@ 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.(
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
mustberightThat 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.
I thoght the purpose of the new Family Search was to prevent the duplication of
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 streetIt 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
CapellaYou 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.
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.â¦ 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 savedâ¦ 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..
"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.
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.
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.
Obviously the "honor system" used by the church broke down. Maybe
this whole system needs to be re-evaluated.
Now we'll see if it's all just lip service...I promise, I will haunt
the person who baptises me against my will.
@catsSo ignoring church leaders is a non issue?
@mg scott and barndog48why 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 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".
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
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.
@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.
@ClaudioI 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.
I'll worry about my ancestors, you worry about yours.
Re: GlubetuIf 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
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?
@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.
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.âI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
The 1st step in resolving a problem is recognizing that the problem exists.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@barbara"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.
@RG"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. @Jared" 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...
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
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
how did the media find out about this? is someone ratting them out?
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?
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.
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)
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.
Economist,I would support such legal action.
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
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.
@Uncle Charles, @CatsYou 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.
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
LDS Church toughens stand against 'improper' proxy name submissions - Title Alright. How many times will they 'toughen' this
stance... until, it, works?
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?
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Cats,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.
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.
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.
Oh no, again?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I repeat. This is a silly non issue.
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.
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.
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.
@Chris225You 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
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.
This official action by the LDS Church is a move in the right direction.
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
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.
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
@ 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.
@catswhats sad as you want to ignore the leaders of your own church.
This whole thing is a silly non issue. It is so sad that some very deserving
souls will have to wait.
@deep in thoughtthis 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
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.
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.
@ 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?
When i am dead... ...please, leave me alone.
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
Maybe they should not do it at all. It is offensive to those not only of Jewish
Now do you understand how big a deal this is?