I enjoyed reading Dr. B.'s article on Helen Radke and the LDS practice of Baptism for the Dead. Because I am LDS, I see quite clearly the rationale behind the desire of members of the Church not only to provide ordinances for their own deceased relatives, but for everyone who has lived on the earth. I do sympathize with non-members who have requested that we refrain from associating their family members with our Church, but I have to confess that I have no strong feelings on this issue. It seems to me that if someone does not believe in the Mormon Church, these actions might easily be dismissed. If someone baptized my grandmother into the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I would scarcely take notice, other than to laugh. But I have no wish to offend. If the following joke makes you cringe, then you will probably be able to appreciate, better than I, the affront that non-members take at our practice of vicarious baptism:
"I cannot condemn the Mormons’ posthumous baptisms, because I myself have been tasked by God Herself to baptize dead Mormons into my church and then bless them with posthumous plural interracial gay marriages. In fact, here comes another marriage right now…
*blink*
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to Mr. Joseph Smith, Mr. Brigham Young, Mr. Idi Amin, and Mr. Pol Pot. What God has joined together let no man put asunder!"
The Church's current policy attempts to straddle that fine line between avoiding offense to others and following religious dictates of our own. Publicly the Church tells members to submit only their own family names to the temple, but because there is no formal restriction on names that are submitted, in practice anyone can submit any name they would like.[1] With the new family search program, a member can clear names for temple work on their own home computer. Though the program warns the member to check for duplicates, or to have certain names cleared, members can choose to override these cautions and submit the name nonetheless. The names are printed out on a sheet of paper and taken to a desk at the temple, where it is a mere formality to prepare the pink or blue name slips which will allow the ordinances to be completed.[2]
Even with the attention that Helen Radke and others have brought to this practice, I see no change contemplated for the procedure of submitting names to the temple. And other religions are becoming increasingly aware of this. In response, the Catholic Church has instructed parish priests to discontinue the microfilming of parish registers by the LDS. This was freely allowed in the past. And Jewish leaders have issued statements protesting the "wrongful practice of baptizing the Jewish dead," noting their reasons that they believe it is disrespectful and harmful.
There will likely be continued tension between those who feel that the receipt of LDS ordinances is vital to the salvation of all mankind, and those who are offended by the suggestion that their family members' chosen religion or lack of religion was not good enough.
_____________________________________________
[1] Church policy states: "Please do not submit the names of deceased celebrities and historical personalities, including those of royal or noble lineage or early LDS Church leaders and their families, or of persons born in European countries prior to A.D. 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. Though the names may not yet appear on the Ordinance Index, temple work for most of the people in these categories has already been done. Sometimes when we study about such people, we feel a spiritual affinity to them, but we should not submit their names for temple work. If names are sent in counter to this policy, they must be cleared by the Temple Department. The Medieval Family Unit (1-800-346-6044) can help you avoid duplicating ordinances for those born before A.D. 1500."
[2] Because the formal "clearance" by higher Church authorities is not always sought before the name is presented at the temple, individuals such as Adolph Hitler and Ervil LeBaron have been baptized posthumously. It does not follow that a General Authority approved of the ordinance.
