Rebaptism is offensive

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mahershalalhashbaz
    May 12, 2008 10:46 p.m.

    You are offended why? You can get a doll of me and poke needles in it if you want, I don't believe it will hurt me one bit. And guess what, it won't. Ha ha ha. Poke me all you want for all I care. You're hatred, rage and anger are out of control who oppose what we do. To anon 6:23 pm, we don't baptized any dead relatives into our true religion. They are not members until they accept it of their own free will and choice. So if you are so sure your dead relatives will not accept it, fine. They very well may not, so whether it's true or not, how in the world could you care, unless your brain is so screwed up it's beyond repair. I think you have bigger things to worry about, like the US debt that is about to swallow us all up.

  • Bob
    May 12, 2008 7:28 p.m.

    Anon...of all the thousands of "so-called misguided Mormons" I know all over the country. I know of no one as mean spirited, negative,etc., as you are by your own portrayal in these blogs....and I am glad I don't! I am glad I am "me" and not "you".

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 6:23 p.m.

    Okay, let's put it this way -
    If I find who is rebaptizing any dead relative of mine into their bogus religion, I'll have to kick their (blanks)!

  • Mike Richards
    May 12, 2008 6:18 p.m.

    Gifts, both great and small show the goodness, the nobility, the generosity of the giver. Honorable and gracious people accept gifts with humility, knowing that the intent to help, to uplift, to enrich is worth far more than the gift itself.

    The petty, the foolish, the unwise, judge the value of the gift by their own petty, foolish and unwise standards.

    Good people everywhere are gracious when they are honored with a gift. Grandparents never judge the quality of the drawing, but only the love and greatness of the heart of the grandchild who loved enough to share their best effort and to give of themselves.

    People of religion, the world over, are mostly gracious and kind when they are offered gifts. They are not so foolish to return to God His great gifts, nor to embarrass those who in their own way, try to emulate some of God's great goodness by giving gifts one to another.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 6:13 p.m.

    I think your definition of proselytism is vastly different from mine Thomas.

    Never confuse materialism with Christmas.

  • Thomas
    May 12, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    Anon, if nobody ever proselytized, I would never have gotten any Christmas presents. Grinch!

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 5:01 p.m.

    I hope that by now we can see the futility in proselytism.

    Row, row row YOUR boat ...
    (Row your OWN boat please, and I promise I won't row YOURS)
    If this is done mutually, with no unilateral monkee-business whatsoever- I believe life truly can be A DREAM.

    But don't tell your Missionary president I told you.

  • Thomas
    May 12, 2008 4:40 p.m.

    If I made a practice of being offended by other people's religious practices, I'd be offended by evangelicals praying for me to see the error of my Mormon ways. And by hard-core Mormons praying for me to see the error of my "intellectual" pride. And to Catholics for presuming to declare that the existence of God is capable of being demonstrated by rational proof (which -- since I've yet to be convinced by any such proofs -- implies that I'm an idiot.)

    Bottom line, people will believe what they want, and unless it picks my pocket or breaks my leg, I'm inclined to let them alone.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 3:55 p.m.

    This rebaptism thingy is just another LDS Public Relations ploy to inflate membership numbers.

    I thought EVERYBODY could figure THAT one out.

  • So What
    May 12, 2008 3:15 p.m.

    So What if the LDS Church "mass copies" names of families for their Proxy Baptisms. If you have a right to say no in the herafter then you say no. Now, they do make all the names available to ALL people to trace their ancestry. Given that, then what ever they do is fine as long as others are given a way to do what ever they want to do...

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 3:11 p.m.

    Tell ya what Joe Moe.
    You do your thing.
    I'll do my thing.
    We'll stay out of each others' faces, live-and-let live (worship how we want and leave the other guy be)
    Then, after a while, let's see if there is any positive outcome to this.

  • Clarification
    May 12, 2008 2:53 p.m.

    There seems to be some confusion about what names the LDS church does proxy baptisms for.

    Members are only supposed to submit names for deceased ancestors or deceased relatives. However, if the name is not a direct ancestor, or is a "recent" decedent, they should get permission from the closest next of kin. Many members violate this policy as there is no check to see that the permission has been obtained.

    However, the church does mass photocopying of records from all over the world and makes these names available to temple patrons that do not have "family" names.

  • Joe Moe
    May 12, 2008 2:49 p.m.

    I know. Let's have every name (that we can find) in the history of the world put on a list. Let every religion do every ceremony, prayer, or incantation they want with every name on the list. Then, no matter which religion is right, the doors will be open for every soul in the next life.

    With everyone so concerned with everyone else's eternal welfare, maybe we'll have more compassion in other, more mundane ways, and our world will be better for it.

    My name can be at the top of the list.

    I want a Nobel Prize for my brilliant, all-inclusive, harmony-inducing plan. But I'll settle for everyone who is up in arms about this to get some perspective and get back to life.

  • Universal belief
    May 12, 2008 2:31 p.m.

    Here's one for you.

    The Catholic church (Catholic means universal) believes every Christian is part of the base structure that is Catholic.
    So, no matter what has been protested in the past, no matter what sect has been formed, everybody is under the same roof. (Whether you dunk, sprinkle, marry a bunch of wives, etc.)

    That's why the Catholic Church is always open to everyone.

    Now what?

  • Hmmmm
    May 12, 2008 2:23 p.m.

    Let's see, I'm LDS and I am very proud of it, but if I could give you a dollar for everytime someone from another religion prayed for me then we'd all be rich. Fact is, I appreciate other people's faith and care, even from other religions, and personally, I would appreciate being "rebaptized" in their religion if they thought that it would help me reach the "rapture" or heaven, or what ever they would have me reach. I need all of the help I can get and their help is just as important to me as my bishop's.

  • no twain is going to meet
    May 12, 2008 2:12 p.m.

    Mormons will be Mormons
    Mainstream Christians will be Christians

    And (as evidenced by this absurd rebaptism ritual)
    [obviously] never the twain shall meet.

  • kim
    May 12, 2008 2:03 p.m.

    It goes back to the attitude that he LDS church is the only real church..
    Us nonebelievers don't buy it..
    we are fine with our own churches doctrines and believes..

  • nobody is going to roll over
    May 12, 2008 1:08 p.m.

    In today's latter-day version of Mormonism, no one gets "run out of town" for their peculiarities.

    For the most part, nobody really cares what you do.

    But when you insist on taking liberties telling non-mormons "God told you so" I am afraid our differences will be in the form of law suits.

  • Chloe
    May 12, 2008 12:51 p.m.

    No Lamonte - It will not be okay by me if my Mormon brother opts to have me baptized. Give it a rest... and you were the one referring to past momo's getting run out of everywhere, don't talk about it if you don't want a response.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    Play all the stupid word games you want Mormons,
    but if you expect we non-mormons to simply roll over and play dead on this unilateral practice of yours, you are dumber than I had originally thought.

  • Don't worry Ramona
    May 12, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    Ramona, you've made a concious choice so you don't need to worry about this at all (for yourself).

    Baptism for the dead is a contingency plan for those who didn't get the chance to hear the gospel and accept or reject it in this life. Sounds like you know enough about the gospel the Mormons teach and have rejected it, so even if a proxy where baptised for you, your choice while on earth would take precidence over the precautionary safety net of Baptism-for-the-dead.

    Baptism-for-the-dead is not a 2nd chance program, where those who already made a concious decision to reject the gospel while they were alive get a 2nd chance to accept it after death. It is intended for those countless generations of people who lived on the earth during the dark-ages and in countries where their government or other conditions prevented them from getting the chance to hear and accept or reject the gospel for themselvs.

    People who made their own decision while alive don't need Baptism-for-the-dead because they already made their wishes known while on this earth. Baptism-for-the-dead is for those who didn't get a fare chance to make their own decision while on earth.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    The more time goes on and the more information is revealed to those gentiles about the Mormons and their beliefs- the more I am convinced these people have lost their minds.

  • lamonte
    May 12, 2008 12:24 p.m.

    Chloe - but what if after you leave this world one of your relatives ends up being a Mormon (it could happen!) and they decide to give you that chance to be baptized by proxy. Will that be OK? By the way, nobody ran ME out of anywhere.

  • YouGoFirst
    May 12, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    To "Anonymous | 10:52 a.m." there are people who, with good intentions, do things that are considered bad manners.

    Not to trivialize this, but I was in a restaurant and had some guy with a cell phone stand next to me and my wife and chat away for about 10 minutes. While this was extreamly rude, he was doing it so that his family wouldn't have to listen to him. Good intentions, bad execution.

    The LDS church is full of good people, but you have to remember that they are people, and as such makemistakes.

    If you want to take a few people and judge any religion, creed, or belief system by it, then you will come to the conclusion that any belief system is wrong.

    There will always be people who don't follow their leader's council, but we can't judge the group off of a few people.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    When are Mormons ever going to learn they simply cannot pull off what they used to pull off without having a fight on their hands?

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    A thousand pardons, lamonte -
    Perhaps if the Mormon attitude was/is:

    "We can and will baptize dead people without the deceased's family's authorization" - it's no wonder they got "run out of every city, county and state in this great nation."

    You just cannot do that sort of thing and get away with it.

    That's what makes this a GREAT COUNTRY.

  • Chloe
    May 12, 2008 12:02 p.m.

    Re: Lamonte
    Do what you want with your own family members (hopefully the consent), but leave me alone.... If you can't then yes you are equally as bad as those who ran you out of everywhere.

  • lamonte
    May 12, 2008 11:42 a.m.

    to Anonymous 10:52 - You really don't have to lecture Mormons about bad manners. Running them out of every city, county and state in this great nation, where religious freedom was supposed to be a hallmark, was bad manners. Murdering their leaders, and sending cowardly mobs in the night to terrorize their villages was bad manners. Letting 6,000 of them die on the trail across the Great Plains and then sending the Union Army to a godforsaken desert that nobody else wanted, just to harrass them, was bad manners. They know the meaning of bad manners. Symbolically baptizing by proxy, one of their dead relatives, regardless of what religion they professed while they lived on this earth, to provide what they believe to be ultimate salvation, doesn't quite meet the same standard for bad manners.

  • jackhp
    May 12, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    Uh, Point of Clarification, maybe you should get your facts straight before you decide you need to clarify something. Pope John Paul II has been dead for over two years now.

  • Point of Clarification
    May 12, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    to "very confused in OC at 9:33am.

    I don't know how it could be possible to have baptized the pope at least 4 times when the LDS church doesn't allow baptisms for the dead for living people. Last I had heard the pope was still alive and kicking.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    To YouGoFirst -

    I KNOW what the LDS leaders are "encouraging members to do.
    I also KNOW what the members are doing anyway.

    Either way, this falls under the category of bad manners.

  • YouGoFirst
    May 12, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    To "fr1nk 9:58" it isn't just a matter of living the golden rule. That is a great thing to live by, and I wish more people lived by it.

    The thing is that here in life, we are preparing ourselves to live with God again. The requirements for entering into his kingdom have been shared with us by Prophets. One of the requirements to return to him is to receive an earthly baptism. The requirement is not negociable, which we know because even Jesus, who was perfect, had to be baptized.

    Baptism is one of few requirements that is an outward expression of one's comitment to follow the commandments of God.

    In the end it all comes down to faith. No matter what is written here, or anywhere that you read, it is up to each individual to decide if they believe or not.

    (I like to look at the Old Testament like early childhood. God seem tough and fierce because the people, in general, were not ready for the next step. It would be wonderful if we had writings from Adam to Moses, but instead we have Genisis, as written by Moses.)

  • Frank
    May 12, 2008 10:40 a.m.

    Ill sign up for anyone's list. You are welcome to baptize, elect, scream at, curse, pray for, pray against, or play boggle or monopoly with my name after I die regardless of belief system.

  • hold on...
    May 12, 2008 10:08 a.m.

    re: YouGoFirst 8:42

    Doesn't "fr1nk 8:17" make a valid point? That same God that fed the Israelites manna also commanded them to commit genocide when they got to "their" promised land. Men, women, children...didn't matter. But that was a great point about the manna.

  • fr1nk
    May 12, 2008 9:58 a.m.

    Yugo; I do try to live by the golden rule if that is your question. I just dont believe in a god who makes these ritualistic rules that even he/she/it cant change.
    What do you learn from baptism of the dead. When I did it I didnt learn anything.
    As far as the compassionate god of the old testament, my favorite story is th story of Job. I will refresh your memory (paraphrased): "god tells satan that Job loves god. satan says it is because god gave Job so much stuff. God says "O yeah!" God kills Jobs family, takes all his stuff and when Job still prays to god, god says to satan "see, I told you so". Quite the loving god.

  • YouGoFirst
    May 12, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    To "Anonymous 9:29" - the LDS leaders have encouraged the members to only submit their family's names.

  • Chloe
    May 12, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    Re Connie and Others - YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING TO MY BODY/SOUL - EVER. Get over yourself and realize I am just not interested in your shenanigans, leave me to rest in peace (WITHOUT YOUR HELP).
    It is quite selfish of you to assume you have the right because your religion says so, no matter what this is my body and you have no right.

  • Hey Connie
    May 12, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    No one is telling you what you can do, they are simply saying the LDS church can't copy what is basically copyrighted material, ie parish records. Seems like the LDS church is having issues with copyrights. First the Catholic church's records and now Disney.

    You don't believe everything taught by other religions, they obviously feel the same way about you LDS folks.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 9:37 a.m.

    You are never going to get the Vatican to change their minds on this.


  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    Of course its offensive.

    Would you crash a family reunion uninvited?

  • jackhp
    May 12, 2008 9:34 a.m.

    A "just and fair" "God" would not CARE if someone was dunked, sprinkled or doused with water here on Earth.

  • very confused in OC
    May 12, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    "Confused" states that proxy baptism is done only for descendants of current LDS members and that there are no "en masse" baptisms of lists of names. "Connie Gasser" implies otherwise, since she mentions plans to baptize people who lived in Communist countries who never had the chance of LDS baptism.

    I believe Connie Gasser's version may be closer to the truth. After all, Pope John Paul II (no, I am not Catholic) has been baptised by proxy at least four times, and I doubt that he has any relatives who are active LDS Church members.

    I believe that most folks who are not LDS have little problem with proxy baptisms for ancestors of current LDS members, excluding perhaps deceased persons who left the LDS Church of their own volition while they were alive. What does irk the non-LDS public is inclusion of people without any LDS connections, be they popes or Holocaust victims, into LDS rituals without consent from living descendants.

    Official LDS Church publicity appears to support "Confused's" position, in that Family History work and proxy baptisms are done only by members on behalf of their ancestors. Connie Gasser's remarks suggest otherwise, however; that's what offends others.

  • jackhp
    May 12, 2008 9:32 a.m.

    People believing in myths doesn't bother me. It's what they DO with their beliefs and how it affects OTHER people that bothers me. It bothers me when the believers of one myth claim absolutely no earthly understanding of how LIVING relatives of the deceased could possibly be offended when they are told that THEIR myths aren't good enough and that their dead relatives need to "choose" a different myth to receive all the mythy "blessings" associated with their beliefs.

    Seriously, why can't we just let the dead figure it out? I know, I know, there's some "corporeal" requirement for baptism. Whatever, who cares? CHANGE the doctrine so we can all get along better while we're here on EARTH. You've done it before; please, do it again. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

    (could someone in the know please forward this message to Mr. Monson?)

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 9:29 a.m.

    Hey LDS dudes!

    What part of doing this without the consent of the family is bad manners don't you get?

  • Connie Gasser
    May 12, 2008 9:09 a.m.

    It seems that people who are not members of the LDS church feel they have the right to tell us what we can do and what we can't do. That's offensive to me. A lot of doctrines in other churches are crazy to me, but you don't see me telling them to stop their practices. Heavenly Father said that no one can enter into his Kingdom unless they were baptized. What about those who lived in communist countries and died before they could have the right to hear about God? Are they going to **** because they didn't have the chance for baptism. What about infants who die after being alive two days. Will they not be able to go to heaven because they didn't get baptized? They didn't do anything wrong. I thought God was just and fair.
    Remember people have their free agency to believe as they choose. You don't have the right to tell people what the can or can't believe.

    My best advice to you is to mind you own business instead of everyone elses.

  • YouGoFirst
    May 12, 2008 8:42 a.m.

    To "fr1nk 8:17" - It sounds like the plan you would have like to have in life, is to do what seems good, then everybody comes to heaven.

    The LDS believe that we are here to learn to obey God's will. While it would be easier to make it so that all ordinances were carried out at once, it puts the burden of learning on us.

    The God of the old testament also had great compassion. While the ancient isrealites were in the wilderness, he fed them manna (a bread like substance that tasted like honey). He also took the city of Enoc into heaven because they were so good.

  • What is that noise???
    May 12, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    Oh, it's the sound of someione beating a dead horse!! I thought this topic was over! The Catholic church has made up it's mind, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON PEOPLE!!! THERE'S NOTHING NEW HERE!!

  • fr1nk
    May 12, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    I cannot believe in a god that can create a universe, but cant let a soul into heaven unless some person on his creation (earth) first is dunked in water in that souls name. But then again, in all my readings, the god of the old testament was petty and hostile to his creation. Couldnt a real god just make a baptismal fount (sp) in heaven and take care of the paperwork (and the dunking) there? What would have happened if no one had believed Joseph Smith and his fantastic story? Would god have been powerless to let anyone into heaven?

  • Confused
    May 12, 2008 8:09 a.m.

    Chole and others,
    First the baptisms for the dead is by the descendents of that person. So if you family stays within the church of your choosing then the chances are that they will not be baptized.

    The LDS do not just do mass baptisms without descendents first doing the work to find thier ancestors.

    You still have the choice to accept or decline the oridinace. Thus you still have your free agency. Maybe you will learn something on the other side.

  • Dave
    May 12, 2008 8:04 a.m.

    Ever stop to think you might change your mind after you are dead?

  • All Religions are Offensive
    May 12, 2008 6:44 a.m.

    All Religions have their offensive doctrines.

    Re-baptism is offensive? So some of my neighboors telling me that unless a person accepts Christ in this life, that they will burn in hell forever. I have budahist relatives, who are great people. So is telling someone who is divorced that they need to wait for church permission to get re-married or they will suffer the wrath of God. If that permission never arrives they are to put themself on ice the rest of their life. So is a wife telling a husband that she can have relations with him only two weeks of every month, because they don't want any more kids and she refuses any use of contraception. So is religion saying that under no circumstances can a person have sex outside marriage, what of the person who's husband or wife is invalid? or the person who can find no one to marry them but still can date?

    Religion of all kinds teach doctrines that are outdated and offensive.

  • Chloe
    May 12, 2008 5:55 a.m.

    I too find it very offensive for someone to assume the right to baptize me after I am dead. Leave me alone! I have already been baptized in the fashion of the church I belong to. If I change my mind before I die and decide to convert to LDS then I will get baptized by you, otherwise mind your own business and stay out of my life and death!

  • Danny C
    May 12, 2008 5:38 a.m.

    Some people may find it offensive, but we believe in being obedient, and it is the Lord, not man, who has commanded us to do these proxy baptisms. Till He says otherwise, we'll continue to obey. That's sufficient justification for me.

  • lamonte
    May 12, 2008 5:04 a.m.

    It's hard to tell if Anonymous 1:37 a.m. is pro-LDS or not, be he/she has the right attitude. I don't think those now living on the earth, regardless of their religion, can speak for those who have left this life and now exist in another state of being. It may be offensive to some of those now living to baptize their dead relatives by proxy but it could be just as offensive to those on the other side to be denied that choice. We just don't know, do we.

  • CB
    May 12, 2008 2:47 a.m.

    I can only see that someone would or could be offended if they thought there was the least little bit of a chance that it might be legit. The offense comes from being found wrong, not that someone has submitted a name you think belongs to you, which it doesn't. Only the person, who is dead, has a right to accept or reject what has been done and of late there doesn't seem to have been any communication declaring offense from the other side. Frankly I would be concerned that when my time came that I would be met on the other side by irate family members for sticking my nose in their business.
    If you're so sure of your position, then leave a declaration on your records. I'm sure it will be honored.

  • Anonymous
    May 12, 2008 1:37 a.m.

    No need to sign up. No one is forced to accept it. After I die you can re-baptize me all you want. I'll just say "No Thanks".

  • Ethan
    May 12, 2008 1:28 a.m.

    If your (and others') believe systems are accurate, then an LDS baptism for the dead will mean nothing and not affect your salvation in whatever form that is. If, however, LDS theology is correct on the matter, then you (and others) will likely appreciate the church being concerned for your eternal welfare and not forgetting about you.

    This is not something to get so worked up over. Frankly, any other religion can baptize me in whatever way they see fit so as best to "save" me. As long as I have an opportunity to accept or reject it when faced with the truth in the life after this is good enough for me.