts are in the right place.

[Guest pimpberries]

You know; If someone's family is choosing for them then, it doesn't seem like such a big deal..

[Nevermind how creepy the thought of digging up bodies is]

Anyhow, Im out of here, but I have to say; this site is much more interesting than I thought.

I will recomend it.

[Dravin]

[Nevermind how creepy the thought of digging up bodies is]

Its a creepy thought but its not done. Ordinances for the dead are performed by proxy, no exhuming of bodies needed (or done).

[Mahone]

[Nevermind how creepy the thought of digging up bodies is

Not to mention the human sacrifice we hold in the basement of the temples! (this was a joke by the way... no doubt some lurker will take it as truth)