Do you think religious groups should be permitted to "baptize the dead" of other faiths?
If members of a religion (not your own) had conducted ceremonial baptisms of deceased members of your family, what would be your reaction? Should this practice be permitted as an expression of freedom of religion, or could it be considered by the surviving family as dishonoring the memory of a dead relative?
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtm... takes the "pro" side of the issue (LDS), and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036093.html expresses an opposing view (Judaism).
- ChayaLv 610 years agoFavorite Answer
Obviously they have freedom to waste their breath and good water which would be better utilized on their houseplants. From my reading of your link, it is not just those people whose relatives suggest they be baptized, but to "offer" it to anyone. How you "offer" and at the same time "baptize" that person I'll never know, but it is irrelevant because it isn't going to work.
Still, it is an insult. Mormons have stopped up their ears to the cries of re-traumatization of the families. Trying to force your dead loved ones to convert after they were martyred in the first place adds Insult to injury.
If one Jew said "Gee, that is insulting" they should have the grace to apologize and stop it if they were decent human beings. But they agreed to stop it, and then crawfished, so they also don't honor their agreements. Two strikes for "false" and not "true" church/religion.
That is also one spiritually abusive and therefore 3rd strike "untrue: system to do such a thing. If anything is a big red flag of untruth, forcing conversion would be it. Try baptizing your neighbors' cats in the bathtub -- expect some pushback from their families..
Jews fortunately have a built in fail-safe system against any kind of spiritual hijacking attempts of our souls.
The fail-safe system is Kaddish. We pray for 11 months every time we get together & there are 10 people at least (a minyan) for those 11 months. Then, every year forever after than we remember them (either individuals or groups) on every anniversary of their passing (Yahrzeit).
This remembrance is focused, intense, and substantial. We are still blessing God and remembering martyrs from thousands of years ago on their yearly anniversaries. We still pray for people who lost their lives at Hannukkah when it first happened, the destruction of both temples, as well as the Holocaust.
This is why we see it as so offensive-- Jewish souls are precious and we are all intertwined.
So people in some other religion can set fire to their hair, run around the football field on their knees, -- but it won't work.
I suspect this is some sort of spiritual 'scalp' game of trying to get points to get into heaven at the expense of these Jewish martyrs. I can't help but think such a violation would backfire in the end.Source(s): Jewish Kavanah
- Grela LaTucLv 710 years ago
You need to look at it this way. Say you die and find out that the LDS Church was correct in its teaching that it was the Church organized by Jesus and, that in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, one must be baptized by one in authority, as is stated in the Bible. Wouldn't you be glad to discover that this necessary ordinance had been done on your behalf? You still have the free will of accepting that proxy baptism or rejecting it.
Now, if the Church is wrong, what harm has been done? God knows what you did in this life. He would also know that anything that the Church did would not be binding because it was never authorized by Him.
And, those decedents the Church does the proxy baptisms for are never listed as members of the Church, all the work is done for the afterlife.
- Truth_SeekerLv 510 years ago
Hey they can baptize me after I'm dead.. guess how much it matters.... only to them and my children will know it is just a silly religion and it's ceremony and it absolutely accomplishes nothing spiritual or physical so they could care less as well. Baptize away.
- EdsLv 710 years ago
I feel it is not an honorable thing to do at all. I also do not find any example of it in the BIBLE. It was first begun by the Catholic Church if I remember correctly when they were "selling forgiveness" for those who had already perished. I can look the Historical reference up if someone does not believe me and probably find the dates. I do my best to read, study, and obey the BIBLE. Have a great weekend.
.Source(s): ~~~~~ LOVE I F E ~~~~~
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 10 years ago
Absolutely not!! It is not right to 'baptize' the dead. It's disrespectful to their memory and to their family that are still living. Keep your holy water to yourself and in your own religion please.
I do not feel that this is considered 'expression of freedom of religion'. Where is the freedom of religion or freedom FROM religion in the baptism of a deceased family member where they cannot give consent?
- scaerdrysLv 710 years ago
*Sigh* Whenever the Mormons start screaming that their 'freedom of religion' has been violated, it's either because they've been marrying 12 year old girls to 70 year old men who already have eight wives, or baptizing Holocaust victims...and they pretend not to know why they can't get any respect.
So, to answer your question: No, and it is sick that the Mormon Church feels that it can just baptize Holocaust victims. Those people were targeted in life for no reason other than that they were Jews. They had no voice and could not protect themselves from that. They have been victimized enough. They should not be targeted in death for some weird religious gratification by the Mormons. To make this even more sick---they PROMISED that they would not baptize victims of the Holocaust...then happily went right along to doing just that, in spite of the protests of the victim's next of kin. Honestly, if Ernest Michal's group is not going to sue the Mormon Church over this, someone should. You can't appeal to 'the court of public opinion' when the defendent doens't know what shame is.
The argument that 'freedom of religion' protects the rights of Mormons to baptize non-Mormon people without their consent---and in spite of the protests of their next of kin and other groups representing their memory---is risable. Someone who passed 9th grade civics should explain to them what the expression means, sometime. It's not a loophole in the Constitution that allows a religious group to break all kinds of legal and ethical codes, incorporate their screwed-up misdeeds 'into their religion', and then claim that they are untouchable.
- 10 years ago
Oh hell no! This is taking away the choice of freedom of religion and choice for the deceased person(s). What are they thinking when they do that? That they are going to change that persons outcome of going to heaven or hell? Take away that persons sins? If it's something that the deceased didn't want it's taking away every kind of freedom. This is totally insane and should not be legal.
- onefaithLv 510 years ago
I guess you have to ask this question. Does this benefit the deceased or the living? For one thing it doesn't benefit the one that has pasted away! It will not save him/her when judgment happens. I mean they should have received Christ Jesus when they had the chance while alive. Now as for the living...it probably gives them comfort and peace of mind in knowing that their love one has been baptized. But, the truth is that they are believing a false hope that is contrary to the word of God. As for the church permitting this kind of action is absolutely wrong in practicing this.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Here's the deal.
When the Holocaust records were made available, the Mormon church signed a formal, legally-binding agreement that they would not use the information to perform posthumous baptisms. They have repeatedly ignored that promise, which is both ignorant and dishonourable.
You make a promise, you keep the promise, simple as that.
- AL E. ATORIOLv 710 years ago
First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians chapter fifteen, verse twenty-nine (1611 Athorized King James Version)
"Else what shall they do which are baptzed for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptzed for the dead?" If the Lord God said to his servent Paul to reveal it, then it should be done. Otherwise, why would it be said if Paul were a false prophet and the verse was added to the Bible?