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

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 21 2012 7:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

If anyone watched the segment on fox13 news last night. They interviewed a local Rabbi, who explained he was approached by individuals who have been excommunicated from the LDS faith, and wanted to stir things up. They wanted him to issue statements against the church.

He turned them down and saw them for what they were. People just trying to stir the pot.

I wonder if this type of fraud, could also be classified as a hate crime. Since they are trying to stir the population to riot and express hatred towards a group of people. It would be interesting to see if justice will be carried out on this individuals. Who knows how many lives they have endangered.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Personally I wouldn't mind if anyone of faith or non-faith want to pray for or against me. Any church could baptize me if they want, after I die. If I don't believe it, then it really doesn't have an effect on me. Who knows...what if all of these people who are upset are wrong. I bet they won't be claiming how wronged they were at that point.

The only reason to get offended, is if you have some personal hatred or reason to hate the religion. Whether your religious or not. Hate is never the way to go.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm more concerned with the here and now and not so much the future after I'm gone. - Rifleman | 11:43 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012

But it's not your future we are discussing Rifleman.

It's my own.

And you desecrate the lives of all persons...

..who did not give you the authority to baptize them, without their consent.

Like many here who claim 'what does it matter to you?'

It involves, me.

It targets, me.

Against, my wishes.

There is no defense of this practice.

And, is against LDS policy.

I would also, support legal action.

There needs to be consequence.

Not more, apologies.

After apology.

After...well.

You get the idea.

Poqui
Murray, UT

"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"

YES - you can keep your temple recommend.

NO - you can't keep your temple recommend.

Claiming to be related to somebody when you are not is dishonest and thus disqualifies you from a temple recommend.

No justification.

No clause, "because it's a good cause."

It's dishonest.

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

The 1st step in resolving a problem is recognizing that the problem exists.

Radically Moderate
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I don't know if this story is true, but I was told a couple months back by a friend who was very inactive in the church that he was approached by some people who wanted to use his membership information and account to submit some names to the temple so that they could create a scandal when they could show that the temple work had bee done for some horrible people (he claimed that they were doing to do it for Stalin and a bunch of Soviet Communists). He told these friends that he was not interested because he was worried that they were really just trying to steal his personal information and commit identity fraud.

Like I said, this individual is kind of strange, so at the time I just dismissed the story and thought that it was kind of out there. But now I am starting to wonder...

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

Re: Pagan

"And you desecrate the lives of all persons who did not give you the authority to baptize them, without their consent."

Not that it affects you, but as I understand it, the Catholic Church baptizes babies. They certainly didn't give consent. And I doubt anyone would say that desecrates them. One might then say that a baptized Catholic when they become adult, may accept or reject the baptism done when they were very young. But that is just what the LDS Church would say about anyone having received the ordnance, in this life or the next.

CougarBlue
Heber City, UT

The Church can say it will be automatic excommunication if anyone does this and there will always be that one individual who doesn't care and thinks they have a higher calling and does the baptism anyway doing whatever they need to do to get it done. You cannot blame the Church for this.

In Jewish times the ordinance of baptizing for the dead was being done, otherwise why would Paul say in 1 Corinithians 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?"

This was done by some Jews for those who were dead. I wonder why the Jewish Critics do not think that their ancient rites did this also and could have offended others. Is it okay for them to have done this, yet no one else is allowed to do it. I wonder why this is no longer done among the Jewish Faith?

Also in Acts chapter 19 verses 1-6 Paul meets some people who have been baptized and based on his discussion with them he discovers they were baptized incorrectly, so he re-baptized them and then laid his hands upon them to receive the Holy Ghost. One can be baptized a 1,000 times and if the one doing the baptism does not have the proper authority, or does it incorrectly -- leaving out the following critical ordinance of the laying on of hands -- then it must be done again by one having the proper authority. Even in the LDS Church if someone is baptized, but never receives the confirming ordinance the baptism is not registered in the records of the Church because Baptism requires the ordinance of receiving the Holy Ghost, through the laying on of hands by one having the Authority.

The proxy is physical action. It is an earthly ordinance. The determination if it is ultimately acceptable is done on the other side by the individual for whom the work was done. If he, or she does not accept this proxy work it is as if the work had never been done. It is an act of love, not an act of "in your face, by the the individual doing the work." If one does it contrary to the Church's policies then it becomes an "in your face" action, without love.

Sadly we have too many people who get upset over everything and want to make a big issue out of it. We need to show a little more Christ-like compassion and love.

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

If I were a Muslim who had died and was aspiring to Allah's Garden when some Hindu guy redirected me to a different path, I could end up somewhere (for all eternity) that I did not wish. That would be a problem.

glubetu
Provo, UT

I think Radically Moderate and Liberal Ted may be on to something. In a Washington Post article Helen Radkey said, âI donât hack the database,â âLetâs just say I have a way of accessing it through a confidential Mormon source.â

I find it strange that in the past two weeks this issue about baptizing Jews has been quite a hot topic in the media and as recently as Saturday the 18th it was found that work had been done for Anne Frank... It seems pretty sketchy and maybe someone is using their membership info against church policies on purpose, to cause a scene.

Not saying all temple worthy members are "perfect" but the majority of them, at least the ones I know, are honest and would only submit names of relatives. I'm glad the church is taking a tougher stand on this. It wouldn't surprise me if some are pretending to be good standing members to have access to the temple and records to use it against the church.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@CougarBlue

"In Jewish times the ordinance of baptizing for the dead was being done, otherwise why would Paul say in 1 Corinithians 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?" "

You believe that, but most everyone else doesn't. The Greek that goes into translating that can mean a lot of things, one of the possible translations basically means (and this is what I believe personally) "why are we baptized (as beings who will die) if we do not rise".

Besides, he uses the word they in that verse despite using we throughout the rest of it. There were a few offshoot groups that practiced it or something a little like it where they only baptized those who died while in preparation for baptism, but no evidence that Jews or mainstream churches at the time practiced it.

I think you're putting a ton of stock into one misinterpreted verse given the lack of supporting evidence for proxy baptisms.

"I wonder why this is no longer done among the Jewish Faith? "

They would tell you that it was never done.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

To Scientist: Your earlier posts lead me to believe you are offended by baptism for the dead. Then you say you support Economistâs plan to have the descendants sue in court. Donât you realize (as does Economist in his satirical plan) that the descendants would lose? US law does not deal with life-after-death issues. To Lane Meyer: As I posted a few days ago, if the Jewish leaders would think logically instead of emotionally, this wouldnât be an issue. LDS leaders have bent over backwards to not offend them; but really, they have gone the extra mile because the Jews shouldnât have chosen to be offended. Yes, I agree some Jews are offended but our point is that they shouldnât be. The world is a better place when people donât take offense when it wasnât intended. To Dirty Hippee: many holocaust victims didnât die just for their beliefs, but for their race. Even if they had converted to Christianity, they were still Jewish by race and thus a target of the Nazis. To Bramabull: My post said I donât condone disobedience to Church leaders. Did you not read that?

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Re: Glubetu

If someone is being a whistleblower and making others aware of the fact that some of our members are not honoring the pact made between our leaders and the Jewish community, I certainly wouldn't say that is poor. At any rate, all you are doing is speculating and drawing a rather tenuous conclusion. You have no way of even knowing if the stories posted on this site are accurate.

I strongly urge you not to do so and to recognize that some members will do anything to avoid acknowledgement of mistakes within the Church, including making up stories that put the blame on those outside the Church rather than listening to the evidence shared by Church leaders.

carabaoU
Moab, UT

I'll worry about my ancestors, you worry about yours.

glubetu
Provo, UT

@Claudio

I appreciate your response. I didn't mean to come across that way. Members should learn and follow the rules in the first place. We don't know who is doing it. It's good to see all possibilities.

I'm glad the LDS church has taken a strict stance on this issue. Hopefully members will only submit their relatives and respect the position the church leaders have taken. I feel I need my business to be with my ancestors, no one else's.

Seamus Gott
Spring Branch, TX

@Economist - 9:12 a.m.,

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and from creating laws that prevent the free exercise of religion. The notion of proxy baptisms by the Church may be offensive to some in the world today (apparently it is to you), but it is not something that can be addressed by a First Amendment legal action. Frankly, it's not something over which any court in this nation would have jurisdiction or even fleeting interest.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

I'll ask it again, how is this information about who we do work for in Temples becoming public. From what the Church leaders seem to be saying, anyone who is knowingly having work done for people on the "don't do list" will be in lots of trouble. I doubt that an honest mistake by some member would warrant such harsh punishment. Maybe the Church leaders know something we don't. Like perhaps there is some inside job going on. If there is, then yes, I would think that up to excommunication would be in order.

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

First for people asking how people are finding out that these baptisms for the dead are done it does not take an insider to tell people. the records are open to the public t5o try and prevent the same work being done repeatedly.
Second for those who think it no big deal when you try to submit a name for Temple work a box pops up with the Churches regulation. You have to click that you have read them. Then another box pops up asking if you the next of ken. I went through this for my dad who was a Baptist. I went to my mother (the next of ken by the list in the pop up) who is LDS to get permission to do the work. To enter the name of a person that I am not the next of ken for I must violate one of the Temple recommend questions (Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man). This makes it an issue for the Church to look at.
Third why is this issue important? because when we do not live up to the standards we claim to live up to we HURT the Church of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. People look at us and say are we honest. These actions say that those who do them are not.
Finally I would suggest that we as Members should read the revelations on Baptism for the Dead. Repeated the term used used is "YOUR DEAD" so we are directed to Baptise OUR dead meaning OUR ancestors not those of others who have repeatedly asked us not to with out a DIRECT descendant requesting it.

Rynn
Las Vegas, NV

To suggest that more scandalous figures in history have been proxy baptized by outsiders of the Church to make the Church look bad, well, that is quite a stretch.

Every group has individuals who choose not to abide by their leaders. Perhaps the members who are submitting names they know they should not be submitting, just think the whole thing is "silly".

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@mg scott and barndog48

why does it matter how the information became public? The actions of these individuals was wrong whether they ever became public or not. focusing on how people cam to know about the wrong doing is nothing but an attempt to distract from the people at fault for this being an issue and that would be the peolpe that made a willful choice to ignore church rules regarding this issue.

to comment

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