Why care? because it is offensive and not respectful to their faith and life

Put the shoe on the other foot. Would a Mormon family allow a Catholic priest to baptize their new born baby? Neither the baby or the dead have anything to say about the baptism, so it shouldn‘t matter. Because the Mormons don’t believe in the Catholic way of baptism, it would be an invalid baptism and won’t make any difference. Any volunteers?

Being born at Holy Cross Hospital in the early 1950's, I, along with other newborns were routinely baptized by the Catholics to make sure I didn't go to hell, without my parent's permission. Does that show a lack of respect for my or my parents belief? Maybe, but it isn't something that I resent. In fact, if the Pope is standing next to St. Peter at the pearly gates in the next life, I might be more thankful then than I am now.

Likewise, if a tribe in South America wants to bite off the heads of chickens on my behalf, believing that it might improve my standing in their version of the afterlife, then more power to them. I don't believe a kind and merciful God will decrease my chances for getting into heaven based upon the efforts of others (and mercy is the only shot I have got). Frankly, I need all the help I can get.

MY SLC: Not at all, the reason is because they do not understand true doctrine. They have little understanding of the Bible or the history of baptism for the dead. That is the real shame.

The practice does not disrespect the dead. Those individuals must accept the vicarious act for it to have any validity. As a memeber of the LDS church, I have absolutely no concern if another cult or faith wished to baptize me without my consent while I am living or after my death. Why? Because I don't believe in those faiths. Now if you post something about how disrepectful this practice is, please ask yourself why you hate the LDS church to the degree that you waste your effort responding to this letter.

I need all the help I can get - Yea, but consider the plight of those poor chickens - sacrificing their lives for your salvation. ;-)

Pope Julius sold indulgences believing that living relatives could lower the amount of time dead ancestors would spend in purgatory by how much money they offered the church. The money was used to build a new St. Peter's basilica in Rome. What I don't understand the Catholics objecting to is that almost all baptisms for the dead in the Mormon faith are performed by teenage youth who must prove their worthiness to go to a Mormon temple by meeting with their Mormon bishop. The youth must be drug free, moral, honest, and profess a belief in Jesus Christ among other things. How is that bad given all the trouble young people can get into now days? Why not let the practice continue even if it only helps the living to try and live a better life?

What right does another person have to change my religious affilliation after my death = NONE. LDS can have their beliefs but don't have to right to change mine after the fact. You can believe as you believe about the after life etc but don't trespass on my family religious association. Do they count those baptisms in the yearly report of new members etc? Religion is becoming the center point of all evil and creating unnecessary anger in the world. Time for religious leaders to take care of their flocks and leave others alone.

Of course this practice is meaningless and not offensive to the dead who cannot be offended. The practice is offensive to the living. The reason people often object to having another religion interfere in their religious lives is not because they believe in that religion but because they feel that it is an intrusion into their religious liberties. The feeling is likely similar to the feeling of secularists who oppose creationism, in the form of Intelligent Design today, being brought into public schools.
Look at it this way. Grave-robbing doesn't have any effect on the dead. In fact, including anything of value on a corpse is a waste and we should not be opposed to the poor taking such items of value after they've served their purpose. Yet, many people would find this offensive as they attach meaning to a used body. I don't, so I would not object to this. Should I do it though it will offend others (don't worry I have better uses for my time)?

Thank heaven for punctuation, otherwise "Ineed all the help I can get" would need his parents permission to "go to hell." I my own case I think there were times my own parents would have given it, maybe even suggested it. The issue, folks, is about understanding on both sides of the discussion. The presumption that one's ancestors need salvation may seem arrogant to someone who believes differently than the LDS. On the other hand, an understanding of the principle of baptism for the dead and what it means and what is required, might make it seem like a gesture of kindness. This will work itself out, if meddling minds don't go ballistic over it.

Nothing like a dose of insensitivity and disrespect for other denominations and gentile neighbors to create a warm and fuzzy feeling of harmony in the community.

And yes, I know, "If I don't like it here ..."

Would you want a Satanic ritual performed on one of your departed? (Not that LDS is Satanic) Whether or not you believe in such things it seems a little creepy doesn't it?

Wait a minute. If that parish register in Ireland has my grandfather's data in it, don't I have a right to see it? Whose rights are at stake here? Who's closing down the free flow of information?

Catholic,

In my case the shoe has been on the other foot.

I grew up in Argentina. The best schools down there by far are Catholic schools. To go, you have to be baptized Catholic and take First Communion. I am LDS.

So to get me into school, my parents had me baptized Catholic, and while in high school, I also took Communion. Was it offensive? No. Why not? Because having a padre sprinkle me with water carries no more weight than being shot with a squirt gun, in my view. And because being served a wafer carries no more weight than being served a piece of bread by a waiter.

The LDS kids at Catholic schools all did that with the blessing of the LDS Church because we don't believe the Catholic ordinances carry any meaning in the eternal sense - it was just something we had to do to go to school.

So do Catholics believe in LDS ordinances and not want them performed, or do they not believe them? And if not, then why does it matter?

In my opinion, this whole issue is much to do about nothing.

The LDS Family History dept has provided a unique and valuable service to the Catholic Church by copying, digitizing, and securely storing those records at no cost. I hope the Vatican is prepared to invest in preserving those now "off-limits" records, or they will inevitably be lost--no thanks to the Vatican.

Shoe on the other foot,

I could not have articulated the LDS Chruch's complete lack of respect for anyone else's faith any better. The self righteous arrogance and hypocrisy displayed by members of the LDS Church on this page is exactly what others find so offensive about these illicit baptisms. You could at least try to demonstrate some compassion and tolerance for other beliefs.

Didn't the DMN already cover this issue with 10 pages of commentary that repeated the same things as are already posted today?? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there a war or something a bit more important going on??

Shoe on the other foot

Since actions taken by Catholics have no effect, since they have no authority, how about if they erect crosses as grave markers for your deceased ancestors? I realize this is not respectful of LDS beliefs (cross deemphasized, atonement and resurrection are emphasized), but since nothing the Catholics do has any power or authority, it has no weight or effect. So you shouldn't be offended.

wrapping his mind around the fact that nobody is changing anybody's religion. For the umpteenth time, read my lips, THE BAPTISM ISN'T VALID IF THE DECEASED DOESN'T ACCEPT IT IN THE AFTERLIFE. After he/she passes to the other side and discovers that the LDS church IS true, he/she still has the option to reject the baptism that was done for him and all the blessings that it provides. Reminds me of something else that was done for all of us without us asking---namely the ATONEMENT of our Savior!!!

I have plenty of respect for the Catholic faith. Presumptuously putting words in my mouth does not reflect well on you. I did great in my "catequismo" classes and honestly enjoyed what I learned. What does my beliefs about Catholic authority have to do with respect? Do I have to believe every religion in the world is correct in order to be showing it respect in your eyes?

Go ahead and put a cross on my deceased ancestors' graves. It honestly wouldn't offend me. And if some other church chose to perform some ordinance on my behalf after my death, that wouldn't offend me either. In fact, I'd be flattered by their concern for my welfare (whether I believe it's correct or not).

Some people are just too easily offended (here being no different). I once heard a wise woman say "noone can offend you. Being offended is something you CHOOSE to do." I'd invite many of you to ponder on that.

Neither Catholic nor LDS:

We do not find crosses disrespectful or repugnant. I could care less if my ancestors have a cross at their grave, some do. If you are dead already why should it matter?
I was listening to KSL last night and a Catholic bishop stated that individuals will still be able to get records, they just will not allow the LDS Church to microfilm records in great numbers. This is unfortunate, but the work will still go forward. If you are performing the work on behalf of your own ancestors, which is what is supposed to happen anyway this is "much to do about nothing" as someone else posted earlier.
I really liked the words of a Jewish Rabbi who stated that if the LDS work was not true anyway, why get so worked up about it. Displaying anamosity towards the LDS church for vicarious work for the dead is silly, unless you believe there is truth in it. ;)

So many of you don't think it should matter. Fine. But, for whatever reason, the catholic church (and other religions) finds the LDS Church's practice of baptizing their members offensive.

I know that I wouldn't want to be baptized LDS after I died and I would be bothered if that happened. I can't explain why exactly, but I would be bothered. It is an insensitive practice, at best, and religious ordinances should not be performed on anybody, living or dead, without their consent. The "truthfulness" or "efficacy" of the ordinance is beside the point.

Anyway, I know most of you don't care to look at viewpoints that contradict your "true" worldview, but I thought I would share mine.

So Jason, I'm guessing you have a problem with religions that baptize babies? After all, you believe "religious ordinances should not be performed on anybody.....without their consent."

This is not directed at you, Jason: I find it ironic that many Catholics are opposed to baptisms for the dead because the dead are unable to consent, but they have no problem baptizing little babies who are also unable to consent. It kind of blows the whole argument out of the water.

jr is having a hard time,
I don't believe in the atonement. I don't believe that it happened. If it did I don't believe that it had any meaning because in the story Christ did not die, he only died as a mortal, and even that was temporary. It has as little meaning as the death of Aslan who knew he would arise again. The sacrifice, again I don't believe it happened, doesn't have much meaning as it was not a true sacrifice. Furthermore, I do object to such a thing happening for me without my knowledge. I do not wish for someone to meaninglessly sacrifice them-self for a sin that I did not commit but that a supposedly benevolent God places on me as a result of actions taken by flawed individuals he created that responded to a temptation that he provided that, if knowledge, he was inappropriately hiding from them in the first place.
Why do I not have a right to object to such beliefs being forcefully applied to me. People are constantly suggesting that I should consider what Christ did for me. When talking about the atonement he did nothing.

To Jr's question - No, baptisms for the dead are not counted towards church membership. If they did, LDS church membership would be approaching 1 billion members. LDS Church membership is counted as live members only. As has been noted a number of times, the baptism performed posthumously is not valid unless it is accepted by the person for whom it is being performed. Since it's kind of hard to know if someone on the other side has accepted it or not, counting those as 'new members' would to a very difficult task.

This constant back and forth of those claiming superiority of their religion brings to mind one immutable fact: Religious faith and rational thought are mutually exclusive.

"For Jason" is absolutely correct. It is ironic that Catholics don't see the hypocrisy in their arguments.

I don't know about Jason, but I do have a problem with any religion baptizing anyone without their consent. And BTW, 8-years-old is not old enough to consent either, IMHO.

As far as baptisms for the dead, eh, who cares? You're dead. If the LDS church is correct (and that's a big "IF") then I guess I might want the choice after I'm dead. I highly doubt that will happen though.

In any case, I can understand how the living descendants of those who are posthumously baptized might take offense, especially if they have their own myths they believe in. Why can't the LDS church just leave the baptizing of the dead to the dead? Then only the dead will take offense and we can all live happily ever after here in the real world.

Please don't baptize me when I die. I'm looking forward to an eternity in hell with all the fun people who drank and smoked and danced.
How many people are going to be in heaven anyway? 3?
None of you all deserve it, so come on down with me afterwards, we're gonna have a party!

All these attempts to "put the shoe on the other foot" fall short. Use of the *names* of deceased Catholics in LDS religious ceremonies is not the same as a Catholic priest physically baptizing a Mormon infant, or erecting a cross over an LDS member's buried body.

In the case of the baby, the baby's parents are entrusted with physical custody and control of the baby's person, and imposing baptism on that person would encroach on this right. In the case of the burial, a deceased person's immediate relatives have a quasi-property right in the remains, which includes the authority to make decisions as to their disposition. Again, an outside group's imposition of its own religious symbol on such a burial would enroach on this recognized right.

There is no such right of control over the mere use of a deceased person's name.

By declaring the Mormon doctrine of baptism of the dead "offensive," critics are effectively demanding that Mormons abandon a sincerely-held religious belief to placate others. That's not consistent with religious amity. The Catholic policy ought to be reconsidered.

Taking the liberty to perform a religious ritual on a person (or a person's name) without their permission or knowledge is the same as barging in on a party uninvited.

Do these people have ANY manners?

Your opinion is sad but yet all too common amongst people who think they are "self-thinkers" and "intelligent minds". And yes, reading your posts on The Trib, that's what you claim to be, an intellectual.

Christ doesn't need intellectuals, He wants people to turn their hearts over to Him. If you give your heart, your mind and body will follow.

To absolutely dismiss Christ's mission is just astounding. And you are correct, He didn't do anything for you because you have not chosen to accept what He actually did for you. It's just like baptism for the dead, one has to accept the act on their behalf for it to take effect.

What a silly thing to start arguing about. Isn't there something that both sides could spend their time on that debating this.

If my neighbor were of a different religion and offered to pray for me, would I say "no" because they pray different or "wrong." Would their prayer harm rather than help?

What a silly, childish debate.

"Jesus Christ wants LDS people to baptize dead Catholics so they may get into heaven."

Some people have clearly lost their minds.

The way I was raised is that you never crash a party that you haven't been invited to.

For jackhp:

You asked "why can't the LDS church leave the baptizing of the dead to the dead?"

The answer lies in the corporeal nature of baptism. We believe that baptism requires immersion in water. Immersing something in water requires an object (such as a body of flesh and bones) to be immersed. It's not possible to immerse spirits or ghosts because they lack the physical substance to be immersed. Same with the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost - you can't lay your hands on a spirit. That is why the LDS church believes the living (who possess a physical body) are needed to perform work for the dead.

Concerns about baptism for the dead?

1 Corinthians 15
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1 Peter 4
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Questions . . .

Who says descendants don't have the right to control the use of their dead relatives' names? Isn't a person's name similar to intellectual property? Maybe the names should be passed on in wills so that the decedent's family has control. If the family turns it over to a church for ritualistic purposes, then so be it. (For those who are already dead, the nearest next of kin shall claim ownership by default and we go on from there.)

Is being an "intellectual" now considered a bad thing? Should those who engage in rational, thoughtful, intelligent discourse be denigrated for their knowledge?

Why is it "astounding" to dismiss "Christ's mission"? Frankly, I find it astounding that anyone could take such things (meaning the myths associated with ALL religions) so seriously. But that's just me. Carry on as you will. But please, leave me out of it.

Can't the LDS baptismal doctrine be changed? Other doctrines have changed over time; why not this one? It sure would make it easier for you to play nice with the other religious kids on the block.

Gopherus, in his own way, explained exactly how proxy work for others works. As he stated: "People are constantly suggesting that I should consider what Christ did for me. When talking about the atonement he did nothing."

That is exactly right. Treasures that are unclaimed have no value to the claimant. Baptisms performed by proxy, in love, for those who are deceased, are of no effect until that person accepts the principles pertaining to that ordinance and recognizes the authority by which that ordinance was performed. For those who believe, new avenues of possibilities are opened. For those, like Gopherus, who choose not to believe, their condition is unchanged as are their possibilities.

Gifts given can be accepted or rejected. An attitude of gratitude goes a long way. If we are too arrogant to accept kindly deeds offered and performed by others in and for our behalf, then we are unworthy to receive priceless gifts. Christ gave Himself as payment for our follies. We have the right to reject Him and His gifts, just as we have the right to reject the means and methods which He provides to everyone for entrance into His kingdom.

I agree. I wouldn't care if someone did an ordinance for me that I didn't think had any affect. I don't think it's disrespectfull. It just shows they care about me too.

I also don't care that the Catholic Church is doing what it can to prevent this work from being done for these people. If it really needs to be done, God can find a way to do it and no man/church can stop him.

My question for the day is...
Do any Catholics use Family Search for their geneological research? I think a lot of non-mormons use this HUGE database for genealogical research. Maybe the LDS church should restrict those records from being shared with Catholics and the rest of the world becuase of some contrived excuse like identity theft (like the Catholic Church).

Much ado about nothing. So the Pope won't let the LDS church microfilm records. Big deal. I'm sure there are plenty of other records to keep the temples busy. And it won't stop individuals doing their own research on their ancestors using public records.

Anyway, we're supposed to eventually have one thousand years while Christ reigns on earth to get the work finished. (Sorry, does that belief of mine offend someone?)

I only read a couple of comments before it became clear that Catholics don't understand the basics of baptism for the dead. Comparing it to a Catholic baptising a Mormon baby (I don't know how the baby could be Mormon since they can't decide until they are at least 8, but whatever)... and saying they are the same because neither the baby nor the dead could decide shows a large gap in understanding.

Baptism for the dead does NOT mean the person baptised is a member of the church and they have no choice about it! We believe the person will be tought the gospel in it's fulness in the afterlife and they will have a chance to accept or reject it.

To explain why the ordinance needs to be done on earth takes more words than I have here. Contact a missionary or a member if you have any questions. It doesn’t need to be a hostile discussion. There is no offense intended in this practice, just love for our fellow man.

Or, I just had another thought about the "physical" requirement for baptizing dead people. Why can't you just do it ONCE for everyone who has ever died and everyone who ever will? Quick and painless, just like how you should take off a band-aid. Then, it's not like anyone can complain; it's already done and you just say "Sorry about that."

Anonymous | 11:49 a.m. says,

“The way I was raised is that you never crash a party that you haven’t been invited to.”

Actually, in this context, you have it backwards. Performing baptisms for the dead is merely sending an invitation to "the party" (in your words). Whether someone who is deceased actually accepts the invitation is solely up to them. Nothing is being forced here. If they don't believe it, they don't believe it. But, if they do, who's choice is that?

It's interesting to see the rationalizations people come up with. Can you really not see that telling someone that their dead relative's religion (if they had one) wasn't good enough and that they now need the "opportunity to choose" something different, even though they're dead, can come off as a bit offensive to those who are still living and may still be practicing the same religion as the decedent? Come on . . . really? You don't see it? I'm not even religious at all and I can see it.

This looks to me like a test for the LDS faithful to navigate this "bump" in the road.
A dialog between Catholics and Mormons over the issue might be what is needed.
Tolerance for another religion is needed here. And Mormons I know have been very critical of the Catholic faith (not Catholics themselves).
Time to step back and evaluate how you are treating the beliefs of others, and how you other to treat your beliefs. Perhaps this incident will open up a dialog between the two faiths.

OK, so let me take a stab at what some of you likely envision.

Here we see great uncle Gopherus, who has long since passed away. He's sitting with his buddies (who didn't believe in Christ either) playing poker and drinking their favorite brew; when unbeknownst to him, some nosy freakin' mormon who somehow got ahold of his earthly records, baptizes him by proxy.

Next thing Gopherus notices is two young men in dark suits, white shirt and ties, with matching nametags crashing the game saying, "Are you Gopherus? Drop the cards, you've been baptized. You're coming with us."

you may quibble with Gopherus if you must, and I do not always agree with his posts, but his first post is fairly reasonable. The issue can not be settled until people move beyond emotion. I see vapid responses daily when someone says something unflattering about many of the reader's polygamous ancestors...are they not as dead as the Catholic ancestors? Someday, I would love to go grave robbing with Gopherus and then have a huge chicken dinner with lamonte!

I'm Catholic, and I certainly do NOT hate the LDS church. In fact, there is a lot about Mormon practice (if not doctrine) that I have a great deal of admiration for.

That said, I do find this practice (posthumous baptizing of non-Mormons) offensive and disrespectful. What only adds to my annoyance is the complete and utter indifference so many LDS show toward the objections of others. Example: "If you're so offended, you must think it's true." Um, no. I don't. That isn't the point. The point is basic, common respect and decency.

What's ironic is that Mormons so often are the very MODELS of respect and decency, yet on this issue they are its antithesis.

Also--the point of the article is that the Catholic Church has decided not to go along with this LDS program. Why should any Mormon find that offensive? We care about our sacraments and doctrines just as much as you do. Surely you aren't asserting a RIGHT to Catholic parish records, are you?

I know the practice of posthumous baptism will continue, whether I like it or not. But don't act all offended if we choose not to play along, okay?

Are you suggesting that some people bury huge chickens with their deceased relatives?