Deseret News | Reader comments: LDS Church investigates possible ordinances performed for Obama's late mother

Reader comments
LDS Church reiterates policy

191 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
Next >

Only a matter of time | 6:48 p.m. May 5, 2009

Here come all the hateful comments about how awful everyone thinks the Mormon church is because everyone has nothing better to do.

Why? | 6:51 p.m. May 5, 2009

Why does the church seem to walk into these public relations nightmares?

What has happened?

This is news? | 6:55 p.m. May 5, 2009

If you believe in Mormonism then great you saved a soul. If you don't believe in Mormonism, then this procedure did nothing. Why is this stuff even published? Is someone trying to stir something that isn't controversial into something that is?

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:29 p.m. May 5, 2009

gee i guess that when there is no news really at all, why not make an issue out of a non-issue. this is a really good example of how competetive the media is with one another. both the deseret news and the sl tribune have this as a big topic today. problem is is that whoever 'informed' them of it obviously has nothing better to do with their own time along with the reporter who decided it was their own story. the newspapers gave credit where it was due for the article but to the general population it is really not even a story to even be printed. the media just goes after anything and everything and will force it in to their print everyday.

susana | 7:41 p.m. May 5, 2009

I won't pretend to understand at all.

will | 7:41 p.m. May 5, 2009

Ummmm, very interesting indeed?!?

huh? | 8:24 p.m. May 5, 2009

very strange.

It might matter to me | 8:25 p.m. May 5, 2009

If I am not a believer in a religion, I don't want to have "work" done for me when I'm dead. Leave it alone. And LDS people usually seem so baffled when they hear about other religions doing "crazy" things and believing the "unbelievable." Wow.

Without religions the world would be a much better place!

JLF | 9:11 p.m. May 5, 2009

People should understand that the person on the other side has the choice to accept or reject anything done on their behalf here. Nothing is binding.

Bill | 9:56 p.m. May 5, 2009

Regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong isn't the question here. The problem is that if a Church member submitted the names without being a direct descendant of President Obama's Mother it is wrong for them to do so. We are counselled only to submit names for those that are in our direct lines of ancestory. Some of these may be indirect if over a hondred years old but still we should be careful about it.

Doing the work for someone who is clearly not of our faith or in our direct line is not right and should not be done. Still as stated the individual on the other side of the veil still holds their agency to choose or not to choose the work as it is been done. It still doesn't make it right.

The Church gets into some of these nightmares for PR not because of its practices but because members take it upon themselves to go beyond what has been counselled.

Gretzky | 10:12 p.m. May 5, 2009

moral agency is the key.

A Mennonite friend of mine | 10:33 p.m. May 5, 2009

in Pennsylvania once told me that he thought LDS Temple work for the dead was one of the most unselfish things he'd ever heard of. He said, "I don't believe in it at all, but it amazes me to think of the incredible time and expense that others will donate to do something they hope will help others." He went on to say that he couldn't see why anybody who didn't believe in the power of the practice could possibly object to it. He said, "If you don't think it does anything, why do you care what others do?"
I think he made a good point. If it does something for somebody that is needed--well, that's good. If you don't believe that it works before God, then who cares?
Tempest in a tea pot (and I'm related to Obama's mother--but I certainly wouldn't have submitted her work without family permission--as is supposed to be done.)

I hate ignorance. | 11:01 p.m. May 5, 2009

Can somebody tell me...how is baptizing the dead any different from baptizing an infant who cannot speak or make his or her own choice in the matter? It is quite frankly exactly the same thing whether it be 5 days after being born or 5 days after dying. Both are subject to the desires and wishes of the relative NOT the person in question.

RE: Anonymous | 11:18 p.m. May 5, 2009

So, why were you reading news online if your opinion of the media is so low? You do recognize that the Deseret News and other local papers have a responsibility to report on what is happening in their communities...even if it is negative. I do not imagine that the church-owned DNews was really excited about having to write a story about mistakes made by LDS church members, but at least they have the courage to do it anyways and not just brush things under the carpet.

RE: I hate ignorance | 11:20 p.m. May 5, 2009

The difference, if you believe in the doctrine (which I do) is that baptizing for the dead has no effect if the person doesn't choose to accept it. The belief is that such ordinances have to be performed on this earth to be binding, but if the person they are for is not here, they still have to accept it or it means nothing.

That said, those of other faiths sometimes see this as very offensive to think that someone "baptized" their relatives, who they may see as a religious hero or otherwise, into another religion.

either way, the problem is one of everyone striving to understand each other.

Irishman | 11:44 p.m. May 5, 2009

RE: I hate ignorance.... Members of the LDS faith baptism is actually 8 years old, and are asked, "
do you want to be Baptized?" And for speaking, an infant is "special in Christ, " Let the little ones come unto me", as he said... and does not need baptism as he (she) are not accountable... As far as the deceased, My Grandmother told me once with my wife, that she did not walk the temple work done for her and to be sealed together with " the old drunk " were her words. But will still did the temple work and she and her spouse can decide to accept or not accept it. It is called "Free Agency", which we all have in this life to choose to accept what we do, or not... or to let our relatives do the work and then can accept it, or decline it. has nothing to do with speaking.. five days either way, I am doing 2 of my brothers Temple work this week and they can accept or decline... Their Choice in accepting it... I will catch it later from them "all" in the hereafter, WHEN THEY SEE ME THERE !!!

Anonymous | 11:44 p.m. May 5, 2009

Well, where are all the comments? I think this whole story is absurd. I heard about it on Fox 13 news tonight.

Why offended? | 12:17 a.m. May 6, 2009

I believe that the LDS Church does try to stop non family members from submitting a name for baptism for the dead.

The problem in my opinion is, over zealous members who believe that others should have the option to be baptized in the only true, restored church of Christ and have agency.

Folks who have no idea of what the LDS Church is, non members or atheists upon discovering this belief to be offensive.

I have heard fellow LDS say it is like lighting a prayer candle for someone even if they are not of the faith. It is not. When non members hear the words baptism and endowment they become bewildered.

If, as the LDS Church believes that life is everlasting and eternal - doesnt logic extend that folks that are not members will have the choice to become so in the afterlife?

That in my opinion is why non members find the practice offensive.

nighttrain | 12:26 a.m. May 6, 2009

From an outsider, I have frankly always been confused about the contraversy sorrounding this topic. It seems to me if the leaders of the Catholic Church or the Jewish Faith believed that their religion was the correct religion, the only true religion from God and that ordinances or rituals proformed in their churches or synagoges were correct in the eyes of God, then why does it matter if the Mormoms do ordinaces for the dead of Catholics or Jewish people? Wouldn't the ordinances performed by the Mormons be wrong and therfore non-binding.I don't mean to be cheeky, but do the leaders of the Catholic church or the Jewish faith believe they have the true religion from God? I am not so sure.

So what? | 12:28 a.m. May 6, 2009

And this affects who?

Re: I hate ignorance | 1:03 a.m. May 6, 2009

To actually answer your direct question, the dead have the choice to accept it since it's proxy because they lived a life and baptism is a symbol of cleansing and accepting Christ through covenant. Babies can't sin so they need not be cleansed, and they don't have a choice because they are physically baptized; someone isn't baptized for them to offer the choice, so they do not have a choice as infants. There is a huge difference in the two ordinances, but I see how you could be confused.

Cy | 1:38 a.m. May 6, 2009

To Irishman: Baptism of infants in older Christian faiths was a method of expunging Original Sin from the child so they would not be held accountable in the event that they died young (remember, infant mortality was higher back then).

Johnny B. Goode | 5:23 a.m. May 6, 2009

If it were ANYONE else, (with the exception of a Church in protest or infamous, famous person) there wouldn't even be an article to read.

Get the facts correct | 5:52 a.m. May 6, 2009

It is called "Free Agency", which we all have in this life to choose to accept what we do, or not

We have Agency "freely" given to us by God not "Free Agency".

We are free to choose for ourselves, we are agents unto ourselves. - we decide what actions we will take/make in this life.

Our life does not end when we "die" or leave this earth - We are eternal.

If you do not believe that this is correct/true, sorry but that doesn't alter the fact. We all have "agency" given to us by God/Our-Father-in-Heaven.

nottyou | 6:28 a.m. May 6, 2009

When I die, just in case, I would like people of all faiths to do their own "church work" for me so that I can choose my path on the other side. I like to have choices. I will not be offended.

Bot | 6:42 a.m. May 6, 2009

Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. Afterwards, the youth was dressed in a white robe, and anointed with oil and given a new name. This ritual was sacred and not open to non-family members to view. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum.

Baptism for Deceased Ancestors is referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" Baptism for deceased ancestors was practiced by Marcionites, an early Christian group, Orthodox Christian groups; Coptics (who even practice it today on occasion); Ethiopian Christians, called Abyssinians; and early Roman Catholics, as reported by Augustine and others.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus Apostles

Dixie Dan | 6:49 a.m. May 6, 2009

I wonder how the LDS people would feel if the late Gordon B. Hinckley was baptized a Catholic or Jehovah Witness?

YtxPat | 6:56 a.m. May 6, 2009

If Helen Radkey were that great of a researcher, she would have also known who submitted the name. Why is that information missing. Maybe it was a relative who submitted it. Radkey is also notorious for having nothing better to do than to slam the LDS Church.

Reader | 6:57 a.m. May 6, 2009

This is one of the first articles I have read like this that has actually had a group of mature people readind and talking about a matter like this. I think everyone here has made good points and it gives me alot to think about. Thank you all and have a great day.

Ignorance Justified | 7:02 a.m. May 6, 2009

Wow Ignorance you really show your true colors. Does nobody read the bible? I am a pastor at a small christian church and I tell you everyone has a big opinion on the afterlife and all have a good point (except ignorance) but why not ask the author of the bible himself? Or are we so ignorant as to not ask our father what is going on? 1 Cor. Paul asks the simple question. Why are you baptizing for the dead if the dead do not rise? He is saying there is no point to this practice because the dead are dead. When you die you live in the afterlife so what's the point? Your baptizing a dead body that the soul has left. You don't get another chance. God has taken you already or you have gone to hell. The choice was made and it cant be changed. The choices you make must be made in life and not in death. The difference between a baby five days old and a dead person? That is easy the person is dead!!! they have crossed the veil they have entered the afterlife they aren't coming back.

Dan M. | 7:30 a.m. May 6, 2009

Dixie Dan: See, you get right to the heart of this. The answer to your question is that no one would care. That's why we LDS members are so surprised when others are so offended by our temple work on behalf of others.

Sammy | 7:32 a.m. May 6, 2009

Pastor, I dissagree with you. Paul was saying that we do work for the dead because they do live again. It's a matter of interpretation. Christ was resurected so that we can also be resurected. He was the example we can pattern our lives after. He lives after dealth and we will too. Anyway, there are a lot of people who have had Temple work done for them unwillingly I am sure, by a well intentioned LDS person who wanted to help a soul who had never heard the gospel in their mortal life. It was a sweet gesture, nothing more.

nottyou | 7:38 a.m. May 6, 2009

To: Ignorance Justified 7:02am -- Wow, your view of the afterlife makes me want to be an atheist...when you're dead, you're dead! You explain it so well.

Anonymous | 7:48 a.m. May 6, 2009

"Justified" - Thanks for citing the biblical justification for baptism for the dead, and for showing how mainstream Christianity grossly misunderstands this passage. Paul is teaching in 1 Cor. 15 about the resurrection. He uses the example of baptism for the dead to explain how obviously everyone will be resurrected and death is not the end. Read the entire chapter and this message is be clear. He didn't say "there is no point to this practice because the dead are dead" as you suggest. Rather, he said there would be no point in the practice if the dead were just dead, but they are not. Christ conquered death, and the resurrection will allow everyone to defeat death and rise again. As Paul pointed out in verses 15-16, if you deny that the dead will rise, you are a false witness of God.

Anonymous | 7:54 a.m. May 6, 2009

The pastor makes a good point. Unfortunately it does not fit the scriptural context. According to scholars, I Cor. 15:29 is the single most challenging passage in the Bible with estimates ranging from 30 to 400 interpretations. The reason it is so hard to interpret--according to scholars--is that Paul clearly believed in the practice of baptism for the dead--and most Christians cannot make sense of it--except the LDS.
As an LDS, I would be honored to be posthumously baptized by JW, Jews or any group. To me it feels like a gesture of inclusion.

Thank you | 7:56 a.m. May 6, 2009

"Ignorance Justified" comments are great! This is the first comment written about this article that has their 'rudder' working. I agree, most people do not read the Bible or they read it, but do not understand it.

Matt | 8:03 a.m. May 6, 2009

To: Johnny B. Goode | 5:23 a.m. May 6, 2009

I completely agree with your statement...as the do it all the time with nothing said.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 8:15 a.m. May 6, 2009

Yea, we know all about it, a Ward decides to have a Temple trip, they car pool or rent a bus, stuff them with youth, turm them loose, when they get there, they run to the water, grab names and cards, and do the baptism for the dead, not even knowing why they are doing it in the first place, and the relatives that put in those names, never get to do this act, for their own DNA/Blood people. This is also a good example of overzellous posthumous temple ordinances were performed on behalf of President Barack Obama's deceased mother, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reiterated its policy regarding proxy baptisms.

Only if proxy baptisms were asked for in advance, from the relative, because they could NOT get there and do it for themself, should be allowed by someone in the Priesthood, Elder and above. Not kid's.

That's my view.

And I have been a LDS Member for over 50 years.

the guy | 8:17 a.m. May 6, 2009

why are you guys talk about the LDS for the people are right most people don't have lives.

Bob, the Mormon | 8:22 a.m. May 6, 2009

As I read these comments it seems to me that everything comes down to motive. What was the motive of the person doing the temple work for Pres. Obama's mother? Was she a relative doing her families history, or a friend unwisely submitting the work to be done, or someone wanting the notoriety of doing the ordinances? What is the motive of those not of the faith who believe that a Mormon temple ordinance brands their relative a Mormon in an afterlife? Is it really to save their relative from a "Mormon heaven" or for their own notoriety to excoriate the church? The issue is a belief on whether or not the LDS Church is true. But, without knowing the motives involved by the protestors or perpetrators we have to refrain from judgment.

Marcionites | 8:25 a.m. May 6, 2009

practiced baptising the dead per John Chrysosteum early church father, a practice St Paul saw but did not join.

My Advice to the Church | 8:35 a.m. May 6, 2009

Whoever your public relations' guy is, you need to fire him ASAP. Why has the Church been getting involved in all of these controversies lately?

Blu Bergamo | 8:35 a.m. May 6, 2009

It's amusing to see the LDS church have to backpeddle (yet again) on this, and to find a typically cheesy and dubious excuse to quell the gobsmacked public. When will they learn that they're not doing anyone--least of all themselves--a favor by necro-baptizing whomever they want to. Bad behavior by the LDS church is coming back ever more frequently to bite them in the collective butt.

Fred Vader | 8:37 a.m. May 6, 2009

First: I am LDS.

Second: Church policy states this should not happen. The member or members who submitted this name are in direct rebellion to the direction of the prophet, and have brought further embarrassment and condemnation of the church. The points being made that it doesn't matter because she can accept it or reject it are not pertinent to the discussion. People need to start listening and following the Prophet. This could not have been a relative who submitted it, but even if it was, it should not have been done. Further policy dictates that the closest living relative must give permission, and I doubt Mr. Obama did.

When the church finds out who did this, it should ensure church discipline against the individual(s) is/are carried out.

Re: Blu Bergamo | 8:43 a.m. May 6, 2009

And I suppose you aren't affiliated with any groups or organizations similarly tried? I'm happy to know you never make any mistakes.

Anonymous | 8:47 a.m. May 6, 2009

What about Obama's father???

Dan Knudsen | 8:52 a.m. May 6, 2009

Twelve years ago, when my wifes older brother died, close family friends, who are Catholic, told us that theyd had a Mass said for him. We thanked them for their caring, appreciating what theyd done for him--what other religions try to do something for the benefit of the dead? In my youth Id probably have been offended at this kind gesture; however, as my religious understanding matured, and Ive seen how little most care about what happens to the dead, Ive learned to appreciate any attempts made to help the dead. Although we dont agree on some things with Catholics, saying a Mass for him certainly didnt hurt him in any way. Im sure God appreciated that they cared that much for him, and He will reward them for their efforts to help him. When we are quick to take offense and condemn others, for their altruistic efforts, does this scripture apply? Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

BobP | 9:01 a.m. May 6, 2009

I am active LDS, and also a Jew through my mother.

The church DOES NOT require that only direct descendants submit names. This applies to all but the Jews with whom, out of respect, the church has made a special accomodation.

Tryingtouselogic | 9:13 a.m. May 6, 2009

Good point, Anonymous, what about Obama's father?

If his temple work has not been done, that is a really strong argument in favor of the mother's work having been done by a well-intentioned, if misinformed, relative of hers.

Starlight | 9:23 a.m. May 6, 2009

To: MY ADVICE TO THE CHURCH ~ It appears to me that when there is a subject that comes up that is negative or positive about The LDS Church, it invites scrutiny and study by the general public. This in turn creates opportunity for those of an open mind to do their homework and learn more about the Church such that they may decide that The LDS Church provides answers and hope for them where other faiths either don't, won't or can't. As a member of the LDS Church, negative remarks or publicity do not bother me because the author of contention only goes after those individuals or institutions that threaten his power and dominion. The uglyness and negativity only serve to validate the LDS Church, not undermine it.

Page:
1
2
3
4
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.