[shampto3]

To clarify, only direct relatives can give permission to baptize a deceased relative by proxy in the temple. So if you're worried that simply adding a name to FamilySearch guarantees they will be baptized, that is not the case unless you have a relative that is a member of the church.

[Infernal]

This explains a strange interaction I had on FamilySearch. I knew they were owned by the Mormons, but I was doing some cleanup (think deduplication/obvious typo correction stuff) on older records in my line, when someone on the site messaged me and essentially gave me first dibs on... I don't remember the exact phrase, "registering ordinances" or something like this for the person in question, because I was a direct patrilineal descendant. In retrospect I think it was related to this baptism-by-proxy thing, maybe?

[shampto3]

Yeah that definitely sounds like it was related to the baptism-by-proxy. There are other ordinances in the temple that are also done by proxy for the deceased which is why they phrased it like "registering ordinances".

It sounds like a distant relative of yours saw your contributions and assumed your were Mormon and wanted to make sure you had the chance to be the proxy for your ancestor before another relative did it for you. That's not required, it was just a common courtesy.

For clarity: I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). I've also done development work on sites that used the FamilySearch API, I've served as an "ordinance worker" in the temple, and have done some of my own family history work on FamilySearch.

[csdvrx]

> For clarity: I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). I've also done development work on sites that used the FamilySearch API, I've served as an "ordinance worker" in the temple, and have done some of my own family history work on FamilySearch.

Then may I ask you about the provisions available to opt-out for baptism by proxy?

Is it possible to contact the church of LDS to refuse in advance, should any descendent (or proxy) convert, then want me baptized at any point in the future?

[Just in case it's not clear, that's a serious question.]

I'm asking while I'm alive because I won't be able to opt-out when I'm dead.

[shampto3]

Good question. I am not aware of any "opt-out" list for baptism by proxy.

The doctrine of the church, however, is that even if a person is baptized by proxy it has no efficacy if the person in the afterlife chooses not to accept it. The agency to choose is a core belief, and we believe it is important for the individual to decide whether they want to be baptized or not.

I still understand your desire to not even have the ordinance done in the first place regardless of whether you believe it does anything, but like I said before I'm not aware of any way to "opt-out". I wish I could be more helpful.

[buscoquadnary]

So I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and can I ask you an honest question. Is there a reason you don't want to have that happen? I am asking honestly in the Spirit of inquiry it's something that always confused me to a certain extant, if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything is there a reason the idea of someone saying a prayer with your name in it after you are dead bothers you? I just am curious about the line of reasoning, if it is just a matter of you don't like the idea, and don't feel comfortable about it I can understand that as well. I am just curious.

[csdvrx]

> can I ask you an honest question. Is there a reason you don't want to have that happen?

Of course: it's just a question of consent and respect.

I respect your faith, I would hope mine would be respected too, which is why I do object to being engaged in a baptism even 1) after having very clearly expressed when I'm alive that I do not consent to that but 2) under the assumption that when I'm dead, if a descendant consents, my own consent is void and no longer matters!

> if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything

My point is the exact opposite: if it's true and it means everything, then surely you can understand my rejection!

Let's look at that differently: imagine I belong to a different religious movement, and that we have an "antibaptism" that can retrospectively negate baptism, snatch your soul from wherever it may be, and send it on its way to our deity - or to oblivion, or to damnation, or to whatever feels uneasy and disturbing.

Would you not want to object to have that done do you, instead of saying it wouldn't matter when you're dead?

Even "if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything", it may disturb you.

> I just am curious about the line of reasoning

I tried to explain in good faith my uneasiness with the practice.

I hope this answered your question.

[dddddaviddddd]

More or less: "Before you perform ordinances for a deceased person born within the last 95 years, obtain permission from the closest living relative. Relatives may not want the ordinances performed or may want to perform the ordinances themselves. The closest living relatives are, in this order: a spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/introductio...

[shampto3]

Ah, thanks for the link and more solid information here.