Actually, I don't think the posthumous conversions are anti-Semitic. I think the Mormons are simply doing something they think is compelled by their faith, something they probably consider a favor to all the posthumously converted, of all religions. I do not understand why anyone bothers to be offended by it. After all, if you're not Mormon and you don't believe in posthumous conversion, what harm is there in it? The danger seems especially insignificant when juxtaposed with the rhetoric on Palestinian television.

Mormons intend to baptize every human that has ever lived. There is absolutely no anti-Semitism in the act. Also, Mormons don't convert through posthumous baptisms. A conversion amounts to the baptism along with the acceptance of the baptism. Mormons therefore consider that those that are baptized posthumously may or may not have accepted what was offered to them.

I grew up in the LDS church and left it about 5 years ago. The posthumous baptism thing weirds a lot of people out, but the practical effect of it on the Mormon psyche is powerful and good. Mormons tend to see Heaven as being much more inclusive, and I think believing that people will have opportunities to accept Biblical covenants in the afterlife is one reason for that.

Yep, we'll all be "mormons" someday -- the likelihood is that one of your descendents or collaterals will become one, and then you're toast. Wet toast.

What's more, I don't think you can even get into first class heaven that way! (Heaven more inclusive - hunh! They have a class-divided afterlife like you wouldn't believe. And if you're really good you get to be god of your own planet someday....)

I've potsed a response in the comments at BTD, but just to clear it up here as well: Mormons (i.e., LDS Church members) do not believe that they are posthumously "converting Jews." Proxy baptism is really just providing an opportunity for those who are deceased to accept or reject baptism in the next life. (Personally, I find this doctrine much, much less offensive than the belief that everyone who dies without believing in Christ will go to Hell, something Mormons decidedly do not believe.)

Also, the Church leadership has stated that proxy baptisms are intended for the anscestors of Church members. Presumably, this could include Jews, if the member's family heritage includes Jews. But it's not meant to "get the good Jews into Heaven," as Stephen puts it.

I think you have been radically mis-informed. Mormons are not posthumously baptising Jews as some sort of evil anti-semitic plot. The fact is that Mormons posthumously baptize their ancestors of all faiths, creeds and colours. Part of their belief structure is that they believe their church to be Christ's church re-established after the original drifted away from the original teachings. They accordingly see it as a moral duty to allow those that lived during the long centuries when Christ's church was absent from the world an opportunity to enter heaven. This is not some sort of "virtue-mongering scheme" aimed at Jews (or any other group). Like every other religion in the world, they believe that only their members can enter God's presence in the afterlife. Unlike most, they have thought about the implications this has for those who lived before their church was founded and developed a moral response. They do not believe that this strips their ancestors of their "Jewishness" (or whatever faith they followed), merely that it offers them the opportunity to make a posthumous choice.

As a practicing Mormon, I wanted to clarify. There's no theological belief that posthumous baptism is a conversion. The idea is a reconciliation of the very old Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation with the concept of a God who doesn't play dice; i.e., damn people who managed not to get born in the right place at the right time. Personal choice is still everything. Frankly, I find Dante's heaven, with its special little hell for the very good pagans, a much more disturbing concept. That and any religion that believes that infants who die without baptism are damned.

And, having said that, I want to add that, at the request of the Israeli government, we no longer perform posthumous baptisms for people we know to be Jewish. Nor do we proselyte in Israel. While the family history records we keep include Jewish families, it is for genealogical purposes only, since our records are used by genealogists of many religions. I don't know whether the information you cited is correct, as far as the names of prominent Jews that have been posthumously baptized. Since we don't see the practice as disrespectful or an abrogation of the free will of the individual, we didn't stop baptizing Jews until we were requested to do so.

FYI, I'm not aware of a Christian religion in the United States more supportive of the gathering of the Jewish nation to Israel and the continued political support of Israel by the United States.

Somehow I think mormons are the last thing Jews need to worry about.

As a Jew who has met a few mormons in his lifetime, I can say that I don't think I've ever met more decent people.

Suzanne is right! The LDS Church is the only Christian church which practices baptism for the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:29), but conversion is a different matter. That can only take place in the hereafter, as in this life, when one's heart is touched by the Spirit and moved upon to accept the Gospel. Not even Almighty God can take away your free will in this matter.

In this situation, perception is everything. A Jewish co-worker once asked me about the Mormon's unusual attitudes towards them.

I explained that in Mormonism's unique theology, all persons who accept the gospel become adopted members of the House of Israel. Mormonism represents the "New and Everlasting Covenant" between God and Israel, and Mormons regard Jews as kin, fellow children of Abraham.

(For evidence of this, note that Utah was one of the first states in the US to elect and re-elect a Jewish governor, Simon Bamberger, in the early 1920's. See http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Bamberger.html)

Jews, on the other hand, generally see Mormons as an weird form of evangelical Christianity. Hence, actions that to Mormons are innocent and helpful are seen by Jews to be patently anti-Semetic.

Which is odd, because as noted by Daniel, Mormons are the ones least likely to hold anti-Semetic opinions.

Oops. Bamberger served only one term as Utah governnor.

I don't mean to nitpick, but...

As a practicing Mormon, I wanted to clarify. There's no theological belief that posthumous baptism is a conversion. The idea is a reconciliation of the very old Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation with the concept of a God who doesn't play dice; i.e., damn people who managed not to get born in the right place at the right time. Personal choice is still everything.

Baptism may not equal conversion in the LDS Church, but it does equal conversion in every other Christian faith. I'm Catholic and baptism for us is about bringing members into our church and cleansing them of their Original Sin. For an infant, the godparents and parents take on the responsibility of accepting membership---with all that entails---for the child until they can accept those beliefs and teachings for themselves at Confirmation. This process is all about choice---choosing your faith and giving yourself over to it. While they were living, people chose to practice or not practice a religion. By posthumously baptizing people the LDS church may say they're offering the choice of heaven as they see it but they're offering it to people who didn't believe in their version of heaven in the first place. I find that incredibly condescending to other people's beliefs. The LDS Church sees it as a favor. Hmmm.

The LDS Church has a different message about posthumous baptism than traditional baptism, but honestly how can you expect Jews, who don't believe in Baptism and have no practical experience with the the theological differences to not freak out about this? I'm a Christian and I freak out about it.

I do have some practical experience with this process. My brother has converted and he and his family are very active in the LDS Church where they live. One of my nephews just got done with his mission. We've been incredibly supportive of my brother's choice and have been respectful as such. The problem here is that he hasn't been respectful of our choices. My father was surfing and found my grandmother's name---his mother---in the LDS database. He asked my brother if Granny had been posthumously baptized and my brother replied "yes." My father blew a gasket, saying how incredibly disrespectful this was of my grandmother's wishes. She was a devout Catholic. But my brother doesn't see the baptism this way. He gave my father the exact same explanation as listed above: my father replied, "well, Steve, what if you just damned her to hell? Because that's what she believed and her church taught about every other religion?"

My brother had no reply. Under the Mormon guidelines for this practice, as I understand it, my brother was completely justified in this action. The choice is supposed to be made by the next of kin---but it's all in who you define as the next of kin. Legally speaking, my brother is not my grandmother's next of kin, my father is. But my father is not Mormon, so my brother is the one responsible for the decision within the LDS Church. It seems this is a convenient excuse for slipping around people who would disagree with this action. Cutting the dissenters out of the loop, in other words. My brother refuses to do anything about this. We've tried to get Granny removed from the rosters and let's just say that the reception we've received has been less than cooperative. Not to mention, my Dad gets a friggin' Book of Mormon and raft of pamphlets in the mail everytime he lodges a complaint.

It's all about choice. And if you don't make that choice while you're living, no one should do it for you when you're dead---no matter who you are or what religion you practiced while you were living. It smacks of condescension.

Kathy (and several others),

You apparently believe in baptism as a way of entering heaven, as most Christian religioins do, and you have relatives who were baptized into your religion of their choice (or in the case of Catholics and a few others, of their parents choice when they were infants, but they accepted the baptism and were devout members of their religion).

So, my question to you is, why do you care if the LDS church has performed a vicarious postumos baptism of a loved one - or anyone for that matter?

Think about it for a moment - let's take the Catholic church as our primary example. If the Catholic church has the authority (given from God) to baptize someone (providing them a saving ordinace required by God), then that should be the end of it. The LDS church is not a Catholic organization or any sort of tributary to it, so, if the Catholic church has the authority to do baptisms, then the LDS church cannot have the same authority.

However, by arguing that our baptism DOES have some effect on the afterlife of those who were baptized into some other religion, you are automatically giving authority and ascribing legitimacy to any baptisms performed by the LDS church.

So which is it? Who has the authority to do it? After all, if baptism is required by God, it only makes sense that he would authorize only certain people to perform the ordinance, otherwise anyone could do it and the whole thing becomes meaningless anyway.

Which brings up the other side - do you view baptism as just something that has to be done and anyone can do it just like taking a bath? And if that is the case - what is it that makes baptism in one religion special over any other?

It simply cannot be both ways - either the Catholic church (or any other church) is the right way to go and they have authority given from God to perform baptisms, or the LDS church is right and we have that authority.

You apparently believe in baptism as a way of entering heaven, as most Christian religioins do, and you have relatives who were baptized into your religion of their choice (or in the case of Catholics and a few others, of their parents choice when they were infants, but they accepted the baptism and were devout members of their religion).

Yes, but that's not all we believe. A requirement for Catholicism is the taking of the sacraments, one of which is baptism. There are six others, five of which you will take in a lifetime: Reconciliation (Confession), Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders (Ordination---not a choice everyone makes), Marriage, and the Last Rites. Unlike some other Christian faiths, Catholicism is about works---about how you live your life. A Catholic is not automatically guaranteed entrance into heaven if they've just been baptized and nothing else. This is what the Chruch preaches. Some other fundamentalist Christian Churches believe all you need to do in your life is be baptized and to accept Jesus as your personal savior. In their view, I'm going to hell because I haven't done this. I've had friends tell me how sorry they are that they won't see me in the afterlife because I'm not a member of their faith, even though I do believe in and have accepted Jesus. The difference is that I haven't accepted their version of Jesus. Ultimately, what the differences come down to are semantical in nature. My Church preaches this; your church preaches that. Who's right? Well, that again depends upon who's delivering the message.

So, my question to you is, why do you care if the LDS church has performed a vicarious postumos baptism of a loved one - or anyone for that matter?

Think about it for a moment - let's take the Catholic church as our primary example. If the Catholic church has the authority (given from God) to baptize someone (providing them a saving ordinace required by God), then that should be the end of it. The LDS church is not a Catholic organization or any sort of tributary to it, so, if the Catholic church has the authority to do baptisms, then the LDS church cannot have the same authority.

In essence your argument is: Why do I care about the posthumous baptisms the LDS Church performs if I'm strong in my faith? It doesn't mean anything if you don't give it credence, That's what you're trying to say, right?

Ok, well, let me throw this one back at you: Do you like bacon? I know I do. But by your reasoning, any faith out there has the right to impose its beliefs upon nonbelievers as a "failsafe." To make sure everyone goes to heaven. So the Jews and the Muslims should be able to have pork products banned at all grocery stores because they're just looking out for your well being. They want to make sure you get into heaven. So, no bacon for you. Hindus should be able to have all cows saved and you should pay attention to what caste you associate with, because they're only looking out for your best interests. You need to make at least one trip to Mecca in your lifetime because the Muslims are only looking out for your best interests. You'd better not eat meat on Fridays during Lent, say the Catholics, because we're only looking out for your best interests.

The LDS Church says in its defense: "We just want everyone to enter Heaven." Well, by that reasoning, it's logical that everyone should cover their bases with every single religion on Earth. And every religion out there should be converting the living and the dead. Well, why aren't they? You, by this reasoning, shouldn't have any problems with not eating pork; you should be booking your flight to Mecca for the Hajj. It doesn't mean anything does it? Because you're strong in your beliefs. It doesn't give those actions or those faiths legitimacy just because you're covering your bases.

Which brings us back being strong in one's faith. If you believe the LDS Church holds the keys to the kingdom, great. That's fantastic, and I really do mean that. I'm not being facetious. I believe differently, however. Just like Jews believe differently. Just like Muslims believe differently. Just like Hindus believe differently. People have chosen what they want to believe about God and which way they want to want to worship God. Chosen. There is choice involved. It does not diminish the legitimacy of a Church to actually have someone choose to participate. What diminishes the legitimacy of a Church is to not give someone a choice. For example, the Catholic Church didn't catch a lot of flack for converting people; it caught flack when missionaries forced conversions of indigenous peoples.

So which is it? Who has the authority to do it? After all, if baptism is required by God, it only makes sense that he would authorize only certain people to perform the ordinance, otherwise anyone could do it and the whole thing becomes meaningless anyway.

Which brings up the other side - do you view baptism as just something that has to be done and anyone can do it just like taking a bath? And if that is the case - what is it that makes baptism in one religion special over any other?

I choose not to take a "rah-rah" attitude toward God and religion. This isn't high school football, where you pick a team and root for it, but the salvation of indivdual human beings---I would like to think the God knows the difference. But this also means I choose to differ from my Church in its preachings on this one. The Church says that only the Catholic Church is one true Church. I differ in opinion. I figure God and Jesus will sort it out at the Second Coming. After all, Jesus did say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and I have to think that filters down into which denomination is the correct and true faith. Who knows what will happen then, eh? But I have to think that anyone who lives their life in a good way will be saved from hell. The difference is in how you define "a good life."

It comes down to choice and respecting others' choices. Posthumous baptism doesn't strike me as a kind thing to do. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It completely disregards the choices someone made about religion in a lifetime. It may not convert someone to Mormonism, but it doesn't necessarily say that their faith was correct either, now does it? I wouldn't count that as a "respectful" action.

I think a little tit for tat is in order, and that the Mormons should be offered a postmortem collective bris in trade.

It might not accomplish much, thought, aside from maybe reupholstering a few cars.

I posted earlier, but I wanted to reply to Kathy's comment. I don't want to get embroiled in your family argument--but I would be very unwilling to do any proxy work (poshumous baptism) for a person who made it clear they didn't want it. That's one reason the family of a deceased person is primarily responsible for proxy work. How this shakes out in your family, I just don't know, but I'm sorry to hear it's caused a rift.

The question is one of choice, as you have observed. Mormons believe in an active afterlife, in which there will continue to be the opportunity to learn, discuss, convert (or not), et cetera. However, in common with many denominations, we believe that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. The idea of posthumous baptism is only to allow anyone who has not been offered the choice to convert in the past the chance to do so after death--choosing to accept a baptism done by a living person, since, (theologically) until the Resurrection, dead people don't have bodies to baptize. As you point out, a merciful God would have a mechanism for sorting things out for those people who lived a good life on earth, whatever their creed. This is our understanding of how that's done.

Now this may seem just a leeeetle LDS-centric. It does, in fact, imply that the other person's belief was not correct. And that is a fair statement to make about Mormon theology--yeah, we think we're right. I would point out, though, that most religions think that they're right about God and that other people will eventually have to agree with them (I believe the Zoroastrians do not, but that's a different question.) And I've never thought of it as a particularly intrusive way, as far as affecting the life choices of the individual. (Much less intrusive than legislating against pork.) After all, no one is being forced to do anything--in the very real sense that these people are DEAD and therefore are already in the afterlife. If we're right, they still can choose what they want to do with it. And if we're not, well, it's a moot point, doncha think?

Where this hits day-to-day reality is where it hurts or offends living people by demeaning or belittling their beliefs. That's one of the reasons that we no longer perform posthumous baptisms of Jewish people, and it's why no one's trying to get Mother Theresa baptized by proxy.

As far as the practice goes, though--well, we believe that everyone is equal in front of God and will receive both mercy and justice at His hand. If the Mormons decided to do proxy baptisms for everyone but Jews or everyone but Catholics or everyone but black people, it would in our theology be the expression of a belief that those were people of less value in the sight of God. And we don't believe that. We stop when we've been asked to for a certain group (such as Jews) in order to show respect for their request.

I don't think, though, that we have the equivalent of a "Do Not Call" list for individuals who definitely want to be excluded. But then I've never asked. If you care deeply, you might want to phone the Church headquarters in Salt Lake City and inquire about it. They're a nice and accommodating bunch of people, although I can just about guarantee you'll get pamphlets in the mail. Just don't give 'em an address!

I have never had any respect for the Mormons. I have a variety of reasons, but one of the simplest and most obvious is the fact that up until the mid-70's, blacks were not allowed to become priests in the Mormon religious order. When the Elders of the church were asked why, they replied that it was because God said so, not because blacks were inferior or anything like that. Then in the mid-70s, when pressure from civil rights groups started building, their God changed his mind. One day blacks couldn't be priests and the next day they could. I discussed this with a couple of Mormon's shortly after the change and they did not claim that they had been misinterpreting God's word, they claimed he changed his mind and told the Elders so.

As I said before, I have many reasons for having no respect for the Mormon religion, this is merely the easiest to explain.

Katyh,

Thank you for responding to my post. I'm glad to see that you are willing to discuss this in a reasonable manner. I also am aware of the multiple requirements of most religions for salvation. The latest thing in some Christian religions is to just accept Christ in your life - but most older and more formalized religions have many things that must be adhered to throughout a lifetime to gain salvation. My choosing of baptism for a center of focus was one of convenience and appropriateness for the current discussion.

I can see most of your point, except for one:

Ok, well, let me throw this one back at you: Do you like bacon? I know I do. But by your reasoning, any faith out there has the right to impose its beliefs upon nonbelievers as a "failsafe." To make sure everyone goes to heaven. So the Jews and the Muslims should be able to have pork products banned at all grocery stores because they're just looking out for your well being. They want to make sure you get into heaven. So, no bacon for you. Hindus should be able to have all cows saved and you should pay attention to what caste you associate with, because they're only looking out for your best interests. You need to make at least one trip to Mecca in your lifetime because the Muslims are only looking out for your best interests. You'd better not eat meat on Fridays during Lent, say the Catholics, because we're only looking out for your best interests.

There is one small problem with your argument, the scenario you posted infringes on my personal choices today, while I'm alive; my freedoms if you will. Postumus baptism infringes on nothing you do on a daily basis. If another religion wanted to do any type of ceremony, prayer, ritual, whatever, for me to "save" me or whatever term they want to use for their religion - as long as it doesn't infringe on my day to day freedoms - well, have at it.

I don't believe that the actions of someone else on my behalf without my consent (speaking religiously and specifically about matters of faith) have any bearing on me whatsoever. Hell, I've even watched as a practitioner of black magic put a curse on me. It was freaky - but ultimately had no effect on me, I have no faith in it.

So, questions of authority aside - it will further boil down to a question of faith. What does it matter what anyone does to you (so long as it doesn't restrict your freedom or affect you in any other way - with the possible exception of being annoyed) if you don't have faith in what they are doing?

On further reflection from my original post - the main thrust of what I should have said should have been what I just stated. Authority, in the end, is also a matter of faith - you either believe in it or you don't. Nothing else reallly matters when you are talking about religion.

And you rightly touched on that in your response - it is about choice. Personal choice. And nothing that any other religion does should affect that choice. And nothing the Mormon religion does has that effect (missionaries may knock - but you can always tell them to go away; relatives are a different story, unfortunately, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

I cannot respond effectively to your thoughts on wether a religions actions are respectful or not. I don't look at it as necessarily a respect thing - but then again, not everyone from every religion has your same attitude either. I have been treated exceptionally disrespectfully in person (to the point of being shot at - literally a gun pointed at my head) simply because I am "Mormon."

That is the nature of most religions - you are either with them or against them (personal beliefs aside). The Catholic church says I'm going to hell because I'm not Catholic. That's fine. That declaration infringes on my choice and freedom exactly as much as a postumus baptism does on anyone else. It has no effect on me at all because I don't believe it to be true.

We act as our faith dictates. I am sorry that you feel that we are being disrespectful of others. And I'm also fairly certain that no matter how I frame an argument, I won't be able to change your mind.

But I hope that at least you can recognize that we are not impeding anyone's freedom of choice. Not in this life, and not in any other.

Thanks for the explanation, Suzanne, but I have a few questions for you:

why should I have to opt out of the posthumous baptism before I die if I haven't chosen to become a member of the LDS Church during my lifespan? Believe me, I'm well aware of the Church and I've been offered the opportunity to convert. If I haven't chosen to believe in what the LDS church offers in my conscious, living lifetime, why can't the LDS Church just let my chips fall where they may? I want the chips to fall where they may, even if that means I'm going to hell. Why do they have to intervene? What business is it of the LDS Church to help me along the path of salvation if I've already chosen another path? This makes no sense to me whatsoever, despite your excellent attempts at explanation.

It's obvious that we have a fundamental difference of opinion upon when the doctrine of choice can be invoked. You say in the afterlife it's ok. I say it's not. What this comes down to ultimately is respecting the wishes an indivdual made during a lifetime and respecting them after they're gone and can't speak for themselves any longer. I hate to bring up my Granny again, but as it's the best example I have, I'm going to use it. (And just to be clear, I don't hold you responsible for this. I hold my brother and the LDS Church's goofy rules on next of kin responsible.) My Granny would not have wanted to be posthumously baptized---even if that meant she was going to hell. By doing the proxy work, as you called it, my brother ignored what he knew of my Grandmother's life. She went to Mass every day. She said the rosary once a day. She even tried to get my father to go into the Seminary (thank goodness that one didn't work out). She had her beliefs and my brother ignored them. I don't want to drag you into this family brouhaha, but that's what he did: he felt he was offering her a choice, but it wouldn't have been a choice my Granny wanted in the first place.

And just for the record, I'm not going to contact the LDS Church. Just seeing how they've run my father round in circles on this deal does not instill me with a great deal of confidence that they'll take my wishes to heart. Sorry, but there it is. I'm sure they're very nice people in Salt Lake, but I believe I'll contact my lawyer and have my wishes added to my will before I call them to try and resolve it:)

Steven,

I had a long post - but I decided better of it. I'm sure that nothing I say on this forum is going to change your mind. However, I'd love to try and at least moderate your opinion of "no respect" for Mormons (which implies that you have no respect for me - someone you don't even know, which seems a bit shallow).

I actually hope I'm interpreting your comments incorrectly and that you have no respect for the LDS religion, and that lack of respect doesn't translate to individuals who have faith in the religion. I can understand not respecting a religion (sort of) - but not respecting individuals because of it seems a little obtuse.

Isn't that the basis of anti-semitism? An individual isn't worthy of respect simply by nature of their religious affiliation?

I'd love to hear more of the reasons why you have no respect for Mormons. But I'm not necessarily surprised. I've actually become good friends with people, been told directly that they held me in high regard, but then later they found out I was Mormon and all of the sudden I'm a lowlife worthy of contempt.

I will never, as long as I live, understand that.

Fascinating discussion here. Inspired by it, I've posted a follow up, specific to the race issue, on BTD. I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Sorry - let me try the link again.... LINK

Kathy--
Thanks for the followup. The idea is to provide the choice to people who have had no opportunity while they were alive. So, really, you're not the target demographic. As it were. Nor was your grandmother. We're not scanning the obits or anything; your stong feelings are going to be something to make clear to your brother and his family, since they're going to be the only people who are likely to be involved. Most of the non-family line posthumous baptisms done are for people born before the 1800s.

I'm sorry you're getting the runaround from the Church admin on your Granny's record. If it helps at all, she's not listed anywhere as a "Mormon"--she would be in a genealogical database, and there would be an indication that she's had proxy work done for her, but that's all. There's not a way for that to be reversed, if that makes sense--no "anti-proxy-baptism" ceremony or anything; it's believed that she has to want it for it to become a real baptism, so there's no reversal--so, other than removing her from the genealogical search records, I'm not sure what they could do. At least (*sigh*) it means that some well-meaning Mormon relative 150 years from now won't go and do it again.

At the very least, this will give your Granny fewer relatives she needs to HAVE A SERIOUS TALK WITH in the afterlife.

I'm sorry again that this has intruded itself on your family life in a way that has been painful to you.

--Suzanne

Hey everyone,

I'm coming late to the discussion so please allow me to say "ditto" to many of the thoughtful comments, especially Suzanne's. A year or two ago I found an interesting article giving an informed Jewish perspective on this topic: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/137/story_13772.html

I think the comments above and this article provide some evidence against Stephen Green's assertion that Latter-day Saints "hat[e] the Jews."

Darren

Olesma,

The Catholic church does not say you're going to hell because you're not Catholic. I would say that virtually no (non-schismatic) Catholic alive today believes that only Catholics can go to heaven. Slightly more probably believe that only Christians can go to heaven. But the quasi-official position of the Church is that, while anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, nevertheless one can be saved without consciously knowing and accepting Christ as Lord.

For all the Catholics out there, here's something to think about. I am LDS and we do not believe in baptizing children until the age of accountability (after 8 years old). My ex-wives parents are Catholic and when my son was born, seeing how they didn't want him to die and go into limbo, they told me that they had baptized him into the Catholic Church. I'm not sure if and when this actually happened or if it did, but when they told me, I essentially said "That's nice." and didn't say anything else about it for the main reason, I'm not catholic and do not believe in the Catholic Church's doctrine. So, if somebody is all worked up over proxy baptism, I ask myself "Why?" If they don't don't hold the same beliefs as I, why should they really care?