LDS Church sued for baptism for the dead injury

[UrbanFool]

A Las Vegas man is suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for medical expenses after he injured his back in 2007 performing baptisms for the dead.

In a civil suit filed in 3rd District Court on Wednesday, Daniel Dastrup claims he suffered a severe herniated disk in his lumbar spine after performing about 200 baptisms on Aug. 25, 2007. The then 25-year-old claims some of the young men and women he completely immersed in water in the name of the dead weighed as much as 250 pounds.

Article:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50167939-78/dastrup-baptisms-church-dead.html.csp

[Wingnut]

Um, no one forced him to keep going, did they? Usually when I've participated in proxy baptisms, they change out the brother in the water every 10 people or so, and they only do about 10 per person.

[UrbanFool]

Baptisms for the dead used to creep me out. I was pretty positive my dad would make the walls of my house bleed if I even considered it.

But now I think of it this way. You have a friend who is an alcoholic. You go down to AA and pick up a schedule of meetings and you give it to your friend. Your friend has the choice to go to an AA meeting and get his/her life in order, or they can choose to continue on the path they're on. You've done what you can to help, and you've hurt nobody.

[UrbanFool]

It says they forced him and one other to keep doing them.

[Just_A_Guy]

Dastrup, who also listed his wife as a plaintiff in the case, claims the injury has affected his relationship with her, and the pain has forced him to quit law school and change his lifestyle.

Sounds to me like the Church did him a favor.

[MarginOfError]

While my first instinct is to say, "250? That's it?" (I've done at least as many in one session before), I also feel the need for a little sympathy. The guy was in law school at the time, and may very well have been without insurance. Suing the church might be one of the few options he has of getting out from under the medical bills.

[HEthePrimate]

Hmm. I honestly don't know what to say!

250 lbs. is pretty heavy. Maybe they should instruct people on how to lift large people without damaging their back? BUT, I have a hard time believing that they "forced" him to perform that many baptisms (or any at all, for that matter!)--he's a grown-up, and is perfectly capable of saying "no"! What were they going to do, not let him leave the temple?

HEP

[UrbanFool]

I've never understood how people can look at someone and tell a weight. We have a guy in our ward who is absolutely enormous, but I could not even remotely say how much he might weigh.

[MarginOfError]

250 lbs isn't that heavy in the water. But you're right--I've seen a lot of people not demonstrate good technique when baptizing. A lot of people will lean toward the person and try to lift them up with their back and hand. It's a lot more effective to take a big step to the right, pivot a little, and put yourself in a position to push them out of the water (taking the step and pivoting allows you to use your right leg to push them up).

Now there's an interesting idea for a thread....tips and techniques for ergonomic baptism.

[Tarnished]

Why didn't he just say, "You know, I need to step out, someone needs to take my place." I have yet to be in a temple where the officiators are really mean to people. It just seems weird that an adult man would not stand up for himself and say, "I have to stop." I mean they usually change people out every so often in every single part of the temple. The workers, the patrons, everyone. Even in sealings they change the people who are at the altar every so often because they have had people faint at the altar. Best to keep people safe and keep the spirit in the proceedings.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Now, how do you think the local leaders would react to this brother who is suing the Church? Or even the higher-ups as it relates to his experience in the Church as a rank and file member going forward?

Edited August 26, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Mahone]

I have seen cases in the temple I usually attend where there simply aren't enough priesthood available for performing the baptisms, especially on Saturdays when they tend to have large groups of youth visiting. Every area of the temple tends to be very stretched on a Saturday. Rather than turning youth away, or minimizing the number of baptisms each youth does (as the main point is to try and do as many as possible), they will just encourage each of the priesthood holders performing the baptisms to do more than what they'd usually ask them to do. I'd imagine the reason the second member who was to be performing the baptisms was turned down when he offered to take over was because the officiator wanted each of them to do 50% of the youth, or something along those lines. This is just my guess from what I've seen in the temple before.

[Just_A_Guy]

Question for those in the know:

Do temple presidencies set monthly "goals" for ordinances to be performed the same way mission presidencies do?

[MarginOfError]

Question for those in the know:

Do temple presidencies set monthly "goals" for ordinances to be performed the same way mission presidencies do?

When I was an ordinance worker, the only metric we cared about was that we were doing approximately as many endowments as we were initiatories. This was two-fold...we didn't want too large a pool of waiting endowments, and we didn't want our pool of waiting endowments to dry up. As long as those two numbers were close, we were happy.

Of course, this is what made it down from the presidency to the workers. I don't know if the presidency tracks other metrics that we never heard about.

[Tarnished]

In general when it comes to baptisms they want the entire list done. The names come on a sheet of paper and hold I think about 5 names per sheet (I could be wrong there could be more names), before the end of the day they usually want all the names on each sheet done. This may end up resulting in a temple worker having to step in to finish up baptisms and confirmations before the temple closes for the day.

[Moksha]

Um, no one forced him to keep going, did they?

"When he asked to be relieved, an officiator at the LDS temple in Raleigh, N.C., where the baptisms were performed, told Dastrup to continue, the civil suit states. Another man who asked the officiator twice to take over for Dastrup was also told no.

Dastrup claims the church breached its duty by “not warning the plaintiffs that the repetitive motion required for performing baptisms for the dead could cause serious damage to a person’s back and by not allowing Mr. Dastrup to stop and be relieved when he and his replacement requested on multiple occasions that they be switched out.”

Wingnut, hope this quote from the news article helps answer your question.

[Moksha]

I think the moral to this story, is that if in the performance of a Church duty or calling, if someone asks to stop you should let them whether your task is finished or not.

[john doe]

It says they forced him and one other to keep doing them.

He claims this. I have my doubts as to the veracity and accuracy of his claims.

[john doe]

I've never understood how people can look at someone and tell a weight. We have a guy in our ward who is absolutely enormous, but I could not even remotely say how much he might weigh.

I looked at him. 287lbs. Now you can stop wondering.

[john doe]

Now, how do you think the local leaders would react to this brother who is suing the Church? Or even the higher-ups as it relates to his experience in the Church as a rank and file member going forward?

I'm guessing that 'changing his lifestyle' probably includes engaging in activities not approved by the church anyway.

[john doe]

250 lbs isn't that heavy in the water. But you're right--I've seen a lot of people not demonstrate good technique when baptizing. A lot of people will lean toward the person and try to lift them up with their back and hand.

Duh. Lift with your legs, not with your back. I just can't imagine an officiator forcing a person to continue over protests of possible injury.

[Suzie]

Forced him? Do temple workers walk around with guns or machetes inside the temple threatening people to do baptisms for the dead? Even if the story is true, why he didn't walk away?

[rubondfan2]

I can imagine one of the following scenarios likely took place:

1) The complainant said to the workers, "I think I need to switch out... can I do that now?" To which the worker says, "Well, we sure have a lot to get through, can you do a few more?" To which the complainant replies, "Well, Ok" (and meanwhile in his mind he starts to feel pressured to continue). This may have been repeated multiple times with the workers not taking the complainants wishes seriously and the complainant not taking control over his own body and needs.

2) The complainant said to the workers, "Gosh guys, I'm hurting here... I need to switch out." To which the worker says (feeling perhaps his own sense of pressure at the lack of available workers, sheer number of partipants, etc.), "I hear you brother... just keep going a bit longer if you can". To which the complainant says, "Ok, if you say so." (And in his mind says to himself, "Gosh I wish these guys would listen to me... I'm really hurting here... but I'll keep going.") Again, this may have been repeated multiple times with all parties not listening to one another and not taking responsibility for thier own bodies and needs.

3) The complainant says to the worker, "I'm done, I'm not doing any more. I have to switch out now." And he then proceeds to leave the font... at which point the worker stands at the top of the stairs with his arm outstretched and says, "NO, you will not leave the font, you must continue or risk everlasting damnation to your soul." And to the "others" offering to switch out with him the worker turns and says, "Silence to you... I am in charge here and I demand that he continue."

In this 3rd scenario, I think there is potential culpability on the part of the worker and by extension, the church. I think there would be sufficient standing to sue at this point. The other two scenarios, while certainly a potential cause of angst and frustration, could very well be the result of the complainant simply not standing up for himself and taking responsibility for his own feelings, choices and actions. I have a super hard time believing that the complainant was "forced" to continue. He may have felt pressure... much of it may have been brought on himself... especially if he was new to the temple.

I suspect that if an extreme version of scenario two above or certainly some version of scenario three above took place, then the church will likely settle this out of court for an undisclosed amount and proceed to draft some new training procedures for temple workers.

Edited August 27, 2010 by rubondfan2