Would this make LDS proxy baptisms less offensive?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

[_Mister Scratch]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction. I am also in favor of the Church notifying the deceased's relatives, whenever possible, and giving them a kind of "reply period," so they can respond either pro or con. in my opinion, there is an element of sneakiness to proxy baptisms, as if the Church has something to hide (and hence the extreme reaction to folks such as Helen Radkey---if the Church had nothing to hide, Ms. Radkey would be no biggie, it seems to me). Of course, the argument against this kind of disclosure is always something along the lines of, "Oh, that would be so much work, and too much expense!", etc. Quite a lame excuse, in my opinion. A little hard work never hurt anyone.

[_MormonMendacity]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

Honestly speaking I don't think that change would matter to me -- even if I were Jewish, Flemish or Amish.

For example, I don't think that burial is for the dead person, rather, it's for the living and that is who is taking offense here.

I think that it is one thing to honor the wishes of a dead person that were expressed before they die. It's another thing to take this duty upon ourselves without their -- or at least their closest family member's -- permission.

Especially now that I have resigned from the Church. I think part of my children would want to have my work redone after I die and several of them would express outrage at it.

[_rcrocket]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction. I am also in favor of the Church notifying the deceased's relatives, whenever possible, and giving them a kind of "reply period," so they can respond either pro or con. in my opinion, there is an element of sneakiness to proxy baptisms, as if the Church has something to hide (and hence the extreme reaction to folks such as Helen Radkey---if the Church had nothing to hide, Ms. Radkey would be no biggie, it seems to me). Of course, the argument against this kind of disclosure is always something along the lines of, "Oh, that would be so much work, and too much expense!", etc. Quite a lame excuse, in my opinion. A little hard work never hurt anyone.

The "Church" does not do the name submittals; patrons submit names. Church software scans the names for prohibited names and for the adequacy of the submittal, but patrons (who don't have to be members and are often not) frequently know about prohibited names and circumvent them with deft spelling variations or variations in the many fields which accompany the name. The Three Stooges appear hundreds to thousands of times via name and date variations. I personally have seen dozens of efforts to vary fields to submit the names of famous Jews (for whose names the Church scans as well).

Patrons rarely to never know the names of all the the "deceased's relatives," much less the Church.

P

[_Mister Scratch]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction. I am also in favor of the Church notifying the deceased's relatives, whenever possible, and giving them a kind of "reply period," so they can respond either pro or con. in my opinion, there is an element of sneakiness to proxy baptisms, as if the Church has something to hide (and hence the extreme reaction to folks such as Helen Radkey---if the Church had nothing to hide, Ms. Radkey would be no biggie, it seems to me). Of course, the argument against this kind of disclosure is always something along the lines of, "Oh, that would be so much work, and too much expense!", etc. Quite a lame excuse, in my opinion. A little hard work never hurt anyone.

The "Church" does not do the name submittals; patrons submit names. Church software scans the names for prohibited names and for the adequacy of the submittal, but patrons (who don't have to be members and are often not) frequently know about prohibited names and circumvent them with deft spelling variations or variations in the many fields which accompany the name. The Three Stooges appear hundreds to thousands of times via name and date variations. I personally have seen dozens of efforts to vary fields to submit the names of famous Jews (for whose names the Church scans as well).

Patrons rarely to never know the names of all the the "deceased's relatives," much less the Church.

P

Yes, and? This is just an excuse, and not a very good one. The Church should take more care and caution with this sacred ordinance. in my opinion, the current handling seems sloppy and haphazard.

[_rcrocket]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction. I am also in favor of the Church notifying the deceased's relatives, whenever possible, and giving them a kind of "reply period," so they can respond either pro or con. in my opinion, there is an element of sneakiness to proxy baptisms, as if the Church has something to hide (and hence the extreme reaction to folks such as Helen Radkey---if the Church had nothing to hide, Ms. Radkey would be no biggie, it seems to me). Of course, the argument against this kind of disclosure is always something along the lines of, "Oh, that would be so much work, and too much expense!", etc. Quite a lame excuse, in my opinion. A little hard work never hurt anyone.

The "Church" does not do the name submittals; patrons submit names. Church software scans the names for prohibited names and for the adequacy of the submittal, but patrons (who don't have to be members and are often not) frequently know about prohibited names and circumvent them with deft spelling variations or variations in the many fields which accompany the name. The Three Stooges appear hundreds to thousands of times via name and date variations. I personally have seen dozens of efforts to vary fields to submit the names of famous Jews (for whose names the Church scans as well).

Patrons rarely to never know the names of all the the "deceased's relatives," much less the Church.

P

Yes, and? This is just an excuse, and not a very good one. The Church should take more care and caution with this sacred ordinance. in my opinion, the current handling seems sloppy and haphazard.

The Church has scanning and intercepting software. It has human oversight to catch "blacklisted name." It responds to requests to remove names and does so without question unless the name was submitted by a descendant.

There is no known way on earth to confirm that a patron's submission is legitimate. I could submit "Maurice Fine," born Oct. 1, 1845, in Preston, England, died January 2, 1855 and there is no possible way to confirm my submission, or that I had submitted the name of a cat.

What about this process "seems sloppy and haphazard?" Something more than mocking rhetoric.

P

[_Mister Scratch]

The uproar over Simon Wiesenthal's proxy baptism reveals once again how offensive the ordinance of baptism for the dead can be for many non-LDS. Would it help calm the dispute if the baptismal and confirmation prayers for the dead were to include some contingency language, like "IF so-and-so accepts this ordinance in the next life"? Right now, the prayers are pretty absolute -- the deceased person IS baptized and IS confirmed a member of the LDS Church. The only contingency is that the person be dead (the "who is dead" language); perhaps it's time to add a second contingency, this one expressly stating that ordinances for the dead are contingent on the dead person's acceptance (this is already the explanation given by Mormons, so why not just put it in the ordinances themselves?).

I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction. I am also in favor of the Church notifying the deceased's relatives, whenever possible, and giving them a kind of "reply period," so they can respond either pro or con. in my opinion, there is an element of sneakiness to proxy baptisms, as if the Church has something to hide (and hence the extreme reaction to folks such as Helen Radkey---if the Church had nothing to hide, Ms. Radkey would be no biggie, it seems to me). Of course, the argument against this kind of disclosure is always something along the lines of, "Oh, that would be so much work, and too much expense!", etc. Quite a lame excuse, in my opinion. A little hard work never hurt anyone.

The "Church" does not do the name submittals; patrons submit names. Church software scans the names for prohibited names and for the adequacy of the submittal, but patrons (who don't have to be members and are often not) frequently know about prohibited names and circumvent them with deft spelling variations or variations in the many fields which accompany the name. The Three Stooges appear hundreds to thousands of times via name and date variations. I personally have seen dozens of efforts to vary fields to submit the names of famous Jews (for whose names the Church scans as well).

Patrons rarely to never know the names of all the the "deceased's relatives," much less the Church.

P

Yes, and? This is just an excuse, and not a very good one. The Church should take more care and caution with this sacred ordinance. in my opinion, the current handling seems sloppy and haphazard.

The Church has scanning and intercepting software. It has human oversight to catch "blacklisted name." It responds to requests to remove names and does so without question unless the name was submitted by a descendant.

There is no known way on earth to confirm that a patron's submission is legitimate. I could submit "Maurice Fine," born Oct. 1, 1845, in Preston, England, died January 2, 1855 and there is no possible way to confirm my submission, or that I had submitted the name of a cat.

What about this process "seems sloppy and haphazard?" Something more than mocking rhetoric.

P

in my opinion, the Church should be more proactive in researching the names. Instead, they it operates via this "safety net" process. It's as if they're saying, "Hey, yeah, go ahead, throw in every name but the kitchen sink!" When a name gets submitted, there should be a proactive effort on the part of the Church to verify the authenticity of the name.

[_Infymus]

I'm not sure that in the end it really matters. The Mormon machine is geared that everyone must do genealogy. Right now there are thousands of senior missionaries who are pouring over county court records all over America – just to funnel in names for baptism. There is no way to stop this and it is because of the Mormon mindset. In their minds, Mormonism is true – and because it is true, all things must be carried out with all due diligence.

They truly believe they are saving the world. In their minds they do not even think about the feelings of others, permission of others or how it is viewed in the mind of the world. It is an almost fanatical look at it. They honestly do not believe what they are doing is wrong because their doctrine states it is right and it must be done.

Honestly, I don’t believe there will ever be a way that it will be changed.

[_rcrocket]

in my opinion, the Church should be more proactive in researching the names. Instead, they it operates via this "safety net" process. It's as if they're saying, "Hey, yeah, go ahead, throw in every name but the kitchen sink!" When a name gets submitted, there should be a proactive effort on the part of the Church to verify the authenticity of the name.

You can't be more specific than that? If 20 million names are submitted a year by members, how are these names to be verified? The names come from a variety of sources, including oral tradition.

Moreover, name verification won't catch Holocaust names not on published Holocaust lists. How do you suggest one verify that a name is a Holocaust victim?

P

[_harmony]

If 20 million names are submitted a year by members, how are these names to be verified? The names come from a variety of sources, including oral tradition.

There's a very simple way to solve this problem: don't do 20 million names a year. Instead of doing all the names that are submitted, do only as many names as can be verified.

Simple solution.