Still Baptizing Jews

[_Quasimodo]

I would be interested in hearing what our non-LDS participants think about the LDS baptizing their (the non-LDS) ancestors.

Since I believe that baptism for the dead has no effect (just as on the living), I find the idea very amusing. I image that fundamentalist Christians would be fuming, though.

Who's idea was "dead dunking", anyway? Why wasn't this idea laughed at in ridicule when it was first presented? Why does the Church still continue it when an omnipotent God could do the same for all the dead with a snap of his fingers?

All that time and money researching names and doing proxies seems to me one of the least sensible things the LDS do. At least the "Mall" has some chance of recouping.

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Might be best to spend the money on those that need it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

[However, if (as is not uncommon) my living family today follows the same belief system as our grandmother, by baptizing her you are also sending an obvious message to US - "your life and your religious practices are so incomplete we have to step in and do what you can never do to make things right". That is an affront to the living, as well as to the dead.

But doesn’t that come with any exclusive truth claims? If some person went from Atheist to Mormon, the implicit message they are sending is that atheism was insufficient. The fact that missionaries are out proselytizing sends the same message.

No mainstream Christian church I know of refuses to recognize the baptisms of another mainstream church. No Christian church at all that I have heard of steps in and baptizes the deceased family members of people who have other religious beliefs.

Not entirely true, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and certain Lutheran churches accept each other’s baptisms if certain requirements are met.

[_Morley]

No mainstream Christian church I know of refuses to recognize the baptisms of another mainstream church.

Not entirely true, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and certain Lutheran churches accept each other’s baptisms if certain requirements are met.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, I think that's basically what Chap said, Stak.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, I think that's basically what Chap said, Stak.

Nope, you are correct. Sorry Chap, I misread you.

[_zeezrom]

Maybe someday the Church will decide to do other things in the temple besides baptisms for deceased persons. Let's take a look at the "good" that comes to our young people from doing baptisms for the dead:

1. They get to think about people that came before us
2. They get to do something that is not self serving
3. They go without mobile devices and pop media for an hour

Potential problems with baptisms for the dead

1. Discrimination against the female participants (http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=8350)
2. Hurting the feelings of the Holocaust descendants
3. Teaching our young people that LDS is the only way to heaven

Please, help us remove the bad. Let's cut the crap out of the delicious cake.

Maybe we could do something like this:

Create a ceremonial framework around the Catholic Mass with Mormon flavors. It would be like having a Catholic cake and Mormon frosting. The kids could have the reverent atmosphere and a feeling that they are not self-serving. Have a little, Mass-type worship service. Now for the frosting. Every day, the temple president picks a historic person. This person is researched by the kids who come in the temple. They learn about this person and then end with a short presentation. Let's start with Louise Brooks. I'd love my daughter to go to that!

[_harmony]

Without the responsibility of doing ordinances for the dead (it's not like baptism is the only thing that's done in the temple), there are very few reasons to have temples.

The Brethren cannot and will not make that change... ever. To do so would be to cut the heart out of the demands for more and more tithing.

[_zeezrom]

Without the responsibility of doing ordinances for the dead (it's not like baptism is the only thing that's done in the temple), there are very few reasons to have temples.

The Brethren cannot and will not make that change... ever. To do so would be to cut the heart out of the demands for more and more tithing.

Good point.

What if the Brethren told everyone that even though we don't do baptisms anymore, you still can't get nearly the level of spirituality anywhere else but in the temple? That should still motivate people to pay tithing, I think.

[_quaker]

These particularly whiny types need to start a new lobby group in Washington to get baptisms for the dead banned. It's the only way.

[_MCB]

These particularly whiny types need to start a new lobby group in Washington to get baptisms for the dead banned. It's the only way.

Nope. Can't do it. Religious freedom.

Feds CAN declare that tithes represent the purchase of temple admission, and that therefore LDS have to pay tax on that money. Is not a gift or free will donation. Would cut way down on temple participation.

[_beefcalf]

All this fuss, when even the Book of Mormon makes it clear that Baptisms for the Dead are unnecessary.