Catholic News Service (CNS) reported last week on an April 2008 Vatican directive sent to Catholic dioceses throughout the world. In the letter, Catholic bishops are instructed to prohibit Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in parish registers. CNS explained:
“Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records — such as baptismal documentation — to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.”
The Vatican directive says the purpose of this policy is to:
“ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in [each bishop’s] territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Father Massa commented that the directive has the potential to strain relations between the Catholic Church and Latter-day Saints,
“but I would also say that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is not to only identify agreements, but also to understand our differences. As Catholics, we have to make very clear to them their practice of so-called rebaptism is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic truth.”
On Sunday (May 5, 2008) LDS-owned Deseret News reported on the Vatican directive, logging many comments from readers. Through these comments, the Catholic Church is accused of bigotry, secrecy, stinginess, closed-mindedness, being pawns of the devil, etc. Many Mormon comments include disbelief and the question of why the Catholic Church would even care about LDS proxy baptisms if it doesn’t recognize that rite as efficacious anyway.
A fascinating theme repeated over and over by Latter-day Saints on this forum is this: The fact that the Catholic Church has decided to deny the LDS Church microfilming and digitizing access to Catholic parish records proves that the LDS Church is true. And not only that; it also proves the Catholic Church knows the LDS Church is true.
Though the Vatican says that the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is understood within Catholicism to be “detrimental,” “erroneous,” “unacceptable,” and outside the boundaries of “Catholic truth,” according to these Mormons, Rome’s actions speak louder than words. Consider a few comment excerpts:
“Strange that the boys in Rome are concerned with what they say [is] erroneous doctrine. Perhaps they are slowly realizing that Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet and they see a threat to their man-based religion with all its wealth. More confirmation that the gospel has been restored…”
“I don’t understand why the Catholic church would withhold family information from people of all denominations, who are trying to make links with their ancestors, unless the Catholic church believes that there just might be some credibility to the work done for the dead in LDS temples.”
“It makes the Catholic Church sound as if it is afraid LDS doctine might be correct! If the doctrine is wrong, what difference does it make? If it is correct, do you really want to put yourslf in direct opposition to God’s will? This makes the Catholic Church appear unsure of its doctrine.”
“… perhaps they consider the possibility that mormons are right but don’t want to admit it.”
“Like the Jews, apparently he [the Pope] must believe in the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead and sealings of families or there would be no reason to fear how these records might be used by the church.”
The Catholic Church has plainly stated that it does not want to “cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in regards to proxy baptism. Is it possible that this is the real reason for the Vatican’s directive? Could it be that the Catholic Church has read and taken to heart God’s Word where it teaches that cooperation is sometimes equal to participation (2 John 1:10-11; 1 Timothy 5:22)? Perhaps the Catholic Church finds these words appropriate in the current situation:
“…the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not become partners with them… Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness…” (Ephesians 5:6-11).
What if that’s the motivation behind this directive after all?
—
Of related interest:
Mormons Should Try Walking in Jewish Shoes
Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?
I find this amusing in light of the teaching of the LDS church regarding spirit prison and the missionary outreach that is puported to be occuring there. If their belief is true, then they would not be the least bit concerned about having access to the records of the Catholic Church. Instead, they would be able to rebaptize all those who have come to believe the teachings of their prophet as a result of the outreach of the missionaries to spirit prison. They would also be able to construct their geneologies based on the information received from the converts there.
Instead of using this denial as an example that they are right, why don’t they prove it by providing us with the names of afterlife converts and the geneologies they obtain from them. If they want to prove that they are what they claim; that would be a great start.
While I am not surprised at the reaction, I think the story exemplifies a tactic used by Mormon apologists: anything to get the advantage.
I’m curious the thoughts of the thoughtful posters here…
How do we Christians view Mormon temple rituals generally? Do we see them as strange, meaningless works, or perhaps occult in nature. If it’s the latter, of course we don’t want to participate, even passively, in them. Where do these temple rituals come from? My understanding they are rooted in the secret society known as the Masons. Catholics are forbidden to join the Masons as are members of other Christian groups. This idea that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to provide the Mormons with their records because they know the Mormon church is true, is about as self-serving as it gets.
Anything & everything “proves” Mormonism is true. I wore blue socks today – ah ha! Mormonism must be true!
Seriously, I can’t help but wonder if the Mormon church would hand over such personal & confidential information? What about the grieving families? Would they allow us their names and addresses so we can visit them and present the true Gospel?
This is the old standby “If they are denying or fighting our beliefs, that means they are intimidated by our religion. Ergo our religion must be true.”
As a protestant the Catholic church also denies my faith and says we are heretical. Do I think that the Catholic rejection of the reformation means they secretly “know we are right”? That seems so ludicrous. Of course they don’t think that! And I don’t base my faith in the “truth” of my faith by the reactions from others.
This is some serious brainwashing.
Yeah, alot of LDS members like to take the tack that we are being persecuted so it makes us the correct church, but that is far from the truth. The JW’s, Muslims, Jews among others have been persecuted, but according to the LDS they are not the true church. But it helps build moral in some circles as well as ‘faith promoting stories’. Many members of other churches do the same thing, and other people think the same about non-secular things (eg conflicting ideas at work), so it looks like its inherently human to think like that – not brainwashing.
The Catholic church has only closed the doors to the LDS officials, not to the general public. So members can still go and do their own geneology searches from these records. Besides, the church only needs these records to be filmed/digitised to download onto the family geneology database for people to do their geneology – both members and non-members alike. The names that go through the temple come from many sources (eg tombstones, government births/deaths/marriages databases, etc), but the church is mainly trying to have people do their own family rather than have the church supply names. So all it means is that things will slow down a bit while members do their part in retrieving their family names/data.
As I was reading this blog entry I was a little surprised by the lack of logical thinking that is applied by mormons. I am not sure how this is taught (I can’t think of how I learned it myself) but it does seem to come from the top. From the way that mormons know that the Book of Mormon is true (that burning bosom) all the way to the Catholic Church knows we are the true church because they won’t cooperate with our practices. What an offense to our Creator to leave our minds out of the equation and rely solely on emotion to make decisions. There is no logical route from the action of the Catholic Church to we are being persecuted to Joseph Smith is a prophet and finally, the Catholic Church knows mormonism is all true.
Of course this lack of logic is prevalent everywhere in the mormon church (e.g. “we are the only true church and we are a Christian church even though big Joe said that God told him that Christianity is an abomination.” What?)
Pingback: Mormon Coffee » Catholic Parish Registers Off-Limits to LDS Church « GUNDECK
As far as persecution goes, members of the LDS faith don’t have a monopoly on that.
As for the record situation, I wouldn’t fret too much. Just like Ralph said, the work of individuals will not be hampered.
I would like to comment on the baptisms. While on this earth it of course is a very visible act where the person can chose to participate, so we can say oh, this guy is part of this church or part of that church, but then they also have to make their decision to follow that church’s teachings or not for the rest of their lives. Baptism for the dead is not necessarily the same situation. Although we provide the proxy for those individuals, it is still their decision to accept what was given. I see it as providing something for someone that they need and letting have the agency to use it. Kind of like all cars are fitted with seatbelts, but the person in the car has to decide whether or not they will put it on.
I think it is interesting how when persons who start with the premise that the ‘church is true’ somehow twist this moral stance made by the Catholic church into evidence that they are right. I think it speaks to how far the mind will go to maintain belief when evidence is presented to the contrary.
In high school, my best friend who wasn’t LDS made me promise that if something were to happen to him that I wouldn’t have him baptised. I think the Catholic Church is simply honoring the names of Catholics past, and standing for what they believe in. I wonder how Mormons would feel if some other Christian church began baptizing by proxy dead Mormons who were the Christian’s direct progenitors. Of course this would never happen, as baptisms for the dead isn’t a Christian doctrine.
It all goes back to the idea that works (i.e. Baptism) are necessary for salvation. I wonder, are there any denominations (for lack of a better word {I’m not necessarily suggesting only Christian groups})besides Mormons, and perhaps Catholics, who believe that baptisms are an essential ordinance or requirement for salvation? I’m curious, because most Christians I have met, even Baptists I know, do not think so. In other words, they consider baptism important in showing an outward symbolic pronouncement of taking on a life with Christ, but don’t think it is necessary for salvation. Because I don’t see how a thorough contextual reading of the bible could lead anyone to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary.
What I find interesting as well is how baptising the dead is only mentioned once in the Bible and its not even talking about Christians doing baptisms for the dead. It speaks of a heretical group in another city doing baptisms for the dead. In a way, history has repeated itself for our day.
I wonder what kind of doctrine I could cook up by reading through the Bible, completely ignoring the context in which it was written, and just start thinking of stuff I could incorporate into a new religion.
“I’m curious, because most Christians I have met, even Baptists I know, do not think so. In other words, they consider baptism important in showing an outward symbolic pronouncement of taking on a life with Christ, but don’t think it is necessary for salvation”
Yes I’ve been attending baptist churches for a few years now, and I’d say that’s accurate. (Thinking about the robber on the cross next to Jesus as an example of being saved without baptism.) The Catholics do believe it is a requirement, however. Yet another difference between Catholics and Protestants.
I notice that Mormons are seeming smug that they can still access the Catholic records for these after-death baptisms. (The comments that it will “just take longer” etc.) I wonder how they would feel if the Christians were digging around in the Bishop’s records in order to make a memorial for Mormons who are in hell now.
edited to add “if Christians believed in that sort of memorial-making.”
lillyml,
Have to correct you on the Catholic stance on baptism. When I was attending Catholic school back in the dark ages, we were taught that there was 3 types of baptism; by water, desire & blood. Desire is when someone believes but dies before being water baptized. Blood, when someone believes and dies a martyr before being water baptized. I was always taught that baptism, as I’m sure all of the sacrements, are outward signs of an inward grace. Amazing how all of this comes back to me. Just one more lapsed Catholic.
One half of my family is Catholic. They believed that if you died without being baptized, you went to pergatory. I think they got this teaching from the Church.
It doesn’t much matter to me what the Catholic church decides. Heavenly Father is in charge. Not even the pope himself can stop the work of God from progressing. The pope is just a man…maybe even a good man, I don’t know much about him.
I do find it a bit ridiculous that they would go to such great lengths to thwart such a “meaningless”, “erroneous” practice from occurring. I’m not too sure what harm it is supposed to do…? The church’s position (LDS) is to allow the free flow of information (ironically we are dubbed the secret religion) to anyone who needs it, desires it, wants it— Catholics can access LDS online archives to do their genealogical research- so can Jews- and so can anyone else. I guess it’s a matter of who is willing to share their toys, and who just has an axe to grind. I find it incredibly immature- however fitting, historically, this kind of action and thinking is to the Catholic church- but they certainly have the legal right (arguably) to take such a silly position/action.
I think those who are comfortable in their beliefs aren’t afraid of others practicing their beliefs.
This argument about not wanting to AID a practice that is harmful is far from a legitimate justification. If this practice is erroneous, it cannot be harmful, it is irrelevant. So the simple fact that the pope is taking such action, gives LDS many legitimate reasons to question his actions. I find it completely appropriate for LDS to find this decision unfortunate…after all, they are desiring greatly to further the work of God on behalf of their ancestors—that matters more to them than the opinions of mainstream Chrisitans.
At least this issue will bring you protestants and catholics together. Nothing quite like mormon-hating to work out your differences!
Come-on Amanda,
If you’re going to post here, leave out the histrionics. Your persecution complex is wearing thin. Maybe you should go to a site where you can get out your frustration and rage. You seem to either need a time-out or a nap.
For once I agree with Amanda on one point. And that point is that I too think its dumb to care so much about LDS doing their heeby jeeby voodoo rituals on Catholic ancestors if the practice itself is erroneous.
Although I think its dumb, I can understand why someone would feel uneasy about members of an opposite religion doing religious rituals on your ancestors. I personally don’t believe in voodoo, but it would make me a bit uneasy to have some crazy witch doctor stabbing a doll that looks like me with pins.
Oh yeah, another thing.. Speaking of practicioners of magic.. Did you hear about that one guy? I think his name is Joseph Smith. Something to do with magic britches, secret masonic rituals, seer stones, glass looking..
Sounds like a trustworthy fellow.
Thats my one “zing” comment for the day.
“I’m curious, because most Christians I have met, even Baptists I know, do not think so. In other words, they consider baptism important in showing an outward symbolic pronouncement of taking on a life with Christ, but don’t think it is necessary for salvation”
Actually, members of the Church of Christ denomination consider baptism necessary for salvation. In fact, they are so hard-core about it that they believe that if a lost person repented right here and now, confessed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, then walked out the door and got hit by a car and killed before they could get baptized, that person would go to Hell. They reconcile the issue with the thief on the cross by arguing from silence, and saying “Well, of course he got baptized sometime earlier in life.”
Also, if I’m not mistaken, Rome believes that baptism is what saves you, hence infant baptisms. After that, you go to confession to “remain saved.” Then you’ve got the whole mess about “venial” sins and “mortal” sins.
Anyhoo, I gotta concur with Jeffrey. Just one more Mormon doctrine (among many) based on an erroneous belief about the Bible.
Hate to say it, but I’ve got to agree with Rome on this one. They don’t want to be seen as cooperating with the LDS church, and handing over these names would give that impression. I know I wouldn’t want my church giving the impression they were legitamizing Mormonism.
One final note: I wonder if this issue will manifest itself the next time Notre Dame plays BYU 🙂
Amanda wrote:
I’m just curious about something. The LDS Church makes genealogical records available online for researchers; but unless things have changed recently, access to specific information regarding the proxy temple ordinances that have been performed for these same people is restricted and available only to LDS members. Why is that?
Falcon,
I most definitely need a nap…if you are willing to babysit my two toddlers, I’d love to lay my pregnant self down to rest.
As far as histrionics are concerned, I think it is fair to say that those tid bits of colorful comments represent a mere 5% of the content of my posts. The vast majority of my posts have legitimate substance. You don’t have the pleasure of knowing me personally, so unfortunately a lot of my personality is lost in the web somewhere- I think you might feel differently otherwise.
Jeffrey, how refreshing to hear your point of view. Seriously. I would add that those ancestors are OUR ancestors as well 😉
I don’t know if you are a Christian, but the New Testament doesn’t consider baptism for the dead to be “voodoo”.
1 Cor. 15: 15-16, 29
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
• • •
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?
So if you aren’t a Christian, then I have absolutely no problem with your point of view from a logical perspective. But even so, calling it voodoo, you’d have to consider any biblical practice to be such.
Sharon,
That’s a good question. I’ll ask my grandparents, they are in a temple presidency—I’m sure they’ll have more accurate insight than my own, but I’ll still offer my own thoughts.
I’m not sure how valuable that information would be to you, Sharon, unless you’d use it in a piece attacking the practice of baptism for the dead- in that case, I don’t see how casting pearls before swine would be a wise thing. I do know we aren’t forbidden to share our own temple work with non-members. I can tell you all the work I’ve done, for who/where/what/when if I wanted to. I don’t see how this could be an issue, really.
Amanda makes this comment, “This argument about not wanting to AID a practice that is harmful is far from a legitimate justification. If this practice is erroneous, it cannot be harmful, it is irrelevant.”
Your eisogesis of 1Cor 15:29 aside, there is no biblical writ to perform baptism for the dead. I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but performing baptisms for the dead sounds dangerously like using the Lords name in vain. To help with this either by omission or commission is troubling. I salute Rome for standing by their principals.
You also seem to misunderstand or underrate the importance of Baptism to the Christian. You should understand that the practice of re-baptism has been declared anathema in many Protestant denominations. A Pastor who performs re-baptism (with rare exceptions) in a Presbyterian Church runs the risk of being defrocked.
I am not sure why you would expect people to stand by and implicitly enable what they consider to be the un-biblical practice of baptism for the dead. Should the Catholic Church ignore their doctrine in order to gain access to genealogy records?
Amanda,
Let’s talk about 1 Corinthians 15:29. First, all serious students of the Bible know that a passage like this needs to be looked at in the historical context in which it was given. Second, unclear and obscure scripture needs to be reconciled with more clearer scripture. Third, taking one verse in the Bible and making a doctrine or practice out of it is not a good idea and that falls back on the first and second reason I just gave. What can happen is that a church can end up like the bizarre Pentecostal churches in the Appalachian Mountains that base their whole church belief system and practices around one verse: Mark 16:18. Is the Mormon Church going to now start handling snakes and drinking poison to prove their faith?
Historical context of 1 Cor 15:29 – The Corinthian believers were constantly being scolded in this first letter by Paul because of their sexual immorality among other things that they were copy-catting from the pagan religions around them. Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in “Hymn to Demeter”. The Corinthians were heavily influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis.
Attention to detail: Look very closely at the pronouns in verse 29. See the word “they”? Look at verse 30. See the word “we”? Look at verse 12. See the word “you”? Who is Paul talking to?
“They”: False teachers
“We”: Corinth Church
“You”: Corinth Church
If Paul actually performed the ritual himself, he would include himself when talking about it. Jesus & the Apostles never mentioned this practice. Paul never commanded believers to do baptisms for the dead.
Look closely at Luke 16:19-31. This is not a parable. Real names of people are never used in parables. When you’re dead it’s too late. You can’t cross over. Eternal progression and baptism for the dead is useless.
Nicely put, Berean. Oh, how I wish I had your knowledge of the scriptures handy everytime I find myself at a standstill in a conversation with a latter-day saint. :/
Here is my take. When paul was in Greece, he was combating a culture of Greek philosophy that prevented people from seeing outside the box as it were. (Much the same way that as Christians we are in many ways combatting Mormon culture which prevents people from seeing outside the box). Greek philospophy was very materialistic (i.e. truth was garnered from viewing the material world), so people had a hard time with the resurection. So here is how 1 Cor. 15:29 reads to me. I think Paul was saying, “look it isn’t so illogical to believe in the resurection; even these pagans over here doing thier baptisms for the dead can understand the concept.” I don’t think we can automatically assume that Paul was in any way condoning the practice. It just isn’t there contextually. Oh wait, I forgot, plain and precious truths……
I find it odd that Mormons have no trouble invading another religions space and privacy. This seems simple etiquette and common sense to give the Catholic church their right to hold this data as private.
To assume it is their rights to go in and get it is very presumptuous. Even if it holds no harm, it is allowing something they find abhorrent. Why would anyone want to do such a thing?
I honestly don’t get it, but as I said earlier, am not surprised about the reactions, both stating their right to the information and their proof they they are right.
And Amanda, thank you for showing this attitude to be true, and to the others who so contritely say they will still go after the information just through other venues.
While I understand your desire to save your ancestors, can you not in any way see how this is offensive to those on the outside? Does that matter?
Berean (and Alex D)
Consider that God loves all his children and wants everyone to be with him in heaven (1 Timothy 2:4); Billions of souls are not baptized and therefore do not join him (John 3:3-5).
However, is His love not so great that he provides a means?
How “useless” is preaching gospel to the dead(1 Peter 4:6) ?
or how “useless” preaching to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19)-surely the spirits could slip through the bars.
The typical question posed by the LDS when organizations want to bar them from performing baptisms for the dead using their records is usually “Why do they care? If this isn’t true, it most certainly isn’t hurting anybody.”
This, however, is a sidestep of the real problem involved here. The real issue isn’t why other people find this disrespectful, but why the Mormons are incapable of respecting other peoples boundaries.
Personally, I wouldn’t have any problem with the LDS doing this ordinance for myself after I die. In terms of efficacy, I consider it equivalent to someone doing a voodoo dance on my grace. Still, others (like the Catholics and the Jews) find this practice offensive, and are asking that the LDS not use their resources to further something that they find distasteful. Why they object to the practice varies among groups but is ultimately irrelevant — their reasons are their own. Why not just respect their wishes as opposed to being sneaky and trying to get what you want without them finding out?
And before the LDS start bemoaning the fate of the poor souls in Spirit Prison, let us remember one thing: If the LDS religion is true, you are going to have a 1000 year millenium to do this sort of thing where no unbaptized soul will be left behind and there won’t be any “sensitive” people trying to stop you.
“This, however, is a sidestep of the real problem involved here. The real issue isn’t why other people find this disrespectful, but why the Mormons are incapable of respecting other peoples boundaries.”
Ed, all mormons eh? Just paint us all with the same broad brush. But ok…
How exactly are we disrespecting other people’s boundaries? Simply because we are disappointed and surprised at the actions of the Catholic church? We are disrespectful because we are concerned about being able to practice our faith regarding our ancestors? I haven’t heard anything remotely disrespectful from the leaders of the church, regarding the matter. And in the past, we have always had a good relationship with the Catholic church. That comment was ridiculous, Ed.
I’m not surprised to hear yet another point of view, however, that discounts LDS entirely…as if the interests and perspective of LDS are irrelevant? Unimportant. Respecting who’s boundaries? We are interested and should be entitled to the information regarding OUR OWN ancestors– what about respecting that desire and part of our faith? It goes both ways. Should LDS now forbid ANY catholic to access ancestral records of theirs on church websites??? You won’t see that happen- because that would be bigoted. This isn’t about boundaries, this is about bigotry. Call THAT disrespectful if you must, I call it the plain and simple truth.
I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I hardly think it will be as dramatic as evangelicals on this site hope it will be. Nothing excites you guys more than drumming up drama involving ANYTHING LDS. I’m flattered, actually.
Regarding a question about tyhe restricted access of non-members to proxy ordinance records Amanda wrote:
Well, it’s not an issue, it’s just a question. Via a temple worthy friend who was looking something up for another friend, I found out that my grandfather had been posthumously baptized. I was surprised, as my LDS relatives had not done the work, and our family knows of no other members who would have had an interest in doing temple work on his behalf. This made me wonder about other deceased loved ones who were not LDS… It may not be that the information would be of use to non-members, but it seems that the family should be allowed to access the information if they would like to know. As Amanda said, it goes both ways. This is just my opinion, of course.
Berean,
I should be insulted that you consider me a superficial student of the bible. But I’ll move on…
I never suggested that ONE passage of scripture is what justifies the ordinance of baptism for the dead. I suggested that the practice is mentioned in the bible…and forget your pronouns, the passage is clearly implicating the importance of the raising of the dead. If I was sitting in your bible class, I would be confused at your long drawn out explanation of a bunch of pronouns. Why? because who are you anyway? A scholar? A “serious student of the bible”– well, then you must admit even you have some learning to do…and from who do we learn? Scholars don’t reveal the word of God, or necessary ordinances. The Savior, prophets and apostles are the tradition of revelation for the church- basically, the priesthood. So I rely on that same model today, the organization of His priesthood, here on earth. This might seem like a cop out…”I just listen to what they tell me, and that is more valid, I don’t have to think for myself”. I need to eradicate this assumption before it starts. We also need to justify all that is taught through the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Spirit can teach through text books, classes, and other educational outlets. I do not reject your approach to learning the bible, I do however reject your rejection of modern day prophets and apostles…a model I KNOW that you must have noticed in all of your serious bible studies 🙂
God speaks today, through his organization of the priesthood. God is not dead. God does not change. God is the same today as he was in the Old Testament. How else do we recognize Him if He changes so drastically how he communicates with His children? Christ fulfilled the law of moses…the law of sacrifice, the law of justice…Evangelicals, through my experience with them, try to make up some weird conclusion that now He won’t communicate with us, because he fulfilled the need for prophets? What?
Amanda, why are you entitled to get records from the Catholics?
As to this issue, nothing will come of it. But the reaction like yours, saying you are entitled to get the information, is indicative of how Mormons think.
Let me play this out, your desire to get information on your ancestors trumps their desire to keep the information private, especially regarding a practice they disagree with. That’s what you are saying: your needs are more important.
And it is decidedly not about bigotry. That is playing the “race” card, per se, and is despiration at best. It is about protecting one’s faith.
I’ve said before Mormonism seems to use many post modern techniques. Of this I am becoming more convinced.
And I am glad you are flattered, another example of an attempt to twist.
Gundeck,
Biblical writ? I just cited scripture that mentions the practice of baptisms for the dead, quite directly. I am not sure what is so troubling — you really didn’t give me a compelling response to at least clarify your position of what you believe that scripture means, like Berean did.
“You also seem to misunderstand or underrate the importance of Baptism to the Christian. You should understand that the practice of re-baptism has been declared anathema in many Protestant denominations. A Pastor who performs re-baptism (with rare exceptions) in a Presbyterian Church runs the risk of being defrocked.”
I am a Christian, and baptism to me is of great importance (so don’t underrate my testimony of it) which is why we want to perform baptisms for our ancestors- But excuse me for standing up for MY principles. Thank you for the context, however, are presbyterian pastors at risk because another faith is practicing their beliefs?
Stand by their principles? And this principle is what, exactly?
What is the pope enabling, exactly, even implicitly, by allowing another faith to do their genealogical research, and use that information to practice their religion??? What is harmful about LDS baptizing their ancestors into a faith they believe to be true? How is this harmful to the pope, Catholics, evangelicals…give me even ONE real way that this is harmful, or has been harmful (because, by the way, we’ve been doing it for awhile now)…:) And spare me the implicit enabling stuff, that’s not harm–I want something concrete- a real answer.
Oh boy Amanda, sometimes you drive me crazy, lol.
Berean gave a very intelligent response as to what the meaning behind Corinthians 15:29 and you just completely reject its context and fall back on the stamp of approval the LDS church gives on the practice.
You asked Berean “Who are you anyway.” Aside from trying to make him seem worthless as far as being able to teach. I will tell you who is. He is a Christian, and he, like all Christians, are commanded to preach unto all nations. If you want to put that standard on someone who is well learned in both the Bible and Mormon Doctrine, then you need to put that standard on the 19 year old, barely out of high school missionaries. Some of whom don’t even know their own church history as well as non-members. When baptism for the dead is mentioned, they turn to the passage that you turned to. I can understand why because that is the only passage in the Bible where it is mentioned, as you said.
Anyways, forget that it talks about a practice carried out by a pagan religion. Lets build a whole belief structure and ritual on it and call it Godly.
I was going to share what I learned about that passage in the Bible, but Berean beat me to it. No use in telling you the same thing.
There are many things “mentioned” -as you say- in the Bible. Some of which are evil. Do you think it would be a good idea to create rituals and doctrine perpetuating that evil?
Amanda,
You’re right, your church allows everyone to view their genealogical records. Which, by the way, is very helpful to those of us who are trying to trace our ancestry. But the records the Catholic Church is keeping private are not genealogical. It is my understanding that the LDS Church keeps it’s sacramental records private just as the Catholic church is doing. Why is this ok for the LDS Church, but wrong for the Catholic Church?
You also asked how baptizing someone by proxy can be harmful. Let me give you an example from my own experience. My family found out that a very near and dear relative had been baptized LDS by proxy. This person had been an orthodox Christian all his adult life and did not believe the LDS Church was true. When we found out he had been baptized LDS we were very upset that his beliefs had been disrespected and trampled over, but there was nothing we could do. Even now when I think about this I get nearly as upset as I was when I first heard about it; because now there is a record of his Mormon baptism that would not be pleasing to him. This is harmful on very personal level.
I realize that Mormons believe they are doing works for the dead for the greater good. Why can’t they see what they are doing from my point of view, and respect the wishes of dead instead of going off and baptizing just anyone who hasn’t been baptized Mormon yet? For the record, I don’t want to be baptized Mormon while alive or after death.
Amanda,
I would point you to 2 other Scripture passages. The first verse Hebrews 9:27 that explains that we will die and be judged, with no second chances. The second, Luke 16:19-31 is a parable from Christ that addresses second chances after death. By using Scripture to interpret Scripture, the historical context, and the lack of any other supporting evidence for your argument the exegesis presented by both Berean and Eric017 seems to be the correct reading of 1 Cor 15:29.
With that in mind, and as I gently pointed out in my last post, baptisms for the dead can be considered sinful. It is wrong to expect anyone to support you in this project either by actively helping or passively providing support. Amanda, sin is wrong, it is a turning away from God and that is explicitly harmful.
Berean,
After your comment “taking one verse in the Bible and making a doctrine or practice out of it is not a good idea”, I just want to clarify something. Baptism for the dead, as well as other temple ordinances, are from modern-day revelation, not from Biblical study. It just so happens that there is an ambiguous scripture in the Bible which someone has found that can support our perspective if read with our interpretation (go and look at FARMS or Jeff Lindsay’s websites which explain this). So no, we do not find a verse in the Bible and base our doctrine around it, although that may be what it seems sometimes as members like to push the verse to show it was a Biblical practice. The temple ordinances are sacred and were not written down in the scriptures to keep them that way. They are performed by the Melkezedik Priesthood so they were not performed by the Israelites after Egypt as the MP was taken from them. But ordinances for the dead were only started after Jesus’ resurrection as that was when He loosed the bands of death. So it’s very unlikely that anyone will find any of these ordinances spelled out in the Bible, but there are a few small hints in ambiguous verses.
Amanda writes:
“Ed, all mormons eh? Just paint us all with the same broad brush. But ok…”
and then write:
“Nothing excites you guys more than drumming up drama involving ANYTHING LDS. I’m flattered, actually.”
Brush strokes indeed. 🙂
Ralph,
I appreciate your honesty about B for the D (Baptism for the Dead) being largely a modern day revelation within the LDS church. Of course I still disagree with you that it is a Christian practice as in the Bible it is shown as being done by heretics, but I am glad you don’t resort to quoting that verse as if it in anyway helps confirm the LDS practice of B for the D.
You said that they are Sacred and they weren’t written down in the scriptures because of that reason. Personally, I take that as a cop out. Baptism for the dead is mentioned quite frequently in the ward I go to. Even one of the most sacred rituals (the endowment) is spoken of. The exact specifics no, but the word endowment is mentioned frequently enough. I would think the Bible and the BOM would mention the words “baptisms for the dead” in more than one obscure passage if it is rather important to the Christ’s church.
Renee –
Thank you for sharing your story about your family member. My wife has several family members who are orthodox Jews, including several holocaust survivors. When they found out about how the LDS church was using geneological records to perform the baptisms (after having agreed not to) they were very hurt and have refused to give geneology information to my wife’s LDS relatives because of this.
That some Mormons don’t agree with how other people feel in regards to this is understandable, but it is most certainly reasonable that if the LDS want other people to respect their beliefs that they would extend the same courtesy others.
Ralph,
All I can say is that you (and the Mormon church) are really creative. I just sit here and shake my head and think “Ralph can’t really believe this stuff.” Modern day revelation? Come on, what else could we have revealed that we could say “This is super secret stuff. We can’t write it down.” No paper trail. Very convenient I’d say. Pick anything….what about a mother ship hovering over the earth? It was revealed. The MP was taken away from the Jews upon leaving Egypt. Please stop. I know, this information was also revealed. Well at least you admit it’s not in the Bible. Ralph, it’s invented….created. If you want to believe it OK. I know the goofier it is the more Mormons believe and defend it and call it faith. Don’t you ever get to the point that for even a TBM like you, credulity is strecthed too far? I have heard that Mormons can think rationally in all aspects of their life except when it comes to Mormonism. I get that!
Falcon,
As I have said on the “Before God was God”, the Harper’s Bible Dictionary, to which was contributed by 180 Biblical scholars from the BSL,states that the formal Trinity as defined by the 4th and 5th century creeds is not found in the Bible. Does this mean that these people just made it up OR did they have some sort of modern revelation (ie outside of the Bible) to come up with these creeds? Its either or. If they did not receive revelation then they wrote it from their own understanding of the Bible – which may or may not be God’s meaning in the Bible. So you have your choice, either these creeds were man made or they were extra-Biblical revelations. If you say the latter, then why do you disagree with me saying that we have modern revelation in our church?
No where did I say that they were not written down/recorder, I just said they were not written/recorded in the scriptures. Yes, we discuss the ordinances (in brevity) at church and at home but not usually in public. They are described (again in brevity) in our church manuals. Anyone can find out about them if they want to so they are not secret. But there is a time and a place and demeanor in which to discuss them, that is what I meant.
As for the mother ship hovering over earth, I have met the captain, his name is Grrbtz’kwk. Lovely alien bloke. He likes us earthlings and when he has enough money he wants to retire here. He especially loves us Australiens.
Ralph,
You fail to mention the beginning and end of the article on the Trinity on Harper. Thus for the sake of Honesty here it is for the rest of us:
Cont…
Now does this at all imply what Ralph is insinuating? If we are honest we cannot say that it does. Cheers.
Lautensack
Amanda,
Your persecution complex is showing again. I didn’t say you were a superficial student of the Bible. The rules that I stated apply to everyone including me. You obviously didn’t read what I said in the post and I expected that. The practice mentioned in 1 Cor 15:29 was being done by pagans. Paul told the Corinthians not to do what they do. Your Church should take the same advice.
The pronouns weren’t mine. They were Paul’s. You can take that up with him when you’re at the Great White Throne Judgement (Rev 20:11-15) if you continue in Mormonism.
That’s unfortunate that you thought my post was a “long drawn out explanation”. My post seemed short and to the point – not any longer than any of your rants on here. Everyone else seemed to absorb it okay. No, I’m no Bible scholar. I guess that’s one thing I share in common with the First Presidency since they aren’t either in addition to your apostles: retired lawyers, doctors, businessmen, scientists and airline pilots. I’ve been a serious student of the Bible for many years and that is one thing that separates me from your General Authorities because if they were they would renounce Joseph Smith’s religion.
If you were a serious student of the Bible you would go do some research and checking on your own (1 Thes 5:21) and test what I said in my explanation of the text. Did you? No, huh? You just dismiss it because it doesn’t have the LDS stamp on it. Did you look at the Luke text? I guess not.
Your church has no priesthood authority. I have full authority from Jesus Christ to proclaim His Word. I am ready to show you from the Old and New Testaments if you are ready, but if you can’t handle the teaching of 1 Cor 15:29 then you won’t grasp the texts that we will need to look at.
Since you will have a problem with Paul I guess you can ask him about 1 Tim 1:4 where he mentions “endless genealogies” being a waste of time.
Does Alma 34:32-35 support baptism for the dead? No, it doesn’t.
I find in the Bible that it says that “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Romans 14:11 (before I continue, I will state that I believe this scripture to be true)
However if you were to say this to a Buddhist or a Muslim or any non-Christian faith how would they respond? But how many of this yet still believe this scripture in that it will come true? So, by our faith we perform an ordinance that is needed for exhaltation, yet the choice of accepting it is still up to the individual. We are still that same people after death as we are before it. If a person is a died in the wool true blue Catholic in life, he may yet be as holding to that faith in the next life as well. We just simply say that should that person change their mind they will be covered. It is better to have something and not want it than to want something and not have it.
Berean,
I appreciate your psychoanalysis of my response- but I wouldn’t quit your day job, just yet.
You should know as well as I that responding to every grain of your argument or point of view is impossible to do with the limitations placed on posters. I did, however, read the entirety of your post, and still find a serious disconnect: your interpretation vs. the interpretation of those who hold the priesthood.
You don’t have the authority to baptize in His name– yes, to proclaim the gospel, but not to officiate in important covenants the Lord has commanded us to make. However, as you know, you are more than welcome to accept His gospel in its’ fullness to experience the fullness of its’ blessings.
Renee,
“I realize that Mormons believe they are doing works for the dead for the greater good. Why can’t they see what they are doing from my point of view, AND RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE DEAD instead of going off and baptizing just anyone who hasn’t been baptized Mormon yet? For the record, I don’t want to be baptized Mormon while alive or after death.”
I put caps on the phrase I find the most important in your comments. How do you know the wishes of OUR ANCESTORS? The only wishes you can speak for are your own, LIVING, wishes.
If baptisms for the dead are erroneous, then it should be moot to your circumstances whether anyone baptizes you after you are dead…how are you punished for the transgression/sin of another? And if it IS legitimate, then why would you reject it?
I do think it is highly selfish of you to ask that an entire group of people (in the millions) stop practicing their religion simply because you reject it. I don’t see how our practicing of this ordinance is of any harm to you? This request of yours is far from Christ-centered. Don’t be so easily offended, especially when no offense is meant. We are entitled to our religion, and our concern for our ancestors. To begrudge us this is simply unnecessary and selfish.
I thought this post from Ed was the best on the thread, as far as refuting Amanda’s claim that it’s everyone ELSE who’s being selfish toward the Mormons. I just thought it should be repeated.
“My wife has several family members who are orthodox Jews, including several holocaust survivors. When they found out about how the LDS church was using geneological records to perform the baptisms (after having agreed not to) they were very hurt and have refused to give geneology information to my wife’s LDS relatives because of this.
That some Mormons don’t agree with how other people feel in regards to this is understandable, but it is most certainly reasonable that if the LDS want other people to respect their beliefs that they would extend the same courtesy others.”
Amanda, I’d still like to know why your need to practice your faith trumps Catholics from protecting theirs. This is the crux of this post, yet you have not addressed the desire of the Catholics, only your entitlement.
The two are at a face-off, and if the Catholic Church, a private organization, wants to protect its records, why should it be coerced into something contrary to that want? Why should your “need” trump their right to privacy?
Other Mormons have said that there are other ways around it, and this may be questionable ethically, at least it acknowledges the direct wishes of the Catholic church and doesn’t flaunt your “entitlement.”
So, why are you entitled and they are not?