Catholics don’t think all unbaptized people get sent directly to hell.
Sorry. That came out rather churlishly. It’s true, though. We trust in God’s mercy for the unbaptised. Also, dangermom, by ‘more expansive view’, do you mean specifically the baptism for the dead? Because Catholics believe that in extremis anyone can perform a vaild baptism, using the Trinitarian formula.
I think we do have a misunderstanding. I understood your statement here:
to mean that people who are baptized in other Christian faiths (or maybe not even baptized at all? I’m not sure…) can go to Heaven, just not the highest levels, which I assumed by what you said was reserved for those with an LDS baptism. This is what I meant when I said “almost as good,” but maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.
So am I understanding here that the reason the LDS Church doesn’t recognize the baptisms of other religions is solely because of their perceived lack of priestly authority and not because of the differing theological beliefs? That is interesting to me, because the reason the RCC doesn’t recognize Mormon baptism is because of the differing interpretation of the Holy Trinity. The Catholic Church confers baptism in the name of the Trinity, and the Mormon trinitarian belief is apparently different enough from that of the Catholic and Protestant churches that it can’t be considered a valid Baptism, even though the words “in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit” are still said.
As Lissla Lissar points out, this is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church, and in fact, I’m not sure it ever was firm doctrine.
I think the thing that bothers people about it is not so much for the unbaptized babies or those who never heard of Christ, but rather for the other baptized Christians (or the non-baptized people such as the Jews, for that matter), who wholeheartedly believed and followed their own faith. I’ve never before heard it explained that it’s an opportunity for the dead to accept or reject the proxy baptism.
It does help, thank you! 
Taking any spiritual matters out of it, the practise did have one great benefit. Keeping track of all those people made one hell of a geneological record among immigrants and poor who otherwise would have faded out of record after their deaths.
Just out of curiosity, what would the LDS stand be if the situation were reversed. For example, what if the Pope declared all ancestors of Mormons who converted to Roman Catholicism to be baptized Roman Catholic (hypothetical situation of course)?
Well, Maybe I don’t know as much about the RCC as I think I do! 
It was my impression that you could end up in 3 places: Heaven (for the saints, contemplating God), Purgatory (enduring punishment for sin, but eventually ‘graduating’ to heaven) and Hell (with the former option of Limbo for pagans and infants). Possibly I read Dante’s poem too recently? What does one do with Protestants and annoying folks like Mormons?
I do tend to think of the RCC as something that goes back for 2000 years, and medieval theology etc. is something I would consider very relevant. So while it’s my understanding that the RCC has softened its stance on baptism considerably, I think of it as just as relevant that that was not always the case.
By a more expansive view, I was trying to say that we don’t think of the possiblity of baptism and salvation as something that can only happen during our mortal lifetimes.
What Lissla Lissar is referring to is the notion that as mortal beings we cannot know what God’s plan is for anyone. In fact, while it is true that Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are the three places one might end up, we can’t know even among the baptized who might be where. IIRC, it’s technically incorrect, for instance, for a priest giving a homily at a funeral to say something like “we know (insert the deceased’s name) is in Heaven now.” We may pray for God’s mercy, but we can’t make the assumption. The only exception to this is those who have achieved sainthood, as conferred by the Church…those the Church names saints are people who we can assume are With God. (Everyone else who is in heaven is a saint, too, but we don’t know who they are.) What I have been taught is that we get to heaven by the Grace of God, and that baptism and the other sacraments are ways to gain Grace. But we can’t assume that those who haven’t received the sacraments are without Grace.
Oh, sorry, nope, I guess I was confusing. We believe that there are 3 levels of heaven, and the highest level is the one where you live with God. (See Paul’s vision.) Essentially, we think that you will end up where you truly want to be; if you want to be with God, you can–but if you’re happier further away, that’s OK too. But I can explain it all better than that if you want.
Yes indeedy–we don’t believe that anyone else has the priesthood, and without that, baptism isn’t valid. It’s true that we aren’t Trinitarians in the same way everyone else is–we don’t accept the post-Biblical creeds. The NT is unclear (in fact, uninterested) on the trinitarian questions the Nicene council tried to address. We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as three distinct personages who are one in purpose and intent, but not one in substance.
Well, I know, but the issue does cover all those other cases too. As I said, this is for our ancestors–I understand that people get upset about the thought of their grandmother being baptized, but I’m not interested in your grandmother, I’m interested in mine. And she has the option of accepting or rejecting it, of course. We don’t believe in forcing anything on anyone.
I can certainly understand Jews’ outrage in particular. The LDS Church does have a rule about that–only ancestors can be done. But should we get upset if a Mormon with Jewish ancestors does the work for them? Of course I don’t think so, but many people would disagree with that. I think it’s very hard for non-Mormons to understand the spirit with which we try to do this. It’s not at all that we despise Jews or Catholics and are trying to erase their faith-filled lives. We see it as an act that honors the person and the faith and simply offers a chance to learn more. I realize that probably makes no sense to others, but seriously, a Mormon will happily learn about a whole string of Catholic ancestors and think that is absolutely wonderful, while simultaneously seeing post-humous baptism as an act of love that connects generations together.
That’s OK with us. We’re used to the idea and would think it a touching act of love. (Ineffectual, but still lovely.) I know Mormons who are honored when a local convent sees an obituary and sends a notice that the deceased person will receive X number of prayers for X number of days. That’s a very nice thing to do. If someone is reaching out in care for souls, why would I be offended? We might disagree on whether it works or not, but it’s still a nice thing to do.
OK, if that’s the case, then I can see why the RCC doesn’t consider the LDS Church to be performing valid baptisms.
With all due respect, I’m not sure your grandmother would be thrilled with it, either. For that matter, we could have the SAME grandmother (or great-grandmother, or so on)…it’s not like they are discrete groups. So even if you stick to your ancestors, eventually you might hit one of mine, anyway.
Again, with all respect, that’s seeing it strictly from the Mormon point of view. From that perspective, it may seem like an act of love that connects generations together, but to a Jewish ancestor, can you see where it might seem like dragging them into a religion that they rejected when they were alive (the rejected religion being Christianity, not Mormonism in particular)?
Yes, it’s a nice thing to do, but I think it’s not just an issue of whether or not you see it as effective. If a convent is praying for someone, they may believe or not believe that it helps them, but it doesn’t affect their standing as whatever religion they are. I know you are saying that this posthumous baptism doesn’t, either, but it’s hard to understand from my POV. Baptism is a very specific thing in mainstream Christian religions, and the RCC and the various Protestant denominations all pretty much agree on its meaning. I think it’s touchy ground to use the term to mean something different from this, and expect people to understand that.
FTR, I am generally a very moderate to liberal Protestant Christian, and I as a rule have nothing against the LDS and of course have no basis to quarrel with their beliefs, but the practice of baptizing people who are no longer living deeply offends me. Anything any other Christian church wants to do to frustrate the practice is fine by me.
Ow. I hurt my finger.
Well, my grandmother (a convert to Catholicism, but completely lapsed) had a sense of humor about the whole thing. She thought her grandparents wouldn’t be too thrilled, and got a kick out of the way we would say, “Well, that’s their choice…” It’s true that you and I may well share some ancestors a few hundred years back. In that case, who ‘owns’ them? Which of us has any authority to say what happens? Do we have equal shares in whatever rights there are going?
Of course I can. I do understand the other point of view, and even sympathize with it. However, here I was trying to explain the LDS POV.
I was using the convent prayers example as something that actually happens in real life–no one else does this sort of thing, so while it’s perfectly natural for people to ask, “Well, how would YOU like it?”–when we answer, it then sounds silly. I once posted here that any Mormon would be honored if a Jewish relative did something to offer the faith to her after death, and someone promptly pointed out that Jews would never do such a thing. Well, yes, I know, but what real comparison do I have? Prayers is about as close as I can get.
I see what you mean about the terminology, but we do see it as the same thing–only optional on account of it being done by proxy. I’m not sure what else we could possibly call it. The scenario would be something like this: Maria died 200 years ago in Lima, a devout Catholic. She is now in the spirit world, and has had the opportunity to learn more. She has accepted these teachings, and is now waiting for her baptism work to be done so that she can progress and learn. OR–She has not accepted these teachings, and so does not care. When the work is done for her she chooses not to accept the baptism. It is as if it never happened.
I’m now taking my kids to dance class, so I won’t be able to answer as promptly for a while. Also my hands are killing me anyway.
I know there’s no actual debate going on as of yet, but with religion threads it’s usually naught but a name taken in vain away. So, off to GD.
Waitamminit . . . In Catholic doctrine, how could it do a dead person’s soul any harm (or good) to be posthumously rebaptized by the Mormons?
Put me down in the “who cares” category. I am pretty active in the Presbyterian Church, but grew up without attending. I was not offended by the local Baptists praying for my soul, and if the Mormons want to have a ceremony for me it does not impact me in the slightest.
I was Baptized as an adult, and I am working on living a life that will help me in the afterlife. Nothing I believe in tells me that another group throwing a ceremony will have ANY impact on my soul. That is the nice thing about the Reformed churches - we gave up a lot of ceremony from our belief system, putting most of the game into a personal relationship with Christ.
Go ahead, have an event where you save me in the name of atheism, Mormonism, Wiccan, Catholicism, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. It matters not to me, and if makes you feel closer to God - who am I to stand in your way. It is just my name.
If that’s really the case that you can “choose” whether or not to accept it, don’t you think that God Himself might have offered that choice, without someone else doing so?
Oh, so that makes it okay!
What if said ancestor was a Roman Catholic priest, or nun? They already chose their path.
It shouldn’t matter whether or not said person is a relative. I still would find it offensive. These people CHOSE their paths. To say, “Oh, well, you were wrong-here, you can chose to go with the REAL way”, that’s…unsettling.
From the Catholic point of view, baptism is a sacrament that can be conferred only once on any person. The concept of ‘rebaptism’ is nonsensical.
They do have a rule now, but only after they got caught at it. Cite.
Given that the deceased person is in heaven, as are God, Christ, and even Joseph Smith, why do you think that the deceased person can’t make up his or her own mind about this?
The arrogance comes in from one ancestor out of thousands thinking he can make this decision. Especially for someone who might have suffered greatly in this life resisting conversion to any sort of Christianity, who might even have died resisting it. The torturers often didn’t do it out of hate, but out of a sincere desire to save a recalcitrant soul. The LDS strategy is far less heinous, but in principle it is the same.
I think it is hard for you to understand how deeply offensive baptizing any of my ancestors is to me, since no matter what I believe religiously, it is against what they lived their lives and often sacrificed their lives for - a sacrifice that their now non-Jewish ancestors, with the aid of the church, is spitting on.
You have give me the beginnings of an evil plan. I shall begin putting it into effect as soon as my current evil plan is completed.
Technical note: In the RCC (and, I am pretty sure among the Orthodox, but I could be mistaken), Baptism is not reserved to any special group or minister. It has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession or the priesthood. Any baptism performed in the Trinitarian manner with the intention of conferring the sacrament on the person baptized is considered legitimate. This means that if a pagan was asked to baptize a person and they carried it out in the proper format with the proper intentions, it would be a legitimate baptism. (It would play havoc with the church records if there was no witness and it did not get recorded in some parish register, but the theological belief is that it would have been valid.)
Protestant baptisms have always been accepted as valid, provided the Protestant denomination professed a view of the Trinity that concurred with that of the RCC.
It is a matter of keeping the boundaries apparent for all to see. If the RCC did not take this step, there would surely be some point at which a person or ten would point to the fact that the RCC did not bar that door and then begin to suggest that the RCC actually did recognize the validity of the Mormon baptism. (For all I know–and I have not yet found the events that led to the recent decision–it was some similar event that triggered the current decision. (And, really, which is more insulting? declaring that the RCC records are closed to that process because it appears to support a theological error? Or saying, “Sure. They can take what they want because it is all superstitious hokum anyway.”?* At least this decision treats the CoJCoLDS as a serious religion that the RCC believes to be in error.
As a fan of genealogy, I find the decision disappointing, but I can certainly see the logic.
Was there an official policy statement made? Or did some reporter happen to catch wind of the letter to the bishops and poke around to find out why it was issued?
= = =
I would say that none of us “owns” them. There should be no authority to say what happens, because nothing should happen at all. It has nothing to do with my wanting to control what happens to that ancestor, it has to do, IMO, with respecting the dead and the decisions they made when they were alive.
But prayers are fundamentally different, in that prayers are not making a decision for another person.
See, this is the thing that I guess a Catholic such as myself just doesn’t “get.” Baptisms (in our view) can’t “never happen,” they either happen or they don’t, and once they do, there is an indelible mark on the soul. If God thinks that people who are not Mormon are not completed in some way, and He wants to educate them after death and allow them to choose, then He can do so, as far as I’m concerned. But for the living to presume to question what the dead decided to do in life and try to change it, well, that seems pretty disrespectful to me.
That’s ok…I hope you feel better!
I don’t think it could do any harm. I don’t think it’s harmful, I think it’s disrespectful.
That’s pretty much what I don’t understand about it. If God wants this to be His plan, why doesn’t He just take care of it in Heaven?
Well, to be fair, I think what dangermom is saying is that even the LDS Church doesn’t necessarily consider people converted based on this proxy baptism, but rather that they are giving people the opportunity to be converted. Other than that, I agree % with what you say here. Not everyone who isn’t a Mormon (or a Christian, for that matter) chose that path by default. If a person is resistant to conversion in life, what makes anyone think they will be more receptive after death? Why should they be asked to be?
Your article says that the policy was always in place, but that it was often violated by members. AFAIK this is completely accurate; it all works on the honor system and there isn’t a way of checking to make sure that everyone only submits names of their own ancestors. The LDS Church keeps saying it, but sometimes people disobey the rules–often out of naive enthusiasm. However, your article also states many times that Jews will be on record as converted Mormons, which is not the case. Since 1995, when the whole thing broke and the policy was re-affirmed, there have been cases of people wrongfully submitting names and also times when it seems that non-Mormons have submitted Jewish names solely in order to raise a ruckus. The LDS Church deals with them as they come up.
I hope I understand it; I have said that I sympathize. (And IIRC last time this came up, you were kind enough to say that I seemed to get it.) As it happens, I was dating a Jewish guy in 1994-5, so I certainly got a first-hand look at the issue. FTR I agree that people should not submit unrelated Jewish names for baptism.
As Sarahfeena said, we absolutely don’t consider people to be converted by this process. Nor would we ever say so, or put names on record as Mormons.
I understand what you’re both saying and I respect your feelings.