Church Investigates Proxy Baptism of President's Mother


KeithLBrown
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest TheLutheran

. . . 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. . . .

I am fully aware that your church teaches that all baptisms performed outside the LDS priesthood authority are unacceptable, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the one true church. Yet, even knowing that, I am still Lutheran.

Often it is assumed that non-LDS haven't had a chance to hear LDS gospel, do not understand the fundamentals of the LDS faith, or did not read the Book of Mormon and pray about its truthfulness -- otherwise they would be LDS!! That is not always the case. Some, after genuine consideration, do not accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet, nor LDS priesthood authority, nor the LDS godhead, nor the LDS principles regarding the afterlife. In such a case, performance of posthumous LDS ordinances might very well be considered disrespectful and offensive by that person's family.

I thought there was a desire on this thread to understand how LDS proxy baptisms could be viewed as disrespectful and I've tried to explain (without much success). A valid justification for this practice appears to be that since the LDS faith requires or encourages these proxy baptisms to be performed and other faiths do not, LDS (being the one true church) traditions trump the traditions of other faiths. Speaking as a non-LDS Christian who, for whatever reason, does not accept LDS teachings, I would prefer to NOT have proxy baptism performed on my behalf -- even if my LDS friends believe it would be out of deep respect and caring. :sunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest TheLutheran

Mr. TheLutheran posed this scenario:

As LDS, how would you feel if your dying mother's Catholic physician insisted that the Viaticum (the sacrament of the dying, also known as last rites) be administered to your mother?

I suspect that some LDS would find it disrespectful and offensive while others would not. LDS proxy baptism for non-LDS garners the same responses. :sunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. TheLutheran posed this scenario:

As LDS, how would you feel if your dying mother's Catholic physician insisted that the Viaticum (the sacrament of the dying, also known as last rites) be administered to your mother?

I suspect that some LDS would find it disrespectful and offensive while others would not. LDS proxy baptism for non-LDS garners the same responses. :sunny:

I will take your scenario as it is written (because we all know that hospitals will always follow the religious convictions of those in their hospital).

I would say that it would be interpreted differently by those who are there. I would look at it as an act of faith being performed. Granted... it's not MY faith, but I respect other religious views.

But I admit to being more tolerant of others' religious beliefs because:

1) I know what I believe

2) I know that any saving rituals done prior to death by other religions count as an act of faith or as a prayer to God, and not a proper Priesthood ordinance.

3) If my dying mother (let's assume she was Catholic and I am LDS) didn't have the saving ordinances done while in this life, I would be sure that she had the opportunity to accept the GIFT of those ordinances to be done for her - so she has the OPTION.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a multi-faceted gospel. It allows us all to act in Christ's name (that we take on at baptism) to help Him in this work.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ (no matter which church) is not a gospel of coersion or forcefulness. It is about us having CHOICES.

I see the ordinances performed on behalf of the dead as a way for them to have a CHOICE to accept the LDS version of the Gospel or not.

But (according to our faith) without those ordinances having been done AT ALL, they won't HAVE that choice.

It must be seen and viewed as a GIFT with the CHOICE to ACCEPT or REJECT. It is a gift given freely out of the best parts of the human heart, soul and spirit. If an earnest seeker of truth still rejects my gift, I am not personally hurt. I have made that choice POSSIBLE for that person.

But... remember that we believe that there is missionary work being done in the next life. Imagine that your ancestor has learned that the LDS faith is true. They cannot act upon that faith UNTIL their baptismal work and other ordinances are done on their behalf.

If they don't accept, they can at least have the CHOICE to reject.

I hope this helps to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be strange, but it is BECAUSE I know of the gospel truths for myself that allow me to be more tolerant of other faiths, not intolerant.

I know that other people mean well. What they do is exercise their faith to the best of their ability.

When we know the truth, we are much more secure in our faith and not feel "threatened" or "violated" when other acts of faiths are shared.

I'm grateful that we live in a country where you can CHOOSE your faith and have religious freedoms. It has allowed for a country where the restored gospel of Jesus Christ may be brought back to the world.

We (as LDS) must not be so insecure about things that we put others down. I find other religious faiths fascinating... not as a threat to my faith or other religious convictions.

Until we are welcoming others faith and help them to build upon the truths they have... how do we expect to be able to share the gospel with others unless we show them respect first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. TheLutheran posed this scenario:

As LDS, how would you feel if your dying mother's Catholic physician insisted that the Viaticum (the sacrament of the dying, also known as last rites) be administered to your mother?

I suspect that some LDS would find it disrespectful and offensive while others would not. LDS proxy baptism for non-LDS garners the same responses. :sunny:

If you're performing the Last Rites by proxy (that is, having someone else stand in on behalf of their mother during the ritual), I don't see anyone LDS having a problem with it. Would you like her name? Can you do it for me also? We have a huge library here in Salt Lake where we have millions of names you could use to keep you busy for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I haven't read all the way through this thread yet but I felt the need to just say that I'm one of the many who joined the church and then upon researching my direct line I found that some way way distant cousin had done not only my great grandparents on my mothers side but my grandparents and an uncle who had died in the late 80's just a month before I started doing my direct line! I was fit to be tied and very upset with the person. I'm glad that they were done but I have always felt ... well... cheated!! They were mine to serve not his I knew them he didn't. To him they were just names to me they were beloved members of my family.

Lacie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I haven't read all the way through this thread yet but I felt the need to just say that I'm one of the many who joined the church and then upon researching my direct line I found that some way way distant cousin had done not only my great grandparents on my mothers side but my grandparents and an uncle who had died in the late 80's just a month before I started doing my direct line! I was fit to be tied and very upset with the person. I'm glad that they were done but I have always felt ... well... cheated!! They were mine to serve not his I knew them he didn't. To him they were just names to me they were beloved members of my family.

Lacie

Some of us like to do a thorough job. I don't know what else to tell you but the work was done. :(

I would "team up" with your very distant cousin and compare notes! You're both on the same side - so perhaps you should work together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us like to do a thorough job. I don't know what else to tell you but the work was done. :(

I would "team up" with your very distant cousin and compare notes! You're both on the same side - so perhaps you should work together?

Well considering that that was in 1992 and the fella is now dead it would be hard to get together with him to work on it... The thing that up set me was he worked up the line and not down. I don't care how dang thorough you want to be it really isn't cool when you do work for people who have living relatives who might want to do the work. My mom (a non-member) was furious with him! She felt like her parents, brother and grandparents had been violated! Which really wasn't cool. Anyway This guy was distant enough that he was barely related.

Lacie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you allow your child (future, current, etc) to be baptised by a Catholic bishop? The ordinance has no meaning or truth, so why not?

If a Catholic Bishop wants to grab some random kid out of his congregation and baptize him by proxy for my son into the Catholic church he's free to do so and I wouldn't be offended by it, it is a little different as there isn't the missionary work in the next life aspect but I still wouldn't be upset, offended or up in arms.

This line of thinking is a dead end. People who don't have any problems with somebody saying they are doing something (remember bodies aren't being dug up, somebody is hopping in the font and being baptized and claiming its on behalf of somebody else) to somebody else aren't going to be up in arms about somebody saying they are doing something to somebody else.

Personally I don't see the big deal, but if people are going to be so upset about it I'm inclined to let it lay, its not like there isn't plenty of relatives to do work for and these are the only people's ancestors without any work left to do whatsoever and if people bar the path for us to do work for people we aren't going to be held responsible for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in 2004 when my aunt in Arizona had her's and my father's dad's rituals done. He passed away in 2001. My aunt had her son perform it. My father was furious becasue he was not consulted about it. My father could have done the ordinances for his father. Also, my aunt and father have a brother who is also a member of the church. Needless to say, My my father and uncle did not speak to my aunt for a long time. I feel ,as it was their father, they should have been the ones to perform the ordinances. Not a grandson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I haven't read all the way through this thread yet but I felt the need to just say that I'm one of the many who joined the church and then upon researching my direct line I found that some way way distant cousin had done not only my great grandparents on my mothers side but my grandparents and an uncle who had died in the late 80's just a month before I started doing my direct line! I was fit to be tied and very upset with the person. I'm glad that they were done but I have always felt ... well... cheated!! They were mine to serve not his I knew them he didn't. To him they were just names to me they were beloved members of my family.

Lacie

Following the manner Joseph Smith taught baptism for the dead, you are the one who should've done the work for you own grandparents and uncle. Seeing as how this cousin was probably descended from your great-grandparents he was within his rights to perform the works for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a story from the New Testament is in order, to understand why the LDS Church would perform proxy baptims even when people have been baptized in another faith.

Acts, Chapter 19: 1 - 6

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

From this story, we learn a couple things. First that even if we are baptized, if it is not the right kind of baptism, it doesn't count, and must be redone. And second, that the Gilft of the Holy Ghost is given after baptism by the laying on of hands.

Now, if you die not knowing the correct baptims, and you meet someone in the spirit world, as these people met Paul then wouldn't you want to be rebaptized? According to 1 Peter 3:18-20, we learn that Christ visited the spirits who were disobedient at the time of Noah and preached to them.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So, these people learned of Christ, and had the ability to accept his gospel in the next life.

Anyway, that's the doctrinal reason for baptism for the dead, and the reason LDS don't accept the baptisms of other faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. TheLutheran posed this scenario:

As LDS, how would you feel if your dying mother's Catholic physician insisted that the Viaticum (the sacrament of the dying, also known as last rites) be administered to your mother?

I suspect that some LDS would find it disrespectful and offensive while others would not. LDS proxy baptism for non-LDS garners the same responses. :sunny:

I would have a problem with this, because the physician should not be enforcing religion on his patient(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the issue...

if they don't beleive it is true then all that happened is somebody got wet and said a few kind words for the deceased. If they don't believe it to be truth then what are they complaining about.

if the DO beleive it then their enternal soul was saved.

I'm reminded of

Acts 5

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Why was this made public anyways? I thought temple ordinances were meant to be sacred.

Edited by gaspah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah ok.. so its just the details of ordinances that are private. gotcha ;) thanks. I am still a recent convert and have even yet to see said ordinances (except baptisms for the dead obviously), so excuse my lack of wisdom on the matter :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, not to highjack the thread, but my family just recently had our names removed from the church records and we were discussing whether or not we can keep relatives from baptising us after we die. If our children say no, can either my DW's or my siblings still perform this, especially since we had our names previously removed? I mean, let's face it, we are apostates under the control of Satan. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, not to highjack the thread, but my family just recently had our names removed from the church records and we were discussing whether or not we can keep relatives from baptising us after we die. If our children say no, can either my DW's or my siblings still perform this, especially since we had our names previously removed? I mean, let's face it, we are apostates under the control of Satan. :)

Yes, it is my understanding that any names not on record can have their ordinances performed for them.

Just because the ordinance may be performed for you doesn't mean that you have to accept it in the spirit world. You still have freedom of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheLutheran

I understand that LDS believe it is their right to perform ordinances for the deceased, whether they knew them or not, whether they were related to them or not in some cases, and regardless of the deceased's religious affliliation. I also understand that LDS believe this is a wonderful gift which the recipient, of course, may still reject.

Truthfully, I am a bit reluctant to even pose these questions as it appears to ruffle feathers but the reason I visit this site is to learn more about LDS teachings and practices, and I am confident that someone will answer my queries in the respectful manner in which I pose them.

If I am not a Holocaust victim, nor Adolf Hitler, nor a former LDS member who has requested that my name be removed from the church roster, is there a means by which I can respectfully request that ordinances not be done on my behalf? Similar to the national "Do Not Call" list, I guess this would be a "Do Not Dunk" list.

This may be too sacred to share and, if so, I completely understand. Do LDS members keep track of how many persons for whom they perform proxy baptisms?

Thank you, in advance, for sharing your traditions. :sunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, is there a means by which I can respectfully request that ordinances not be done on my behalf? Similar to the national "Do Not Call" list, I guess this would be a "Do Not Dunk" list.

This may be too sacred to share and, if so, I completely understand. Do LDS members keep track of how many persons for whom they perform proxy baptisms?

Thank you, in advance, for sharing your traditions. :sunny:

Well, in the afterlife, you can just say 'thanks, I understand your love and concern for my soul, but I've decided to go in another direction'.

As far as keeping track of numbers, I imagine some people do, but I don't. I don't judge my righteousness with numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not a Holocaust victim, nor Adolf Hitler, nor a former LDS member who has requested that my name be removed from the church roster, is there a means by which I can respectfully request that ordinances not be done on my behalf? Similar to the national "Do Not Call" list, I guess this would be a "Do Not Dunk" list.

Not that I'm aware of.

This may be too sacred to share and, if so, I completely understand. Do LDS members keep track of how many persons for whom they perform proxy baptisms?

I've never met anyone who did, except when they were acting on behalf of deceased family members.

Baptisms for the dead are done in quick succession--there's no way that you'd be able to write down the names of everyone for whom you were baptized by proxy. Nor could you get it from the temple recorder later--the Church's own records don't record the name of the living person who acted as proxy.

I once had a friend who, through a series of unfortunate misunderstandings, wound up officiating in several baptisms for the dead even though he did not have the proper authority to do so. The temple had no way, after-the-fact, to identify precisely which of the day's baptisms had been performed by my friend--every baptism done in that temple on that day had to be re-done.

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