By Vorjack
The Mormon fondness for genealogy is well known. Not quite so well known is the reason for that fondness.
Some Mormons practice proxy baptism, also called “temple baptism,” a ritual where a living church member may act as a proxy for a deceased relative during baptism. Supposedly this allows a person, who was never been baptized, the opportunity to accept the baptism and convert within the afterlife. Technically, this is only supposed to be done for relatives of the living member, and hence the interest in genealogy. For some reason, this rule is not always followed.
This has gotten the Church in trouble in the past. In 1994, it was discovered that members of the LDS were posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims and other Jewish dead. As a result of the uproar, the LDS agreed to expunge the names and stop the practice of posthumously baptizing Jews. However, the terms of the agreement was not faithfully followed, and the Jewish Genealogist Bernard I. Kouchel accuses members of the LDS church of continuing the practice. See “A Chronicle of the Mormon/Jewish Controversy.”
Well, someone in the Church has added another name to the list of those baptized by proxy: Stanley Ann Dunham. More commonly known as President Obama’s mother. According to the Provo Daily Herald:
Records on the church’s FamilySearch.org genealogical site show that a Stanley Ann Dunham received proxy rites in the Provo temple on June 4 and June 8 of 2008. The birth and death dates of the person for whom the rites were performed match those of Obama’s mother.
This is not a good PR move for the Mormon Church.
As an atheist, I’m not sure how I feel about all this. On one hand, unless you’re a Mormon, the whole practice is meaningless. If you’re an atheist, the whole idea of the afterlife is fairly silly all by itself. I don’t care much for genealogy (or genealogists, for that matter), but if offering temple baptisms for deceased relatives keeps the Mormons busy and away from my door, I’m all for it.
On the other hand, something in me finds this deeply offensive — my first inclination is to start writing up De-Baptism Certificates for deceased Mormons. Turn about is fair play.
But I’d like to think I’m bigger than that. What about you?
(via)
I have never understood how this works. It would be funny to see if it got any press if someone started the de-baptizing. I guess the jest of it is that you can save your ancestors from hell by doing the post baptism. I bet that really goes over well.
Can we use their geneology texts to unbaptize every known person, living or dead?
If not, I recommend these for the first round of debaptism:
Joseph Smith
Mitt Romney
Jesus
Normally I try to avoid outright blasphemous mocking of other people’s beliefs, but yes, I say we immediately debaptize Smith, Romney and all the current apostles of the LDS.
Point taken. I have to keep in mind that this isn’t PZ’s Blog, I’ll tone it down a little.
But I must say that debaptizing Joseph Smith is just as blasphemous as debaptizing Jesus. I probably shouldn’t have said Jesus for a different reason: Don’t start flamewars. There are many christians on this blog that are thoughtful and respectful, and that is great. (and very few mormons, if any.)
It’s the same problem that we’ve had with people trying to claim that the Deist and anti-Christian Thomas Jefferson was a pious church-goer who based his morality on the bible. It’s a repulsive display of arrogance and disrespect for the dead. The attempt to posthumously claim Dunham as part of the Mormon church is appalling. The refusal to obey the agreement to not proxy baptize the Holocaust victims shows that the church doesn’t care about the beliefs and desires of others.
While the de-baptism certificates would be giving the church a taste of their own medicine, I don’t think issuing a posthumous de-baptism would be any better than a posthumous baptism.
I wouldn’t care the slightest about being baptized by Mormons.
I don’t find it offensive.
It’s like people saying “I’ll pray for you”, and I’m confident that the Mormons in question mean well: unless I find myself used for some sort of PR-stunt, I may even appreciate that they care for me.
But I do admit that the idea of De-baptize them made me laugh hard.
Out of all the douchebaggery crap the Mormon church has done, posthumously baptizing people is pretty low on the list. There are plenty of reasons to take up arms against them, but this isn’t one of them.
On the one hand, I can see how it’s comforting to those who are living in the church presently.
On the other hand, I think it’s disrespectful to the memory of the dead. If they didn’t want to be baptized when they were alive, then they didn’t want to be baptized. You should respect that.
On yet another hand, I suppose it’s also a bit presumptuous of me to speak for the dead. Maybe they wouldn’t have cared at all if someone did this for them. There’s really no way to know.
I don’t find it offensive, but I do find it fraudulent. The LDS church uses those proxy baptisms when they advertise the historical size of their church. It’s fraudulent.
As far as “what if they did it to me” – meh. I’ll be dead. Not going to worry me much. I’d be concerned if they were attempting to ascribe beliefs to me that I didn’t hold in life, but not if they want to do their mumbo-jumbo over my corpse. I can see how people who are very devout would be upset that their ancestors were being post-humously converted (and converting Holocaust victims is amazingly tasteless), but since I’m not it’s hard for me to get upset about it.
Mormon theology is a strange thing compared to most orthodox Christian beliefs. They have this belief that all men (at least men, maybe these days women too) can become Gods of their own universes after they die, so long as they have been baptized in the Mormon church. Which is part of the reason for the post-humous baptism – to put their ancestors on the path to becoming gods themselves. It’s a fairly harmless belief compared to a lot of others (their attitudes towards race prior to the 1970s, for example), so I find it hard to get too worked up over it when they aren’t doing something tasteless.
A person’s beliefs are an integral part of who they are. Me personally, I don’t believe that baptism is anything more than a bit of theater to reinforce the hold of religion on someone. But, for those people who believe in baptism, it is the symbol of their relationship to God.
Proxy baptism functionally says, “Your beliefs and your version of God are invalid. Your faith is wrong. We know better than you do, so we are going to fix this without your consent, and indeed since you are dead, we insure that you are unable to do a damn thing about it.”
I find proxy baptism to be a behavior that demonstrates intolerance and paternalistic condescension. It is disrespectful of the beliefs and choices of other people, and demonstrates a need to control others. Certainly, if I’d wanted to be baptized, I would have done so. I have chosen not to be baptized. I don’t need or want somebody to come along behind me and impose some religious status on me that I didn’t choose. Whether or not I believe it has any affect on me, it’s still my choice to make, not someone else’s. That is why I find it an offensive practice.
Not quite. There is something the dead can do about it, according to Mormon theology. They can refuse it. No one in this life or in the next, is baptized against their will.
For this exemption to make sense, you’d have to believe in Mormon theology in the first place. The issue is not how your proxy-baptisms effect people in the afterlife, but how it demonstrates a failure on your part to accept the choices people have made while they were alive.
Your practice of post-mortem baptizing is harmless in any spiritual manner, but it makes you look like jerks who want to get one over on people of other faiths (or non-faith) who can’t very well object.
The rules on this posthumous baptism weirdness don’t seem to be so strict. Why not just baptize all the dead and get it over with? Or is there some right they have to pick and choose who to give universal super power godness to?
It’s the same problem that we’ve had with people trying to claim that the Deist and anti-Christian Thomas Jefferson was a pious church-goer who based his morality on the bible.
Not quite. The Christian Nation crowd are lying about the real history of real people and a real country. Assertions about what a deceased person is doing in a purely imaginary afterlife don’t rise to that level — the claim is neither true nor false, but merely nonsense.
Actually, de-baptizing various deceased Mormon luminaries sounds like a good way of pointing out the absurdity of the whole enterprise. The posthumous debaptism has exactly as much significance as posthumous baptism of random people, ie. precisely none.
proxy baptism is equivalent to saying they lit a bonfire and danced around it…completely meaningless. Substitute “proxy baptism” for “bonfire dances” in your piece and it is the exact same thing to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_7jzM7kVmY
According to the Daily Herald article, the deceased have to option to accept or reject the baptism. I wonder how they manage to communicate that to the living?
hmmmm…. Accept the super powers or not….. If I accept, well– I’ll have super powers. Cool. But I’ll have to put up with being cast in really bad films……
Cue Deep Convincing Voice Over:
Little did young Question know that some day he would be transbaptimized into Super-Thority, destined to mind-fuck intelligent species across an entire universe.
>According to the Daily Herald article,
>the deceased have to option to accept
>or reject the baptism.
Yes. In LDS cosmology, after a person dies their disembodied spirit goes to one of two places to await the bodily ressurection. Those who have lived righteously and accepted truth (good church members) go to spirit paradise, those who have not accepted truth, or have but lived unrighteously go to spirit prison. Spirit prison is not akin to hell, no torture or punishment involved. The souls in spirit paradise visit those in spirit prison and offer them the chance to be saved by accepting truth and/or repenting for their sins. If they do this they can be saved, if they are baptised.
Now, in spirit prison and paradise there are no bodies, so no baptism can go on there. So LDS Church members here on earth do proxy baptisms. It doesn’t, in their POV, force people to accept the truth, or change their beliefs. All it does is ensures that, if this deceased person accepts the truth or repents, they can be saved, since everyone must be baptized to be saved.
Even if you stay in spirit prison and don’t get baptized, you still get saved to some degree. Very, very, very few people in LDS cosmology are damned, and damnation is more like nonexistence than hell. Those who have accepted truth and been baptised and live righteously go to a high level of heaven, closer to God, those who have not go to lower levels of heaven.
I am not LDS, but it bothers me to see their views warped to appear exclusivist, or proxy baptism shown as forcing their faith on the dead. VorJack did not do that in his post (thanks!) as he never seems to want to misrepresent religions. Commenters have been doing that.
There are lots of valid arguments about religion, but purposeful misrepresentation just negates any truth your points might have. This is a peeve of mine about the atheist community online, but my IRL experience makes it clear that the majority of atheists do not purposefully misrepresent religion.
>I wonder how they manage to
>communicate that to the living?
No one believes they do.
God Bless,
Gerald
“Now, in spirit prison and paradise there are no bodies, so no baptism can go on there.”
You do realize just how idolatrous that sounds, don’t you? You’ve changed one of the central symbols of Christian worship into a magical spell that requires the right components. Is your God really so petty that he’d deny the conversion and redemption of someone simply because there was no water available? If so, it seems like you’ve given up on monotheism and gone back to the capricious and uncaring gods of the Greeks.
I once read an essay by the Jewish theological Abraham Herschel, where he spoke of the prophets and how they preached that God was willing to take in all who repent and come to him. Sometime it seems that Christianity and its offshoots just want to make God more arbitrary and vindictive.
Well, if I practiced the LDS religion I might be a bit more worried :). I am just a fan of the church, not a member. There is a lot there I could not handle having to believe in. I just wanted to correct the idea that proxy baptism is a way Mormons try to force their religion on the dead. In fact they simply see it as opening the way to greater salvation if the deceased choose it.
For myself I am more inclined to think like Rabbi Heschel than the current Mormon understanding of the salvation process; though both bear some similarity to my ideas as a Baha’i. I do think the inclusiveness of the LDS salvation ideas needs to be appreciated though; 200 years ago, before liberal christianity was anything, Joseph Smith was preaching that all could enter heaven, whatever their religious beliefs.
Hope I didn’t give the impression I was a Mormon myself, that wasn’t my goal.
God Bless,
Gerald
Sorry for the double post. I just wanted to say that seeing your regular guest posts on here has really been enjoyable for me. You have a lighthearted and kindhearted style of writing I really enjoy. I enjoy the blog enough already, but your occasional posts are like little treats in my RSS reader. Just like Daniel, you (VorJack) remind me of the kind of atheists who make up my family, and hopefully the kind of atheist I used to be. :) The kind that is really scary to fundamentalists because they manage to be good, nice, and smart . . . without the Bible! Gasp!
God Bless,
Gerald
I have his shoe. Follow the Shoe!! (Paraphrase from ‘The Life of Brian’)
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. :)
Internet communication is built upon an extension of face to face exchanges without the lightening fast adjustments possible in the latter. Imprecise, misrepresentative or humorous comments are among those that are difficult to modulate. And I would hope that any misrepresentations that I make are purposeful but alas, I am sure they are not.
“I do think the inclusiveness of the LDS salvation ideas needs to be appreciated though; 200 years ago, before liberal christianity was anything, Joseph Smith was preaching that all could enter heaven, whatever their religious beliefs.”
And 1600 years before that, the church father Origen was declaring that God’s powers of redemption were absolute. In the fullness of time, even Satan and his minions would be redeemed and return to Heaven. So universalism has been in the blend of Christian traditions almost as long as the idea of heaven.
Yep :) My point wasn’t that the LDS thought it up first, just that lumping them in with exclusivist fundamentalists is as silly as lumping Origen and Jerry Falwell together. Which, once again, you never did.
God Bless,
Gerald
‘I’ll take silly theologies for $100, Alex.’
Of course they can be lumped together. Just about the only other type of blog where we would be having this type of convo is science fiction.
Exmo here.
The premise behind that is the soul is composed of two parts, body and spirit. The body is really important in Mormon theology, because it was only given to those who were willing to be tested in mortality. It’s all part of a big testing process.
Also, Gerald, *if* Joseph Smith ever preached that, it’s certainly not church doctrine anymore. There are three “levels” of heaven in Mormon theology. So in the sense that good people can go to heaven, yes, but only good Mormons baptized and married in the temple can reach the highest level of salvation.
I can see both sides of the baptism for the dead debate. In one sense it’s easy to see how people would consider it disrespectful to baptize someone who was very faithful to a different religion, or no religion. However, from the Mormon standpoint, the ordinances must be done on earth in order to give people the option to accept baptism or not. They don’t feel like they’re forcing membership on them, but rather giving them a chance at salvation.
If anybody cares, here’s another article about how the founding fathers got baptized too. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12310500?source=most_viewed
>Also, Gerald, *if* Joseph Smith ever preached
>that, it’s certainly not church doctrine anymore.
>There are three “levels” of heaven in Mormon
>theology. So in the sense that good people
>can go to heaven, yes, but only good Mormons
>baptized and married in the temple can
>reach the highest level of salvation.
What I explained is the understanding I have from reading LDS scriptures, Church explanations, wikipedia, attending Mormon seminary occasionally, and talking extensively with Mormons on the subject. As far as I know everything I said was accurate, and a few Mormon friends read over it. It mostly comes from ‘Doctrine and Covenants’, section 76.
Yes, there are three levels of salvation, and full acceptance of truth, and full righteousness is necessary to reach the highest level. But everyone is able to experience some level of salvation, and everyone who accepts the truth whether in this life or the spirit world, is able to gain higher levels of salvation. I didn’t explain ‘Degrees of Glory’ because it isn’t directly connected to proxy baptism, that is a doctrine that has to do with the spirit world.
It is quirky, but well meaning. And I think most LDS members who engage is Proxy Baptism get a pretty big high from it :). Sounds rather fun. Sometimes I wish my religion had a bit more of the magical worldview and ritualism that some branches of Christianity have. If I could believe it, I am certain I would enjoy it.
God Bless,
Gerald
Yeah. This is definitely a side topic to the whole baptisms for the dead thing.
Well it’s sort of true. Everyone is able to experience some level of salvation, although there are a very few who choose to reject that after having full knowledge of the gospel that will go to outer darkness.
But in the sense that almost everyone will get to a degree of glory, then you’re right.
As for baptisms for the dead. Who knows? Reactions differ. I know that some people think it’s a lot of fun, others are just there because the youth group is going.
For most people it usually seemed focused on how tired everyone was (early mornings), the boys hating the scum girls’ hairspray and makeup left on the top of the font, and watching Johnny Lingo afterward while you waited for everyone to finish up.
Why would they bother putting hairspray on if they were just going to dunk themselves in water! Seems a bit silly. :)
These are the same people that think that 10 tribes of Israel sailed to America and left behind golden tablets that were interpreted by a guy with two rocks and his hat. Their hair choices seem like the least silly thing they do.
“Everyone is able to experience some level of salvation, although there are a very few who choose to reject that after having full knowledge of the gospel that will go to outer darkness.”
I have to think that my reaction to finding out the nonsensical story the Mormons tell is true would be hysterical laughter, followed by saying, “seriously, god, that was the best you could come up with?” Followed by more laughter.
The great part is most of the people I know can see the discrepancies in other religions too, but can’t comprehend it in theirs.
Then again, I suppose that’s not really different that most religious peeps.
Because they’re teenage girls spending time around teenage boys. That’s why the girls go first too. It gives them time to reprimp afterward.
Some would even bring make-up to girls camp, even though the only men up there were middle-aged spouses of the leaders.
As a former mormon, now turned atheist, I’ve gotta say… yeah, necro-dunking is pretty wacky. There’s other ordinances for the dead, too, but you’d have to know more about mormon temple practices to understand it all.
If nothing else, the practise is tasteless, and examples such as Obama’s mother only highlight the already weird practise.
I don’t think the church will ever give it up though.
Pleeeease begin a de-baptizing program! Besides being extremely amusing, I think it makes a serious and brilliant point about both the presumption of the Mormon church and the risible silliness of this practice. I wish I had thought of it…..
If someone baptised me after I was dead, I think my friends and relatives (who know I’m an atheist) would feel bad that someone had done something to me (my immortal soul), against my will. Something that I didn’t want to do.
I say go with the de-baptising programme, to help all those who have been unwillingly (unlawfully? Because they were forced without being able to day no) taken into the church of the latter-day loonies.
Ok, say you’re not a Mormon. Done. And pretend you are dead. Alright. The only way to be hurt by this act is to think the Mormon version of god must be the right one after all. Even if you’re not an atheist, your going to have to believe in your heart that their attempts could work and you won’t go to the heaven you were expecting. Please, if you have god, also have the confidence to reject the notions of some perverse act of another faith. I also don’t think de-baptizing would work, in fact, I think it’s asinine and a waste of negative attention. I’m pretty sure the Mormons would agree with me. “Oh, look, those silly atheists think they can un-god our souls.”
Ummm….I’m not sure I understand everything in your post but I think the idea of de-baptizing is not meant to convince Mormons or anybody else that their soul has been, to use your term, – “un-godded” but as a witty and incisive commentary about the silliness of the practice. I think it illustrates the emptiness of the act beautifully – before or after death…
Not really. It’s an attempt to mock something to people who will heartily resist the mocking. I think I’d rather mock people who are stirred up enough to react, including people in religions other than LDS. This is a magic show, in which no one is converted. Ok, Mormons are silly, yeah? There’s just something about this reaction by atheists on behalf of the dead that reminds me of junior high. Pointing out follies is fun, but I think this doesn’t demonstrate anything positive or productive or all that amusing.
I was thinking of something else after I posted to elaborate on the thought, that is this – I don’t know why, but it constantly surprises me how sensitive people are about their faith. If they think that there is a god, and that they have chosen the right god and the right way to demonstrate their faith, why do people get sensitive about symbolism? This is a symbolic act that I have no choice but to believe the Mormons actually think pleases their god. I don’t think it’s that disrespectful, either. It is similar (to me) to displaying the Buddha. I’m not a Buddhist, so I might not understand this, but my observation is, that’s a piece of material sculpted to look like Buddy and your beliefs are not harmed by someone who just thinks it’s neat.
I think this is what false idols are – when people react to a symbol or gesture as though it were their god. It’s not that they worship a crucifix posted above their bed, it’s when they take offense at other people “misusing” their symbols. Your god is intact if you think he is, don’t worry about it. The same it is with this Mormon conversion tactic and the atheist reaction. Every single religion that’s not LDS is an atheist concerning LDS, got it? They have no powers, but at least they think they’re being productive. I don’t think responding with the same utter nonsense proves the same point you think it does, but I don’t know, defending the dead seems very popular. I think they are dead and so are in no position to appreciate the favor, you know?
This is third person name-calling (“That person is Mormon now!”). It feels really childish to me, but childish things can be hurtful. Shawn wrote “It is disrespectful of the beliefs and choices of other people, and demonstrates a need to control others.” I think it’s more about comforting themselves rather than controlling others. I mean, you can’t do anything to or with Obama’s mother at his point – all you can do is try to make yourself feel better that she somehow agreed with you. I think it’s far less paternalistic and much more selfish.
Greetings. First time on this blog.
LDS proxy baptism is largely misunderstood. Here are some common misperceptions about the practice.
1. It represents some sort of forced conversion of the deceased indivdiual.
False. This is the most common misperception, and much of the offense taken regarding the practice stems from this misunderstanding. As Gerald explained very well, the baptism is offered, but no one automatically becomes a Mormon as a result. The LDS belief is that it is up to the individual to accept or reject it. The concept of forcible conversion is diametrically opposed to the LDS view of free agency, which is a central tenet of the faith.
2. It is done to inflate church membership statistics.
False: Proxy baptisms are not counted in membership statistics. No one is automatically “made Mormon” (see #1 above), so there would be no purpose in counting proxy baptisms in membership statistics.
3. It involves some sort of seance or necromancy.
False. The ordinance as it is performed in LDS temples is actually routine and clinical. An individual dressed in plain white clothing is baptized on behalf of a dozen or so deceased individuals in quick succession. The temple worker says before each baptism that the individual is being baptized for and on behalf of so and so who is dead…and then the individual is immersed in the water. It’s really not all that exciting.
4. Posthumously baptizing (or de-baptizing) Mormons as Satanists, Catholics, Atheists or whatever will prove a point to Mormons about the offensiveness of the practice.
False. As already mentioned in #1, the concept of forced conversion is antithetical to the LDS faith, and proxy baptism does not constitute forced conversion, so any such attempt to forcibly convert or de-convert Mormons will be met with a shrug. In other words, they’ll tell you to have at it, because they don’t believe you can force someone to change religions.
5. It proves that Mormons are crazy.
False/True? If you think theism, religion or Mormonism in particular is crazy, then I suppose this practice will confirm that perception. However, the practice of proxy baptism is internally consistent with LDS theology. I won’t bother to elaborate here, but from the LDS perspective, if one accepts certain other foundational premises of LDS theology, then proxy baptism is actually logical.
It’s interesting how the Mormon temple bears absolutely no resemblance to the Jewish temple, which was primarily focused on animal sacrifice.
The floor-plan of the biblical temple is laid out quite clearly in Lev., for some reason the Mormon temple looks nothing like it; the temple ordinances were written in Lev., in the bible; Mormons keep them awfully quiet . . .
My friend produced a video on the subject that can be watched here.
Oh, the arrogance! I, too, find this offensive.
About the same, functionally, as having someone pray for you when you don’t want it.
Tell them to keep it to themselves and don’t worry about it. It has some meaning to them, but none to you. It hardly has anything to do with you… it’s all about them.
It’s kind of like my policy on people that dislike me. As long as they don’t put it in my face it’s their problem not mine.
That was nice. Thank you for sharing this one.