Mormon baptism of non-Mormons: So what?

I would find it terribly insulting and obnoxious. I compare it to a scenario in which several Christians routinely visit my deceased Jewish grandfather's gravesite, and publicly and loudly pray that God pluck him out of hell and allow him into heaven. This Mormon baptism is a slightly less obnoxious version of this, I think.

It's not a huge deal. But my scenario above might incite me to thoughts (and perhaps actions) of violence. Some people wouldn't care... but when you get into the subject of judging (which this baptism seems to me to be, implicitly) someone's deceased family member, people can be a bit touchy.

I agree that it has no real religious significance, but still think it is an insult insofar as it is done entirely without the consent of the person involved.

Doesn't bother me a bit.

I mean, really. Suppose some witch doctor in Outer Nowhere decides to pronounce a curse on me. (Or, as in this case, a blessing.) Since I don't believe he has any supernatural power, why would I care one way or the other?

And as for the Mormons' (or the witch doctor's) opinion about whether I stand in need of their various spiritual help, well, we knew that already, didn't we? Didn't we already know that the Mormons think they have some unique key to salvation that the rest of us don't have? Why is acting on that belief an "insult"?

I don't get it. At worst all this seems well intentioned although misguided.

I agree with Odessa. You can choose to think of it as a horrible insult--an offense to the freedom and identity of the dead person--or you can just think, "Wow, in their own weird way, those people are trying to love us." Not that they're all trying to love us, but some Mormons at least have very good intentions. The idea is incorrect, but the motivations are kind and little harm is done. It's much different from, say, the misleading and negative portrait of Johnny Cash's first wife in Walk the Line, or even the mischaracterization of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in The DaVinci Code. That sort of artistic re-telling of a story takes on a life of its own and really does have a lasting affect on the public perception of a person.

Guys, this is against LDS church policy, which is that only ancestors and relatives of church members are to receive baptism. The people who were baptized for Obama's mom were probably some idiot college kids at BYU. This isn't how the Church operates, as these kids will find out soon enough.

First a disclaimer: I know next to nothing about LDS theology so these comments pertain to how this appears to an outsider, not to what members of the LDS church believe is happening.

I think that the sticking point is the term "baptism". Baptism is the point at which an individual is brought into a particular Church. The question of whether one can only join the Church voluntarily or if one can be forced into it is one that was largely settled quite early in the Church's history.

So it would appear that the LDS church, through this practice, turns its back on this long-standing tradition that pretty much every other Christian denomination subscribes to. Namely, they are being brought into a particular faith against their will (potentially at least).

Frankly, it seems a bit strange to me that someone who believed in eternal life would not be troubled by this, even if they believe that this is ineffectual. The intent to drag people into the LDS Church is there after all.

On the other hand, if death is the end and there is nothing beyond the grave, then it truly does not matter whether you get abptized after your death or not.

Geoff G.,

Your disclaimer says it all.

Baptism merely offers the dead the opportunity to accept baptism into the Church. The baptism is considered to be of no effect if they do not accept it. We do not pretend to have any idea who accepts baptism and who deos not. So no one is being dragged into the Church.

Okay, I am a seriously lapsed Mormon, But I have never understood why people think that it is "obnoxious" or "rude" when Mormons practice baptism for the dead. You have the right to believe that Mormons are stupid, or wrong, or non-Christian or whatever, But to feel that your ancestors have been in some way "wronged" is just about the most ludicrous thing I have heard. Yes, Mormons practice rituals over the names of your dead ancestors. So what? If you decided to wave your arms around in some sort of Catholic or Jewish or Orthodox ritual on behalf of one my ancestors, I wouldn't care.

"Your name" at 3:23 is me

Apparently the LDS leadership is taking the controversy seriously.

At least according to the statement highlighted in that YouTube clip.

But if rank-and-file members consider it a big "So What?" ... I guess we should all just go with that.

I'm always looking sideways at my Mormon cousins at reunions, thinking "Have you gone and gotten baptized for Grandma?" But I don't ask. They're nice people

Seems like a nice thing to do and if they want to baptize me, I'm all for it....I'll need all the help I can get to get into heaven...or wherever Mormans believe you go after you die.

Here's an article published on the LDS Ireland's website (originally from the Belfast Telegraph newspaper) on "What if the Mormons are Right?":

"Why are the Catholic bishops so concerned about Mormons baptising dead parishioners? The Mormons didn’t invent baptism of the dead....
"Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death...doesn’t it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?...

"The key point is, surely, that all religions believe that the soul, after death, at last knows what’s what — whether Hinduism...Catholicism or whatever is the true religion. What if it’s Mormonism? What if it’s an everyday occurrence on the other side that Catholics and Protestants are left standing dumbstruck at the Gates, gasping: “Mormons! Who’d have believed it?” And maybe a wife berating her husband: “There! I told you it would be the Mormons! But would you listen?! Now it’s eternal hellfire for the two of us, I hope you’re satisfied.”

"In that scenario, shouldn’t all members of all other religions be literally eternally grateful to the Mormons for sharing their saving grace even unto and after death?

"If, on the other hand, it isn’t the Mormons at all, those who turn out to have been right can wave a merry farewell to the crestfallen followers of Brigham Young as they trundle downwards to their eternal comeuppance.

Respect for the dead involves their memory and reputation as well as their physical remains. Just as it "doesn't matter" if a body is disinterred, of course it matters! (Here is a current interesting news story I found when googling for the spelling of 'disinterred', about a dead gay man who has been twice dug up and removed from a cemetery in Africa by people who did not want him buried there. So obviously it matters to people.)

It isn't just religious, it would be offensive to denigrate or disrespect a person's memory in any false or even truthful manner. Saying that a dead person was a fool is just as bad as saying they are destined for Hell for their beliefs.

It is also relevant for embryo ethics: we can respect a human body without declaring that it must be brought (back) to life. It's not murder to allow a dead person to decompose instead of reviving him, but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to it, either.

Frankly, it seems a bit strange to me that someone who believed in eternal life would not be troubled by this, even if they believe that this is ineffectual. The intent to drag people into the LDS Church is there after all.

On the other hand, if death is the end and there is nothing beyond the grave, then it truly does not matter whether you get abptized after your death or not.

Actually, my observation has been just the opposite. The people who get most incensed by this seem to be, for the most part, people who don't believe in an afterlife. The people who do believe in an afterlife and are spiritually happy where they are don't seem to care very much whether Mormons baptize them and their ancestors by proxy or not.

But then, if you don't believe in an afterlife, then as far as you are concerned this life is all there is, and gestures made in this life assume a great deal of importance.

I think the problem that relatives of Holocaust survivors have with it is that there is a long history of Jews being forced to accept baptism or be punished. Since the Jews killed in the Holocaust were killed precisely because they were Jews, baptising them by proxy -- even if you don't believe it has any value -- seems tantamount to saying that they aren't really Jews anymore, or that the fact that they were Jewish is unimportant.

And of course, there is the fact they these people aren't there to accept or refuse on their own behalf, i.e. they are no longer here to speak for themselves.

A while back, Rod posted a video by Penn Jillette in which he told the story of an evangelical Christian who came to his dressing room after a show and gave him a pocket New Testament. Although Jillette remained an unbeliever, he was moved that the man cared enough about Jillette's eternal salvation to make the gesture.

If Mormons believe in good faith that they are assisting people to gain Heaven by their posthumous, vicarious baptisms, at least their motivations are pure. The whole idea is preposterous, of course, but there is no cause for taking offense.

Honestly, why would one care? My body after I die is worthless and has no significance if someone "baptizes" me after my soul has moved on.

I studied with the Mormons when I was young. They are a kind people but on the scale of weird they rank up there. Same with Seventh Day Adventist and JW. Yeah, I got around the different sects. What can I say, my parents were always searching for the truth but sadly never found it.

You can call it reasonable or not, but let me say as someone whose family is largely Hindu, that Hindus would take it very, very personally if their dead relatives were being posthumously baptized, and it would set back Hindu-Christian relations quite a bit. People are not always rational, nor should they be.

As a Christian I believe that the dead can be helped by my prayers, that's why I pray for the dead. Why is it so unfathomable that a Jew, or a Hindu or Buddhist, might think that the dead can be _hurt_ by prayers as well?

MC, thanks for the clarification. May I ask if "baptism" is a term that the LDS Church uses for this particular rite? If so, then the issue is simply a misunderstanding based on different definitions for the same word (and if I understand correctly, the situation is complicated by the LDS Church having "baptism" for the living which is acceptance of the faith).

On the other hand, if the Church has its own term for the rite and "baptism" is an unofficial tag, then what we need is more precise terms in our reporting.

It's difficult to see how anyone would have problems with extending the offer of membership in the Church to the deceased. Unfortunately, the popular misperception seems to be what you're running up against here.

I'm a Mormon. To most people I've talked to, "baptism for the dead" seemed weird, but it's also a selling point. The LDS faith believes that everybody must accept Jesus Christ, and getting baptized is part of/representative of that. We also believe that everybody will get a legitimate opportunity to do that, whether here in this life or waiting in the spirit world (prior to judgment). Since baptism is a physical ceremony, it has to be done physically, so we do it on behalf of our dead relatives (family is big for Mormons). It doesn't automatically make them Mormon. It doesn't mean anything at all if they don't accept it, other than we've done our duty by them (if that makes any sense).

The LDS church is very concerned not to offend anybody, but we individual members may come across overzealous. People sometimes find that offensive.

I find it offensive to be told I'm not Christian. I don't know why I should care, but it offends me.

I don't understand why this upsets people. If I honestly believed that a by-proxy baptism ceremony would assist someone alive or dead to obtain salvation, I would do it, too.

I pray for souls in purgatory, regardless of whether they have asked me to or not.

Geoff G.,

It's simpler than you think. Mormons baptize by immersion, for repentance and entry into the Church. When someone submits the name of a deceased person for baptism, an already-baptized member of the Church (often a decendant) will be baptized, literally, in the temple, in the dead person's name and on their behalf. The idea is that not everyone has a chance to learn the Gospel in this life and be baptized, so this provides them an opportunity to receive baptism. It's still up to them whether to accept it.

Rod, I'm a non-member and I said the same thing. I really don't get how believing that you've offered my dead relatives a chance for salvation and they may or may not have accepted is supposed to be more offensive than believing they're in a spiritual holding area being taught the Mormon gospel and waiting to have baptism and other ordinances performed so they can accept it.

The latter is what Mormons believe by default and no one complains. I don't get why letting Mormons upgrade things to their beliefs to the former is such a bad thing.

All this talk of Mormon humility, inoffensiveness, and claims about their live-and-let-live attitudes strike this gay Californian as rather odd...

Come on, BobN. Family members hurt each other through their choices all the time. Doesn't mean we can take away their choices or their consequences.

Hey if you don't believe what us Mormons say or do why should you be worried about what they are doing. Plus the dead get a chance to accept or not. Dont worry about it because even if they do accept the baptism you wouldn't have the slightest idea.

BOBN to answer your question no it is not mean everybody will have a chance either here on earth or in the after life.You will have the chance here and in the afterlife to accept it or decline it. Those Guys and ladies walking around everywhere (Mormon missionaries) are the ones spreading the word here. GOD is fair we are not.

Now dont you thing this is fair that even when you decline it here you will here it one more time when you are dead? Pretty fair for me.

BobN,

"[C]onversion of the unwilling"? Go back and re-read the prior comments, unless you're just trying to be a smart-aleck.

As for your question:

1. I think that the question of "what happens to my family members who don't accept Christ?" is one that all Christians must confront, not just Mormons. Mormons are actually more expansive in this regard, in that they extend the opportunity to accept Christ into the next life.

2. In my experience, most Mormons believe that the vast majority of their ancestors will, sooner or later, accept the Gospel. They may be wrong, but I think most of them believe that.

3. If you believe, as Mormons do, that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, then we are all part of a larger human family. Brigham Young taught that the whole human family will eventually be bound together in one great chain of families, all the way back to Adam and Eve, through the Gospel ordinances. That will be true even if the chain must skip a few links.

4. The Mormon conception of Heaven and Hell differs from that of other Christians, in a way that defies short summary here. I'll refer you to this summary of some of Joseph Smith's teaching on the subject:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4fa720596a845110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Get back to me, North Carolinian, when gay people get the state to dissolve your marriage.

"[C]onversion of the unwilling"?

Conversion of the unconsulted, then. How's that?

I understand how you look at it and I can see the appeal. In fact, I'm counting on the same effect with my soon-to-commence, posthumous, same-sex marriages.

As for my smartaleciness, it was a sincere question. I was under the impression that Mormons put a lot of emphasis on direct and close family ties in the afterlife. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I fully agree with MC's statement at 3:15 and other statements that agree with it. I'm a lifelong Mormon, served a mission, and remain active in my local congregation. We (Mormons) certainly mean no disrespect to anyone and gladly accept any prayers on our behalf from those in other religions.

I've been taught my whole life that agency (the ability to decide for oneself) is of highest importance. This includes to choice to accept baptism or not.

One of our scriptures states clearly, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6). One of our hymns declares "Know this, that ev’ry soul is free / To choose his life and what he’ll be; / For this eternal truth is giv’n: / That God will force no man to heav’n." (Hymns, #240)

Mormons believe that baptism by proper authority is not just important, it is essential to salvation. Thus, out of love for our brothers and sisters, we offer it to all of God's children. This is done most visibly through our extensive missionary program, which offers baptism to the living. Those who choose to accept it are baptized.

We believe that there is still a chance to accept baptism after death and that some (but not all) do. Since we don't know who might accept it, we offer it to all. In this way, no one (living or dead) is left without a chance to accept baptims, if they so choose. It has always been and always will be the choice of the individual.

OK, I was a little off, although not too much. Here is a link on baptism for the dead and is one on Mormon eschatology.

"All this talk of Mormon humility, inoffensiveness, and claims about their live-and-let-live attitudes strike this gay Californian as rather odd..."

- I'm pretty sure that no mormon supporters of prop 8 beat up and were charged with assault on elderly supporters of "No on 8", ensured supporters of the "no" side were pressured and insulted to the point that they resigned from their jobs, boycotted businesses of "no on 8" supporters." But I'm pretty sure all of that and more is precisely what the No on 8 side did...so humble, so inoffensive, so meek.

"I understand how you look at it and I can see the appeal. In fact, I'm counting on the same effect with my soon-to-commence, posthumous, same-sex marriages."

- Tell you what. Go down to your local geneological library, pull your favorite ten names and I'll send you my personal information so you can perform whatever type of marriage you'd like. I'll bet you'd really get a kick out of performing some polygamous same-sex marriages. For me, I could really care less.

"As for my smartaleciness, it was a sincere question. I was under the impression that Mormons put a lot of emphasis on direct and close family ties in the afterlife. Forgive me if I'm wrong."

- The point is, mormons are the only ones that believe in families in the afterlife, and it is only through the temple that families can be together forever. Without the ordinances of the temple, there are no eternal families to begin with. If familiies were already together on the other side, we wouldn't need the temple in the first place now would we? I would challenge you to find any religion outside of the LDS church that teaches that families are eternal, or has even heard the concept. For most, if not all other religions, family life is confined to this sphere. Period. End of story.

Period. End of story.

Guess you haven't heard of ancestor-worshipping cultures or animists.

Anyway, calm down because you still haven't addressed my question and, in fact, seem to be reinforcing my POV. If families are eternal and you really do mean direct family members, as opposed to wishy-washy "human family" stuff, then the lack of any other family members joining, for example, a holocaust victim in conversion would be at least unfortunate for that individual, no?

(As for your claims about Prop 8, they're not quite accurate, and you failed to mention the gay people assaulted by Yes-on-8 supporters. Some people, on both sides, behaved badly. Still, as far as I can tell, Mormons aren't the ones the State of California will soon start treating as second-class citizens.)

BobN, LDS doctrine teaches that families can be "sealed" (Mormon term) together for eternity, and yes, that means a direct relative chain that eventually connects all people to Adam and Eve. Those who don't want to be part of that won't be forced to be. If you are the only person in your immediate family to accept this, you will be linked in somewhere in that chain and the rest of your immediate family will not (their choice). That doesn't mean you won't ever get to see them again, but it isn't the same as being "sealed" either.

Obviously, divorces and other things can make a mess out of families, and we assume there'll be some sorting out to do. Mormons take this on faith. We don't know all the details. Most of LDS doctrine seems to be directed at affecting its members perspective and behavior. We strive for ideals that we don't often realize in this life.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.

We had Mormon neighbors when I was growing up and my father had helped through some hard times and as such had become very dear to them so that they mourned him deeply when he died. Some years after that (having kept in touch with me) they asked me for permission to baptize him posthumously. Now, the picture that flitted through my mind was of my father being dragged by the Mormon angels kicking and screaming out of non-Mormon limbo, but I allowed it as a comfort to these poeople. Their belief was not and is not my belief (I was not Orthodox when this request was made of me) and I can't imagine it will have any effect on my father's eventual fate. Yet again: how many of us pray for our ancestors, even our distant ancestors, in the hope that our prayers will avail them in the world to come?

My 2c:

If someone walked through the pages of American history and changed the records so that every one of our 43 presidents was from the same political party, I would object.

Someone walking through pages of genealogy and changing records so that everyone who appears there is of the same faith is no less offensive a re-writing of history.

It seems to me an effort to literally re-write history, and on that basis it should be opposed.

Of course people want to be mad at the Mormons...it's the Mormons after all! They are the new group to hate and demoralize....feels good doesn't it?

Remember all the Catholics who run around in the hospitals saying a prayer for you and baptizing your infants without your permission? There are no genealogy papers being changed, just a notation that the baptism occurred after the death. Harmless. I'm not even Mormon, but I know enough to tell you that your panties are in a wad because you are a religious bigot!

Kathleen. For some Christians baptism is symbolic of an internal change that has already happened. I hate to tell you this but for the majority of Christians, baptism is a real occurence that causes real change and and of itself and is not symbolic of an earlier change. Your first point, however, is valid.

To the self-deprecating Chris, if you get this far in the comments, you said: "Someone walking through pages of genealogy and changing records so that everyone who appears there is of the same faith..."

I don't understand what you mean. What records are being changed? I thought the Mormons were just mumbling some words?

The Mormons are great supporters of genealogy. Thousands of non-Mormons as well as church members volunteer at their Family History Centers and are busily indexing the millions of world-wide records which they have micro-filmed and are now digitizing. They have made all their records freely available to anyone in the world who wants it. Their website at www.familysearch.org is a wonder.

Mormons offer blessings (baptism, sealings) to people who are related to them no matter what their religion. If someone said "God Bless You" to you, and you didn't believe in God, would you throw a fit? I doubt it. You might say thank you, if you had good manners, or just ignore it. Your choice.

"I say, So what if they did? What is that to me?"

Now you know how supporters of gay marriage feel, Rod.

"'I say, So what if they did? What is that to me?' RD 'Now you know how supporters of gay marriage feel, Rod.' ts"

TR: Mormons are a private group not a state. If the state recognized posthumous baptism, by say placing Mormon symbols on the graves of soldiers posthumously baptized, Rod would probably object. It's not the same at all.

I said nothing of "destroying society" I just said there's a big difference between private groups doing things that do nothing to you and the state validating things.

I'd agree that if Rod is okay with this, but dislikes private groups marrying two men, than he's inconsistent at best. I just don't think he's at that point. I've seen very few SSM opponents who want it banned in the way interracial marriage was banned. (As in you pay a fine or go to jail) If Rod thinks my lesbian cousin in Kansas should go to jail for her unrecognized "marriage" than I agree a lackadaisical attitude to Mormon deals could be odd.

Granted I haven't dealt with the consent issue, but that's because at this level it's a total non-issue. The dead person is not forced to do anything. So this is akin to people doing or saying things about you. Well there are no rules on that nor should there be. People can/should be able to pray to Vishnu for me without my permission, tell me I'm going bald without my permission, and complain about me without my permission. Transgendered men dressed as Sarah Palin for Halloween, as I recall, and I doubt they needed her permission. (Nor should they have needed it)

It should also be noted that if she was sealed to her husband, then she entered into ‘the New and Everlasting covenant of plural marriage’. So, Mormons basically believe that she is a Mormon and a polygamist in the next life.

D & C 132.

Gee, what a disingenuous "correction" by "Elder" Christofferson.

Sir, nobody is misunderstanding your actions: deceased souls ARE being baptized into the Mormon faith without their, or anybody else's knowledge. You've been caught out with your pants down in the past for doing exactly this. Fifteen years ago the Mormon church was busted for demeaning and diminishing the significance of the deaths of eight million Holocaust victims. Apparently the stark irony of baptizing eight million Jews into a faith that purports to represent Jesus Christ when those same Jews were killed for being Jewish by Jew-hating Christians has never crossed your minds. Not to mention the crass arrogance and insensitivity of such an act. You want to annihilate their faith and heritage all over again, as well as disrespect their memory in the face of their descendants.

Your church has been caught twice since then disregarding the polite request of Jewish representatives to cease and desist. The only possible explanation for why you have not refrained from doing so can only be that your cultural egotism is of such magnitude that it can not allow you to be perceived as wrong, or allow you to be corrected socially. It continues that, by doing so, your church is as much a denier of the Holocaust and its significance as any other organization or individual who publishes the sentiment.

Now you have been caught again with your pants down performing this bizarre ghoulish "ordinance" on an individual only one generation removed from her living descendants, without their permission. You've chosen to attempt to defend yourselves by claiming that this is how you choose to worship your god. Notwithstanding the silliness of your entire defense, you lie when you try to distance yourselves from the premise that you seek to impose your Mormon faith on the deceased ancestors of others. If not that, then exactly what do you think you're doing? You claim as part of your defense that "God gave man his agency from the beginning" yet your church steadfastly continues to seek to deny anybody it disagrees with that very agency in fact. The Mormon church's political machinations, veiled behind half-truths and outright lies, is adequate proof of that policy in action. Necro-baptisms is simply another form of the Mormon policy of forcing everyone, dead or alive, into complying with your church's goals.

Lastly, you commit another outright lie when you state that "The Church does not list them on its rolls or count them in its membership." You certainly do. You keep the names of all people who have ever received that "ordinance" on a marked list. Anyone who is a temple-recommend-holding member of your church may look up any name found on that list and see that there is a check mark denoting whether the "ordinances" the church deems necessary for spiritual progression have been performed. Additionally, the Mormon church keeps the names of non-active members on a list until they reach the age, living or not, of 120 years before they are cycled out and processed, any unperformed "ordinances" then being performed for them in your temples. And finally, in addition to that, the Mormon church keeps all the names of former members (those who have been excommunicated or who have resigned) on the same list. When the name reaches 120 years of age according to those records, they are also processed through your temples and all the "ordinances" they were deprived of or repudiated in life are then re-imposed on them.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Christofferson, and neither do three wrongs. Or four. Or many. Your church and its representatives lie through your collective teeth regularly when it comes to this issue, and the only way to make it stop is simply for you to stop lying and stop doing stupid arrogant things to others who do not share your ghoulish cultish tendencies. There are by now enough former Mormons (myself included) in the real world of good sense who understand that what your church is up to amounts to an invasion of personal boundaries. After being personally subjected to the entire falsehood of your religion and rejecting it for what it is (a bundle of flat-out lies), we have no intention of allowing you to publish unchallenged any more of the falsehoods you trot out in defense of the indefensible in hopes of duping the uninformed.

Mormons just don't seem to understand how offensive and "creepy" this practice is. Religion is such an important part of a person's identity, and to find out that your great aunt, who devoted her life as a Benedictine nun, is now being baptized by some strange religion posthumously creeps people out and angers them. It dishonors the memory of the deceased, and shows the hubris of Mormonism that all must be baptized Mormon or be damned, even involuntarily in the afterlife.

Mormons use the cop out that the dead can reject these, but this is like being registered for a political party we despise and granted an opt out later.

We now know why Mormons spend so much time and energy building temples and doing genealogy: it's so that they can register all those who rejected Mormonism in life after they no longer have a voice on Earth.

Mormons should be required to get the permission of family members before pursuing this practice, but that would grind their efforts to a complete halt.

Cecilia: Actually, the Catholic Church accepts most, but not all, non-Catholic baptisms. A valid baptism must use immersion or pouring of water, the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and must intend to do what the Church intends to do. Thus, some independent Pentecostal churches have been known to baptize "In the name of the Lord Jesus", and some liberal pastors have used PC formulas such as, "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier". Such baptisms, since they do not use the traditional Trinitarian formula, would not be considered valid, and re-baptism would be necessary.

The other invalidating issue is intent to do what the Church intends to do. Two or three years ago the Vatican announced that Mormon baptisms were not to be considered valid. The reason given was that although the correct form and words were used, the Mormon beliefs about the Trinity were so divergent from those of the Catholic Church that the intent was not the correct intent for baptism as Catholicism understands it.

I would assume that some similar idea is behind Mormon re-baptism of the dead. Not being LDS, I don't know the policy on converts from other Christian churches, but if the universal policy is to baptize them in a Mormon context, then I assume it's because the Mormon Church doesn't recognize non-Mormon baptism--which is its prerogative.

Don't forget, they are not just baptizing your ancestors. They're making covenants with god for them (endowments) and also marrying them for "all eternity" if they were married in this life...Baptism is just the beginning...seriously.

hattio, what other churches require you to tithe at 10% in order to receive "saving ordinances"? Can you name one? I suppose the Scientologists require payment for salvation, but I have not heard of 10%...

Mormons are very different from other churches.

hattio,

I am also agnostic. I was raised LDS and know quite a bit about their teachings, I even went on a mormon mission back in my believing years. According to Mormonism, you must pay to be saved. I don't know of any church that requires payment for salvation. Yes, all churches want donations, may even require them, but do they require them as a member, or before they can be saved? In mormonism, you must pay 10% of whatever you earn to the church, if you don't you don't get permission (called a temple recommend) to go to the temple. Per mormon dogma, you must attend the temple to make it to mormon heaven. So, don't pay, don't go to heaven.

I won't get into the details here of how the mormon church is different. That would take numerous volumes. I do believe that anyone who tells you that they know god, is a liar. All religion is just a tool to control and extract payment.

Cecelia,
Read the other comments. No, not everyone is baptized in the name of the fathe rthe son and the holy spirit. Some are baptized in Jesus' name.

It's completely creepy, thoroughly intrusive and utterly dishonorable. Religious affiliation involves
more than one party participating. What the hell is going on with the Mormans?!?

You know disliking Mormonism is one of the rare things I've seen to really unite the Left and Right. Much of the conversation here is essentially the same as on Left-wing Pro-Obama groups I've seen.

Note: I think Mormonism is largely based in occultism, revisionist history, and so forth but sheesh.

Well that's different because Catholic baptism is different and babies, on some level, are aware of surroundings.

Whatever you felt about it that is certainly not supposed to be allowed in Catholic hospitals, it is specifically forbidden in fact. This kind of abuse in Catholic hospitals is something I'd never heard of before and I'm rather disturbed by stories of it on this thread.

And you might say "huh why are you disturbed, I'm not?" For a Catholic baptism isn't like what posthumous baptism is to Mormons. Many Catholics will think, on some level, that the baby is Catholic because it's baptized Catholic regardless of what happens. Further it is a form of disrespecting the relationship of parent and child.Lastly it may encourage hostility between Catholics and other faith.

For quotes on the matter

"If, however, they (children) have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will" Thomas Aquinas

Although the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 does give provisos like

"for it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from the parental care and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were perpetually insane; or if one of the parents were to consent to the baptism; or finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be willing, even though the mother objected." (Catholic Encyclopedia 1911 is kind-of sexist)

Still generally it seems to indicate the baby has to be dying or there has to be a grandparent agreeing. (I think this is too low a standard and would likely not be acceptable today)

Granted the Church has rules it's ostensibly orthodox members also don't obey. There's an encyclical from the eighteenth century explicitly saying that priest candidates have to be people who can be trusted around children. Still this kind of stuff I disapprove.

Chris, thanks for your response. And Elder D. Todd Christofferson, that is one of the most deeply insulting, ignorant, and arrogant comments I have ever read on this blog.