LDS Church toughens stand against 'improper' proxy name submissions

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 24, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    @ Bill in Nebraska. None of what you said has anything to do with Baptism for the Dead.

    Anne Frank was baptized in a Mormon proxy ritual, at least the third Holocaust victim discovered to have been baptized posthumously this month.(2/22/12).
    In 2010, the church agreed after meetings with Jewish leaders to halt the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims unless the names were submitted by their direct ancestors.
    Anne Frank was posthumously baptized at least a dozen times between 1989 and 1999, Radkey told the Huffington Post.

    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by WORKS, so that no one can boast. For we are Godâs handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:8-10)

    Jesus tells Lazarus in John 11:34,who is dead a buried, Lazarus Come out ,Lazarus did not say Iâm not doing it. Jesus said specially , Lazarus come out, or all the dead would have come out.

    I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[God chooses, not man]. It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on Gods mercy.( Romans 9:15,16).

  • Suspicious Minds Canada, 00
    Feb. 24, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    Blame the LDS members, punish the members...the fact remains that the names anyone submits are clearly not being screened by the Church during that processing of the name prior to the proxy work being performed. This is simply a band aid excuse to remove responsibility and blame where it squarely belongs!

  • Capella Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 24, 2012 12:48 a.m.

    No KC in Kansas,
    1- no proxy baptisms by western European churches "through the 5th century". Epiphanius and the Shephetd of Hermas are not canonical or reliable history. There's plenty of internet references which expose Epiphanius' questionable claims. Apochrypha is a Catholic possession and still highly debatable today.

    2- Just because an obscure sect practices a ritual does not mean it was authentic originally. There are heresies and heretics that the apostles and Jesus Christ warned about from Day 1. Bible-only believers, (evangelicals) still hold to sola scriptura. Since it is never discussed or mandated by either Jesus or His disciples and early leaders, it is not Biblical.

    3- Neither proxy baptisms or marriage sealings are Biblical. And no sect performed proxy marriages prior to 1830, guaranteed. I respect your religious rights. Let's just be clear when rituals snd doctrines are extra-biblical.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 23, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    Will7370: It really won't matter during the millineium. Temple work will be accomplished 24 hours a day. Jesus Christ will reign supreme and Satan will be bound. There will be no contention to stop the work of the Lord going forward. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve recognize this just as much as I do. They know that just as I that if we do our OWN family that we will be so much better for it. There is plenty of work to do for our own family. With our own family work completed and any errors that are made by family members will be corrected during the millineium. The vail will be removed and we will be able to converse with our ancestors who will correct or fulfill our own obligation. The rest will be taken care of by those whose family work is basically completed. There is no need to worry. The Lord knows what needs to be done and it will get done. With Satan bound, everyone on earth will become members of the Lord's Church during the millineium, then there will be only one faith and one baptism for all.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 23, 2012 9:03 p.m.

    Sharrona: None of what you said has anything to do with Baptism for the Dead. In fact, most of it has to deal with the restoration of the Jews to Jersulem. It also pertains to the fact that the Gentiles will be grafted into the House of Israel. That is being done today as more and more people are converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

    No matter how you look at it, Baptism for the Dead is Biblical. It is for this cause that Jesus Christ informed the boy Joseph that the creeds were an abomination before him. This is why he stated that the preachers of that day grew close to him with their words but their hearts were far from him. Again all you've stated is that it was taken away by the Catholic Church by the very creeds that Joseph Smith preached against.

  • Gemimi Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 23, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    Will7370- Don't fret. God created this world, and according to His Word He calls "whoever " He will. Our job is to respond to the invitation, not worry about the particulars.

    Jesus said to believe and be baptised. But He did not state (in the Bible) anything about unbaptised souls. Your concern is laudable, but Biblically mute.

    What about unsealed persons? Do you believe that there will be crying, separated unsealed/formerly earthly married couples in heaven? Again, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't call it Biblical. God created the heavens "and all that are in them.". He knows the beginning to the end. What if you just get rewards for your faithful obedience and any omissions are taken care of by our Great God and Creator?

  • Gary Moore Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    If I thought that death was my final opportunity to make religious decisions, and I assumed that everyone else in the world believed the same, baptism for the dead wouldn't make any sense to me, and I'd be suspiciously looking for an explanation for just what those practicing it are trying to pull. We LDS have not done a very good job informing the world that not everyone believes that death is that final opportunity. A shame, because that is one of the greatest doctrinal truths revealed by the prophet Joseph Smith.

  • will7370 LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    Just curious-----how are they going to stop this from happening after the start of the Millennium? The work's gotta get done sometime before the thousand years are over with. Not doing it now just makes more work for us then---and we'll already be overloaded with ordinance work then as it is.

  • James B. Young SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    A great big shout of thanks to the LDS authorities on this issue. A gentle reminder to those who still resist being chastised, gently or otherwise, that this issue is sensitive to many non-church individuals and groups. The LDS authorities should not have been put in this situation by church members that could not grasp just how sensitive an issue this was to many peoples and groups. I have been increasingly impressed by the willing of the LDS leadership over the last few years to go the 'extra mile' at times, despite some of the at times few fractious in their membership, to reach out and change boundaries into negotiable borders. Thank you.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Feb. 23, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    This sounds like what happened after the manifesto. Certain people defied the policy, and the President of the Church intervened and put his foot down. Sounds like the proper course of action.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    RE: KC Mormon, Baptism for the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:29),(Against Marcion 10) and Chrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice to the Marcionites and Cerinthus whom they identified as a heretical gnostics(they have the truth)), Consequently the practice was forbidden(condemned) by the Catholic Church, and is not practiced by Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.

    Some members of the early Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints now known as the Community of Christ also believed in baptism for the dead, but it was never officially sanctioned by that organization.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Feb. 23, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    That is the purpose. That is why the accusation that this is coming from some insider that wants to hurt the Church does not make sense. With simply a name and birth date or death date I can find any person and find what Temple work has been done for them. The reason the Church set this up is because in the past you had to go check a microfiche at a Church history library to see if a persons work had been done. People were not doing this and work was being done for the same person many times. I have an ancestor that I found had had his work performed seven times.
    For those who wonder why the Church does not keep these records secret how then would we know if an ancestor's work had already been performed? we would be wasting time doing work that had already been done and not doing work that needed to be done.

  • mustberight MESA, AZ
    Feb. 23, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    I thoght the purpose of the new Family Search was to prevent the duplication of ordinance work.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 23, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    Jack Pack Lambert makes an important point about names. I once knew a Jewish girl who had the last name of Nelson. The name was changed when the family came to America after the war.

    Re: spring street

    It matters why this is becoming public because it might help track down who is doing this and why. I believe it might be the work of people intentionally trying to cause a problem for the Church. Don't you understand that? I doubt that when this all plays out we will find out that some high church offical ordered these baptisms done. Much as some of you would like that to be the case.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 23, 2012 1:01 a.m.

    A court would not even entertain a lawsuit on this matter. To do so it would have to find that among other things that people can bring slander cases related to deceased people, and that performing ordinances that are believed to be helpful to the deceased individual in question is in some way slanderous. No judge would ever consider such a proceeding, and any lawyer who would even try to start it would deserve to be removed from the bar.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 23, 2012 12:58 a.m.

    Those who advocate "catching Jewish names" are speaking on pretty shaky ground. Exactly what names would count as Jewish names? Do you want temple workers to step in and say "no, you can not do the work for Ruth Schrieber, that is a Jewish name." So what if it is, it is also my great-great grandfather's sister, and she came to America long before the Hitler was known by anyone living in Germany.

    Beyond this, "Jewish name" is in many ways a false notion. There are many Schriebers who are not Jewish at all. One of the Jews mentioned in these discussions was a Rabbi Cooper. The vast majority of Coopers are not Jewish.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 23, 2012 12:48 a.m.

    To link this issue exclusively to the Holocaust is to miss the point. The issue is not so much the Holocaust as the Christianphobia of many Jews. They have an irrational, unjustified fear of Christianity. It is a standard quote from some "to baptise a Jew is worse than to kill a Jew."

    It is only once you realize these facts that you can begin to understand the extreme anger involved in the statements of the people involved here. Added to this is the fact that most Jews who get involved in these discussion really do not understand the meaning of baptisms for the dead, no matter how many times we say it, the fact that we do not claim there people were other than Jews does not stick in their head.

    To illustrate what I mean by the "to baptize a Jew is worse than to kill a Jew" after my grandmother was baptized a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints her Jewish relatives included her on the list of the memorialized dead. In their view she was dead.

    This is not just a dislike of other religions, it is specifically aimed at Christianity. David Ben Gurion, Israel's George Washington, was at some level a Budhist. People who have denied the existence of God can go to Israel as Jews under the law of return, but people baptized as Catholics cannot go there under that law, even if they saved many Jews from the Holocaust.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 23, 2012 12:39 a.m.

    As I have said in other contexts, I have no objection to anyone doing any services of any kind for my deceased relatives. That said, I fully understand and support the position taken by the Church on this matter.

    The people involved will have chances to meet with their bishops and to have other proper procedures taken. However, submitting these names for temple work represents a deliberate attempt to go against the directives of the Church.

    Everyone has some sort of relatives who the work has not been done for. There is no excuse for anyone to go submitting non-related people for temple work. This is especially true with so many more resources having become available of late.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:40 p.m.


    You said "Let's at least keep this 'tempest in a teapot' factual, if not Biblical"
    I agree. While I do not know of any Jewish sect that performed Baptism for the Dead it is also not "factual that no other Christians than the Corinthians practiced it. It was infact Practiced as late as the fifth Century. We know this by the writings of Epiphanius. While he did not believe in it he did say it was being practiced from Asia to Gaul (present day spain and France)
    "From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, "If. the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead"
    Interesting that in the fifth century they were useing the same scripture as the LDS Church. On top of taht we see it as far back as the Second Century (some claim the First) in the "Shepard of Hermas" were he speakes of the Apostles being Baptised for the Dead.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:27 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska Those who have gone against this are really going against the direction of the Lord. However, in the end all will be baptized.

    No need ,the God of the Bible is Sovereign.⦠âI will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.â It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on Godâs mercy.( Romans 9:15,16).

    Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all ISRAEL will be saved⦠As it is written: âThe deliverer will come from Zion;he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.(Romans 11:25-26)

    The total number of ELECT Jews of every generation (the fullness of Israel v.12) which is analogous to the fullness of the gentiles (full number) verse 25.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    "The church keeps its word."

    The church exists in a terrestrial world. The church tries, like the rest of us, to keep its word the best it can. The church is made up of humans. It is not some entity separate from humans. Not infallible. Not close, just like us.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    In the end it will not matter. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints knows that everyone on earth will be baptized sooner or later. Whether it happens now or during the millineium really won't matter. Now is more for the members to trace as far as they can their own family. This has always been the mandate. Those who have gone against this are really going against the direction of the Lord. However, in the end all will be baptized. At the time the Lord returns every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus is the Christ. This will happen.

    Just as everyone's temple work will be done for every family that has been on earth. All families on earth will be traced back to Adam and Eve. Everyone will be baptized and sealed all the way back to Adam. This will be done. We as members should just stick to our own families. By the war Pagan, you can't stop your own family from doing it if they are members of the Church. It will be done.

  • Capella Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:26 p.m.

    Blue Coug, on your planet there may have been Jewish proxy baptisms, but no where in the Bible.

    The Corinthians who were practicing this ritual were Christians, they were not part of the Apostle Paul's churches. They believed in the resurrection, which is the topic of 1Cor. 15, not the baptisms performed by "they"/ as opposed to "we".

    No other Christian churches have practiced this until 1830.

    Let's at least keep this 'tempest in a teapot' factual, if not Biblical.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:07 p.m.

    Obviously the "honor system" used by the church broke down. Maybe this whole system needs to be re-evaluated.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    Now we'll see if it's all just lip service...

    I promise, I will haunt the person who baptises me against my will.

    Feb. 22, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    So ignoring church leaders is a non issue?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    @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.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 22, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    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".

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Seamus Gott Spring Branch, TX
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    @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.

  • glubetu Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:05 p.m.


    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.

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:34 p.m.

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

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    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.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:26 p.m.


    "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.

  • glubetu Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:11 p.m.

    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.

  • CougarBlue Heber City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Radically Moderate SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    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...

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:02 p.m.

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

  • Poqui Murray, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    "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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    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.


    You get the idea.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • really? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    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.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Feb. 22, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    "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...

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    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??

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • barndog48 AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:57 a.m.

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

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    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?

  • GAmom Athens, GA
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    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)

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:28 a.m.


    I would support such legal action.

  • barbara Carlsbad, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    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?

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    @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.

  • Economist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    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)

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    LDS Church toughens stand against 'improper' proxy name submissions - Title


    How many times will they 'toughen' this stance...

    until, it, works?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    People! It does not matter whether or not you would be offended if someone else did this to your ancestors. It does not matter whether or not you understand why some people are offended. All that matters is that they ARE offended and the church has asked us not to submit these names. The church authorities seem to understand why they are offended and understand that to continue to ignore this is offensive to Jews.

    THAT is all we need to understand, right?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    Today a story comes out about a Catholic who was a witness to the holocost being baptized and some anger about that. I'm beginning sense a steamroller developing. Pretty soon there will be a move by many other parties to ask the LDS Church to not do these baptisms and to remove the names of those done. I still don't know how outside people are able to access internal Church records. This stuff could be someone from within trying to create problems for the Church. If this does grow, imagine what will happen if the world knew who has been baptized by the LDS Church. I mean will there be a move by decendents of say George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson to have them removed? This could get into a big ugly argument about the limits of religious freedom and practices. I don't think it a coincidence that a Mormon is a likely candidate for the presidency either.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    I'm not one to defend Mormons, but I tend to think Jewish organizations are really overreacting here. If they don't believe in the Mormon faith, who cares what Mormons do in their temples? It has no impact on anyone at all.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    To end this silliness all the Jewish leaders who are so offended (and it's not all, just a few who like to speak loudly) is give the LDS church a list of all the names that are from the Holocaust.

    Those names can be flagged and never have their work done unless it is documented to come from a direct-line descendant. Issue is closed.

    Maybe Helen Radkey in her spare time can compile the list for them?

  • Dirty Hippee Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    They died for their beliefs! It is extremely insensitive, and frankly audacious that the LDS Church would minimize their deaths in this way, and continue to do so to all those who suffered and to those we lost during the holocaust. This is offensive and painful for those of the Jewish faith, those who suffered, and those who lost loved ones and ancestors. An apology is not enough. This needs to stop!

  • Samwise Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    I completely agree with the Church's stance on this issue given the talks they have had with the Jewish community. But for the life of me I can't see why anyone would be offended by having there name after they are dead or that of an ancestor be brought through an LDS temple.

    When this happens, there are only 2 possibilities. Either the ordinance done for them is false, or else it is truly an ordinance ordained by God. If it is false, as most who are offended by it believe, then there is no way that it will have any effect on them, negative or positive. If it is true, then it may have a positive effect on them if they accept it but if they don't accept it, it still has no effect on them. In other words, if you don't want to accept it there is no way it can have an effect on you whether it is of God or whether it is some man-made fantasy.

    I personally am of the belief that it is ordained of God. I have respect for other people's views. But on this issue I simply don't understand the outrage it brings out in people.

  • IDmom Murray, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    First off, I do NOT agree with the actions of the members that are doing this. With that being said, why are there so many people telling us to leave the dead alone, that it is offensive, that we shouldn't be baptizing the dead because they would be so mad if they were baptized. The LDS church has never said that once a baptism for the deceased person has been performed, they are automatically mormon and they don't have a choice. They can choose! Free agency! The only reason I can see this practice as being offensive is if those criticizing it believe in it which would mean the church is true and they would they would have to make a choice. I know plenty of non-members who don't care because they just laugh it off because they find no truth in it. But if you are against it, maybe you should revisit your religious beliefs.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:40 a.m.


    I find nothing silly about liars.

    I find nothing silly about Church leaders explaining that liars will be punished as they have not only damaged their own good name, but that of the Church as well.

    I find nothing silly about demonstrating that members of the Church are asked to "obey, honor and sustain the law" and when they choose not to, there are consequences.

    Ironic that you find this a silly issue, but invoke my previous sentence with regards to members of hispanic origins choosing their preferred presidential candidate.

    You can't have it both ways. Trying to do so IS silly.

  • RandyR Hesperia, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    I support whatever the Church's policy is concerning proxy name submissions. If people are doing things against that policy to have some type of status that a certain name submission would bring on them, then shame on them and they should be punished in whatever manner the Church's policy calls for.

    That being said, I have no problem with someone from another church doing any type of work for me, my family or whoever they want to do if for. If I truly believe what my faith teaches, then why would it matter what someone else does in my family's behalf. To me, it is quite sad that people get so offended over something that they have no belief in.

  • Burnham Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 22, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    You are asked by the computer if you are related to this person prior to the name being approved for temple work and if you say yes and you are not then you are lying and have no business going to the temple to begin with. We should follow the leaders of the church in not doing this work for others who request it not be done. Although I completely understand the strong feelings on this matter by others, what difference does it make if you do not believe what the Mormons believe. Obviously, if you do not believe in this then it is of no worth to you. I do understand the martyrs who have given their lives for their religious beliefs but if you wanted to baptize Joseph Smith and that was your belief I would respect your beliefs to do so. God will sort out whose baptisms are of effect and not this forum. Sorry to those who have been offended by a work that is only meant to help all of His children.

  • Richard Larson Holladay, Ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    Oh no, again?

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 22, 2012 6:39 a.m.

    Whether you believe in baptisms for the dead or not is not the issue. 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. As for Pagan and others. Just think what your family will do after you are gone. They will do what they feel is right. If they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints they have the right to have your temple work completed. It will get done even these for the Jews. Maybe not now and maybe not in a few short years but the work for them will get done. That is just the way it is. Our leadership has taken a stand to let us know only our own families, 4 generations back is what to be done. By the way I have one line back to Charlamagne which means it can now be traced to Adam. I can't do all that work but the Church is doing it from 1500 on back. Again it will get done, just a matter of time.

  • Jared Average, SE
    Feb. 22, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    Re: Chris225

    "How would you feel if the jewish community or catholic community did proxy services for Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith...any other member who has died for what they believed in? I am pretty sure that you would be offended and thats the whole point."

    I wouldn't be offended in the least (and this proxy work is never done to offend others). In fact, I would be honored that the Jewish community and Catholic communities not only recognized the importance of proxy ordinances (they used to many years ago) but also that they cared enough about Joseph Smith and others to perform the rituals for them. As a Mormon, I also wouldn't recognize the validity of it though; it comes down to who has the authority from God to perform the proxy ordinances.

    No one is ever forced to accept the proxy work done on behalf of them - the deceased individual has to choose to accept the work and has to repent. Having the work performed doesn't automatically make anyone Mormon or Christian; the person has to make the choice to join God's kingdom on their own.

    In any case, there are many Jewish people and leaders who are not perturbed by the proxy work - they don't believe in it so why should they care? What is offensive are the church members who are not following church protocol, who are willfully disregarding the instructions of church leaders, and submitting these names. They have been told not to since at least 1996 but they have decided that they know better than the church leaders. That is what is offensive!

  • Richard Larson Holladay, Ut
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:57 a.m.


  • Semper Fi Bakersfield, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:51 a.m.

    I am not LDS and I think the church leaders did an excellent job on the PR end. However, if you truly believe "some deserving souls" are waiting unnecessarily in limbo, that creates another problem: Why give in to non-believers on earth when there are eternal souls at peril? Why not just have the work done privately? It speaks to whether you fear God or man.

    As an evangelical, I wish the conversation we were having with all denominations would be how to come together in Biblical unity and cease the division and strife. That would be disappointing to many agnostic and unreligious here, who only add to the cacaphony rather than the solution.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:29 a.m.

    I certainly do not condone the actions of those who may have deliberately ignored Church directives. But I agree completely with Henry Drummond. Since the Jews do not believe that the LDS church and priesthood are true, and do not believe proxy ordinances have any real effect, why are they worried? In fact, they even know that LDS believe that the dead get a choice; we are not calling the dead "Mormons" now. 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. I repeat: chose to be offended. 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? They ask people who have been baptized in whatever faith to be rebaptized in the LDS faith. Shall we also ban our missionaries from suggesting that people be baptized? To Chris 225: If Catholics of Jews did proxy services for Joseph Smith et al, I would be amused, not offended. More people should have my attitude. A wise person once said, it is foolish to take offense where none is intended.

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    Feb. 22, 2012 5:02 a.m.

    The Church has made a commitment to these people not to proxy baptize unless the name has been submitted by a descendant. This sounds reasonable and those who willfully violate this commitment need to be dealt with very firm hand.

    With that said, I just don't understand why people care about this. Are they looking for ways to be offended? If they don't believe LDS church doctrine, why would they get upset about it? You can baptize me by proxy into any church at any time. You can baptize me into church of satan and I could not care less because I don't believe that it has any validation by any authority.

  • apache1 Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 22, 2012 3:59 a.m.

    I think that part of the blame lies in the temples that continue to allow the ordinances to be done in the first place. The workers need better training to catch jewish names before they get into the system in the first place. I think also that the threat of disipilinary action needs to apply to the temple workers as well for not stopping these names from getting through in the first place.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 3:43 a.m.

    I repeat. This is a silly non issue.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 2:41 a.m.

    All I can say is, It's about time!

    And... we have heard this before. Since 1995 or so, it has been empty promises.

    Here's hoping this time it will stick.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:33 a.m.

    As an active Latter-day Saint, I totally understand why the Jewish community feels offended by proxy work done on behalf of Holocaust victims.

    The fact of the matter is, Hitler and his minions left a tragic legacy of anger in the hearts and minds of the Jewish community worldwide. Even before the killing of six-million innocent people, the Jews felt Hitler's evil words penetrate them to the very heart, and the fact is, there are still Holocaust survivors today who no doubt still hear his blood thirsty voice in their nightmares.

    I for one am a strong believer in temple work for the dead, but at the same time, I'm also a strong supporter in any action my church takes in showing understanding and respectful to other people.

    To my Jewish friends and neighbors who have been offended I express my apologizes. To anyone else who feels offended at LDS temple work, my hope is that perhaps one day you will have a desire to seek out you're ancestors. Not necessarily for any religious reasons, but for reasons of learning more about the people who share your DNA and who worked and struggled to allow you to be the person you are today.

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:30 a.m.

    Does anybody besides me wonder why the Church's policy on Jewish proxy baptisms is even necessary? The objection that Jewish people have seems to be based on the misconception that proxy baptisms are some kind of posthumous "forced conversion." Has anyone explained to them that it only gives the departed the option of embracing the restored gospel? I can't believe no one has explained that, and it shouldn't be that hard to understand the distinction.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:21 a.m.


    You said - "How would you feel if the jewish community or catholic community did proxy services for Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith...any other member who has died for what they believed in?"

    I say, go ahead.

    I have ancestors who were early LDS pioneers, some of whom served time in prison for polygamy and some of whom were targeted for violence because of their faith. I seriously doubt any of them care if in 2012, their names were done in some other church's proxy service.

    And if I died tomorrow and you wanted to do proxy work for me, good right ahead. I'm dead, why should I care?

    If you think about, it really wouldn't be that much different than what has already done in the names of LDS people already. Over the years, countless books, pamphlets and videos have been produced portraying early LDS Church members including Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and Oliver Cowdery as blood thirsty, ruthless, vengeful savages, who robbed, plundered and killed without thought.

    People say, "How would LDS people feel if their ancestor's names were belittled or made light of?"

    The fact is, we've been hearing it for years and years and years already.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:08 a.m.

    It is shameful that people will abuse the system in order to have bragging rights that they did so and so's name in the temple. For the LDS church to take a very strong and stern stand as to members abusing this in the future and church discipline, that is a pretty strong yet correct stand. It may seem very strict to some members, but if even one person goes to the temple and does a name for someone who is not related to them, it is an abuse of something they have been entrusted with. I do indexing, and we sign an agreement to not take the information that we find and do work, we can't even copy anything, once it has been released to Record Search, we can find those family members and copy the information, but not before that. I do hope that those who are not of the LDS faith will realize that probably 99% of those who take names to do at the temple, are not abusing this.

  • Kitenoa Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2012 12:03 a.m.

    This official action by the LDS Church is a move in the right direction.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 21, 2012 10:41 p.m.

    This is how it can be viewed from the outside. When the LDS people perform proxy baptisms, especially for people already baptized in a different faith, it can seem like the first baptism wasn't good enough, didn't measure up. It's not the same as someone of another faith praying for a person to get well etc. It can seem insulting. I bet there are a lot of LDS people who would take offense to that.

    Part of being "out in the world" is being subjected to scrutiny and criticism. Romney's candidacy brings it more to the forefront.
    Basically, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Feb. 21, 2012 10:33 p.m.

    I appreciate the Church's position on this matter. I also appreciate that Church authorities would come out publicly with straight forward discussion and appropriate apology in behalf of member miscreants.

    To those who want to make this a wedge issue - my guess is that 99% of you have an agenda other than anything constructive.

  • hymn to the silent Holladay, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 10:25 p.m.

    While on my LDS mission, I was given an indian name. I was also splashed with holy water, told I was now a catholic and ordered to go home. I don't hold any grudge against those who believed they were saving me. But my feelings have nothing to do with this issue. If a group asks our Church to be left alone, we should respect it...all of us. And those outside the Church need to recognize that there are rogue members who are overzealous...just like the priest who confronted me. A little understanding on both sides would go a long ways. Sounds like the Mormon Church is trying hard to do what is right by the Jews. Good for them.

  • Chris225 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 10:03 p.m.

    @ Cats and anyone else who feels this way...It's not sad that others have different beliefs other than your own.

    How would you feel if the jewish community or catholic community did proxy services for Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith...any other member who has died for what they believed in? I am pretty sure that you would be offended and thats the whole point.These people who died in the holocaust, died for what they believed in. Its unfair to insult their families by essentially saying their sacrifice wasn't sufficient proof of their conviction in their beliefs.

    And if you truly believe what you believe, they will have the opportunity eventually.

    Kudos to the church for the way they are handling the situation, they obviously see how big of a deal and disrespectful it is.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 9:35 p.m.

    whats sad as you want to ignore the leaders of your own church.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    This whole thing is a silly non issue. It is so sad that some very deserving souls will have to wait.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 9:18 p.m.

    @deep in thought
    this is not an external issue this is one in which some members of the LDS church are not following church rules causing the church to have to take stronger actions. Stop trying to blame external sources for an internal problem.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Feb. 21, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    I'm about as agnostic as they come, but I'm still completely baffled by this.

    I was in the hospital with a life threatening disease several years ago. A group of evangelicals prayed around the clock for my recovery. I had no connection whatever to their church but why should I be offended by them putting forth this effort in my behalf?

    If you're looking to be offended by the LDS Church, you're going to have to do better than this.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    People who don't like the LDS church will make a mountain out of a mole hill whenever possible.

    Just like people who don't like Republicans or Democrats will jump on every little gaffe or out of context statement from the party leaders. To stir up anger.

    Sad, really.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 21, 2012 8:20 p.m.

    @ A voice of Reason: Last time this issue was mentioned in this paper, those slamming on the Church and its stance self-identified as Mormon.

    Why should non-members work to tear down the LDS Church when its members do such a fine job on their own?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 8:10 p.m.

    When i am dead...

    ...please, leave me alone.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    This should only be welcomed as good news to those who were asking about it. Comments along the lines of "it's about time" are highly inappropriate as they only serve to be combative towards the church. I suspect those critical of the church will still say something negative here. The Church could praise someone for saving lives and critics would probably still find something negative to say. With that in mind, we shouldn't forget that this is good news and nothing else. There is nothing to dispute here, nothing to criticize, nothing to hate- why? Cause the church is doing something we should all be happy about.

  • mightymite DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    Maybe they should not do it at all. It is offensive to those not only of Jewish origin.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 21, 2012 7:28 p.m.

    Now do you understand how big a deal this is?