Mothering › Forums › Natural Family Living › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Can anyone explain to me why the LDS/Mormons continue to baptize the dead???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can anyone explain to me why the LDS/Mormons continue to baptize the dead??? - Page 5  

post #81 of 104
Quote:
Under the 1995 agreement, the church directed its members not to include the names of unrelated persons, celebrities and unapproved groups, such as Jewish Holocaust victims, for its "baptisms for the dead," according to documents provided by the LDS Church.
The church also assumes that the closest living relative of the deceased being offered for proxy baptism has consented.
"It did not guarantee that no future vicarious baptisms for deceased Jews would occur," church papers say of the agreement.
Church leaders, who were preparing for the Saturday funeral of Marjorie Pay Hinckley, wife of LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, were not available for comment Friday.
In a Nov. 14, 2003, letter from church Elder D. Todd Christofferson to Michel, a copy of which was sent to Hatch, Christofferson said the church did not agree to find and remove the names of all deceased Jews in its database.
"That would be an impossible undertaking," Christofferson wrote. However, 400,000 names of Holocaust victims were removed and the church continues to delete names when asked.
When asked whether that was the case, church spokesman Dale Bills said before the microfilming of records begins, "we clearly inform custodians of genealogical records who we are and what use we will make of the filmed records. Such discussion is a standard element of all negotiations with record-holding organizations."

Mokotoff, who was directly involved in the 1995 agreement with the LDS Church, said he believes church officials agreed to stop the practice as a result of understanding that sensitivity. He said many people have subsequently "mischaracterized the agreement."
"Since 1995, everything they have promised to do they have done." Complaints to the contrary "aren't true," he said. Motokoff says he accesses LDS Church records online about 10 times a year and has personally made requests to have Jewish names removed from the records. He knows of others who have done the same.Every time he has checked to see if the names were removed, "I have found they were honoring their agreement" and the names are removed "quite quickly — within days." Motokoff says he occasionally gets claims from people who say such legendary Jewish figures as David Ben Gurion, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein are still listed, but "that was only true prior to 1995. There's a misconception that the church is obligated to scour the IGI looking for Jewish names — but the agreement states only that if they are made aware of it they will delete the names."
The church issued its press release early Friday, with a statement from Elder Christofferson saying that "Surely no one believes this practice forces a change in religious identity of any soul, living or dead. We certainly do not claim that."
That statement, and others regarding the doctrinal rationale for LDS proxy baptism, was deleted from a corrected copy of the release issued later in the day.


The truth is the church is doing everything to not upset others but still doing what they beleive. The church has the upmost respect for other churchs and people. To think the church would do something to purpously anger and upset others is misguided.
post #82 of 104
"There's a misconception that the church is obligated to scour the IGI looking for Jewish names — but the agreement states only that if they are made aware of it they will delete the names."

I see what they are saying now. If you figure out one of your dead Jewish relatives are on the records, they will delete them. So, I can see how they think they are accomodating Jewish people.

The church issued its press release early Friday, with a statement from Elder Christofferson saying that "Surely no one believes this practice forces a change in religious identity of any soul, living or dead. We certainly do not claim that."

What if some people believe that? I certainly believe that baptizisms are very sacred, and have meaning in the afterlife.

I would be much more comfortable with this thread being moved. I feel like everyone is being very respectful, but it is in the wrong forum.


Jenny
post #83 of 104
Quote:
I also do not see any bashing of LDS faith here. Nope.
Quote:
But I do wonder how many Mormons would be working so diligently if it weren't benefitting them directly in their quest to get to the highest level of salvation. I think it's very telling that there is a "reward" attached to this practice that is supposedly motivated only by love.
That doesn't seem "bashing" to you? And for the record, we get no "extra points" or "reward" for doing this proxy work. It is a commandment for us to work on it, yes. But it isn't a matter of earning higher salvation by collecting more genealogical information than the next person.
post #84 of 104
Like I said, this needs a different forum.

It was in my experience that there was are are rewards for doing this.

I was asked to do baptizisms for the dead at the age of twelve, and it was impressed upon me how important it was for my salvation, to get into the highest form of heaven.

I agree that their is a promise of a reward, and a very large one at that. One waiting beyond in the afterlife, and one here on earth within the church. I don't believe that what I said or the other poster said was bashing or hurtful. I think it was an interesting observation about the ritual.
post #85 of 104
Whether or not you do baptisms at age 12 has no bearing on your salvation and offers no "reward" for you personally, other than the warm feelings you may experience while doing this service. I'm sorry, Zaq001, that someone led you to believe otherwise. But the doctrine is NOT that by doing these baptisms for others, you yourself will be saved. Of course, we do go through our own baptisms and ordinances, for our own salvation. But the work we do for other individuals is merely an act of service.
post #86 of 104
found it
post #87 of 104
I have been fully aware of this regarding the Church in 1995 being asked to stop submitting random, masses of Jewish names, lest anyone think all LDS members are in the dark about it.

I also know I personally have not been motivated to search out my own geneological past, and I should.

Growing up in the LDS Church, I have never learned geneology and how many names one submits has any bearing on what level of heaven one goes to. Here is the scenario painted a different way: After this life, what good would ANY level of happiness be if I am there all alone? In that respect, I want to ensure my forebears, if they so desire, that they have the a way to be together with the family that they loved here on earth. There are no points, per say -- we just want it to be family-reunion style.
post #88 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Nemmer
That doesn't seem "bashing" to you? And for the record, we get no "extra points" or "reward" for doing this proxy work. It is a commandment for us to work on it, yes. But it isn't a matter of earning higher salvation by collecting more genealogical information than the next person.
Inquiring about the motivation behind a practice and what kind of influence that motivation might have is not "bashing".


Quote:
Originally posted by Zaq001
...I was asked to do baptizisms for the dead at the age of twelve, and it was impressed upon me how important it was for my salvation, to get into the highest form of heaven...
I don't believe that what I said or the other poster said was bashing or hurtful. I think it was an interesting observation about the ritual.
Thank you for sharing this. I asked a friend of mine who is a Mormon about this and she too was under the impression that it had been "important for her salvation" to participate in baptisms by proxy.
post #89 of 104
I do not feel bashed either.

The idea that temple proxy work (baptisms are not the only ordinances done) is for ones own salvation as well is not unfounded. No, it doesn't put you at a "higher" level of salvation, but supposedly effects the "quality" of that experience (as described by ldsapmom). I'll see if I can find a couple quotes from LDS leaders to clarify if anyone is interested.

I don't understand why all the broo ha ha (sp?) about which thread this is under.
post #90 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by nakagain
The truth is the church is doing everything to not upset others but still doing what they beleive. The church has the upmost respect for other churchs and people. To think the church would do something to purpously anger and upset others is misguided.
"Even (Hillary) Clinton's late father, Hugh Rodham, was posthumously baptized Sept. 5, 2002, something she found out only after her meeting with Hatch, Clinton spokesman Joe Householder said yesterday."

Here we have a person whose immediate family was clearly not asked, and yet they were posthumously baptized. It sounds to me like in addition to Holocaust victims, random famous people are also being subjected to this. Where is the respect in that???

I don't think the church is "purposely" trying to anger people, but they are. The Mormom church thinks this is an act of love, others think it is an act of disrespect, yet they continue doing it. Railroading over other people's wishes, no matter how well intentioned, is not showing "utmost respect".
post #91 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by ldsmama
I don't understand why all the broo ha ha (sp?) about which thread this is under.
It's the forum, and it is because the rules in spirituality don't allow for some of this discussion.
post #92 of 104
Hi Zaq001. Good to see you again. :-)
post #93 of 104
Quote:
Perhaps you have LDS relatives lurking around
LOL, I do......just not on that side of the family unless they are in Holland. Maybe the other side of the family submitted my moms maiden name or something, who knows. LOL

At first when I read this I could understand how it would come off as disrespectful to some. The more I think about it though, does it really matter? Even if someone submitted my name when I died, it wouldnt really matter because I believe that a baptism is an outward symbol of a complete unconditional dedication through Jesus Christ to do the will of God, so no one could do that for me, it would have to be MY personal dedication, and obviously when I am dead I cant do that.

It is sort of like this: once a friend of mines mother submitted my name to some Catholic saint to be prayed for because of my fertility issues.......now at first I thought "oh sheesh, lovely" but then I thought "does it really matter?" I mean it has zero bearing on my life because I do not put my faith into saints or whatever so there was no point getting mad about it.
post #94 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by DesireeH
...At first when I read this I could understand how it would come off as disrespectful to some. The more I think about it though, does it really matter? Even if someone submitted my name when I died, it wouldnt really matter because I believe that a baptism is an outward symbol of a complete unconditional dedication through Jesus Christ to do the will of God, so no one could do that for me, it would have to be MY personal dedication, and obviously when I am dead I cant do that....
That's fine for you. But what about others who are not okay with it and who believe it matters a great deal? For example, what gives someone the right to do a baptism by proxy on Hilary Clinton's father, Hugh Rodman?

Maybe it's because I was raised in a tradition with infant baptism (Catholic), but I do believe that there is a real possibility that rituals like these do have an effect on a soul.

If this is all so respectful and loving, why didn't someone of the Mormon faith walk up to Mr. Rodham and ask his permission while he was alive? It seems to me that it's a lot easier to violate people's privacy when they are dead and no longer able to speak for themselves.
post #95 of 104
moderator's note

I have received several complaints about the direction this thread has taken. I am locking it for now until we decide what exactly needs to be done about it.


after further inspection, I don't believe this to be breaking any of the rules of the religious studies forum....yet

please keep your replies to this thread respectful of others, whether you agree with them or not.

post #96 of 104
Quote:
That's fine for you. But what about others who are not okay with it and who believe it matters a great deal?
I do see your point and I do not understand the reasoning of baptizing those who would have done so themselves if they WANTED to be, HOWEVER I am not going to get mad about it because I truly feel it means nothing.

I think this is similiar along the lines of people who tell me "I will pray for you because you are so misled" Great, go ahead......I think it means nothing and has no affect on my faith, ykwim?

Or if someone were to cast a spell over me or something......while I dont agree, it would have no bearing on my life/faith.

I think alot of things people of certain faiths do, could be considered disrespectful to others.
post #97 of 104
To clarify, when I said earlier that I'd never heard of this issue or the 1995 statement, it was because I was 18 when this was issued and as it didn't affect me then or now, it hasn't been something I've taken notice of. I'm sure if I was involved in family history or anything in that capacity, it would be explained to me, because it makes sense.

I was trying to make the point that mormons in general aren't out to maliciously baptize people after being told not to. I think that it is very wrong for people to seek out information specifically on famous people so they feel wonderful for redeeming someone of esteem. That is not the purpose of the work, or the gospel, in my opinion.

Kerri
post #98 of 104
Hillary Clinton found out that her father had been done, apparently, right? Maybe someone had done his name who was like a distant relative, who maybe should have asked, but didn't, and is LDS. KWIM? My MIL was doing her great-great grandparents name, and was excited to get them done, only to find out that they had already been done (she is a 1st generation LDS/Mormon) by a distant relative who was LDS, but they didn't know about each other.

It's sad that people don't comply with the rules, but in the end, it will all work out. They will have a chance to accept it, whether they were Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, or whatever.
post #99 of 104

Theoreitcal question...

At what point does including others in your own spiritual practice become offensive? Is it offensive to pray for someone? To pray for someone who doesn't know you are praying for them? To pray for someone even though they have asked you not to?

I think there is a world of difference between using "prayer" as a weapon (ie, telling someone you'll pray for her soul after she tells you she's not following your religion) and praying (or posthumously baptizing, or whatever) for someone out a genuine feeling of love and goodwill.

I was reading a board for Christians once, and there was a group of Pentacostalists (spelling?) who felt directly threatened by the impending visit of Tibetan monks and a Kalachakra ceremony. They were organizing a pray-off of sorts to counter the negative impact of the visiting Buddhists.

Is it therefore disrespectful for the monks to perform the ceremony?

I know this might seem OT but there is a principle I am attempting to get at. We cannot dictate another group's religious convictions or practices. Whether or not we find them offensive or harmful.

(Obviously if the LDS church made a promise concerning Holocaust victims they should honor it. I'm trying to take this to a theoretical level.)
post #100 of 104


Have to just pop in to say, lots of Jews are feeling dissed, but are shrugging at the same time.

Mostly because anyone can do whatever they want, folks who lived & died as Jews are according to Jewish law and belief Jews, and there's not much of anything anyone else can do about it (again, according to Jewish law and belief). Baptise posthumously all ya' like, doesn't mean much spiritually (again, according to Jewish law and belief).







But thanks to kama for her eloquent explanations of the dis.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Natural Family Living › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Can anyone explain to me why the LDS/Mormons continue to baptize the dead???