Tyrrell, as a Jew, let me say, FUCKING DUH!
Is this the passage you were thinking of:
Isn’t the real problem that the dead aren’t being offered a great enough choice? I mean, there are/have been hundreds of different faiths – what are the odds that the LDS one is right? Not overwhelming, agreed?
So as a loving descendent it’s surely your duty to line up get-out-of-hell tickets authorized by as many different religions as you possibly can. That way, dear old departed (who, being as she is departed now knows the definite answer to life, the universe, and all that) will be able to pluck the winning ticket out of the batch and wave it under the gatekeeper’s nose while proclaiming, “Hah! See, me and Odin – we were always real close!” and sashay out, while surreptitiously dropping all the losers in the gutter.
In certain cases, a convert to Orthodoxy will not be baptized; the position being that the previous baptism was an empty form that is given grace by the Church. Most often (especially among those of a more conservative bent), all converts are baptized, period. Mormon baptisms would never be accepted as valid, though. If your brother-in-law was indeed baptized Orthodox and then re-baptized, then that is a serious violation of Church discipline; a priest who re-baptizes an Orthodox Christian is liable to be defrocked.
That’s the big source of my confusion. I mean, well-meaning though it is, what possible purpose does it actually serve beyond being the root of one more pit thread?
“Let’s baptize these dead people!”
“Er, why? They aren’t alive; it won’t do any good.”
… even if you buy into the specific religious belief (TCOJSOLDS in this case) that being baptized into the Mormon Church does something specific, it has to be voluntary or … ?
Do they dunk the dead bodies? What if a person was cremated? What if they’ve been dead for so long that they’re only bones? Or worse, if they hven’t decomposed all the way and they’re still, ahem, in that transitionary phase? What if there are pieces missing?
Excellent question. Unfortunately, I don’t really have an answer. This is one of those things that are pretty much first principles that God has revealed. I really don’t know that He’s explained it in detail.
To wit: [ul] [li]Baptism is a required ordinance–it is the agreement with God which binds us to him and him to us []It must be performed by one having authority from God []After death, those who never had the opportunity to accept the Gospel will have the opportunity to accept or reject []If one accepts, he must be baptized by one with authority []Since the deceased does not have a body, it is done by proxy Communication with the departed being somewhat unreliable (though we expect that to change) we perform the ordinace for all we can, with the understanding that many will reject our offer and the hope than many will accept[/ul] However, I am uncomfortable with the answer “God told us so.” Usually he tells us with a reason. Your question makes me wonder more at the reason than I have in the past, and I’m going to study the issue. Hopefully when this comes up again (as it surely will), I’ll have a better answer. [/li][quote]
However, the baptism of the dead-EVEN IF ONE CAN REJECT IT, still bothers me. In the past, I have read of Catholic saints and martyrs being baptised and this does NOT sit well with me.
[/quote]
Why does it bother you? Seriously, this seems to be a big sticking point with a lot of people and I have yet to see it clearly explained. Surely those who were strong in their faith in life would reject something they believe to be false in death? Are they not capable of taking care of themselves? On the other hand, if they died with no knowledge of something they would have accepted in life, who is anyone else to deny them that?
I myself have personally spoken with people who had signs on their doors reading: “We are Catholic. We were born Catholic. We will die Catholic.” I have personally seen dyed-in-the-wool members of one faith join the LDS church. We believe that the whole truth was lost shortly after the Apostles of Christ died. That only in the 1800’s was it restored. In the interim, people tried the best they could to live as they believed Christ would have them live, but they simply did not have the continuing prophecy they needed to keep the church helmed properly. If that premise is true, any committed saints who received the opportunity to have the whole truth would leap at the chance. Offering it to saints is thus giving something we treasure to someone who we believe would have welcomed it in life, had it been available. Indeed, given our beliefs, it would be despicable for us not to.
Baptism (for oneself or by proxy) is not a big ceremony. It is accomplished in seconds. It is the only token of acceptance that Christ asks. Surely one who owes his debt of salvation is willing to perform such a small act?
We don’t keep records of members which simply happen to be dead. The membership rolls are only for the living. You might say that we lump the members in with everyone else, rather than the other way around.
On preview, dangermom (formerly genie) pointed out that she explained this to you on the last go-round.
So how would the Mormons here feel about the Catholic church baptizing dead Mormons? Or how about post-humous brises?
The reason it bothers me is I HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED AND I AM HAPPY WITH MY FAITH! In other words, please, do not in this or any other world attempt to baptize me into another faith unless you have my express permission beforehand. I know we’re talking about baptizing people who are already dead, but that will happen to me sooner or later.
emarkp, I know you mean well and I’m sure your church has done a lot of good, but I would think that, in the grave if nowhere else, I’d be safe from proselytizers. I and mine have said “No.” If your version of Christianity is incapable of accepting that “No” which is the only way I can read your attempt to baptize us after we’ve died, then yyou do have something in common with those blasted phone solicitors who will not leave me alone.
I am sorry, but not for requiring a person or a people take no for an answer.
CJ
Well, I don’t mind. 'Course, I’m female. 
As long as you’re not sacrificing puppies on my grave, I’m happy.
To yBeayf: my brother, emarkp’s BIL, was indeed baptized Orthodox twice. The first time, which was several years ago–6, maybe?–he wore a white surplice with a red cross on the back for I think 40 days. Apparently the local bishop (?) is not in complete harmony with the church in Russia, and the baptism wasn’t good enough, so it was redone in Russia before the church wedding (about 2 years ago). This is probably a very garbled version, since I haven’t gotten the exact details from him, but he was certainly baptized again.
So the issue of respect seems to be what keeps coming up. Specifically that if LDS baptize someone who is dead (especially someone who was well-known in his religion) it is disrespectful.
As noted, we don’t baptize dead people. We perform baptisms by proxy for people who are dead. So no, we don’t dig people up out of graves and dunk (there I go again :)) them in water. That would be disrespectful (not to mention gross).
We also don’t claim that someone who is baptized by proxy is Mormon (e.g. we’ve now made the Christian Saints Mormons! We win!).
So how is performing proxy baptisms disrespectful? To members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is a part of the missionary effort–the offering of what we believe to any who will listen. As I noted above, baptism is necessary for converts, and requires a body to perform the ordinance, hence the dearly departed must rely on us to do their work. Since it really is part of the missionary work I have to ask:
What is it disrespectful about “Come, and see”?
Is it disrespecful to say, essentially, “This is what I believe. Would you like to hear more?”
Moreover, why is it more disrespectful to offer famous (or infamous) people this gift than less well-known people? It’s easy to guess at the reasoning behind people’s logic with respect to performing proxy baptisms for:
Adolph Hitler: It’s not my position to judge him. By offering baptism even to him, I’ve reserved judgement to Christ, the final Judge.
Justin Martyr: Surely a saint would eagerly anticipate revelation from God. He would be one of the first people to welcome what I offer.
Holocaust victim: Someone persecuted for his/her faith/heritage. I should offer them this gift, since they suffered so much.
etc.
Respect is part of both the preparation and the ordinance of proxy baptism. We pursue knowledge of our ancestors–not just finding names and dates, but knowledge of the individuals, and the details of their lives when possible. We then take the thing most precious to us, individually and collectively. We take our core belief and instead of hoarding it to ourselves, we offer it to everyone else who does or has lived on earth. We do this with the hope that they will listen sincerely, and perhaps even be touched by the Sprit and accept that gift. The baptism is performed with the hope that the departed will accept it, just as the missionary hopes that the person he testifies to will accept it. I guess I just don’t see the disrespect in this.
As another genealogist, I can give propers to LDS for the gargantuan undertaking of creating their database.
However, any genealogist worth his/her salt understands that the LDS records are highly suspect as a single source for research. Many of the files are corrupted by bad information and must be verified by a second source before incorporation into any family database.
I must say the disapproval of a unpopular religious idea of the lds here is heartening to me!
Fighting ignorance indeed.
Someone said LDS believe that the gospel was lost.
But you see, all other denominations (Christian ones) don’tbelieve this.
Either the Bible is a lie or it isn’t.If its a lie, then you can claim to be LDS.
Christians believe the Bible to be God’s only word.
In reading through the thread I noticed some points made by various posters (which I won’t bother seeking & quoting…hamsters and al that). But to addres them:
Concerns about imposing the faith on the dead are made in the absence of, or ignorance of knowledge of the concept of “the veil.” The veil is the idea that, prior to our arrival on earth, we all know our spiritual relationship with God. When we are born, the veil drops and we know nothing of it (Jesus was exempt from the veil). Without the knowlege of our existence prior to our births, it is easy to stray from our relationship with God (Like going away to college & simply forgetting about your previous life & friends) and follow other paths as they are presented to us…the holy church of the asparagus was mentioned earlier I think. It follows, then, that once the church has identified a person who has so strayed from the path of Godliness as to have omitted baptism from his list of things to do on earth, that they would assume the person is sitting on his butt in the afterlife saying, “Aw shit! I forgot about THAT!” Thus the LDS believe the baptism by proxy is very welcome by the recipient.
And as I understand it, the dead are not being baptized into the LDS church, per se (I may be wrong) but they are being baptized, period. Which ya gotta do cuz God says so.
And if you’re a non-Christian and don’t believe in the baptism, well, does your religion punish you for having it done? If not, then just say, “Thank you, no.” I’d consider it a compliment that someone was offering to cover my ass.
Ok, now I’m intrigued. The two main possibilities I can think of are either he was baptized in one of the obscure Russian sects that nobody recognizes, or he was baptized into one of the Oriental Orthodox churches (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, or Indian), who are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox and therefore their baptisms are not recognized. Either way, it sounds like an unusual situation. Normally, Eastern Orthodox baptisms are recognized by all Orthodox.
If you wouldn’t mind, I’d be curious to know what jurisdiction he was baptized into the first time.
Well, he was baptized here in Northern CA (see my profile). There is a small but impressive Russian Orthodox community here, complete with monastery, monks, nuns, abbess, bookshop, and radio program. AFAIK they’re as Russian and as Orthodox as can be.
I’d have to ask my other brother or track down the abbess, a very nice lady, to find out more; I never knew it was particularly odd. Or maybe the priest in Kaliningrad is just suspicious of American knock-offs?
I’m afraid this is incorrect. LDS teaching has consistently been that Jesus also passed through the veil of forgetfulness in mortality. One reference:
(emphasis mine)
The spirits of men do not have the veil of forgetfulness removed after death. See the verse I cited above (on this page) in response to pepperlandgirl.
To some extent this is correct. Membership in the LDS church is only meaningful while alive. Baptism must be done by one having authority, which currently means LDS (but anciently would have referred to those who Jesus commissioned, etc.).
I’d wager you’re talking about the monasteries up in Platina; if you are, it explains a lot. St. Herman monastery was founded in the Russian Orthodox Church by Fr. Seraphim Rose, who reposed in 1982 and whom many consider a saint. After his death, the monastery started to get some very weird ideas and went vagante (i.e. schismatic). They were received back into canonical Orthodoxy (in the Serbian church) in 2000. If your brother was baptized there six years ago, that would have been when they were still vagante, and thus the baptism would not have been Orthodox.
If he was baptized somewhere else, I have no idea.
I suppose it’s possible, but Platina is a few hours away from Chico, where this monastery is (by ‘see my profile,’ I meant right here in town where I live). I’ll have to look into it.
I appologize-I forgot about that.
Look, I do understand your beliefs-HOWEVER, it still bothers me.
If someone specifically REJECTED the LDS church in life, what would make them change their minds at death?
I mean, why not just baptize BY PROXY everyone on earth, and then have it done?
To me, it just seems very patronizing. And if someone specifically ASKED not to have it done, to go and say, “well, you can reject it!” isn’t addressing the question. The point is, someone says, “I am already rejecting it NOW.”
Okay, I am going on record as saying that I do not wish a baptism by proxy when I shuffle off of this mortal coil. Got that, Dopers? No offense to LDS, but I do not believe in it-if I did, I would be a Mormon, obviously.
I mean, if I were going to be a Mormon, I would do so. I’m being a non-specific religion person who believes in God along with some of the Catholic teachings I was brought up with, but doesn’t like the idea of One True Religion.
I wish to meet God on my own terms. I appreciate the offer, but I am rejecting it NOW.