I caught this story in an Idaho paper about the Catholic Church banning Mormons from getting a hold of their registries. Apparently they aren’t too keen of Mormons baptizing them posthumously either. Maybe it’s time for the LDS religion to give up on this completely inane practice and put their membership to use doing more useful things – like feeding the hungry.
I was talking to a couple of students last night about a project we are working on together when the idea of baptisms for the dead came up. Both students are very secular and were basically dumbfounded by the description I gave of the practice. They asked all the right questions:
- So, they are getting baptized for people to get them out of spirit prison, right? Yep.
- How do they know if they accepted it? They don’t.
- So, they get baptized for everyone who ever lived? Yep.
- Including Holocaust victims? Yep.
- What about all the people who they can’t find geneologically? They claim it will be revealed to them one day, but that’s kind of funny since it would just make more sense to wait for the revelations and just dunk people then.
- Will they baptize me when I’m gone? Yep.
- Who wouldn’t accept a baptism in spirit prison when it’s obvious that you’re being visited by Mormon missionaries? I have no idea.
- Bizarre. (not a question, but I still answered) Yep.
I say turn the temples into homeless shelters!
You’re missing the point of the spiritual richness involved in linking ourselves ritualistically with our ancestors.
Would you poo-poo a Native American’s reverence for his ancestry and forefathers? Would you tell a Buddhist that the shrine to her ancestors in her living room is a tacky waste of good living space?
I honestly don’t know why when other people try to ritually get in touch with something bigger than their immediate surroundings, it’s all new-age and hip. But when a Mormon does it, it’s worthy of contempt, dismissal, and ridicule.
You really aren’t being charitable to us profxm.
I agree with Seth that genealogy and ancestor worship can add meaning to life.
I don’t know about Profxm but the problem with Mormon ancestor rituals is that they are dismissing other people’s heritage, identity, and religion.
Baptisms for the dead are ultimately an expression of Joseph Smith’s doctrine that all other religions are abominations.
Non-Mormons are just as dismissive about Mormon claims of domination as about Pope Benedict’s claims about the exclusivity of Catholicism. In the post-imperial age, exclusive truth claims relegate believers to the margins of society.
Posthumous sacraments are even more aggressive than the Pope’s language because we are imposing on people’s memories. Mormons have a hard time understanding how hurtful that is but it is not our place to dismiss other people’s pain.
I had a dream the other night that Monson had changed the temple ceremony so that the general public could witness marriages. I think it was just wishful thinking. Yes, we are living in the 21st century, I think we are past the whole Masonic antiquated ritual thingie now.
Maybe they should convert the temples into a place of worship like a chapel building. The church has already been red in the face after baptizing and sealing Hitler to Eva Braun, and holocaust victims.
Hasn’t the church embarrassed itself enough? It is like that friend that always says the most inappropriate things, you know the one I am talking about. You are trying to tell him that it is time to go, and he doesn’t get the hint and he keeps going on and on, and everyone at the party is just looking at him.
You know, if the Mormons are right then there really is nothing more charitable. But if they are wrong then profxm need not apologize for his point; the folks really are wasting precious human life and passion for nothing. And this is not ancestor worship. No Mormon would call it that. This is service in the name of sincere belief which means that if false then it is a complete waste and a gross mis-prioritization. End of story. Cut the related-sacramental sensitivites bullshit.
Profxm, back when I was a believer I had the theory that given names really shouldn’t matter. That if we really believed that god would sort out the details then why not just estimate the total number of gods children and iterate on x like crazy. But now I realize this could never work since it’s not really god’s work but our own and names are absolutely crucial to us. You know … why should we devote our tithes and hearts to serving unless we could actually envision the fruits of our indulgence?
Anyway, very entertaining post. Thank you.
(hope this helps the discussion)
How loose are they now on dates/names/etc?
Last time I cared, it was starting to slip a bit.
I agree with Hellmut in just about all he says.
The LDS church in my case specifically was more interested in Tribalism & Appearances than Values, and that doesn’t build people up, it just makes the circle of wagons tighter.
Seth, you have a good point – Mormons have every right to revel in their connections to their ancestors. That’s great. I, too, like thinking about my progenitors. But I think my students (and Hellmut) point out the problem here: What about the atheist grandson of person X who finds his agnostic grandfather is now a Mormon? Isn’t that basically forcing your religion on someone else and tainting their memory of that ancestor?
Rather than make this hypothetical, let me give an actual example. I’m an atheist. My maternal grandfather was a freemason and an agnostic (maybe a deist). He wasn’t dead a week before my family was discussing who would stand in for him in the temple to have him sealed to my grandmother (who was active Mormon). My memory of my grandfather, ever devout in his lack of belief, is eternally tainted by the fact that my family did not respect his wishes to remain outside the fold, which he expressed quite clearly while alive.
Why do Mormons think it is okay to baptize people without their permission – or even against their will? I know your answer is, “Well, they think they are doing them a favor.” Sure, that’s great. But how would Mormons feel if I started baptizing their ancestors posthumously as followers of Satan and put that on a website. In fact, I’m starting right now:
“Computer, having been commissioned of Lucifer, Son of the Morning, I baptize you for and in behalf of Joseph Smith, Jr. who is dead, in the name of all things unholy. Amen.” (flicks a drop of coffee on his computer)
There – Joseph Smith, Jr. is now a member of the church of Satan. I’ll conduct his anti-endowment shortly – unmarrying him to 33 wives is going to take some time.
I hope the above is disrespectful and aggravating – that’s precisely the point! Mormons have tunnel vision on this – they only see it from their perspective and basically flip everyone else the bird. It is about the most disrespectful thing Mormons do, and they have admitted as much to the relatives of Holocaust victims (else why stop?). Yet, they continue on, tainting the memories of millions. And they justify it by saying, “We’re doing you a favor.” I need that favor as much as I need a bullet in my head. Keep your fracking favor!
Oh, and Matt, “iterating on X” gave me a hearty laugh this morning!
profxm,
Maybe you should send in a proxy resignation letter for your grandfather. It’s more legit than a posthumous baptism (especially given his expressed wishes to not be Mormon) and it might make you feel better. 🙂
Hilarious! A proxy resignation letter…
“I, profxm, for and in behalf of Clarence Nealey, who is dead, request that you remove his name from the records of the LDS religion. Clarence, who is dead, formally resigns from the religion. At least, I think he does….”
How would they respond to that?
🙂
To Seth R.: I find it most interesting that you use the example of other people(s) wanting to maintain their heritage with their ancestors, all while arguing a practice that actually removes that familial and ancestral connection.
My choice of baptism is MY choice, not the Mormon Churches. It is complete arrogance to think that such an action is more divine than the one I chose.
I agree with Hellmut.
oops – having problems with quotes and code. I had quoted Hellmut writing:
“I don’t know about Profxm but the problem with Mormon ancestor rituals is that they are dismissing other people’s heritage, identity, and religion.
Baptisms for the dead are ultimately an expression of Joseph Smith’s doctrine that all other religions are abominations.”
It does help some to see this the way Mormons actually see it, that the proxy work does not of itself make dead folks into Mormons. Rather, that because god in his infinite mystery decreed that all must be baptized by his authority in the flesh in order to partake of salvation, then a proxy work must be done by those still in the flesh for those who have forever passed beyond (in similitude of the proxy offering of Christ) which the dead are free to accept or reject or ignore just as all have the free will to accept or reject the whole of Christ’s proxy sacrifice. It’s clearly the path of least resistance toward being a co-operator in the redeeming work of god; a co-savior. A beautiful plan from the perspective of faith.
So Mormons certainly don’t see the protestations of Jews and others as anything more than an unfortunate misunderstanding. And they certainly don’t see their aquiescence to such protestations as admitting any degree of shame or wrongdoing. No, they will simply continue the glorious work as best they can and abide god’s time. It’s one of the most bizarre effects of faith that one is doing the will of god, this virtually infinite supply of sunny resolve.
I didn’t see Hellmut’s response as even relevant to your original train of thought in the first place.
I said you were being unfairly dismissive of a faith tradition. Hellmut’s response is “well Mormons are being dismissive of other faith traditions.”
My response is – so what? I guess that makes your own brand of ridicule just peachy then doesn’t it?
Seth – if you’re speaking about my comment, I wasn’t trying to ridicule.
What happened to do under others as you would have them do unto you?
That’s where I was going with my comment. If LDS want respect for their beliefs, they’ve also got to respect others’ beliefs. And not just another individual’s beliefs – what about someone who has lived their life in a certain belief system. Whether or not that person is still physically alive.
To negate that life’s actions and their devotion to their belief system is disrespectful. Some people may have even died for their belief systems – like the holocaust victims. Like LDS missionaries in South America. I know it must seem difficult how some might find that insulting, but I find it insulting.
I wasn’t speaking about your comment aerin. I was talking to profxm.
An honest question.
How does Mormon ancestral baptism “remove connections” that other people have with their ancestors?
Unless you acknowledge LDS Priesthood authority, what do you, the Jews, the Catholics, or anyone else care? If people want to play “make-believe,” as I suppose some might term it, what’s it to you?
And even if you do accept the possibility of temple baptisms being valid, I’m still puzzled why you should care.
The baptism is voluntary on the part of the deceased. If the departed wish to accept it, they may. If they do not, they are free to deny it. If great-great grandpa Jedediah wants to convert, I don’t see that this is any of his great-great grandkids’ business.
But in any case, this issue of fairness is utterly irrelevant to a much more important undertone that laced profxm’s remarks. Namely:
Temple practice is a big waste of time, and temples are a waste of good real estate. The world would be a better place if the temples were bulldozed and homeless shelters erected in their place.
That’s the issue I was responding to – a utilitarian contempt for ritual. The question of whether Catholics and Jews are right to shut-down Mormon genealogy practice is neither pertinent to that issue, nor is it something that particularly interests me at the moment. You can feel free to discuss it if you wish. But if you are addressing my response, it’s simply not pertinent.
I had the same reaction at first when I heard that the descendants of Holocaust survivors were outraged that their ancestors had been baptized in proxy. I’ve slowly changed my attitude.
It may indeed be based on a misunderstanding of what Mormons believe is going on, but even if the doctrine is understand perfectly there is something distasteful in the practice. It essentially says that the beliefs and decisions of the deceased were a mistake.
In the case of profxm’s grandfather, his Mormon family insulted his intelligence by assuming that it was necessary to give him the opportunity to join a church that he persistently avoided his entire life.
Others might see this as an attack on the deceased’s identity. If you believe your an essential part of of your grandmother’s life was her Jewishness, then baptizing her posthumously sends the message that you think she might abandon that part of herself in the hereafter as if everything that she cherished in life wasn’t worthwhile.
Some may be able to laugh of Mormon baptisms for the dead as a silly charade, but others are bound to take it more personally. I think those with the attitude we once both shared would think twice if our Mormon ancestors were publicly inducted into billion year contracts with the Sea Org or put on the parish rolls of the Catholic church.
Perhaps it would bring it even more home if living Mormons were claimed by those organizations.
I hate when I hit submit on a barely articulate comment. 😐 My kingdom for an edit button.
Seth… You raise two good points. My wife agrees with you on one: Why should you care if you don’t believe in Mormonism? She thinks I should let this go. And, frankly, maybe she is right. But there is something about this issue that really pisses me off (and, obviously, I’m not alone – Jews and Catholics are now on my side).
What is it that pisses me off? It’s not that I really think the baptisms are valid or important – I don’t believe in an afterlife and think the whole thing is a waste of time (see point 2 below). It’s the idea that a religion would hold all other people in such low regard that it thinks it has to do them a favor and convert them to Mormonism (better stated, perform the rituals so they can convert if they so choose in the future, even though they are basically listed as baptized, dead members of the religion at that point). I think that is insulting and disrespectful of the wishes of others. We can agree to disagree on this as I’m not sure there is a way to resolve it, but I do want to give an example from a post on this from a while back I wrote on my own
blog:
Go ahead and tear up my example for how it inaccurately criticizes what Mormons do… That’s fine. But I don’t think it’s too far off the mark.
As far as it being a waste of time… Can you really say it is a worthwhile endeavor to be baptized and endowed for “John S.” who was born circa 1654 somewhere around Kent in England? How is this any different than iterating the X’s Matt described? Once you baptized the most recent generations (3 or 4 back) it’s basically a big guessing game for most people. I can trace my ancestry back to around 1700 on my father’s side when it gets lost in Ireland. Beyond that, nothing. Ergo, what is the point? You are getting baptized for a bunch of “maybe people.”
Ritual-wise, maybe it is useful for Mormons, who find it comforting and think it is a good deed. Fine, I’m okay with that. But pragmatically, it’s hard to argue that this is anything but a waste of time.
If you want to make a good argument for temples, the best is the idea that they serve as clubs delineating the “insiders” from the “outsiders,” which increases group cohesion and solidarity. You can make that argument just fine, but fruitful use of human (and other) resources? Good luck with that.
Seth- Speaking as a Buddhist, and a former LDS’er I can say with some certainty that Buddhists don’t worship ancestors; and when we do invoke ancestors in our chants, it is slightly different than baptizing them.
Now, the Bodhisattva vow, to liberate all beings, is probably closer to what we were all up to when we did baptisms for the dead.
The huge difference is that when all beings are finally liberated they will not become Buddhists, they will just be liberated.
Hah, Wayne. I like that. Now that’s a non-theology “Liberation Theology” I can get behind. 🙂
I agree with Seth. Temple services are not a waste of time. If they were, people would not get agitated about them.
Obviously, temple ordinances are relevant even to people who don’t believe in Mormonism at all. That would not be possible unless temple ordinances were meaningful.
They might not be meaningful in the orthodox way but clearly they mean something even to the Vatican.
“but even if the doctrine is understand perfectly there is something distasteful in the practice.”
I’d take a guess at what it is – it’s the fact that we actually believe in our faith as being in some sense superior to others.
My experience is that secularists tend to dislike objective truth claims as a matter of course. It just doesn’t jive with the more uncertain world they inhabit.
“The huge difference is that when all beings are finally liberated they will not become Buddhists, they will just be liberated.”
Seems more like a distinction without a difference Wayne. When people are baptized, they won’t be “Mormons” either for the simple fact that “Mormonism” will no longer exist. It will be a word without any active meaning. Equate “liberated” with “living with God” and there is little practical difference.
Temples serve as a spiritual and symbolic space where eternity and the transcendent nature of human identity is invoked. They are a refuge from the concerns, troubles and demands on my life which are very oppressive to me. For just a brief moment, the trivial concerns of the moment are put aside and I stand before God as His own son. For me it is a sort of home. And it calls on me to be something better than I am, not just once I’m dead, but now.
I do in fact dislike absolute truth claims. I wasn’t coming from that perspective however. I was coming from the “my grandfather was a devout Catholic all his life who refused to join your church while he was alive and yet you’ve put him on the rolls of your church because you think he can’t get into heaven unless he’s Mormon” perspective. I can see why people would feel like the Mormon church has just taken a big, juicy dump on their ancestor’s grave.
I meant to say that I’m happy you’ve found a source of peace and inspiration. We all need that. Just don’t expect other people to see it the same way when you tell them their ancestors can’t get into heaven until they’re baptized in the Mormon temple.
Seth-
“Equate liberated with living with God” and there is little practical difference.”
I agree with you in the relative sense. A point of veiw I have encountered in Yogi (hey bubu) and Buddhist circles is that there is one path with many names. Transendence is a common theme, in an abosolute sense, I am sure you would agree, the differences are numerous.
Though, I too am uncomfortable with the practices of baptisms for the dead. I have plenty of things in my current “religion” that also make me uncomfortable, and I have to pay attention to those instead.
“Temples serve as a spiritual and symbolic space where eternity and the transcendent nature of human identity is invoked. They are a refuge from the concerns, troubles and demands on my life which are very oppressive to me.”
I have a seriouse question for you, Do you take that sense of peace with you when you exit the Temple? And how long does it last?
My take on baptisms/ordinances for the dead is that it is more for the living than for the dead. To participate in these ordinances is “the pinnacle of our belief” (can’t remember who said it originally, but my bishop quotes it often). To get to the temple you have to pass a TR interview, pay tithing, etc. It is a way of inducting people into an inner circle of belief and keeping them there. I have nothing against geneology per se but it is amusing to see the stake geneology librarian terrorize all her underlings for the sake of getting all those names on family group sheets.
I too think we would be better off caring for the living, “let the dead bury the dead”
Yup. I always imagined transcendent space to look like a really cheesy hotel lobby: you know with cheap reproduction Louis Quatorze furniture and a carny mirror trick.
Hellmut, sometimes you really surprise me. Meaning, relevance, agitative = not a waste of time? None of these says anything about relative value. I just finished watching an hour of American Idol. It clearly has meaning, relevance, and provokes agitation … yet, if I suggested that it was a waste of time few outside the AI ecosystem would balk.
Let’s just allow that the case against the relative value of Mormon temple worship is quit easy to make. And arguments from the need for respect or give any kind of special consideration to religious meaning, relevance, or whatever is always going to be a case of special pleading.
I would not be offended in the least if someone wanted to baptize my ancestors Catholic posthumously. Even my grandfather who died in the 1990s and whom I knew well. I would find it nice that they were taking an interest in these people at all. I wouldn’t even care if Muslims came up with such a ritual. I wouldn’t even care if atheists wanted to perform some sort of “liberation” ritual for the departed (although I’d find it rather strange).
But maybe I’m just odd…
Seth, in order to have some sympathy for folks who don’t share your lack of concern you might have to think of a different scenario for yourself. I’m trying to think what might have really annoyed or disturbed me as a believer … I know … how about an atheist doing what atheists actually do? Not believing in an aferlife or the power of priesthood, an atheist isn’t going to attempt a liberation of your grandfather. What he/she might do is go around proclaiming the foolishness of a belief in the afterlife and the uselessness of preforming rituals for the dead. Might that offend your sense of the sacred memory of the dead? Would you feel that you and your beliefs weren’t being treated charitably? That the atheist wasn’t respecting your memory of your grandfather? That something you held sacred was being trampled on by the belief system of another?
Reading your previous comments I suspect that you might. You can have sympathy for those who experience the same or similar when Mormons make claims and take actions vis a vis their own sacred memories. No?
“What he/she might do is go around proclaiming the foolishness of a belief in the afterlife and the uselessness of preforming rituals for the dead.”
Yes, I do dislike that – because it shows a lack of:
1-charity for other people
2-nuanced view of other thought and belief systems
3-positive attitude of the world
I also equally dislike these tendencies in BELIEVERS. And most of all, I dislike these tendencies in myself.
I know you want to special case this as a purely human failing but please, try your best not to dilute the point with your subjective views about the particulars of the atheist belief system.
Can you not find some sympathy for the non-Mormon view that Mormonism often assaults the sensibilities and sacredly held beliefs of others? That’s all I’m asking.
Yes Matt, I can find some sympathy for that view. I suppose it’s inevitable in a world where people are searching for “truth.”
One add’l quibble … in a world where people believe they’ve found god’s truth really.
I disagree, but I’ll let it slide.
BYU NewsNet is now weighing in on this issue:
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/68514
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this article come off as incredibly dismissive of the concerns of Catholics? (e.g., “If they really are trying to protect the dead from “piracy of the soul,” indulgences might be a better place to start than baptisms.”)
And doesn’t it also poke fun of them? (e.g., “Wouldn’t that be like stopping a child from talking to an imaginary friend? Humor the kid; he and his friend aren’t hurting you. And he might have an imaginary army to back him up.”)
This is precisely why baptisms for the dead piss me off – it’s Mormons dismissing and disrespecting everyone else.
I generally don’t feel any particular affinity for Catholicism, but on this one: Go Catholicism!!!!
One thing that I suppose ought to be mentioned is situations where the parish records are the only records of a particular town.
In situations like that, does the Catholic church even have a right to deny access to anyone – for whatever reason?
There is a also a question whether it’s really exclusively their heritage to protect in the first place. What of the shared human heritage? Don’t the names belong to the entire human race and not just the Catholic Church?
This is, of course, conceding for the sake of argument, profxm’s assertion that the Catholics are right to be offended by Mormon actions.
Even if that is true, do the Catholics have a right to deny access? And even if they do have a “legal right,” is it ethical and correct for them to do so?
Seth, in the fashion of Steven Colbert, “I accept your apology.” (even though none was offered – I’m just being funny, or trying at least) 🙂
On this point, I absolutely agree with you. These records should be the property of humanity.
My agreement doesn’t change the fact that articles like the BYU NewsNet one piss me off due to the disrespect involved. But, yes, I think the moral thing to do is share records.
Well, that’s good.
I’d try to make a witty remark at this point, but honestly, I’m a bit burnt out.
I’m currently participating in Christian blogs, bloggernacle stuff, apologetics blogs, interfaith blogs, and DAMU blogs. And different rules of conversation apply to each of them.
I think I’m spreading myself too thin and sometimes I get the rules of engagement for one type of blog mixed-up with the rules for another one. So if I start to sound like Daniel Petersen on occasion, you’ll know why. It’s just Seth forgetting where he is.
Geez. It’s like multiple personality disorder or something…
You should just give up on the other blogs and make yourself at home here. We like you… Really, we do!
Yes, church parishes, etc should share the records. Should. But not must. If they make they argument that just because they happened to be the de facto and only record-keeper they are still a private institution with private interest which just happen to coalesce with religious convictions … well, it’s hard to argue against this. Should the LDS church share all their genealogical research? Yes, and they seem to be doing this as a part of their effort to further the cause. Must they? No.
And really, why must the LDS church have access to records kept by other churches? There is neither a right or a really a need beyond the needs of religious conviction. If the Catholic Church considers the records of their dead holy then they have a right to defend these records from any type of desecration. Just as much right as Mormons have.
Really, these arguments for fair access are totally poisoned by competing religious views (my apologies to all who might be offended by the use of the word poison).
Matt, good point. It really is an issue of religious conflict. It’s not so much whether they should or should not be available, its what the groups who want them plan to do with them. “Poisoned by competing religious views” is pretty accurate!
Matt, this ignores the fact that the divide between Catholic Church and official government records for, say… the nation of Germany is thin to non-existent.
For huge swaths of European history, the Church was, in essence, the government record-keeper. There wasn’t any divide.
So it’s not a slam dunk by any stretch. You can make a very strong argument that the Catholic Church has no right to withhold the documents.
Doesn’t ignore … I said that they were the “de facto and only” keeper of records. What do you think I meant by that?
But if you want to argue that records kept by religious institutions of their members should be open to the public … should be public records … go right ahead. I won’t disagree with you. My point is that Mormons should know better than than to make this argument since they too keep records on their people that no one else is keeping and the argument no one else was interested in doing the work doesn’t hold water.
There’s a reason the Catholic Church was keeping records and it was arguably entirely theological and administrative to the operation of the church. They certainly weren’t doing it as a public service and no way in hell for the sake of Mormonism.
They were doing it as surrogates for European governments.
As such, they would have no right to withhold the records.
You want to be a state church? Buck up and accept what comes with it.
And most of the concern in not disclosing Mormon records is purely a matter of protecting the privacy and identity of STILL LIVING people. So I fail to see any parallel in Mormonism.
If the LDS Church were essentially acting as a record-keeping arm of the government of, say, Tonga, I would argue that it too has no right to withhold records.
And likewise, if the Catholic Church were only attempting to hide rosters of living membership, I don’t see that there would be a controversy.
As nice as those arguments sound I think they fail. LDS records are of the living and the dead. As for the “acting as surrogates of government” argument, well, you’ll have to take that one to court. Good luck proving intent. As for as the “you want to be a state church? Buck-up” argument … dude, the LDS church was a state church and would be today if they had not fallen to the US gov’t. This argument fails in so many ways not the least if which that it could be seen as similar to expecting the US gov’t to share its public records with China. The Catholic church may no longer be the gov’t of a given nation but it remains a religious gov’t with associated rights. It’s past as quasi-national gov’t is merely as change in the state of affairs.
So again, my point is … you want to argue that sovereign entities such as churches must share the records they’ve kept of their members (even just the dead ones)? Well then, okay. Let’s apply this to all churches, not just the ones who kept the records you want to get at.