Baptisms for the Dead

So today I read another letter in The Salt Lake Tribune about baptisms for the dead. For those of you who don't know, the Catholic church recently told its parishes to stop letting the church copy parish records (marriages, christenings, deaths, etc.) because the church uses these records to record genealogy and then uses the genealogy to do baptisms for the dead. The Catholic church doesn't believe in baptism for the dead so they don't want it done. This is not new. Jews complained about holocaust victims being baptized posthumously. I think this debate has more to do with a misunderstanding of the practice in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than anything. The church itself will respect the wishes of those who don't want ancestors baptized posthumously and has asked that holocaust victims not receive this ordinance. Some still do because church members are not always aware of the policy and sometimes make mistakes.

I'm getting a bit sidetracked here. The Tribune article I read complained that by doing baptisms for the dead that meant that the dead didn't have the right to practice their religion. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that the baptisms for the dead (done by proxy) will be recognized by God and be in force and valid on the dead person. The problem is that this would require God to agree with the practice (otherwise he could just nullify or never recognize it). If this is the case then why do we care if God is approving of it. Someone who doesn't believe in the LDS church and its teachings should therefore not care about the practice. Next, the argument assumes that the person posthumously baptized would have no choice in accepting the baptism. The problem with this is that by LDS church doctrine the person must accept the baptism and is free to refuse it. This means that what is really being done are possible baptisms for the dead. If the person doesn't want it they can refuse it by LDS doctrine. So there really isn't an argument for the dead being forced into baptism.

People can still be annoyed at the practice. Perhaps they think by using an ancestor's name the person is being dishonored. I can say that the practice is done respectfully. Also, the names submitted are usually from descendants meaning the person's family is usually requesting the baptisms for the dead. It may help to think of the practice in the same way you'd think about someone praying for you. If someone prays for their neighbor's wellbeing and that neighbor isn't of the same faith they could become offended. If someone dies and you pray for their soul one of their relatives could get offended. Yet in each of these circumstances people would generally see the offense as being a little silly. It is the same way with baptisms for the dead. The people's names are used (just as you might use someone's name in a prayer) but it is respectful and is not binding on them at all if they don't want it to be (and if you aren't LDS you shouldn't believe it will be binding on them even if they wanted to be LDS because you wouldn't believe in baptisms for the dead).

One last thing. I looked at the comments on the article. If a comment gets too many negative votes it becomes hidden. Well almost all of the pro-LDS and pro-baptism for the dead comments (no matter how respectful) were hidden whereas very few of the opposite side of the argument were hidden because of negative votes. This disappoints me. It looks like some people don't want to hear anything but their point of view.