Good. Stop mucking around with other peoples’ afterlives, you busybody Mormons!
I mean, the whole notion is ridiculous anyway, both the original baptism and the posthumous baptism. Personally I think some atheist organization ought to issue a proclamation that all baptisms throughout history are null and void and watch them all start frothing at the mouth.
Do they can baptize me after I bite it? That’s kind of offensive.
Wow. Heartfelt beliefs and all that, I know, but still. It’s like watching a custody fight over imaginary children.
A bitter custody fight. It’s silly, yet nasty at the same time.
As little fondness as I have for them, I’m on the Catholic Church’s side on this one. What the Mormons are doing would be a lot like me going to a graveyard, smashing crosses, and putting up “RIP Atheist” signs instead. Dishonest and obnoxious.
Do they baptise children in that church? Or do they require informed consent?
I thought the whole point of baptism is that you have to choose and accept it FOR YOUR OWN SELF. That’s why Catholic children are baptized at birth, but must be “confirmed” later on. Parents speak for the infant, but confirmation is supposed to be the result of an informed decision. That’s kind of bogus too, because in between there’s “catechism”, leaving little chance of choosing not to be baptized; but come on! What gives anyone the idea that they can make a decision like that for another adult sovereign individual?
The whole idea of individual and national sovereignty is something we abandon at our peril.
And I really have trouble with people who think that they’re the only ones going to heaven.
Wow-you and I are actually in agreement-about religion! 
Most of my family is devoutly Catholic, and I think this would be majorly offensive to them. It’s basically saying, “I don’t give a shit what you believed-THIS is the proper way to get to Heaven!”
Fuck that shit.
They state that they offer the option to the soul, which can be accepted or rejected, in case you get to the hereafter and figure out “hey, the Mormons were right after all!”
For whatever it’s worth the Mormon perspective is that baptism for the dead does not force the person to become LDS. Wherever you are in the afterlife you choose whether or not to accept the baptism.
I have to question the logic here. The Catholic Church presumedly doesn’t believe that a Mormon baptism has any validity. So what’s the possible harm? An invalid baptism can’t decatholicize* anyone. The people who were baptised as Catholics are still Catholics.
*I’m pretty sure decatholicize is a word but I don’t have any actual proof of that.
I have a friend who is a former Mormon. She was rather enthusiastic in her participation in baptism of the dead rituals until she realized that she was doing it to make herself feel better. So she stopped and ultimately left the church.
Robin
they had quite a battle on their hands when people found out that they were baptising jewish victims of the nazis.
the new rule is that no one who could be or is jewish can be baptised with out family consent, ie a person converts and wants their family to be with them. it seems to me that they should just make it an across the board rule. no baptisms unless requested.
Because it’s an affront to the Christian belief that once you’re baptized, you’re baptized, and to cooperate in re-baptism (not to mention re-baptism of someone who’s already dead) is a desecration of something Roman Catholics consider to be a sacrament?
FWIW Roman Catholics don’t even baptize adult converts if the person has a record that they’ve already been baptized in a Christian church. If there’s no record, a priest will perform what’s called a “conditional baptism” – the condition being “If you have not already been baptized.”
Speaking as an agnostic/deist, I have to admit I find it unsettling myself.
Granted, as far as I am concerned if I did not consent then it is not a valid baptism, but damn … at least let me have the choice of baptism or not!
I really dont mind if people pray for me, if someone tells me that they will pray for me or someone in my family, I thank them because it means something to them …
Ever hear of the Nine Circles of Hell? (Dante Alighieri for that one) The Mormons have different levels of HEAVEN. If you’re a good person, you go to Heaven, but not the top level, until you get (and accept) your baptism, post-mortem if need be.
Dunno why Catholics or anyone else would mind. This stuff is done at a distance; no graverobbing is involved.
I guess I can see that point. The Catholic Church isn’t concerned about the LDS baptisms having any spiritual effect on the deceased. But they could feel that supporting these ceremonies might have place a spiritual burden on the living people who assist in them.
I’m Catholic and, to me, this whole re-baptism thing is equivalent to fairy dust. If someone thought about a dead family member of mine and then threw fairy dust up in the air, how does it harm anything or anyone. If they research said dead family member’s life and makes the information available to me, bonus cool points for them. If you don’t believe in LDS doctrine, what difference does a non-invasive ceremony makes? So long as they’re doing it with love in their hearts, I have no qualms with it.
It’s an interesting development. I’m seeing some misconceptions on this thread, though, so I’ll look at those for a minute.
As has been noted, the LDS Church does not consider baptism for the dead to be “forcing” anyone to be Mormon, nor do they put the names on the rolls of the Church as Mormons. It is supposed to allow the deceased person the option of accepting it, nothing more.
Because of beliefs about the nature and value of families and family history, the LDS Church engages in a massive effort to duplicate and archive genealogical records from all over the world, making them accessible to anyone interested in researching their heritage. We feel that it’s a project that benefits the world.
Members of the LDS Church are not supposed to be baptizing just anyone; they are researching their own family trees. Thus, a Mormon who was raised Catholic, or who has Catholic forebears (as I do) might be interested in parish records. So–should my mother be able to go to Ireland and look at parish records for her grandfather’s birth? (Actually, she tried years ago, but they’re gone.) None of us are planning on baptizing Guin’s family, unless she has a Mormon cousin who shares her ancestors.
This is going to raise some interesting practical questions. If I walk into an Italian Catholic church and ask to see their records because I had an Italian great-grandmother baptized there, are they going to ask me what church I belong to before they bring out the books? What about countries where the old records have been turned over to the state, or where priests are paid from state funds? Can the RCC tell the governments who to allow access to? I’m curious as to exactly why the decision was taken, and how it will be implemented.
I do understand why people get upset about this issue, but at the same time, I don’t feel that it’s very fair to restrict access to the records of one’s own ancestors. However, the Greek Orthodox Church already does so. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.
Personally, I think both Catholic and Mormon Baptisms are silly, appeals to mythological creatures.
But I do approve of the Mormon church “microfilming & digitizing” old Catholic records. I’m all in favor of preserving historical records, and making them more accessible. So I’d come down on the side of the Mormons here.
I’ve spent time on Distributed Proofreading (DP: Welcome) working to preserve books I strongly disagreed with, like pre-Civil War books justifying slavery.