Can I prevent the Mormons/LDS from posthumously baptizing me?

[robert_columbia]

Bouncing off of a recent thread that ventured into Mormon territory, I was wondering if there is a "Do not baptize" list that I can get on that will tell the LDS church in no uncertain terms that after I die, they must not perform any LDS sacraments for my soul? I personally object strongly to the doctrine of that church and consider some of its teachings to be evil.

I found this

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-492790.html

But I'm not sure the question was actually answered.

[mlees]

I am not a lawyer, nor Mormon, opinion only follows:

It seems to me that anyone can pray in private whenever and about whatever they like. If I pray for your soul right now, how are you going to know, and stop it?

Any attempt to legislate the prevention of such a prayer runs afoul of the first amendment, IMO. They only things I can think of is it's legal for you to prevent me from praying on your property, etc, essentially, by invoking the trespassing laws.

[hajario]

You might change your mind if you ended up in some weird undoubtedly real Mormon hell and the only way out was for one of your progeny to get you baptized. Based on that logic, I doubt that such a thing would be recognized.

[BrotherCadfael]

Not only can you not stop them from doing it posthumously, you can't stop anyone from baptizing you in absentia today!

[Elendil's Heir]

Not only can you not stop them from doing it posthumously, you can't stop anyone from baptizing you in absentia today!

I think it just happened to me a week ago Tuesday. Dammit!

[Derleth]

You might change your mind if you ended up in some weird undoubtedly real Mormon hell and the only way out was for one of your progeny to get you baptized.You could also end up in some other kind of Heaven, and get thrown down into Hell if the Mormons baptize you and steal your soul.

[An Gadaí]

I asked them on Mormon chat this very same thing and it boiled down to them giving you the choice in the afterlife.

[Kimstu]

You might change your mind if you ended up in some weird undoubtedly real Mormon hell and the only way out was for one of your progeny to get you baptized. Based on that logic, I doubt that such a thing would be recognized.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that legal decisions about restrictions on religious practice are not founded on logical inferences about the plaintiff's possible change of heart in a hypothetical afterlife.

Rather, I think such restrictions would be invalid on the civil-liberties grounds of freedom of speech and religion that other posters have already invoked. Just as you can't prevent a religious body from performing some rite (e.g., excommunication) that excludes you from their membership if they consider it appropriate, you can't prevent them from performing a rite that includes you among their membership if they so choose.

"It doesn't hurt me and it may amuse you" about sums up my reaction to any organization's claims to manipulate or regulate my putative soul without my consent.

[Simplicio]

I am not a lawyer, nor Mormon, opinion only follows:

It seems to me that anyone can pray in private whenever and about whatever they like. If I pray for your soul right now, how are you going to know, and stop it?

Any attempt to legislate the prevention of such a prayer runs afoul of the first amendment, IMO. They only things I can think of is it's legal for you to prevent me from praying on your property, etc, essentially, by invoking the trespassing laws.

I think the OP was asking more about whether the Mormon church had some mechanism for preventing future baptisms rather then if there was a law against it. Sort of like how Popes excommunicate people, the Mormons could add your name to the "do not baptize" list, to keep future Mormons from baptizing someone particularly unsavory.

[Chronos]

Well, according to the beliefs of some other Christian churches, Catholics among them, it's only possible to be baptized once. If you're already baptized, someone might go through the motions of another baptism, but it wouldn't actually be a baptism, it'd just look like it.

And really, in general, either you believe what the Latter-Day Saints believe, or you don't. If you do believe, then presumably you would welcome the baptism, and if you don't, then presumably you wouldn't recognize that the baptism was in any sense "real", and either way, I'm not sure I see the problem. Ultimately, it looks to me like what you're asking is "Is there any way I can prevent the LDS from thinking they've baptized me", to which the answer is "No, you can't prevent anyone from thinking anything".

[hajario]

Ultimately, it looks to me like what you're asking is "Is there any way I can prevent the LDS from thinking they've baptized me", to which the answer is "No, you can't prevent anyone from thinking anything".

I think the question is whether one can prevent them, within their own rules, from going through the ritual.

[mlees]

I think the question is whether one can prevent them, within their own rules, from going through the ritual.

I assume the Mormons are sincere in their belief that they are correct in their views of the afterlife.

I also assume that they sincerely believe that people who don't get baptised while living will desire to do so once they are dead, once they are face to face with "the Truth".

Why would they then set up a "do not baptise" list? Wouldn't that contradict what they profess to believe in? In other words, isn't that a logical contridiction?

[Mr. Moto]

Just as you can't prevent a religious body from performing some rite (e.g., excommunication) that excludes you from their membership if they consider it appropriate, you can't prevent them from performing a rite that includes you among their membership if they so choose.

Just to clarify - excommunication does not remove a person from the Catholic Church. It is a pretty straightforward matter making a person ineligible for certain sacraments until they have confessed their sin and have received absolution.

[robert_columbia]

I think the question is whether one can prevent them, within their own rules, from going through the ritual.

This is correct. I think it is fair to state that freedom of religion is going to prevent me from being able to use the courts to somehow prevent it (which would be weird because I believe they only do proxy baptisms of people who are dead - if you are alive you have to consent to it and go through it yourself, and if they tried to force me I could probably make a case for Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Assault, and perhaps a few more things.) Dead people can't easily file court cases, and I would probably need some bizarre trust scheme that could use my life savings to hire an attorney to monitor the LDS church and initiate a lawsuit as soon as they found my name in LDS ritual files.

My question was whether or not there is any procedure (in the church) by which I can give the LDS Church my personal details so that:

1) I am on record with them as stating my opposition to their teachings (hey, ya gotta feel good about sticking it to stuck-up people!).
2) They would honor my request and refuse any attempts by members to perform any proxy rituals on my behalf. E.g.:

robert_columbia's great great grandson: "I'd like to baptize my ancestor robert_columbia, who died in 2070. Here is his bio information." <hands over sheet>.
Mormon Temple Official: <tap tap tap> "Umm, it seems that robert_columbia is on the 'Do Not Baptize' list. You will not be permitted to go through with this as his express wishes in his life were to be excluded from the LDS church for eternity due to his sincerely held beliefs. Did you have another ancestor you wanted to try?"

[Strassia]

This is correct. I think it is fair to state that freedom of religion is going to prevent me from being able to use the courts to somehow prevent it (which would be weird because I believe they only do proxy baptisms of people who are dead - if you are alive you have to consent to it and go through it yourself, and if they tried to force me I could probably make a case for Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, Assault, and perhaps a few more things.) Dead people can't easily file court cases, and I would probably need some bizarre trust scheme that could use my life savings to hire an attorney to monitor the LDS church and initiate a lawsuit as soon as they found my name in LDS ritual files.

My question was whether or not there is any procedure (in the church) by which I can give the LDS Church my personal details so that:

1) I am on record with them as stating my opposition to their teachings (hey, ya gotta feel good about sticking it to stuck-up people!).
2) They would honor my request and refuse any attempts by members to perform any proxy rituals on my behalf. E.g.:

robert_columbia's great great grandson: "I'd like to baptize my ancestor robert_columbia, who died in 2070. Here is his bio information." <hands over sheet>.
Mormon Temple Official: <tap tap tap> "Umm, it seems that robert_columbia is on the 'Do Not Baptize' list. You will not be permitted to go through with this as his express wishes in his life were to be excluded from the LDS church for eternity due to his sincerely held beliefs. Did you have another ancestor you wanted to try?"

I am a lapsed Morman, but I think I am pretty sure that there is no such list. The main reason being that the whole point is to give you a second chance at conversion after you die. Baptism for the dead is not intended to automatically convert your unwilling soul. The idea is that to be saved you need to meet certain requirements, some of which you cannot do on your own after death. Think of it as an effort to fill out the paper work you need. You are under no obligation to submit the paper work, but it is there if you want it.

One of the main tenants of the LDS church is that you are not judged at death, but at some future Judgment Day and until then you can still change your mind.

Personally, I think that it is silly that if the LDS concept of the afterlife is true, you could be sent to their equivelent of hell because of a bureaucratic oversight.

[Kimstu]

My question was whether or not there is any procedure (in the church) by which I can give the LDS Church my personal details so that:

1) I am on record with them as stating my opposition to their teachings (hey, ya gotta feel good about sticking it to stuck-up people!).
2) They would honor my request and refuse any attempts by members to perform any proxy rituals on my behalf. E.g.:

robert_columbia's great great grandson: "I'd like to baptize my ancestor robert_columbia, who died in 2070. Here is his bio information." <hands over sheet>.
Mormon Temple Official: <tap tap tap> "Umm, it seems that robert_columbia is on the 'Do Not Baptize' list. You will not be permitted to go through with this as his express wishes in his life were to be excluded from the LDS church for eternity due to his sincerely held beliefs. Did you have another ancestor you wanted to try?"

Apparently the Mormons believe that your deceased spirit can choose to accept or reject the posthumous baptism (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon43.html). So just performing the baptism ritual wouldn't mean that you actually got baptized into the LDS.

However, some posthumously-baptized people such as Jewish Holocaust victims have been removed from the Mormon genealogical records due to complaints. But I think the LDS justification for the removal is not the fact that these people themselves didn't want to be baptized, but rather that the people who performed proxy baptisms for them were not their own descendants.

So if a verifiable descendant of your own did request a posthumous proxy baptism for you, I don't think there's any LDS rule that would invalidate it. However, as I said, the LDS maintains that your spirit in the afterlife would still be free to reject the baptism if you so choose.

[Boyo Jim]

Do the publish the names of those they baptize? Is there any way for me to learn that they chose Granny after she died?

I'm thinking you could by off the Mormons before you die. "I will donate X dollars on the condition that the church never baptize me".

But there is no means of enforcement. I think I'm on relatively sold footing when I claim there is no Federal Anti-Baptism Police, nor a similar state organization in Utah.

So, this is the only thing I can think of to assure no baptism... You make a major donation, with the no baptism ever condition. You also create a trust, the purpose of which is to keep an eye on the Mormon church and sue their asses off if they ever break the agreement and baptize you. Since this trust would need to operate, well, basically forever, it would need some kind of endowment of millions or tens or hundreds of millions to capitalize it.

The good news is, you can share these costs with other anti-Mormon paranoiacs! Find each other on the internet and found the Freedom from Baptism Foundation to protect you all.

[Boyo Jim]

In retrospect, I should not have suggested you are anti-Mormon. You May be anti-baptism, or anti-baptism-after-death, or anti-baptism-by-any-other-church-than-your-own without being against Mormons per se. Apologies, :p

[Inner Stickler]

Do the publish the names of those they baptize? Is there any way for me to learn that they chose Granny after she died?The LDS church maintains a fairly extensive genealogical database with access to the general public. It exists because their goal is to baptize as much of humanity as they can and so offer as many deceased humans as possible the opportunity to reach heaven. Mormon theology supposes a sort of limbo-esque hell where the souls of humans who have not been baptized in the LDS church spend eternity. The thought is that anyone stuck there would gladly accept the baptism. At any rate, if you were to go to one of the centers the LDS church maintains, and find your granny's name in their database, then it's likely she's been baptized by proxy. It's my understanding, though that they generally restrict baptisms by proxy to descendants.

In my opinion, their genealogical database is a boon and baptism by proxy is a waste of their time so what do I care.

[Eva Luna]

However, some posthumously-baptized people such as Jewish Holocaust victims have been removed from the Mormon genealogical records due to complaints. But I think the LDS justification for the removal is not the fact that these people themselves didn't want to be baptized, but rather that the people who performed proxy baptisms for them were not their own descendants.


There's been an ongoing series of rants on a Jewish genealogy site I frequent on this very issue. Needless to say, some Jews find it highly offensive that their ancestors, some of whom died specifically because they were Jewish, would be posthumously baptised into another faith. Here's one summary of the debate, (http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html) including the text of a 1995 LDS/Jewish agreement on the subject, and some examples of Jews who were posthumously baptised after that agreement was signed.

[Kimstu]

Just to clarify - excommunication does not remove a person from the Catholic Church.

Good point, thanks for the clarification.

[dangermom]

At any rate, if you were to go to one of the centers the LDS church maintains, and find your granny's name in their database, then it's likely she's been baptized by proxy. It's my understanding, though that they generally restrict baptisms by proxy to descendants.


Many, many non-LDS people submit records to the databases, and only some of the names have been baptized by proxy. You're supposed to be a descendant in order to do it.

I should think the only way to ensure that it does not happen to you is to tell your children not to baptize you by proxy, should they decide to become Mormon. Pass it on. My best friend converted to the LDS Church as a teenager, and her dad pretty much told her that. I don't think she's done it.

[Pai325]

While doing genealogical research in Salt Lake City about 20 years ago I did find my parents on a list of people who were baptized after death. No descendent could have done it. I was shocked at first (we are all Catholic), but now I just smile when I think about it.

[Bartman]

Many, many non-LDS people submit records to the databases, and only some of the names have been baptized by proxy. You're supposed to be a descendant in order to do it.
It is a lot broader than that (http://familyhistorylab.byu.edu/Lesson5.php).
Immediate family members
Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).
Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
Your own descendants.
Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as your known ancestors.
They only have to be a relative along some sort of collateral line. And there is little rigorous error checking, no requirement of proof of descent. So really you don't even need to be a relative.
I should think the only way to ensure that it does not happen to you is to tell your children not to baptize you by proxy, should they decide to become Mormon. Pass it on. My best friend converted to the LDS Church as a teenager, and her dad pretty much told her that. I don't think she's done it.
My grandmother, a faithful LDS wife, made all of her children and grandchildren promise to not seal her to grandpa. Evidently he was a violent, abusive jerk. Not that I knew that. To me he was the nice old man who bought me ice cream twice a month at JB's Big Boy. But as she put it, one lifetime was more than enough time to put up with him. We all took her at her word. Not that it mattered. Once she was eligible, one year after her death a descendant of a distant relative no one in the family knew performed her sealing for her. Which seemed more that a little creepy to all of us. We evidently had some relative watching for our deaths to swoop in at the first possible moment to complete any ordinances we missed in our lives. I understand that several other dead relatives have received similar treatment. Presumably this distant cousin has died though, as more recent deaths have not prompted any ordnance work.

Getting a promise from your direct relatives is insufficient when far more distant relatives can also perform the work. If your friend had a distant cousin convert, they could also do the work for your friend's dad, his wishes be damned.

[chorpler]

I wonder if you could do it by becoming a Mormon and then resigning, or even getting yourself excommunicated (which works differently than it does in Catholicism -- a Mormon excommunication does [reportedly, anyway] get your name removed from the roles of the LDS church, and does require you to be re-baptized if you want to join again later).

Do they re-baptize people who resigned or were ex'd? I've heard of some excommunicated leaders being rebaptized posthumously, but they were all excommunicated unwillingly for adultery, not because they wanted to leave.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

the Mormons could add your name to the "do not baptize" list, to keep future Mormons from baptizing someone particularly unsavory.I don't believe that most Mormons (or other religions, either) think that way -- they tend to feel that the most 'unsavory' humans are the ones most in need of religious intervention. Thus Mormons would tend to baptize them posthumously, catholics & other christians would pray for the soul suffering in purgatory/hell, Buddhists & hindus would pray that you reincarnate as a better being, etc.

I'm pretty sure that some Mormons have done posthumous baptisms on Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

[Murdock Jern]

I am Mormon, have performed a lot of family genealogical research, and have performed baptisms for the dead for many deceased family members.

The answer to the original post’s question is that there is no “do not baptize” list. There are, however, several important facts which should put at ease the mind of anyone who is worried that a baptism for the dead might be performed on their behalf after they die.

First, and most importantly, a baptism for the dead does no more than provide an opportunity, an “invitation” so to speak, to the deceased person. The deceased person is perfectly free to either accept or decline that invitation. If a pair of Mormon missionaries knocked on your door today, and you said “no thanks” and they left, have you been hurt? Remember, unlike Catholicism or Protestantism, no one has ever been converted to Mormonism at the point of a sword or a gun.

Second, you have never been dead. Perhaps you have no idea what it will be like when you are dead. Or perhaps you do have an idea, but it turns out to be incorrect. As they said on South Park, “what if the Mormons are right?” Suppose it turns out that the Mormons are right and, once you are dead, you can hardly bear to wait for someone to perform a baptism for the dead for you? At worst, baptism for the dead is hedging your bet for you. (You might even want to find out about getting baptized while you are still alive. I did. www.mormon.org )

Lastly, Mormons are not free to perform baptisms for the dead for whomever they wish. The best known restriction is with respect to victims of the Holocaust. An agreement made by the Church on the subject, many years ago, could not be fully enforced due to limitations of the Church’s family history IT system. A much more recent agreement, on the same subject, has been made and this new agreement is fully enforced. It was a matter of the Church’s software being extensively improved. There are other restrictions as well, which I will explain below. Today, if you try to obtain permission to baptize someone that you are not supposed to, you get a yellow background on the computer screen and a “no authorization” message.

A key restriction, as to persons born less than 95 years ago, is prior approval of the closest living relative. The closest living relatives are, in this order: a spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings. A friend of mine cannot get the permission of his stepmother, his father’s nearest living relative, to baptize his deceased father. However, when his stepmother dies, he himself will be the closest living relative.

Mormons are obliged to see to baptisms for the dead for (a) immediate family members and (b) direct line ancestors, which means parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on.

Mormons are allowed (not required) to see to baptisms for:

Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to one’s family.

Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).

One’s own descendants.

Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as one’s known ancestors. I think that this provision for baptism of “less than certain” relatives exists because of the unfortunate reality that, for some time periods in some places, adequate records simply do not exist.

It is forbidden to perform, or have performed, a baptism for the dead for a person to whom you are not related. There is one exception to that, which is that one may baptize a deceased friend WITH the permission of the deceased friend’s closest living relative. My impression is that this “friend” exception applies only to friends who were so close as to be the equivalent of family members. Also, I think that this “friend” exception is not often used and that most Mormons are not aware of it.

All of the above information, and a lot more, is in the Church's "Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" which can be viewed on a Church website:

http://lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work?lang=eng

Finally, there is in fact one fool proof way to avoid being baptized -- just don't ever die.

[No umlaut for U]

Thank you for the very straightforward explanation, Murdoch Jern. I'm pretty certain one branch of my family has been posthumously baptized, and I think I know the person who did it. I don't mind, however. Most were born before Mormonism took hold.
Heck, I wouldn't even mind if someone did it for me.

[jayjay]

I'd have to wonder why you'd care. I know I wouldn't, since a) I don't believe in an afterlife at all and b) I don't believe that a bunch of people saying words and thinking really hard about something can do anything to alter that putative afterlife. In other words, no skin off my nose if they want to pray for me. The only person who's wasting any time in that one is them.

[Rhodes]

...It is forbidden to perform, or have performed, a baptism for the dead for a person to whom you are not related. There is one exception to that, which is that one may baptize a deceased friend WITH the permission of the deceased friend’s closest living relative. My impression is that this “friend” exception applies only to friends who were so close as to be the equivalent of family members. Also, I think that this “friend” exception is not often used and that most Mormons are not aware of it.

All of the above information, and a lot more, is in the Church's "Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work" which can be viewed on a Church website:

http://lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work?lang=eng

I couldn't find in your link a description of what happens when someone shows up at the temple without any names, and just wants to perform ordinances in behalf of anonymous names. Isn't that how it usually goes (i.e., a faithful LDS couple or youth group shows up at the temple and is assigned the names of deceased persons from the LDS database)? Mormons are encouraged to research and submit their genealogy to the temple. But if they have not performed the genealogy, they are still encouraged to attend as often as they can to perform endowments and other ordinances for the dead named in the database.

I have little doubt that someone will be dunked in my name within a month of my death. My closest living relative (the wife, rocknrhodes) absolutely will not be participating in any way. I can probably guess which of my brothers and in-laws will be the dunker and dunkee. It doesn't bother me. I'm not hedging my bets - I just agree with jayjay that it's a silly ritual that they feel obliged to do, and by then I'll be too dead to notice.

[Dogzilla]

I have little doubt that someone will be dunked in my name within a month of my death. My closest living relative (the wife, rocknrhodes) absolutely will not be participating in any way. I can probably guess which of my brothers and in-laws will be the dunker and dunkee. It doesn't bother me. I'm not hedging my bets - I just agree with jayjay that it's a silly ritual that they feel obliged to do, and by then I'll be too dead to notice.

It bothers the shit outta me because I specifically went out of my way to resign and reject the baptism I had in this lifetime. I suppose, though, because I believe it's all nonsense, and because there isn't fuck all I can do about it, I'll just have to reject the gospel in the next lifetime too.

That's probably my Karma. I'll have to live lifetime after lifetime, over and over and over, rejecting the trendy doctrine of the time.

[VOW]

To jayjay:

My outrage at the potential of a posthumous Mormon baptism is the lack of respect, and the complete disregard for my decision.

I am a nevermo, and a Catholic convert. My religious belief is something intensely personal, and it is a choice I made deliberately, with much research and forethought. The very idea that someone can make a presumption for me, after I'm dead, is outrageous.

I grant you, that in my Catholic POV, the gesture is meaningless.

For me, it's a matter of respect.

And that stuff sure is in short supply these days.


~VOW