Comments about ‘LDS Church toughens stand against 'improper' proxy name submissions’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 21 2012 6:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

Since the damage has already been done, the LDS Church should be held accountable. I propose lawsuits by those descendants of the baptized in Federal court bringing forth a claim of 1st amendment rights violations...if nothing else, this would compel jurists to consider whether the rights of an alleged victim extend beyond the grave or if descendants are even able to take up those rights (standing)


@Uncle Charles, @Cats
You cannot see that your own church has said they might excommunicate those who do this. That is the gravity of the situation. Calling Jewish leaders silly, or a non-issues, just shows your lack of empathy and disdain for your church leaders.

Bountiful, Utah

The church made a promise. It is keeping its promise. For those members of the church who are posting and saying the whole thing is silly, you might want to spend some knee time getting rid of your pride.

Carlsbad, CA

Vicarious work for the dead is not forced upon the LDS membership. Those who do it are volunteering time and effort, from the first time they search out their ancestors and others, to the actual performances of temple ordinances. The fact that this huge endeavor is even done reveals the commitment church members have to their beliefs. Otherwise, they would just sit home and watch TV or spend all of that time on the links or somewhere else. Work for the dead is done out of love and devotion to the principles taught by the leadership, one of which is joining the family of man together under the directive of God's priesthood.
If you are a non-believer the issue is truly much ado about nothing. Who is harmed?

A Scientist
Provo, UT


I would support such legal action.

layton, UT

RE; Bill in Nebraska, Millions have been baptized correctly[?]by the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Millions more will be baptized correctly[?] by the members over the next year.

The fact remains that this is exactly the kind of activity that enraged and hurt, really, so many victims of the Holocaust and caused alarm in the Jewish community," Cooper said. "Whatever framework in which it is presented, the notion of performing these sort of rites for Hitler, Himmler and other Nazis . . . is beyond [understanding].

Recognizing their crimes against humanity, particularly Holocaust victims, submissions for Nazi leaders are deemed inappropriate to a rite originated out of members' love for, and desire to perform sacred temple rites for, their ancestral dead.

Provo, UT

I agree that the LDS church should respect the wishes of the Jews and for that matter any other group that requests that temple work not be performed for their members out of respect for the dead of their faith.

However, performing temple work for the dead is as effective in saving souls or converting them to Mormonism as sprinkling pixie dust on someone to help them fly.

It is a much ado about nothing.

It = temple work for anyone (Just to be clear anyone didn't know what 'It' is)

Athens, GA

I so agree with the Church's stance on tougher disciplinary action against those who submit names improperly. This article is correct in that there are multiple safeguards and place where a person has to agree that they have familial permission to submit this name. By lying at this point they are basically breaking their own temple covenants.

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

I am not of the LDS faith. However, I do have one comment to make here. Let's assume for the point of debate that the LDS have the right idea here. What are you going to say to your dead relative when they ask you why you didn't let the LDS perform the baptism?


how did the media find out about this? is someone ratting them out?

sandy, ut

Pagan - I usually agree with you on your comments. I have just the opposite thought process as you do in regards to when I am dead. You said "when I am dead leave me alone."

My thoughts are when I am dead you can proxy baptize me into any religion you want. Why would I be opposed to more blessings in the afterlife, if that is the case. If the blessings of baptism after I die don't do anything to benefit me, then they sure won't harm me. That is why I don't get all of the fuss about this. Just because I get baptized into the mormon church after I die doesn't actually mean I am all of the sudden a mormon in the after life. If anything it can only help my soul. Baptize me into the catholic, methodist, lutheran, jewish, whatever you want. It won't matter, I'm dead. I think it all has to do with religious tradition and control. Its not like the deceased will change religions in heaven. In fact, I doubt there is any one type of religion in heaven. That would mean the proxy baptisms can't hurt anything.

sandy, ut

So RG and Cats - you are going directly against what the prophet and apostles have said in a statement issued to all church members? That is not good. Even they say it is a large issue, so you two as members don't follow what leaders say??

Salt Lake City, UT

"To Truthseeker who says that proxy baptism is offensive because it implies the first baptism wasn't good enough, well, isn't that what our missionaries do anyway? "

Yeah and haven't you noticed people find that offensive too?

" And I agree with Cats: too bad that some people who want the baptism now have to wait because some others chose to be offended. "

There's only a couple million Jews. You're making hundreds of million deceased people wait because of your church's belief that they have to wait for someone on earth to determine they exist and do the work for them. If waiting were such a bad thing then there wouldn't be any temple baptisms needed and a spirit world baptism would be sufficient.

" Catholic communities not only recognized the importance of proxy ordinances (they used to many years ago) "

That's just false.

@Bill in Nebraska
"Millions have been baptized correctly by the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. "

Correctly? As if a God who would let a millenium pass without a valid baptism option makes any sense...

Salt Lake City, UT

"If you are a non-believer the issue is truly much ado about nothing. Who is harmed? "

As a Christian myself, the implicit insinuation that my grandmother's life of being a devout Catholic and her baptism are meaningless is insulting.

Salt Lake City, UT

@The Deuce
"What are you going to say to your dead relative when they ask you why you didn't let the LDS perform the baptism?"

The LDS church believes all work not yet completed will be done during the Millenium. The LDS church believes that Final Judgment doesn't occur until after that period anyway. Since according to LDS belief everyone has to wait anyway for final judgment and everyone is guaranteed to get work done for them anyway, then there's nothing to worry about if the LDS church is true since nobody's going to have to wait any longer in the grand scheme of things anyway.

deseret pete
robertson, Wy

I support the church in it's effort to keep their committment to the jewish people. One thing I don;t understand is why anyone is opposed to it. 1 -- if they don't believe the church is true and has no authotity to do so what difference does it make to them ? 2 -- If they believe the church is true and has the authority from God to baptize for the dead as they did in the times of of the early church as set up by Christ why would they oppose it.If some other church wants to baptize me after i'm dead , go ahead because I know it won't mean a thing because they don't have the authority to do so.They could baptize me a hundred times but without the proper authority or the Keys of the Priesthood it wouldn't mean a thing.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

The whole doctrine of "redeeming the dead" is silly to most all who do not subscribe to the LDS faith. The notion that "souls are waiting for their proxy baptisms" makes me chuckle.

Kearns, UT

The only thing that offends me is when evangelical leaders lie about the Church and what it believes. Other than that, I am not offended by anything. Members should be more careful and do their own research.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Economist | 9:12 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012
"I propose lawsuits by those descendants of the baptized in Federal court bringing forth a claim of 1st amendment rights violations"

Since this ordinance involves the person being baptized and not their descendants I propose that the deceased be required to prove that he (or she) didn't want this work done. Shouldn't they have the right to accept or reject this ordinance? If they didn't want this work done for them does anyone really honestly believe that God would force it upon them?

Of course those who don't believe the LDS Church in the first place would have a hard time proving the Church had the authority from God to do those baptisms in the first place.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Pagan | 8:10 p.m. Feb. 21, 2012
"When i am dead......please, leave me alone."

You acknowledge that the LDS Church has the authority from God to baptize you against your will after your dead? I'm more concerned with the here and now and not so much the future after I'm gone.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments