President’s Late Mother Improperly, Posthumously, Baptized as a Mormon

I find the whole idea just bizarre,a live body needs to be involved for baptism

This has the fingerprints of Mitt Romney all over it…

No one can posthumously partake of the sacrament. (ie bread and water) The facts of the story are innacurate.
Since the bible itself talks about baptism for the dead, I would think that more Christians would embrace the idea of offering this ordinance to those who may not have received baptism.
But either way…. it should not have been done without the permission of her closest living relative. So it was done innapropriately. But the individual is to blame, not the church.

They also dead-baptized Adolf Hitler…not just once either. They have a hard time keeping their records straight. I’m not sure why they want Hitler in mormon heaven with them, but they do.

Really Carlos? Moroni’s statue’s usually adorn the top of LDS temples as a symbol of the Angel described in REvelations that brought the everlasting gospel. Why would the LDS church want to “defy” the Vatican. We are not a protestant church and have nothing to do with the Catholic church other than to join in alot of charity work together across the world.

Mrs. Plasticman, you are delusional. The mormon church KNOWS this kind of thing is going on, and is only apologetic (and hides behind claims of member misconduct) when it is caught. Not only that, but the church’s genealogical records are also full of errors, or downright lies by members who wish to tie themselves to certain family lines. Church hierarchy knows this, but does nothing to fix the situation. Probably because the GAs know “temple work” is busy work that means and accomplishes exactly nothing.

As if it matters. This is like saying that a boy in Iowa touched himself while looking at a picture of Anna Nicole Smith last night. It has no meaning and will affect no one else in any way.

Never heard of baptizing dead people. That’s a new one.

I knew an exotic dancer that was a Mormon.

Why do Mormons baptize dead people? This is just creepy! Obama’s mother was perfectly happy in her own church, why can’t they just leave her alone?

Who really cares. What religion was Mr. Obama baptized into?

“‘Leaders said in November that they are making changes to their massive genealogical database to make it more difficult for names of Holocaust victims to be entered for posthumous baptism by proxy.’
“Those changes obviously did not come quickly enough for the late Mrs. Dunham.”
And was Mrs. Dunham a Holocaust victim, pray?

Wow. So much anti-Mormon vitriol on this message board. What gives? The Mormon Church admitted that the President’s mother’s name was submitted improperly. Millions of Mormons throughout the globe submit their relatives’ names for this particular church ordinance all the time. Mormon HQ have a hard-enough time regulating every one of the millions of names submitted. It’s obvious this was an honest mistake that the Mormons knew nothing about.
And what’s with Tapper’s snide remark at the end of his otherwise well-written and unbiased post?

well that explains it, obamma is lying for the lord, (g**gle it)

Apologists- The mormon church has a long history of lying to the world and their members. Starting with the practice of polygamy in the church that began with JSmith and his 32 wives to the belief today that righteous men will have multiple wives in heaven. How about having a prophet that doesn’t seem to know whether his church believes that God was once a man, which it clearly does, to their hiding the full extent of their involvement in the anti-gay marriage movement….and on and on, just more lying for the Lord.

edit: those who are NOT retired or Well off.
32 wives? you have been reading anti-mormon literature. They count in their 32 women who were sealed to him at their own request AFTER he was dead. LOL

anti-gay marriage movement…. -WE support MARRIAGE!!! This is not an anti-homosexual campaign it is an pro-MARRIAGE campaign. There is no such thing as gay marriage because marriage is the union of man and woman.
I don’t care what others do in the privacy of their own home, but I do care when marriage is twisted and re-defined.

All I feel like saying here is that there are a lot of people who think they know alot. Their ignorance about the Mormon faith is why they call it creepy. Take a look at someone who is LDS (Mormon). Whats creepy about them? They are some of the most clean cutand moral people I’ve seen. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do some history besides that. The bible talks about baptism for the dead. Peter I believe it was in Ephesians. The Catholic Church and Protestant churches don’t have temples. (Like King Solomon’s Temple?) If they do, they don’t perform many of the ordinances of salvation (correctly or at all). nor is their perception of the God Head correct. Jesus Christ was baptized by immersion (signifying rebirth) not sprinkled. These are facts everyone can find out if they will open up the bible and look. Why do you think the Catholic Church had such control during the Dark Ages? Because the system was designed to keep the people ignorant. And so people are today.

MarciAnne: While I understand your POV I do have to say that allowing public opinion to write doctrine is where the original Christian Church went off base in the first place.

MarciAnne: I believe Mrs. Plasticman hit it right on the nail. You and many others write the moral doctrine of our time.

Sorry Darrell you lost me…. (the name appears at the bottom are you reading my post or anothers)?

Those of us who live in the west and are non-LDS have long known about this practice. It’s the primary rationale for thier massive genealogical records. Any predeceased relative, no matter how far removed and no matter what their religious beliefs, are eligible candidates for baptism by proxy. The Israeli government wan none too happy when it discovered that among others, Golda Meir and David Ben-Gourion were the subject of proxy baptisms.

Wow, this is big news. Better get the henpeckers at the View to get right on this one.

As a non-morman stuck in Salt Lake, all I can say is…welcome to my world America! Google “Utah Legislature” and you’ll get just a taste of how wonderful the LDS “church” is. Help!

Stepford wife–you can blame anyone or anything for your problems but the Mormon Church is a source of joy and happiness for millions. Sorry it didn’t work out for you. I hope you find happiness somewhere, somehow, to replace the bitterness reflected in your post.

Mike, you gave a very lucid explanation of background for the Mormon theology of baptism by proxy. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that the scholarship on this subject as it regards the early Church is not as clear-cut as it might appear from your post and in fact, your interpretation of situation is not the prevailing view.
First, the Biblical support for the practice– this is based on a single verse in 1 Corinthians. Admittedly, the verse is hard to explain as anything other than a reference to baptism of the dead, but what did that mean in the time it was written and, just as importantly, when was it actually written. For openers, years had passed between the time that Paul wrote the letters, including 1 Corinthians, and the time that the canon of the New Testament was established. While this particular text is one whose authorship is not in dispute (unlike some of the Pauline letters), it is also one that seems to have been subject to at least a few interpolations. (There are internal contradictions in the book’s references to the role of women in the church, for example.) Many biblical scholars argue that later writers inserted verses into the text to piggyback on Paul’s reputation. (That is, rather than simply arguing that women should not preach, for example, they put those words into Paul’s mouth to lend them greater authority and credence.)
The verse you mention seems to be one of those later amendations, written at a time in the early church when there was a great deal of discussion of heresy and irregular practices. (If it is indeed the writing of Paul himself, on the other hand, Corinth, a Greek city, was home to numerous practitioners of various mystery religions whose practices Paul did not want the Christians there to copy or incorporate into their services.)
You then reference the acceptance of baptism by proxy in the early church. The main evidence for this is actually negative evidence– the reference to baptising the dead in two early church councils. The argument goes that if the church went to the trouble to mention this practice as one that should not be practices, that proves that someone was practicing it. True, but we do not know in what context. The council documents seem to refer rather to actual baptism of dead bodies in the flesh, not by proxy, and may well refer to a couple of established heresies of the day. Also, remember that in the early church, many people (including the emperor Constantine himself) delayed baptism until they were near death, because of the belief that once you were baptised, your soul was washed clean but could be stained by sin again, so postponing baptism would ensure that you had less time to fall back into sin post-baptism. As the theology of repentance became more developed, this late baptism practice faded. However, it is entirely possible that some people were attempting to baptize loved ones who waited too late and did not get to carry out the baptism ritual as they had intended. The councils make clear that baptism of the dead could not ‘count’ because there was no participation by the soul in question.
Enjoying the discussion here.

Baptisms for the Dead are just a symbolic gesture that we remember and love the deceased and welcome them into our faith. We understand that they have the same freedom in death as they had in life whether to accept or acknowledge our gesture.
Consider the last chapter in the bible:
Malachi 4
1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

5 ¶ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
We offer this gesture of symbolic baptism to demonstrate that our “hearts are turned to our fathers”.

I hope they haven’t baptized me and my ancestors as Mormons from when I went to one of their LDS family centers for some research.

This case is about freedom of religion not for Mormons but for Stanley Anne Dunham and the President’s family.
Just as Mormons have the freedom to do what they want, they must respect others freedom for the same. Claiming that it shouldn’t matter what other religions do to you is a false justification for what has happened. In my opinion it borders on being an apologist.
Nearly all religions possess an incredible emphasis on the afterlife. It’s an insult to religious people of all creeds to argue that they shouldn’t care about their immortal souls or that religious freedom no longer applies once they’ve entered the afterlife.
Why Mormons would be so insensitive or clueless to the basic notion that most all religious belief extends beyond the mortal existence and not just theirs, is beyond me. I get it and I’m an atheist!
This is bad PR for the church. Plain and simple. I’m not attacking the many Mormons who find comfort in that religion but I’m defending the rights of the millions more who find faith and comfort elsewhere and their rights to do so.

While it is our policy to do the work for our own ancestors, we are not obligated not to perform rites in the temple for everyone else. Indeed, our commission requires it.
That said, we already have plenty of work to do in the temples without dealing with those whom we would offend. We will get back to those who’s families have made a stink about it later. They will just have to go to the back burner for now. I’ve got plenty of work on my own family to do now.
If the work that we do in our temples for the dead has no meaning to the dead, does it really matter that we do it? If we are wrong, it is a nice but meaningless gesture. If, however, we are right, then the work we do is among the greatest kindnesses we can give our forbears.

Ron | May 6, 2009 10:34:45 AM
I agree with you, Ron. I am Catholic and it is a church that has taken many hits as well. So I feel your frustration at the hypocricy and intolerance. It was a really nice gesture when the leader of the LDS church went to the previous pope’s funeral mass. Hopefully tolerance can reach in all directions.

Most comments prove that it is easier to be a character than to have character, it’s easier to make accusations or lie outright than to do do actual research, its easier to point out imperfections and find fault in others rather than seek understanding or paying attention to one’s own discipleship.

When the local baptist church prays for victims of the last school shooting and prays that the victims had accepted Jesus do we as a soceity get offended? When the nation prayed for all the victims of 9/11 and prayed to God to who we as a nation trust that they be saved should we get offended? NO! Mormons basically do the same thing. Their ceremonies are a prayerful invitation to accept blessings that they believe God has for them which they believe their faith helps provide. What is wrong with that?

Just as I thought, Alex, you don’t get it, and you’re too caught up in your own self-righteousness to ever get it.
It is an insult to people who spent their entire lives perhaps devoted to one religion to think that they would want posthumous “opportunity” to convert to YOURS! If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the basic rules of a civilized society. The only difference between the LDS church and the Taliban, as far as I can tell, is 2 airplanes (have we forgotten about Mountain Meadows and what mormons are capable of doing?).

Sammy, so you god is the right one i guess?

To Alex: That’s right, you’re losing the argument, so throw out the “communist” canard. Brilliant, but I’d expect no more from a FARMS/FAIR airhead.
To Paul Wall: I have no religion, because they’re all screwed up. Some (like mormonism) more than others. My comparison is NOT unfair, because I know mormon history. DO YOU? I mean the REAL mormon history, not the white-washed stuff the so-called Church of jesus Christ feeds to you, do you knwo about that? Obviously not…

Paul Wall – I actually support equal rights for all American citizens, unlike Obama.

“Believe what you will, it’s the American way. Have your secret, magical ceremonies for the dead (they don’t care, they’re dead). ”
Then you have nothing to worry about, do you?
“But remember that the right to swing your bronze-age sky-god ends where the personal and civil rights of the living begin.”
That’s right. Fortunately, nobody’s civil rights have been violated, even if we were actively doing temple work for those not of our family. Free speech means that I may utter the name of anyone I please in places I consider holy. You may do the same.
Remember that the right for you to swing your bronze age government-god around ends where the civil rights of the living begin. You might want to be careful.

Ol Joe—i know mormon history. it’s part of and no worse than american history itself. you will recall the genocide of native americans by the US government (you do know american history i assume), the transtlantic slave trade (the middle passage), all carried out by a “christian” nation. the Mormon faith deserves as much respect as any other. most religions have violence in their past, certainly christianity does. but it’s the past. move on and give up your hatred.

Just as I thought Ol’ Joe, you are mad at life and take it out on God.
Ol Joe Said: “The only difference between the LDS church and the Taliban, as far as I can tell, is 2 airplanes..”
Really? I haven’t heard that one before – could you elaborate? I’m sure everyone would love to be enlightened by your ignorance.
Ol Joe Said: “have we forgotten about Mountain Meadows and what Mormons are capable of doing?”
haha.
Ol’ Joe, you are trying too hard. You know your history? Have we forgotten about Simeon and Levi and the massacre of Schechem and what those Israelites are capable of doing? Have we forgotten about Haun’s Mill and what Missourians are capable of doing?

Mormons are a religious cult. I’m sure that if she were alive today, President Obama’s mother would not like being called a Mormon. They(Mormons) owe the President a great big apology.

leftyintexas:
“I’m sure that if she were alive today, President Obama’s mother would not like being called a Mormon. ”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. She can choose whatever she wants where she is.
“Mormons are a religious cult. ”
We don’t require your permission to be otherwise.

I’m curious as to why Jake felt the need to refer to Americablog as “the liberal Americablog” (not that I am disputing it is). I might understand if the blog was advocating a certain fact as part of a broader political argument (e.g. accusing a conservative politician of corruption). But does the blog’s liberal bent make the factual story about President Obama’s mother being baptized any less credible?

warren smith:
“say what you like
what ever the truth is thats whaT IT IS
AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE THAT”
I am glad we agree on that.

Christians do not name call, We prove our teachings. the bible is clear, as to how one can tell who’s a cult and who’s not. If its teachings are contrary to the bible’s then its a cult. Is Baptism for the Dead scriptural? there is only one reference to the subject and the verse asks a question, In I Cor 15:29 it ask what shall THEY do (talking about non believers). One should search the subject out for themselves. Don’t argue, it is or it isn’t

I just want to say that I think it’s REALLY funny that a lot of you ex-mormons and people who don’t know much about the church or people who do know about the LDS church but refuse to study books about the church who are written by members OF the church, are saying all these negative things about Mormons. You continue to call the church a cult and try to ‘prove it wrong’ among other things; however, the Mormon church and it’s members do nothing of the sort. Mormon’s don’t say bad or negative things about other church’s/beliefs just to get people to believe in the LDS church. Why do people who aren’t Mormon’s feel that they need to ‘prove it wrong’ with anti-mormon things instead of just trying to prove THEIR own beliefs right? Wouldn’t God (regardless of who/how/where you believe God is) want us (His children) to be positive and use positive language and communication when speaking about his true church (whether it be the LDS church, or Muslims or Christians, or budists) instead of beating up on another church (Mormon’s) to try to prove your points or try to prove that your church/beliefs are true?
Love one another. Respect one another. if you have something against Mormon’s don’t use negative information about the religion to prove them wrong, but allow positive information about YOUR beliefs prove what you are saying as right instead (if it is true). The devil feeds off of negativity and anger.

All this bad mouthing about different churches. Every one of them claim to have the truth, but that is why a person is not supposed to place their soul’s care in a church building, or churches name, but in Christ alone. Christians don’t have a particular building’s name, but believers make up the churches body (congrigation. Religion is man made, Christ’s church (believers) is not

chatterbug:
“Christians don’t have a particular building’s name, but believers make up the churches body (congrigation. Religion is man made, Christ’s church (believers) is not”
You are making a big deal over semantical distinctions. If believers in Christ meet in a congregation, they are a religion. Spiritual? Same thing. Furthermore, if they organize themselves in any way to meet together, they are a church.
I don’t really care if you call yourself nondenominational or a nonchurch. That is what a group of believers are and that is what they do. It is that simple. There is nothing wrong with it.

If Mormons are so bad, then our country is on its way to ####ville.
It boggles the mind how stupid, insipid, ignorant, and libelous Americans have become.
The media knows better, but they make money being storytellers rather than journalists.

Mrs. Plasticman, you wrote: “Odie: If the person is not your ancestor and there is a living relative, you are required to get permission from the nearest living relative. If you are not doing this, then you are one of those people who are making the rest of us look bad.”
Odie is being honest, and s/he knows this happens often.
The Church’s century-old policy used to be to submit names for proxy baptism for any deceased person discovered in any genealogical research, not just those who were relatives. That stayed the policy until the controversy over proxy baptizing Jewish members of the Holocaust.
Unfortunately, many self-righteous members “in-the-know” believe the new policy of only submitting names of relatives is all for show, and that they don’t really have to follow it, because they are God’s true people, and they’re going to continue to do God’s work, whether someone gets offended or not.
I have no doubt most Mormons who submit names for proxy baptisms today do so following the new guidelines that person must be a relative.
I also have no doubt whatsoever a significant number are not following the guidelines, because I’ve seen it. They don’t think they have to, and baptising Mrs. Obama by proxy is a perfect example of this.
Jaynee Doe

Mormons want us to believe they follow Christ. As I recall, Jesus chose to be baptized while he was alive here on earth. I would hope no one would dishonour me by baptizing me after I die, but really it would be a meaningless ritual which would not affect me, nor my soul, in any way.

If I wanted to know about Catholics I should probably ask a Baptist, right? How about I ask a disgruntled or excommunicated former Catholic? I am sure I could get the straight skinny from them. No? Well you certainly are not saying I should ask a real honest-to-goodness Catholic what they believe are you? I know – I will ask former White House legend Lawrence O’Donnell. He knows everything about other
religions.

Somehow,I think Pres.Obama will recover from this. He has his hands full with National Security & Health Care, Rush Limbaugh & Nancy Pelosi(fair&balanced).
As a Christian myself, I deplore
backbitting among those who would call themselves Christian. We all come short of the glory of God and need Jesus’ grace.
When I am dead and gone, I hope someone will remember me in their prayers and sacraments. I need all the help I can get!
AmazingGrace,HowSweet!

Just curious:
“it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related”.
Why are three submitter’s names given at the LDS Family search site? Mary GILBERT, Stephen David CABANISS and George LARSON II. Did any of these three actually submit the name of Pres. Obama’s mother? If not, do these three know that their names are on the LDS site as the submitters?

It is a loving gesture- “Baptisms by Proxy” are meant to link families forever in the eternities. Mormons believe that each person can decide to accept or reject the temple work. Hopefully Mrs. Dunham’s name was submitted by a family member and will not need to be withdrawn.

First off, the author of this article needs to get it right. No one who is baptized posthumously is made into a member of the church. It is done purely as an offering in the belief that everyone should have a choice. Their names are not added to church membership records and they are not numbered as members of the church. Let me say it again…THEY ARE NOT MADE INTO MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH! If the soul, in the great beyond decides to accept the ordinances performed on their behalf, that is their choice. If they do not, that is also their choice. — No one should be offended by this as it is merely an offering. If you believe in it, then it is still purely a matter of choice on the deceased’s behalf, and if you dont believe in it, then it wouldnt matter anyway as you would not believe in its authority or validity. However, the church does try to respect the feelings of others, and members of the church are not supposed to submit names that are not family members or names for whom they have not been given permission by said family members. Most church members respectfully try to follow these rules, but unfortunately, lds people are just as human as anyone else, and can be subject to errors in judgement and behavior at times. The results of those who break the rules, for whatever reasons, reflect badly on all those who do honor them. We dont know yet whether or not Mr. Obama’s mother’s name was submitted by family members or not, it is to be sincerely hoped that this will turn out to be the case. However, if not, then rest asured that those who are responsible will be dealt with. The church takes these things very seriously.

Every year thousands and thousands of supposed relatives are being baptised and receive their “endowments” at LDS temples worldwide. There is NO WAY that all these are relatives… It STARTED out that way, but for decades already public records worldwide are used. Somebody do a simple calculation please as to how many baptisms are performed annually and how many endowments and how many couples are sealed to each other for “time and all eternity”

I agree. What is wrong with that?