# Catholic Bishops to withhold Parish information from Mormons to prevent re-baptisms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033 "2008-05-04T19:31:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/81 "2008-05-06T15:49:01Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] As a Protestant, I deny the validity of LDS baptism as well, but that doesn’t mean I want to see them performing one for me after I die. [/quote] > [@](#): > > To force your “charity” upon people who do not want it is insulting. And the intended souls cannot refuse the baptism; though they may refuse its effects, the _rite itself_, the sacrament, cannot be refused. If that were true, they’d ask the dead for permission before performing the rite. If LDS baptism isn’t valid, then surely there is no sacrament? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/82 "2008-05-06T15:59:20Z")
Suppose the Mormons got hold of the US Census data, from 1790-present, and downloaded EVERYBODIE’s name on to a disc. the then baptise everyone! That would solve the matter very promptly! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/83 "2008-05-06T16:04:45Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] It is offensive to me to subject someone – anyone – to a religious rite in a religion that is not their own and without their consent. [/QUOTE] That pretty much sums it up. Posthumous baptism by Mormons is not going to affect the dead, but for live folks of different faiths and traditions (and who honor deceased relatives), it’s damn obnoxious. Also, don’t the LDSers realize how foolish this makes them look? Putting the Three Stooges and Groucho Marx through posthumous baptism may fatten the church rolls\*, but at what cost in terms of credibility? Also, why should I bother listening to proselytizing by Earnest Young Mormon Men now, when I can take advantage of Special Offers once I’m dead?\*\* \*Other Jews who made it onto Mormon church rolls include Simon Wiesenthal and David Ben-Gurion. More on that [here](http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html), including broken promises by Mormons to stop the posthumous baptism of Jews. \*\*For those in the afterlife, it must be something like getting a Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes offer. But if you try Mormonism and are not impressed, can you drift right back out into nothingness again? ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/84 "2008-05-06T16:22:07Z")
Has the LDS view always been that posthumous baptism confers an option? Was there ever a time when these rites were believed to represent an actual conversion? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/85 "2008-05-06T16:25:38Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] Suppose the Mormons got hold of the US Census data, from 1790-present, and downloaded EVERYBODIE’s name on to a disc. the then baptise everyone! That would solve the matter very promptly! [/QUOTE] Could they shorten the process and just baptise the disc? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/86 "2008-05-06T16:55:53Z")
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net] I’ve spent time on Distributed Proofreading ([http://www.pgdp.net/c/default.php](http://www.pgdp.net/c/default.php))… [/QUOTE] Thank you for the link. Looks like fun! ETA: As pleasant as I may find my Mormon friends, I cannot imagine spending a week, much less eternity, in their idea of Heaven. Give me Catholic Heaven, as visualized on The Simpsons. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/87 "2008-05-06T16:57:58Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] If LDS baptism isn’t valid, then surely there is no sacrament? [/QUOTE] Under what rationale? An LDS baptism would not be valid for me because (a) I’m not LDS and (b) more to the point as a Protestant, I’ve already BEEN baptized. I’ve alread HAD this particular sacrament. How does that equate to _no_ sacrament? And it’s not like it’s only the LDS who tick me off with the mindset of “Oh, you practice a _wrong_ religion (or in the wrong way), and we practice the _right_ one.” It’s annoying from everyone who asserts they have the only ticket to Heaven and everyone else is not on that train. The difference is that AFAIK it is only the Mormons who purport to subject people of other religions to their rites without regard to whether those others can or ever would have consented to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/88 "2008-05-06T17:11:28Z")
[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate] Has the LDS view always been that posthumous baptism confers an option? Was there ever a time when these rites were believed to represent an actual conversion? [/QUOTE] To me, asserting that the baptism is optional is is pretty disengenuous; the _rite itself_ is NOT optional. They are literally physically performing the baptism, asserting that it is done on behalf of the dead. And there is no question that baptism is a uniquely Christian rite and their version is a uniquely LDS rite. (Or so they assert, all other baptisms being invalid.) So they are subjecting people to a religious rite those people have not asked for and might never have allowed. _That’s_ the problem. It is not IMO a sufficient answer to say “well, they can accept or not the FRUITS of the baptism” when there is good reason to believe many people would firmly reject not just the fruits but the rite itself. ---
**Author:** ![bjbrashier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@bjbrashier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjbrashier)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/89 "2008-05-06T17:11:47Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Why would we expect them to respect the choices of the living, but not respect those choices after the person has died? [/quote] In the Mormon belief, a person who is dead still has free will. This means that this person is free to change their mind. However, the person must have a living baptism in order to get into the highest parts of heaven. Baptism by proxy fulfills this requirement, thus allowing them to change their mind, but again, only if they choose to do so. There is no disrespect to the person, any more than having a missionary knock on your door is disrespectful. If a missionary knocks, you can simply turn them away, as can someone who receives a baptism in proxy. It’s only disrespectful for a missionary to knock if there is some blatant indicator that the person wants no knocking. Most disrespect goes the other way. Now is it disrespectful to the dead person’s relatives or associates? That I can absolutely believe. But doesn’t the dead person’s opinion matter more than the relative left behind’s? You can’t know what their opinion is, anymore, and neither can the Mormons, so they err on the side of caution. [QUOTE=ralph124c] Suppose the Mormons got hold of the US Census data, from 1790-present, and downloaded EVERYBODIE’s name on to a disc. the then baptise everyone! That would solve the matter very promptly! [/QUOTE] Well, it wouldn’t. There’s also everyone who died before the US was formed and everyone who died outside the US. The world currently has approx 6 or 7 billion people. Let’s assume that at least this many people have already died. There are approx 12 million Mormons in the world. But many “Mormons” don’t practice, in the same way that many Catholics only go on Easter. Furthermore, many practicing Mormons don’t do baptisms for the dead… it’s considered a charity act, like many others – not required, but nice if you have the time. So let’s say that 600 thousand Mormons actively and consistently baptise for the dead. That would be 10,000 baptisms per proxy, and each baptism must be done separately. This would not be able to be accomplished in one night, or even a year. It would probably take at least a lifetime. And by then, there’d be just as many more names to do. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/90 "2008-05-06T17:14:36Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Well, if it’s nonsensical then it’s harmless, isn’t it? [/QUOTE] Yes. It’s also disrespectful. I, for one, do NOT wish to be rebaptised when I die, even IF it’s “a choice I can decline”. Again, why can’t GOD offer that choice to me when I die, if that’s the correct one? I may not be a practicing Catholic anymore, but I DO feel some ties to the faith. And I feel insulted that someone would offer me “the right way”, feeling that I was somehow wrong. “Oh, I know you believed in such and such, but HERE is the right way-so we’ll offer you this once in a, uh, lifetime chance to receive the REAL Heaven!” I have my issues with the Catholic church, indeed. But I don’t want someone just totally disregarding the faith I was raised in. (And what happens if someone specificallt has stated that they DO NOT want to be rebaptised-will it be done anyways?) Keep your paws off of my soul, dammit! ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/91 "2008-05-06T17:17:18Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Under what rationale? An LDS baptism would not be valid for me because (a) I’m not LDS and (b) more to the point as a Protestant, I’ve already BEEN baptized. I’ve alread HAD this particular sacrament. How does that equate to _no_ sacrament? [/quote] As I understand it (and going from your objection it’s quite possible i’m wrong), doesn’t a sacrament require the influence of a divine hand? If there is no truth to the faith, then it’s just words. > [@](#): > > And it’s not like it’s only the LDS who tick me off with the mindset of “Oh, you practice a _wrong_ religion (or in the wrong way), and we practice the _right_ one.” It’s annoying from everyone who asserts they have the only ticket to Heaven and everyone else is not on that train. The difference is that AFAIK it is only the Mormons who purport to subject people of other religions to their rites without regard to whether those others can or ever would have consented to it. As I understand it, the practical implications for the person subjected to of those rights is either a) nothing, because it is no baptism, or b) you get a free choice. That’s it. If it were a matter of dragging me off to a temple and sprinkling some water on me, I might be annoyed. If it were a matter of digging up my corpse to say some words, I imagine my family would be somewhat pissed. But all it is a free choice. You consider it arrogance to assume you may be wrong and give you a free, no strings attached, no work on your part choice to choose otherwise once you have (presumably) learnt more after death? It’s arrogance when the whole idea is that it is merely a choice, not an enactment upon you, thus showing the acceptance that they may in fact be wrong? Fine, I can understand that (like i’ve said, I felt that too, once). But I find it far grosser an arrogance, far greater an annoyance, that you assume you are so right that you find a free choice to change your mind a presumption. After all, you presumably accept the chance you could be wrong, as all we sane types do. But to reject the _practical_ ability to change your mind smacks of open-mindedness in name only. ---
**Author:** ![bjbrashier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@bjbrashier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bjbrashier)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/92 "2008-05-06T17:22:36Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] To me, asserting that the baptism is optional is is pretty disengenuous; the rite itself is NOT optional. [/quote] Do you take offense when anyone of any other faith prays for world peace? They’re performing the ritual of prayer, and on your behalf… What if you were sick and someone was praying that you’d recover? [QUOTE=Guinastasia] I, for one, do NOT wish to be rebaptised when I die, even IF it’s “a choice I can decline”. Again, why can’t GOD offer that choice to me when I die, if that’s the correct one? [/quote] According to Mormon dogma, God follows rules. Whether He must follow them or chooses to do so is up to debate, but it’s clear to them that He does. One of these rules, according to them, is that people must perform a living baptism. Baptism by a living person in proxy for the dead seems to them to fulfill this requirement. [QUOTE=Guinastasia] Keep your paws off of my soul, dammit! [/quote] I’m confused. In what way does offering something force you? How do they have control over your soul?? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/93 "2008-05-06T17:26:54Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] I may not be a practicing Catholic anymore, but I DO feel some ties to the faith. And I feel insulted that someone would offer me “the right way”, feeling that I was somehow wrong. “Oh, I know you believed in such and such, but HERE is the right way-so we’ll offer you this once in a, uh, lifetime chance to receive the REAL Heaven!” I have my issues with the Catholic church, indeed. But I don’t want someone just totally disregarding the faith I was raised in. [/quote] But you totally disregard their faith by disagreeing here, do you not? I mean, if there was ever a way in which you could disregard a faith, saying “Do not even give me the option; I am insulted you would even think of trying to give it to me” is pretty much the prototypical example of it in my eyes. I have a question to **dangermom** or any other LDS folks in the thread; what would be (or is) the LDS response to other religions doing the same deal in reverse? Posthumous baptisms of Mormons to other religions? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/94 "2008-05-06T17:35:40Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] I don’t understand. Don’t you have to actually get _wet_ to be baptized? [/QUOTE] Yes. Which is a serious problem if you’re a [prepubescent girl](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=466151). ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/95 "2008-05-06T17:41:49Z")
[QUOTE=bjbrashier] In the Mormon belief, a person who is dead still has free will. This means that this person is free to change their mind. However, the person must have a living baptism in order to get into the highest parts of heaven. Baptism by proxy fulfills this requirement, thus allowing them to change their mind, but again, only if they choose to do so. There is no disrespect to the person, any more than having a missionary knock on your door is disrespectful. If a missionary knocks, you can simply turn them away, as can someone who receives a baptism in proxy. It’s only disrespectful for a missionary to knock if there is some blatant indicator that the person wants no knocking. Most disrespect goes the other way. [/quote] They are NOT given the choice as to whether or not the baptism is performed. That’s the problem. And having a missionary knock on your door is not the performance of a sacrament. Witnessing, praying, testifying – none of those are sacrements so AFAIAC you can do them to your heart’s content. But if the word “sacrament” means anything, it certainly means it is something far beyond prayer or mission. > [@](#): > > Now is it disrespectful to the dead person’s relatives or associates? That I can absolutely believe. But doesn’t the dead person’s opinion matter more than the relative left behind’s? You can’t know what their opinion is, anymore, and neither can the Mormons, so they err on the side of caution. This is another aspect of it that’s so insulting: That a person who was born in a particular faith, be it Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Methodism, or Jehovah Witness, who lives a life as a righteous man or woman and dies in the belief of their faith, wil surely “change their mind” after they are dead --even though they never changed their mind when they were _alive_. As if the faith that informs and underpins their whole existence will simply be dropped and another taken up after death. It may be a thought of comfort to the Mormons, but it is hugely insulting to those who are _not_ Mormon and who live their lives among the Faithful of _other_ faiths. To insinuate that those who are faithful in live would be faithless after death is deeply offensive. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > As I understand it (and going from your objection it’s quite possible i’m wrong), doesn’t a sacrament require the influence of a divine hand? If there is no truth to the faith, then it’s just words. Just because something is not ultimately truthful does not mean it is not insulting. The LDS, Catholics, and Protestants agree on the idea of “sacraments” – that there are sacred ceremonies that confer rights, responsibilities, and privileges on those for whom they are performed. These are not mere prayers or testimony. So you practice your sacraments over there, and we’ll practice ours over here. It is the assertion of authority of your faith over someone NOT of your faith when you subject them to a sacrament that is the problem. To say that is either truthful or “just words” is overly simplistic; a lot of things are “just words” or “just gestures” and yet are still disrespectful. I don’t have to actually believe I’m a whore to be insulted if I’m called one. > [@](#): > > As I understand it, the practical implications for the person subjected to of those rights is either a) nothing, because it is no baptism . . . There IS a baptism! They are phyiscally peforming the right of baptism. To say they are not is IMO to simply disregard the factual truth of what they are doing. They are performing the rite of baptism; they don’t deny that they are. So there’s no way to say “it is no baptism.” You don’t accept the sacrament of marriage and then decide if you’re married or not. You don’t become confirmed in your faith and then decide if you’re in it or not. If there is an element of choice, then the only logical order is (a) choose, and then (b) peform the rite to reflect that choice. To me, this point is not even a matter of religion, it’s a matter of logic: You can’t physically do something and then claim you didn’t do it. > [@](#): > > You consider it arrogance to assume you may be wrong and give you a free, no strings attached, no work on your part choice to choose otherwise once you have (presumably) learnt more after death? It’s not free; you have ALREADY BAPTIZED ME without my consent. You’ve _already done it_. What is so hard about this? It is _the act itself_ that is insulting, without regard to whatever choice or avowal or disavowal might come later. It is not “arrogance” to believe it is fundamentally offensive to subject someone to a sacrament without their consent. It takes no degree of “open mindedness” to reject a “choice” you never asked for and would have forcefully refused had you been asked. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/96 "2008-05-06T17:48:03Z")
[QUOTE=bjbrashier] Do you take offense when anyone of any other faith prays for world peace? They’re performing the ritual of prayer, and on your behalf… What if you were sick and someone was praying that you’d recover? [/quote] Prayer != sacrament. Pray for my soul all you want. > [@](#): > > According to Mormon dogma, God follows rules. Whether He must follow them or chooses to do so is up to debate, but it’s clear to them that He does. One of these rules, according to them, is that people must perform a living baptism. Baptism by a living person in proxy for the dead seems to them to fulfill this requirement. I understand their rationale. I simply refuse to grant that THEIR beliefs are somehow more accurate, more important, or more worthy of respect than mine – or those of any other person of any other faith. > [@](#): > > I’m confused. In what way does offering something force you? How do they have control over your soul?? I am honestly not sure where the disconnect is here. **THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE THE BAPTISM.** There is NO CHOICE in whether or not the sacrament is performed. They are asking NO ONE. There nothing “offered” in the _performance_ of baptism by proxy; they just do it. The _performance of the rite itself_ is insulting to those who would never have chosen it. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/97 "2008-05-06T17:51:45Z")
> [@](#): > > As a Protestant, I deny the validity of LDS baptism as well, but that doesn’t mean I want to see them performing one for me after I die. I am a knowing and intentional Protestant. I have been baptized. I reject the LDS doctrine. It is offensive to me to subject someone – anyone – to a religious rite in a religion that is not their own and without their consent. To me, there’s very little difference between what they do and sneaking the neighbor’s Muslim baby over to the Christian church to covertly baptize him. The fact that there is no objective “harm” to it is beside the point; the act itself is disrespectful and offensive. i strongly suspect that you ought to be in a constant state of outrage, because I’ve been to many religious services, by many faiths, calling down blessings and favors upon all of, or large segments of humanity. It’s probably happening right now. There’s not a thing you can do about it, and it’s probably better if you don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/98 "2008-05-06T17:58:59Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Upon thinking about what you said here, I wanted to say that, Jewish or otherwise, I see a line so fine between those related to you and those not related to you that I’m not sure it’s worth making a distinction. Why do you have more right to perform proxy baptism of long-dead people, based on some tenuous connection that may go back generations, than the dead person has to be left alone? Or than their Jewish family has to claim them? **Voyager** could be more closely related to a given person than you are. (FTR, I don’t believe anyone “owns” the dead. I think that whatever a person was in life, that’s what they should remain in death, at least as far as the living are concerned.) [/quote] I see your POV; I just don’t agree with it. Family lines are very important to us, and we want to be with our families forever. Other religions don’t place the same importance on it because they don’t see the afterlife the same way we do, but as far as we’re concerned the family is the most important unit there is, and it will continue after death if we are sealed to one another. > [@](#): > > I think, though, that there are records of proxy baptisms, are there not? I think the concern is that this could confuse future historians, and blur the records as to who was a Jew in life (or a Catholic, or whatever). I think the point is that these folks have a right not to be associated with any church that they had no part of when they were alive. Yes. We are fanatic (and clear) record keepers; ordinances are not valid if they are not properly recorded. (If my husband baptized our daughter randomly, without two witnesses and a correct record, it would not count and would have to be re-done. Same for anything. God is a God of order and record-keeping is a serious commandment.) I’ve been trying to find an example for you of an LDS genealogical record, but nowadays you have to actually be a member to access that part of the record. So I can’t link you directly to it, you would only see the birth and death dates. Here is a transcription of my own grandfather’s record: ALFRED RYDER NORRIS Male Event(s): Birth: 01 FEB 1910 Jamestown, Stutsman, North Dakota Christening: Death: Burial: LDS Ordinances: Baptism: 23 JAN 1988 LANGE Endowment: 06 MAY 1988 LANGE Sealing to Parents: 10 AUG 1988 LANGE JAMES FRANCIS NORRIS / EDA MAE LESTER Parents: Father: JAMES FRANCIS NORRIS Family Mother: EDA MAE LESTER I don’t know why the death info isn’t available there, but it was in 1981. As you can see, the LDS work is clearly labeled and seperate from the vital statistics (LANGE is the code for the LA temple, where it was done), and it’s unlikely that anyone would mix it up. It’s not even available if you’re not LDS, presumably in order to avoid just such mixups. > [@](#): > > I appreciate that, but I think more to the point is, do you respect the feelings that these folks you are proxy baptizing might have had when they were alive? You say you are understanding, but would that stop you from proxy baptizing us, were you to find out that we were related to you? And what about all the people you proxy baptize who you never knew, and therefore can’t know how they would have felt? The thing is, we don’t see the dead as static. They are learning and doing, just like anyone else. Since this is only an offer–rather like those annoying missionaries who knock on your door every so often–we don’t see it as disrespecting anyone’s life. However if I knew that someone had opposed this work during life, I would be inclined to leave it. I can’t keep up with this thread by now. I’m sorry some of you are so upset by this practice. Oh, I see that **Revenant Threshold** asked something: > [@](#): > > I have a question to dangermom or any other LDS folks in the thread; what would be (or is) the LDS response to other religions doing the same deal in reverse? Posthumous baptisms of Mormons to other religions? It’s OK by us. We would consider it a nice thing to do. No one _does_ do it, but if they did we wouldn’t be bothered. I said that on the first page of this thread too–it’s a common and natural question. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/99 "2008-05-06T18:24:24Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Just because something is not ultimately truthful does not mean it is not insulting. The LDS, Catholics, and Protestants agree on the idea of “sacraments” – that there are sacred ceremonies that confer rights, responsibilities, and privileges on those for whom they are performed. These are not mere prayers or testimony. So you practice your sacraments over there, and we’ll practice ours over here. It is the assertion of authority of your faith over someone NOT of your faith when you subject them to a sacrament that is the problem. To say that is either truthful or “just words” is overly simplistic; a lot of things are “just words” or “just gestures” and yet are still disrespectful. I don’t have to actually believe I’m a whore to be insulted if I’m called one. [/quote] That’s true, but in this case I am comparing saying you’re doing something and actually doing it. You’re right, “just words” can be offensive. But i’m comparing doing a deed against saying you’re doing a deed but not, and I would say that just saying it is much less offensive. > [@](#): > > There IS a baptism! They are phyiscally peforming the right of baptism. To say they are not is IMO to simply disregard the factual truth of what they are doing. They are performing the rite of baptism; they don’t deny that they are. So there’s no way to say “it is no baptism.” You don’t accept the sacrament of marriage and then decide if you’re married or not. You don’t become confirmed in your faith and then decide if you’re in it or not. If there is an element of choice, then the only logical order is (a) choose, and then (b) peform the rite to reflect that choice. To me, this point is not even a matter of religion, it’s a matter of logic: You can’t physically do something and then claim you didn’t do it. But as I understand baptism requires a divine hand. They don’t deny they’re baptising, but then they believe they are. You don’t. You don’t believe in their faith. You don’t believe that their prophets are prophets. You don’t believe all the texts they consider holy are holy. You don’t consider their temples sacred ground. There is no baptism because baptism requires there be a divine force behind it, and you do not believe in the divine force that they invoke. They are certainly performing the rituals which, if they are correct, would result in baptism. But you do not think they are. You don’t believe in their god. I could sit here and say “Right; I arrest Jodi on behalf of the Revenant system of justice. She’s sentenced to 10 years of jail”. I can fill out whatever paperwork I deem necessary for your sentencing in my justice system; I can physically wear a wig, bang a gavel, and demand you be taken away. You cannot deny the factual truth of what I am doing. And yet, it is no arrest, it is no sentence, because the authority I claim over you that is necessary for the sentence to be carried out doesn’t exist. Likewise, an LDS baptism is no baptism for you because you do not believe the authority required exists. An LDS baptism should for you hold as equal influence for you as does my sentencing; none. I mean, I could be wrong. But surely you believe that your own baptism requires your God? To say that a baptism is a baptism with only the required ritual and not the required deity is as equally valid as saying that a baptism is one with only the required deity and not the required ritual. You clearly don’t believe that the deity is enough alone to be baptised; what is needed is _both_ deity\* and\* ritual. The ritual alone is not enough just as the deity alone is not enough. > [@](#): > > It’s not free; you have ALREADY BAPTIZED ME without my consent. You’ve _already done it_. What is so hard about this? It is _the act itself_ that is insulting, without regard to whatever choice or avowal or disavowal might come later. It is not “arrogance” to believe it is fundamentally offensive to subject someone to a sacrament without their consent. It takes no degree of “open mindedness” to reject a “choice” you never asked for and would have forcefully refused had you been asked. Even if it were a sacrament, you are being subjected to nothing. Seriously, the only thing, the only thing you would have to do is say “No, thanks”. That’s it. And yes, I do consider it arrogance to not only say you reject that choice, but to reject even the idea that the choice might be offered. They, at least, have considered they might be wrong. You reject that ideal utterly. You can be open-minded and refuse one way in a choice, but you can’t be open minded and refuse even the very idea of that choice. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033/100 "2008-05-06T18:27:17Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] i strongly suspect that you ought to be in a constant state of outrage, because I’ve been to many religious services, by many faiths, calling down blessings and favors upon all of, or large segments of humanity. It’s probably happening right now. There’s not a thing you can do about it, and it’s probably better if you don’t know. [/QUOTE] Prayer != sacrament. Lather; rinse; repeat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-bishops-to-withhold-parish-information-from-mormons-to-prevent-re-baptisms/448033.md?page=6)