Undiplomatic Banner
6th May 2009 Charles J. Brown
10:49 am

What about Dad?


I’m not a big fan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known to most folks as the Mormons.  Their decision to fund Proposition 8 in California angered me, and their history of prejudice and polygamy is not pretty.  To be clear, rare is the faith that doesn’t have skeletons in abundance, and I try not to judge individuals for the missteps of their religion — otherwise, I’d be hating myself.

That said, this is a bit ridiculous:

A reader contacted me last week, saying that last year, in the heat of the presidential campaign, the Mormons had posthumously baptized Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Baptizing the dead of other faiths, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice. For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism - despite strong objections from the Jewish community.

As Ta-Nehesi Coates (h/t) notes,

I think the arrogance of “baptizing” someone posthumously says a lot. I think the arrogance of baptizing someone who’s child, only 30 years ago, would have been scorned in your church says even more.

I agree, but I would take it one step further.  What about Obama’s dad?  Why didn’t this person petition to baptize him?  It wouldn’t be because of his race non-citizenship, would it?  Maybe not.  But it is a good quesiton to ask.

For those unfamiliar with the practice, here’s a good summary via Wikipedia:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that baptism is a prerequisite for entry into the kingdom of God as stated by Jesus in John 3:5: “Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (KJV).

The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God. . . .

Any member of the LDS church, male or female, who is at least 12 years old and holds a current temple recommend may act as a proxy in this ordinance. Men must also hold the Aaronic Priesthood prior to entering the temple. A man must act as proxy for a deceased man, and a woman must act as proxy for a deceased woman. The concept of a spiritual proxy is compared by some in the LDS Church to the belief that Jesus acted as proxy for every human when he atoned for the sins of the world.

In the case of Obama’s mom, it wasn’t a relative who made the request, so the baptism is likely to be reversed.  But you have to wonder whether the Church gets how offensive this can be.  Here’s what an LDS spokesperson said in response to the reports:

Mormon Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said that “the offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related. The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such.”

If you accept the LDS statement at face value, why don’t they also regard the forcible baptism of Holocaust victims a “serious matter”?   Jewish leaders in New York and elsewhere have been trying for years to get the LDS to stop this practice, but to date, the church has argued that they only do it for ancestors of those among the faithful, and only when they request it.

I can only conclude that the Church believes that forcibly baptizing someone after their death is okay, but only if it’s done at the request of a relative.  I’m not sure I’d want that standard applied to my family.  If, for example, I became a member of the LDS and decided to follow this practice, I could theoretically baptize my grandparents, all four of whom are deceased.  All four were devout Catholics, and I think all four would not exactly be happy with my decision.

Free will, white courtesy phone please.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am and is filed under media, politics, pop culture. It is tagged under , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There is currently one response to “What about Dad?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On May 7th, 2009, Seth R. said:

    Few points here:

    1. A temple baptism does not make a person “a Mormon.”

    All it does is OFFER the option to the deceased. If they choose to accept it or reject it, that is there business. But we do not assume that they are Mormons once the baptism has been done and we do not report them on our membership rolls or numbers.

    2. The agreement with the Jewish Holocaust survivors group was that the LDS Church would try to halt all baptisms done for Jewish holocaust victims EXCEPT when done by a direct descendant of those victims. Mormons who are descended from the victims are good to go - and that was the nature of the agreement from day one. There was never any agreement to halt all such baptisms.

    3. The LDS Church has a general policy that its members should only submit names they are actually related to. I am not supposed to go out there and submit Elvis’s information and run some temple ordinances for him because I’m not a descendant. This is general Church policy and they’ve tried to enforce it at every opportunity.

    4. The LDS temple database is kind of an open-source model. Anyone can submit information freely. Thousands of names are submitted on a daily basis. It is impossible for the LDS Church to police all names submitted to the database. Usually, the best they can do is correct things after the fact when a incident is reported.

    5. Final point is a repeat - there is no force or coercion involved in the LDS baptismal process. The deceased has a free choice.

    On a sidenote, just in case anybody asks - no, I don’t care if you “baptize” me, my wife, and my kids as atheists. It makes no difference to me if you do that, because I DON’T BELIEVE IN IT.

    Honestly, I don’t see why it ought to matter to anyone else either. I mean, it’s not like you believe these baptisms do anything in the first place, right?

Leave a Reply

CAPTCHA image