President Obama’s mother is the latest prominent name reported to have been baptized and endowed vicariously in the Provo Temple. The LDS Church is investigating the report while clarifying that any ordinances performed without a relative’s consent is inappropriate.
“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,” said LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter.
The Politico picked up on the story and has an image of the ordinance record with another statement from the Church.
According to “doctrinal background” provided by an LDS spokesman, “well-meaning Church members sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives for temple baptism. Others — perhaps pranksters or careless persons — have submitted the names of unrelated famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. These rare acts are contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment.”
I must confess to not having as much sympathy as I probably should for those who get outraged over this. Who cares if some misguided (but well-intended) church wants to do perform a baptism, in-name-only, as a means of offering voluntary salvation for someone who has passed on? If you don’t believe it’s a true practice, does it really matter? And if Mormons are right, wouldn’t it be a nice insurance policy?
Regardless, the practice does sound weird to many and it does bother some people. So to give further reassurance to those unsettled by the practice of Baptism for the Dead, perhaps the LDS Church could take a page from some atheists and offer a Certificate of Debaptism.
For the nonbeliever, these certificates are just as meaningful and effective as vicarious temple baptisms. To resolve any qualms over the ecclesiastical designation of a dearly departed, simply download and fill out. It would be as easy as that.
(Incidentally, the baptism was discovered and publicized by Helen Radkey, an excommunicated Church critic who appears to have taken it upon herself to instigate controversy with the LDS Church and as many others as possible, focusing on baptisms for the dead. Not that that makes Ms. Dunham’s baptism any better.)
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: anti-mormons, Barack Obama, temples
-
People like Helen Radkey do us a favor that church leadership is not, on an issue like this. It looks ultra creepy from the outside, that a religion like ours is baptizing the dead mother of the current President of the United States. There’s just all sorts of wrong there. The fault here is the local temple workers, and the temple president for allowing this to even come up. The policy should be clear that you can only bring names of your own relatives for temple work. I highly doubt that an Obama relative brought his mother’s name to the temple.
Back to Helen Radkey. Don’t know her at all, but I appreciate that she keeps us on our toes.
-
It is the fault of local temple workers and temple presidents? Maybe we should waterboard everyone that submits names in order to ensure that they are only submitting relatives. Dan, you continue to baffle me.
-
The typical temple worker/president has no idea who Stanley Ann Dunham is, nor is it reasonable to expect them to.
-
Maybe it’s been a while since I’ve submitted a name not related to me (that would be never), but are you guys saying I can go to the temple with the name Mickey Mouse, with arbitrary dates and have temple work done? I guess I just assumed there were some safeguards in place to make sure the names are credible.
Well, if there isn’t, this is something we need to be far more discrete with. It’s really creepy.
-
“but are you guys saying I can go to the temple with the name Mickey Mouse, with arbitrary dates and have temple work done?”
No. Mickey is fake and a mouse. The issue is about real people with real dates, they just happen to not be relatives.
A bit embarrassing…maybe. Creepy? That is a bit much. I think the intent is usually a good one.
We trust our members. We should.
Radkey is not trying to keep us honest, she is trying to smear the temple ordinance. She appears quite open about that.
-
Actually, i *could* bring in, say, Michael Mus with made-up dates, and as long as i claimed to have seen the documentation of those dates it would most likely go through. It’s a problem: How do you balance the need to do temple work for as many people as possible with the fact that some people don’t do it as they should? I don’t know the answer to that, and it’s pretty clear the church hasn’t figured it out either.
And David: I used to hold your position on temple ordinances for random people–what harm does it do, and why not take the insurance policy? However, a net.friend of mine who’s an orthodox Jew broke it down for me in terms i could understand (i wish i could find the email exchange, but it was long enough ago that it’s probably on a tape backup somewhere), and yeah, i see now why people don’t want their relatives messed with and why it can be seen as harmful, and why we should respect that. And the difficult cases are part of what the millennium’s for anyway, right? So why rush to deal with them now, when there’s so much that’s clear-cut left to work on?
-
Trust our members? Chris, you’re telling me to trust members of the church? Like Bybee?
As far as Radkey is concerned, I’m well aware of what her intent is. Let her attempt to smear all she wants. The truth will always win out. Why I think people like her help us out is that when we overreach, their point is valid, and it brings us back on track.
Frankly, if the church no longer had any people attacking it, I would be very very worried.
-
Trust them when it comes to temple work. This does not mean that some will make mistakes. What does this have to do with Bybee? I am not saying that you need to vote for or agree with other members of the church.
Radkey should be allowed to say whatever she wants. Not sure if I appreciate her. Dude, I have never heard you speak of Glen Beck this way.
-
Dan. If obama’s mother’s name came up in the temple, would anyone reconize it at all? There’s a certain amount of screening (i would hope) to make sure work hasn’t already been done, but with hundreds of names coming in all the time, is that really a reasonable expectation? Not trying to nitpick, just asking a question.
-
It sounds to me like its based a lot on the honor system. Forgive the lawyer in me but maybe you should sign a form acknowledging the guidelines and certifying that you are authorized to submit the names. Or they already do that?
David B –
In the end, I think you’re right. I personally feel it shouldn’t be a big deal (I liked Rod Dreher’s take as a non-believer) but it’s generally best to defer to those who take offense. You can’t do that for everything, of course, but in this case, there is plenty of other work to be done that these exceptions can wait.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article