Not looking to get into a debate about the validity of this practice or anything like that...

More of a "procedural" question here.

Apparently someone baptized Obama's dead mother last year.

Seriously, not trolling here. How does this practice work?

Can you just thumb through the obituaries pick a name and go get baptized for that person?

Do you have to have a personal tie to them - or some sort of family lineage going back to them?

thanks.

After hearing about it over and over on this forum, you read an article pertaining to Obama and now you are curious?

In the LDS faith, baptism is considered an essential ordinance for salvation, and it is something which needs to be performed by a living person. Recognizing that not everyone has the opportunity to be baptized in this life, we perform baptisms on behalf of individuals who are dead. This provides the deceased person with the opportunity to accept the baptism in the afterlife. We believe the deceased person retains complete freedom to accept or reject the baptism, and the baptism does not "make someone a Mormon."

Family members are encourages to research their geneology to find deceased members of their own families who did not have a chance for baptism while they were alive. They then submit the names to their local Temple where the baptism is either performed by the relatives or someone else. Again, records are kept, but the deceased persons are not added to the roles of the church, nor is it believed that they automatically become a member. Most members view this as an act of love which will provide their loved ones with a chance to enjoy blessings as well as to bind families together in the hereafter.

The official church policy is that relatives should submit names of their own relatives. Despite this there have been some cases where members have submitted celebrity names including government leaders and other famous people. There have also been some frictions with the Jewish community over submission of names of people who died during the holocaust. The Church's policy is that these sorts of things should not happen, but again, when you have thousands of names being submitted monthly, sometimes things can slip through the cracks. Critics of the church like to try and make a big deal about this, but it is mostly well-intentioned people trying to do what they see as a good deed, but with obviously less than ideal tact and sensitivity.

Hope that explains it.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 5/6/2009 5:40p).]

quote:

---

The official church policy is that relatives should submit names of their own relatives. Despite this there have been some cases where members have submitted celebrity names including government leaders and other famous people. There have also been some frictions with the Jewish community over submission of names of people who died during the holocaust. The Church's policy is that these sorts of things should not happen, but again, when you have thousands of names being submitted monthly, sometimes things can slip through the cracks. Critics of the church like to try and make a big deal about this, but it is mostly well-intentioned people trying to do what they see as a good deed, but with obviously less than ideal tact and sensitivity.

---

Once again, Groove, you demonstrate why you - practically alone on this msg board here - are an LDS person I could link up with and drink iced tea (while you had a Hawaiian punch or something) with without wanting to kill one another.

The bottom line on this is if it were just relatives, it would be one thing. However, those of us who have a testimony that Mormonism is a man-made religion and don't like it for various reasons....we have a real problem about strangers - even if they mean well - have the audacity to dig the names of my grandparents out of the obits or courthouse records and have someone baptized for them in the San Antonio temple.

You're right.....if it turns out that we are right and Mormonism is false, the act of proxy baptism is totally meaningless. That's not the point. Strangers are diddling with MY ancestors, without my permission (or the permission of their only surviving child) and we feel violated.

Maybe if the LDS church started excommunicating people who turned in names of non-relatives.....or they were forced to pay punitive damages to the relatives of deceased individuals who were baptized without permission....then the LDS church might get itself under control.

If we have any under-employed lawyers out in TexAgs land (while the economy is slow and while we wait for the next asbestos or fen-pehn) who would like to litigate pro bono, shoot me a PM. I have the relatives who were necrodunked, I have a dad who was the only surviving descendant and he is unamused at the necrodunking, and I have the name of the individual who submitted their names for necrodunking.

It may not mean anything, but it is sort of like someone is stealing my grandparents' religion from them after their death....once they can no longer do anything to defend it. Both were committed to their own churches (they argued the Bible for the last 50 yrs of their lives and I don't think they agreed on a single book) and, quite simply, it was wrong to necrodunk them without family permission.

It may not have been illegal but things don't have to be illegal to be wrong.

Then again, with a good enough lawyer, maybe we could show that it was illegal. Defamation of character, maybe.

TxAgKuwait, before you launch off on some litigation, have you had a conversation with said nefarious Mormon who submitted the names of your family? Do you know how they obtain those names? You may find the person has linked your family to theirs and had a legitimate relationship...scary thought for you: Mormons in your family tree!

I agree with Groove, however, in that there are unfortunately those over-zealous members who give no thought to the reprecussions, feelings and sensitivities generated by their well-intended but sometimes tactless acts.

quote:

---

TxAgKuwait, before you launch off on some litigation, have you had a conversation with said nefarious Mormon who submitted the names of your family? Do you know how they obtain those names? You may find the person has linked your family to theirs and had a legitimate relationship...scary thought for you: Mormons in your family tree!

---

Not really that frightening a thought. We do have a Jehovah's Witness. But for the most part, it's church of Christ, Methodism, and an occasional Baptist as far as the eye can see.

I called the individual in question a while back. TaxNet and the Ultimate White Pages are wonderful things when you wish to track somebody down. No family relationship whatsoever. When I mentioned the purpose of my call, he hung up on me. I have not badgered him with repeat phone calls....strangely enough, harrassment is not my style. LOL confrontation is okay but harrassment is out.

In all honesty, there is no reason to pursue this. However, it still sucks. I haven't had my Wiccan acquaintances jump over logs in the nude for Gordon Hinckley, I haven't had my Catholic friends light candles and pray to statues for Ezra Taft Benson, and I would have been a whole lot happier if the Mormons would just leave my family alone.




[This message has been edited by TxAgKuwait (edited 5/6/2009 8:28p).]

If a dead person has been vicariously baptized by a mormon, what level of heaven does that person go to?

Aggiedrew04 - If he actually accepts the gosepl and the baptism thus having efficacy, he would be eligible for any of the three, as the Lord sees fit. The exception to that would be unless the Lord judges him a Son of Perdition. Then it is outer darkness.

quote:

---

Do you know how they obtain those names? You may find the person has linked your family to theirs and had a legitimate relationship...scary thought for you: Mormons in your family tree!

---

Which raises the question, how direct a line does one legitimately consider family? Lets say I married a woman who has a sibling that converted to the LDS (or a woman who raised LDS but became Catholic), if the family relation was strong and loving I would not mind if I was baptized by proxy upon my death since it woulf be a labor of love. However I would be livid if it opened up my whole family tree for proxy ordinances.

jk - Why? Think about it. If your dead family tree members don't accept the Gospel, it is as if the baptism never happened. If they do and the Gospel is true they will be eternally grateful to the one who lovingly spent the time to do all of this work - and trust me it does take a lot of time!

Of course if the Church and its doctrines are false then the baptisms mean absolutely nothing to no one.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 5/7/2009 10:52a).]

quote:

---

Of course [since] the Church and its doctrines are false then the baptisms mean absolutely nothing to no one.

---

FIFY...except that it does bother people. You can see on this very thread that TxAgKuwait is genuinely bother by the practice.

YOU don't seem to care. groove does seem to care.

Perhaps that is an example of why people on here seem to universally respect groove and not you?

You could learn a great deal from brother groove.

So do LDS believe there is some sort of "waiting room" before going to heaven? Is that where you can accept the baptism and LDS gospel?

d4 - Why do you not answer my question about how many branches some Mormons will go down to find some tenuous "family" connection to justify proxy ordinances?

I'm sorry but I would find it be very disrespectful to seal my great aunt who has been a nun for nearly 80 years in some sort of after death marriage. She did not enter her vows lightly nor did she regret them. I would see it as a slap in the face to her chosen vocation.

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 5/6/2009 10:24p).]

They believe in three different levels of heaven.

The first one is this wonderful, happy place, much better than earth, where most non-Mormons go. So, whether you are a Methodist or an Islamic terrorist, you end up there.

The second level is where two different kinds of Mormons go. First are those Mormons who didn't get married or didn't have temple recommends. Next are those who were non-Mormons in life but who accepted the LDS theology in the afterlife (and who were baptized by proxy).

I am not so sure what makes level 2 all the much better than level 1, but it is supposed to be better.

Finally, in the 3rd level are all the good Mormons with temple recommends and one or more wives. These guys in the third level get to become gods. Then they and their goddess wives have eternal celestial sex, and the wives produce spirit babies.

We haven't been told the gestation period, but seeing how many of us there are here on earth, the Mormon god's wife must produce like crazy.

LOL El Sid.

quote:

---

It may not have been illegal but things don't have to be illegal to be wrong.

---

Wise, succinct, and truth.

I can see why this would bother someone, but from my own personal stance if I found out one of my relatives had been baptized vicariously, it wouldn't bother me too much. I simply view it as an invalid rite that signifies a misguided attempt to do something kind.

I was mostly just interested in whether or not the practice was limited to family lines or if it was wide open. (I was intrigued by the Obama side, when i read it on the Politics forum... - I was wondering whether or not public figures could be baptized without the permission of a direct family member)

Here's an interesting hypothetical though - (Assuming for the moment that Baptism for the Dead works, as per the doctrines laid out by the LDS) -

Some Mormon Missionaries stop by an elderly man's home, and try to share their faith with him in the hopes of converting him. He listens patiently, but ultimately rejects what they have told him.

He dies two days later. The missionaries submit his name to their temple, and decide to be Baptized vicariously for the old man they met that week.

Since he had heard and rejected the Mormon faith in life, does the Baptism for the Dead give him the possibility to accept it in the afterlife?

I may be wrong, but I don't think it is accurate to say that Mormons are instructed to only submit relatives' names for temple work.

There is the unfortunate Jewish exception which only came about because of (misguided) political pressure.

The goal is to do the work for every human being who has lived. Period.

Do most Mormons who casually work on genealogy work only on their own line, and submit names from their ancestors? I would say yes. But there are also people who are working on genealogy far removed from their own line, because they believe in the importance of this history as well as the religious implications.

Moreover, I have acted as proxy (been baptized) and baptized proxies many times. Never once (that I know of) for a relative. You would be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who grew up in this church who hadn't been baptized for a non-relative.

Many of those for whom I was baptized were the ancestors of a Mormon who submitted names but did not have the ability or desire to personally be baptized for them, no doubt. But highly skeptical that ALL of those people fit that category.

And I am touched by those who are offended, as at some level it indicates faith in the power and authority of the ordinance.

quote:

---

Since he had heard and rejected the Mormon faith in life, does the Baptism for the Dead give him the possibility to accept it in the afterlife?

---

My opinion that rejecting (or accepting) the gospel of Christ is something that God defines, not Man.

They do it with orange cool aid...

SLC Temple Baptistry:

http://www.moroni10.com/LDS/Temple_Tour/SLC_baptistry.html

I don't understand the reasoning behind allowing that a person can still "accept" baptism after death, but that a living person still has to be baptized in your name to even have the chance to accept it. If God is willing to let you change your mind after death, why wouldn't he let you go whole hog on the mind-change?

Firebird, that is a good question.

But it begs another question--is baptism required at all?

Some creeds say yes, some creeds say no.

I certainly don't know how it all works, and at the end of the day, I like to believe in a God that is fair and kind and loving.

The many LDS doing this work do it as a selfless act of love. It's a LOT of work.

Also on groove's comments that the church teaches members to only submit relatives' names--I hadn't read the politico article. I had never heard such an admonition before, nor do I believe that the policy squares with the historical mission of redeeming the dead in the LDS church.

quote:

---

The many LDS doing this work do it as a selfless act of love. It's a LOT of work.

---

This is an important point, and it causes me concern regarding the LDS religion.

This IS a lot of work, and it is (in my view) utterly pointless. Imagine if all those man hours were directed to helping those in need. That would be far more Christ like.

jk -Did not mean to let the question slip by. We go back as many generations as we can. My wife is now in the 16th century. We focus on direct line. That will usually occupy all of your time.

With improved technology many duplications will be eliminated because there have been many cases where distant cousins are unknowingly working on the same line of ancestors.

Obviously one man's treasure is another man's pile of trash.

Sending thousands of young adults out for 2 years to preach gospel is viewed by many outsiders as a pointless waste of time, in a world with so many temporal needs.

Meditation vs. action. It's not either/or for many.

quote:

---

With improved technology many duplications will be eliminated because there have been many cases where distant cousins are unknowingly working on the same line of ancestors.

---

Doesn't this line contradict your statement of focusing on a direct line?

Sid - remember, it is not a "right" to go through life unoffended. Some people go around looking for offense. I am sensitive to legitimate feelings but by the same token they need to be sensitive to ours. We do not do this work because we have all of this time on our hands. If there were adherent of other religions who had practices of any kind that they did on my behalf or any of my family, I would not be offended. Instead I would consider it well intentioned and go on, unbothered, because I know that what ever they do would have no efficacy.

quote:

---

Sid - remember, it is not a "right" to go through life unoffended.

---

That may be right, but your right to practice your so-called religion only extends to a point where it does not negatively impact others.

I consider the fact that you people were arrogant enough to sully my grandparents' good names by baptizing them vicariously in to your man-made gutter religion a significant impact on my peace of mind.

It is almost as if you have engaged in grave-robbing or corpse desecration.

Would you like it if a group of us stood on public property near a temple or Mormon chapel and held up signs suggesting that Joseph Smith married other men's wives (after sending them away on a mission) or got his jollies by boinking prepubescent teenage girls?

Perhaps a billboard to that effect on the way to the chapel or temple. Or television advertising to that effect. I am certain you'd be offended and even if you weren't, a goodly number of Mormons would be. Like you said, though, there is no right to go through life unoffended.

The bottom line is your rights only extend until they start to affect others. If it is so important that you guys proxy baptize everyone who has ever lived, then why did your church back down on the proxy baptism of holocaust victims when challenged by certain Jewish groups.

By agreeing to discontinue the baptism of holocaust victims, you are either saying that (a) God may have told us to do this, but we aren't going to listen to him since we are more concerned with good PR than the commandments of God or (b) This really isn't a commandment of God, we just like to do it.

So which is it?



[This message has been edited by TxAgKuwait (edited 5/7/2009 11:39a).]

TxAgKuwait demanding that Mormons only say and do things that don't offend him is slightly ironic.

Every vile word that comes from your mouth is offensive to me, yet I don't ask that your tongue be cut out.

jk -

I think he's getting at how their family tree's branch - and become intertwined.

If 2nd or 3rd cousins are working on direct lineage alone, eventually, there will be a line meeting up... - eventually, there's some point at which the a line is the same from there out...

I see that i becomes less and less work as technology advances and people create longer histories (which generally will keep additional information - siblings names for instance, even if they dont have marriage/children information
would make the research easier as more and more people study their ancestry.


-

Does the person who serves as proxy in the baptism take on any sort of Spiritual advisory role for the dead person in the afterlife?

Will it be your job in the afterlife to then share the gospel to all the people you proxy baptize, in order for them to accept it there?

Are you in effect something along the lines of a "God Parent" in traditional baptismal terms?

[This message has been edited by baumenhammer (edited 5/7/2009 11:47a).]

quote:

---

Does the person who serves as proxy in the baptism take on any sort of Spiritual advisory role for the dead person in the afterlife?

Will it be your job in the afterlife to then share the gospel to all the people you proxy baptize, in order for them to accept it there?

Are you in effect something along the lines of a "God Parent" in traditional baptismal terms?

---

I am not aware of any teachings on this subject.

The belief is that deceased are being taught right now in the Spirit World, by others that are deceased who are acting as missionaries.

quote:

---

Every vile word that comes from your mouth is offensive to me, yet I don't ask that your tongue be cut out.

---

Well, Mikewaters, what can I say? Your brother-in-Joseph-Smith said there is NO right not to be offended.

Besides, my commentary does not impair your ability to engage in and practice your so-called religion.

I would like a response from the LDSers, though. Either this proxy baptism for the dead was a commandment from God and you should be practicing it for everyone, regardless of what the Holocaust victim survivors wanted and the church acquiesced to......or it is just a bunch of made-up crapola in which case it would be okay to disregard it in the case of holocaust victims (and my relatives).

So which is it? Are you disobeying God by exempting Holocaust victims? Or is it just something you like to do to make busy work to keep the mindless drone & worker bee members occupied (and too preoccupied to study the church's actual history)?




[This message has been edited by TxAgKuwait (edited 5/7/2009 11:54a).]

quote:

---

I think he's getting at how their family tree's branch - and become intertwined.

---

Maybe so but John Paul II was reportedly baptized more then once soon after his death. It is hard for me to imagine at this point in time that he had even one Mormon with a direct line much less two.