Baptizing Criminals Alive or Dead?

[LDSJewess]

When I read and posted a response to Slamjet's question on the other thread asking if we would talk with a serial killer, a question came to mind that my husband and I were discussing a while back. Here goes:

What is your thinking about baptizing someone and welcoming church membership to repeat offenders of henious crimes such as serial murderers, serial rapists, mass murderers, terrorists, serial child molesters etc: And how would you feel about spending time in church with them if they were able to attend.

Also what is your thinking, or is there a church policy about baptizing the dead who have committed unrepented henous crimes. I'm talking like Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Usama Bin Laden etc:

[pam]

We recently had this conversation. Let me see if I can find the thread.

[pam]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/37136-why-did-we-baptize-hitler.html

[slamjet]

If I understand it correctly, there is no baptizing anyone who has murdered in this life.

[LDSJewess]

Thabks Pam. I came on board here after that thread had been active so had not seen it before.

Slamjet, thanks for your response.

This is one of those things I have to think about.

When reading the other thread I can see the sides to the posts, but I don't know if I would be the one to do the baptizing of such people dead or alive. Something to ponder that's for sure.

[NeuroTypical]

I was personally involved in getting someone excommunicated for aggrivated sexual abuse of a minor. I would jump for joy and weep tears of happiness if I ever heard he had sincerely repented, been rebaptized, and was an active churchgoer.

I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, though.

[LDSJewess]

I was personally involved in getting someone excommunicated for aggrivated sexual abuse of a minor. I would jump for joy and weep tears of happiness if I ever heard he had sincerely repented, been rebaptized, and was an active churchgoer.

I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, though.

I can understand this to a point but have to wonder what the abused victim feels about it.

[Dravin]

I can understand this to a point but have to wonder what the abused victim feels about it.

I imagine it depends how far along the forgiveness process the victim is.

[slamjet]

Guilty, because abuse victims feel it's their fault. It takes a while for them to see and accept how they were manipulated and controlled.

[NeuroTypical]

I can understand this to a point but have to wonder what the abused victim feels about it.

In this situation, I actually know both the victim and the perpetrator. The victim is not LDS and doesn't really care one way or the other. But if she did, I could talk about the stuff our church does to protect it's members from bad guys - and from supposedly repentant molestors. He'd never get the chance to work with kids or be in any leadership position. His record would contain a permanent annotation letting every Bishop he'll ever deal with, know what he did. Stuff our church does, is very comforting from a victim's point of view.

If there was a situation where the perp was wanting to attend the same ward as the victim, that would be an indication to me that his repentance was not up to snuff - and therefore, a very real threat.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[LDSJewess]

In this situation, I actually know both the victim and the perpetrator. The victim is not LDS and doesn't really care one way or the other. But if she did, I could talk about the stuff our church does to protect it's members from bad guys - and from supposedly repentant molestors. He'd never get the chance to work with kids or be in any leadership position. His record would contain a permanent annotation letting every Bishop he'll ever deal with, know what he did. Stuff our church does, is very comforting from a victim's point of view.

If there was a situation where the perp was wanting to attend the same ward as the victim, that would be an indication to me that his repentance was not up to snuff - and therefore, a very real threat.

This is good to know. I am also wondering if since part of repentence and atonement is restitution, does the church have a requirement or something implimented where repentance goes beyond "I'm sorry" and "won't do it again" to making restitution to the victim.

[slamjet]

Restitution is an interesting thing. It's a mixture of deep sorrow, taking responsibility, taking the consequences, making restitution where it will do no more harm, doing something about the aberrant behavior and, if applicable, satisfying societies requirements for justice. I know that the Church want's to see all that.

As for the victim, the Church notifies them and takes their feelings into account when re-baptism is being considered. I know that mine and my ex's Stake President are in communication with each other. However, I'm not sure what they are looking for, or how much weight they put on their words (I assume a lot) as to their feelings of the perpetrator coming back into the Church.

[Echo2002]

I have two relatives that have been long since dead that had committed murder. I think I submitted their names to the Temple. Are they not supposed to have their Temple work done? These murders happened back in the 1950s I think, maybe earlier than that.

[LDSJewess]

Restitution is an interesting thing. It's a mixture of deep sorrow, taking responsibility, taking the consequences, making restitution where it will do no more harm, doing something about the aberrant behavior and, if applicable, satisfying societies requirements for justice. I know that the Church want's to see all that.

As for the victim, the Church notifies them and takes their feelings into account when re-baptism is being considered. I know that mine and my ex's Stake President are in communication with each other. However, I'm not sure what they are looking for, or how much weight they put on their words (I assume a lot) as to their feelings of the perpetrator coming back into the Church.

That makes sense.

I am still not sure about people like Hitler. How would one make restitution to 6 million people?

[NeuroTypical]

From the Gospel Principles manual:

We Must Make Restitution

Part of repentance is to make restitution. This means that as much as possible we must make right any wrong that we have done. For example, a thief should give back what he has stolen. A liar should make the truth known. A gossip who has slandered the character of a person should work to restore the good name of the person he has harmed. As we do these things, God will not mention our sins to us when we are judged (see Ezekiel 33:15–16).

Key words: "as much as possible". We humans mess things up beyond our ability to repair all the time. That's sort of the big reason for the atonement of Christ - there just isn't enough repenting in the world that will restore many abuse victims to where they were.

Christ manages to achieve a perfect balance of justice and mercy. Far, far beyond our meager human efforts to do so. Hitler couldn't have done it if he had tried. But Christ paid the price hitler couldn't.

One way to put it: We're commanded to forgive all men. No exceptions. If we can't bring ourselves to accept standing next to hitler in heaven, then we won't need to worry about it - because we won't be there.

[slamjet]

I have two relatives that have been long since dead that had committed murder. I think I submitted their names to the Temple. Are they not supposed to have their Temple work done? These murders happened back in the 1950s I think, maybe earlier than that.

I don't see why not. Check it out online. I think the Church has a way for you to check if their temple work has been done.

[slamjet]

That makes sense.

I am still not sure about people like Hitler. How would one make restitution to 6 million people?

Maybe there was major brain damage. We can only know the fruits from his life (not very tasty), not all the other things that affected why he decided the way he did. Thus, I'm very pleased to not be responsible to judge his, nor anyone else's eternal placement.

[Guest Sachi001]

If I understand it correctly, there is no baptizing anyone who has murdered in this life.

You are talking about living ordinances only? LDSJewess asked about the dead also. Since most of the dead we baptize by proxy. Most do not know the dead's history. We baptize them no matter what unless the church has a block on such proxies in place. I could have just as much preformed a proxy of baptism for a past murderer. It's up to HF to judge we just do the work. Therefore if a family submits a recent murderer who passed over a year to temple. he gets done.

[Jamie123]

The situation I always wonder about is a person who is accused of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is found guilty by a jury, but continues to deny it.

This has often happened: The prison system assumes that protestations of innocence indicates the prisoner is "in denial" and heaps on additional punishments. This sometimes continues for years until the Court of Appeal - on the basis of new evidence or argument - overturns the verdict and sets him free.

But what position would the Church take? Would the jury verdict (or appeal-court findings) be taken as proof of guilt or innocence? Or would the Church leadership rely upon their own intuition/divine revelation, and possibly take a position contrary to that of the civil authorities?

(Note: I am not talking here about killings which may or may not be considered murder. I am talking about situations where a prisoner denies any any involvement, but is nonetheless found guilty.)

[slamjet]

I believe the Church would be on the side of societies judgement.

[Jamie123]

I believe the Church would be on the side of societies judgement.

It surprises me that you should say that. If the Church is like a family, shouldn't it treat its members like family members?

I know that if one of my children was accused of murder, and they swore to me they were innocent, I wouldn't turn their back on them just because a jury of strangers chose not to believe them.

Afterthought: OK - I can already see an objection someone's going to make to this analogy: God is the "father" to the Church, while the church leadership are more like elder siblings. With standing orders from Heavenly Father that we must respect the civil authorities, in the absence of any divine revelation to the contrary that is what we should do.

But there's a problem with this: It is true that everyone has an obligation to respect the government in so far as that they should obey the law. When a person is convicted of a crime, no one has the right to break him out of jail on the grounds that they believe him innocent. But that doesn't mean they must agree with the decision to convict, or not campaign to have that decision overturned. If it did, then every lawyer who took on a case at the Court of Appeal would have to be thrown into jail!

If your brother or sister was accused of murder, and a jury found them guilty, would you ostracize them from the family and "side with society's judgement" against them? This certainly wasn't the case with Betty Ann Waters, whose brother Kenny was convicted of murder in 1983. Though she was a High School dropout, she put herself through school, college and law-school and became a fully qualified attorney, simply in order to prove her brother innocent. In doing this she was in no way disobeying or disrespecting the civil government. She did it all through legal channels. Furthermore, when she finally succeeded, she never practiced law again and went back to being an ordinary barmaid. They made a movie of it (though I've never seen it) starring Hilary Swank. It always makes me cry to think of it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Jamie123
Afterthought.

[applepansy]

I'm grateful for the Atonement. It doesn't just cover our sins but it covers our heartaches too.

[Dravin]

One way to put it: We're commanded to forgive all men. No exceptions. If we can't bring ourselves to accept standing next to hitler in heaven, then we won't need to worry about it - because we won't be there.

Amen, you see so many comments in various contexts about how, "If X is in Celestial Kingdom I won't want to be there." or "I can't stand the thought of sharing the Celestial Kingdom with Y." My first thought in response to such comments is pretty much what you've pointed out, "You don't have to worry about it because you won't be there with that attitude."

[NeuroTypical]

If your brother or sister was accused of murder, and a jury found them guilty, would you ostracize them from the family and "side with society's judgement" against them?

I know someone living through this particular situation. She was molested by her brother. The brother admitted it to the parents. The parents expressed love, belief, and concern to her. At the trial however, the brother denied it, and the parents told the lawyer that their daughter was crazy.

Someone got ostracized from the family that day - and it wasn't the perpetrator.

Interesting thing when one sibling commits a crime against another sibling. If you are going to contribute to the process in any way, you have to pick a side. Will you submit testimony for the plaintiff or defendant? If you go to the courthouse, which side of the room will you sit on?

I sit and think about how we're all God's children, and are each other's brothers and sisters. I take a great amount of comfort that God's Justice is perfect, and so is His Mercy. I wish I understood more about how you can have both in the same situation - but I'll go on faith that He pulls it off.

[slamjet]

I find that these ideas of "will so and so be saved/baptized/redeemed/rehabilitated/etc." is a bit on the counterproductive side since it entails passing judgement of a persons status in the hereafter. I agree with *cough* Dravin. What we need to concentrate on is if we as individuals will be comfortable in the Celestial kingdom. We need to work out our own salvation, not someone else's.

Saying that, I think it's beneficial to see what their fruits are and how they affected the world around them, whether for good or evil. To me, they are two separate thoughts.