The LDS Church is in trouble – again – with the Jewish community over the Church’s continuing posthumous baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims. (See here and here for background on the 13 year struggle regarding this issue.)
Monday (November 10, 2008) marked the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against the Jews, considered to be the beginning of the Holocaust. Some survivors of the Holocaust and their families gathered in Manhattan to remember this important date. NPR reported,
“At the event names of the victims were read out loud. But these weren’t from the history books. The names came from the official records of the Mormon Church.”
The Mormon baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims is a very emotional and sensitive issue for their descendants, primarily because these Jews were murdered because they were Jewish. A Fox News article reported that Ernest Michel, the honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, said,
“We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion. We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough.”
LDS spokesman Seventy Lance B. Wickman has a very different perspective on the question. He told reporters,
“We don’t think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines,. If our work for the dead is properly understood … it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It’s merely a freewill offering.”
But Mr. Michel, whose parents died in the Auschwitz concentration camp, has a deeper concern:
“They tell me, that my parents’ Jewishness has not been altered but … 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?”
This is a complicated problem, and I certainly don’t know the best solution. Yet one aspect of this situation that I find particularly troubling is the Mormon lack of sensitivity toward the Jews’ concerns. I can understand LDS frustration over the unending and perhaps unsolvable dispute, but how is it that Mormons can’t seem to understand why the Jews even care about this? Consider a few comments left at the Deseret News web site:
“Why does it matter if you don’t believe in it anyway?”
“Perhaps, the Jews ought to stop playing victim, and realize other religions have legitimate and sacred intentions and purposes which they believe are necessary for the salvation of the dead.”
“I think this is foolishness on the part of the Jewish people that want to stop the baptisms…I think the living Jewish people should be glad that the Mormons care enough to bestow blessing on their dead”
I do not mean to trivialize Jewish history and the horrors heaped on Jews through the Holocaust, but I’d like to invite Mormons to think about something else that is in the news right now. Opponents of California’s Proposition 8 (the recently passed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman) have instituted an online initiative to raise money for the overturn of the amendment. On November 6th PR Newswire reported that, due to the “leading role” the LDS Church played in funding the campaign to pass Proposition 8, a Los Angeles opposition group planned to “send a message to the Mormon Church”:
“For each donation of $5 or more…the Center will send [LDS President Thomas S.] Monson a postcard to let him know a donation was made in his name to fund legal organizations fighting Prop 8…”
I think it would be safe to say that President Monson and those who call him prophet would prefer that this initiative be stopped – or at least changed to keep President Monson’s name out of it. But why should Mormons care? President Monson isn’t really supporting an effort to redefine marriage to include same-gender unions. He doesn’t really believe in it. Shouldn’t everyone be glad that people who believe differently than President Monson still care enough to honor his name via vicarious support of an effort they believe is good and right?
But President Monson is not honored by this initiative. Those who care about him care about the dishonor they believe is being attached to his name. And, perhaps someday, clouding his memory.
One might argue that there are vastly different motivations driving these two proxy situations, making them impossible to compare. The baptisms are done in loving service; the donations in disrespect. But I submit that though the motivations are different, the principle is the same. “A good name is better than precious ointment” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches” (Proverbs 22:1).
Why should the Jews care about Mormon baptisms that they don’t believe in anyway? Because protecting a cherished name and memory is how we honor those we love.
Sharon and Aaron please do not delete this post as I am not taking this thread in a new direction (as it may first appear so).
“The night of broken glass” – Kristallnact – was not just an assault on Jews but on the nation of Germany as a whole. It overturned the rule of law by using thuggery to establish political control. Rigging elections and physical crushing the opposition was a crime against Germany: both to Jews and non-Jews. Any mention of Kristallnact that does not take this into account falls short.
Many many non-Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazi’s. This portion of history has been under-investigated because the non-Jews came from various groups and most of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi’s were not sent to the camps (although some were), they were just murdered. Anyone who understands Nazi ideology knows that many groups were in the Nazi’s sights, not just Jews.
For Jews, belief was not an issue as to who would be persecuted. I once had a professor in college who said something to the effect, “I doubt the Nazi’s would have cared if a Jew believed Jesus is the Messiah”. Many Christian Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazi’s. The Nazi’s even told the Lutheran church to excommunicate its Jewish members and it did! Granted, the Lutheran church issued an apology later. The point is many Jews were secular, Christian, or belonged to some other religion. As such, I don’t see how modern rabbi’s can hold claim to every Jew who died at the hands of the Nazi’s.
As far as Mormons are concerned, I have to side with them that what they are doing is not wrong. Although, I think they have been insensitive. I believe the Mormon Church officially told its members to refrain from Holocaust baptisms but they still occur. It seems that the comments by Mormons on this issue represent a different stance than that of the Mormon church of about 15 years ago.
continued.
If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints said it would refrain from such baptisms then why are its members taking it upon themselves to do them? If I am wrong or missing something here then anyone can let me know.
Sharon: another interesting thread.
This practice of baptizing for the dead is wrong for more than just theological reasons, and particularly wrong when directed towards those who offered NO PERSONAL desire for anything of the sort while alive. I can think of several problems.
1)the surviving relatives could be very split on the issue, who rightfully speaks for and represents the dead person’s wishes ? What if the departed were AARON or SHARON, and some LDS in the family tree wanted the service done ? Saying a PRAYER or even having a PRAYER service for the souls of the departed is one thing, but a FORMAL service that puts their name ON THE BOOKS is quite another. Now the family gets to hash out what the deceased would have wanted. I smell trouble.
2) As mentioned above, this tramples all over free agency: AARON had PLENTY of opportunity to convert in this lifetime (wow…did he ever..) but we’ll wait till he’s chunked in the clay and ‘grand-father’ him in….not because he left any kind of indication he really wanted this, but because some LDS relative or friend thot it a great idea. Just plain weird. If God really wants to give AARON a second chance, why not let God handle it on th other end and avoid the needless baptismimal war here ?? Again, totally diferrent situation if AARON is ALIVE and wants to buck culture/family by going LDS, that’s his rightful decision. An aside: I did EXACTLY this when I was baptized AGAIN, at 21, even tho I was baptized as an infant, so I get the idea of bucking family….I was breathing when I did so.
Saying “why should they (fill in the agrieved party) care…” is lame. The fact is many of them do, and of the one’s that seemingly don’t, why run that risk, except that you’ve been told by the LDS leadership (by revelation) that this is a cool idea…and off we go…. This isn’t obeying GOD, this is being needlessly and cruelly insensitive gERMIT
Thanks for this article, Sharon. In it, there was a quote you included which sparked my interest:
… the Mormons care enough to bestow blessing on their dead.
My first thought was, “What are these blessings?” I am not familiar enough with LDS teaching to know what the writer had in mind.
As a Christian, every spiritual blessing I have is by virtue of my union with Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1). To me, the idea that a fellow creation could bestow a blessing upon me is foreign.
And yet, it seems equally foreign to LDS teaching (at least as I understand it). Here’s why. In LDS teaching, every blessing is dispensed as a wage, based upon an individual’s observing of a certain law which corresponds to that blessing (Doctrine and Covenants).
I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but how could the dead person in question (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) merit a blessing bestowed by an LDS person? If the dead person had kept a given law, would they not already have the blessing in question? If they had not kept that law, how could they qualify for the blessing?
Is it that the LDS person believes they have kept a certain law (in this case, performed various rituals) on behalf of another? And because they used the other’s name, it counts as if the dead had kept that law themselves?
What is really rather interesting about this is that as a Christian, I believe Jesus Christ kept the entire law perfectly. And did so upon my behalf. Consider that. And so by virtue of Christ’s perfect righteousness laid to my account, God sees me (a sinner) as being righteous.
It would be ironic if the LDS people believe they can keep a certain law, and have their obedience accrue to another’s account, but deny that Jesus Christ can do the same.
Brian:
I think I understand the intent of Mormon’s vicarious works, having participated in them myself.
It has nothing to do with transfering blessings or obedience from one person to another, but is instead an extention of the blessing of Christ’s atonement.
We (Mormons) believe that the blessing of Christ is conditional. We believe Peter meant what he said in Acts:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you (note he did NOT say “accept Christ and be saved”, or “study the Bible more”) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
In case you missed it, these are two conditions being imposed on us, the completion of which qualifies us for the blessing of Christ’s atonement.
The Jews have repented, but obviously haven’t been baptized yet. They are dead, but they still need to comply with that condition. Accepting Christ in the spirit world will not be enough, just like your accepting Christ today is not enough.
Wait, this is a problem we can solve.
1. They (the Jews) can accept Christ in the next life. It happens. When they do they will need a baptism.
2. Christianity accepts vicarious works. As you mentioned, the atonement of Christ is a vicarious work. Baptism can be done vicariously.
Problem solved.
Any person troubled by this practice is a person who doesn’t understand it, or a person who fails to accept it outright.
The failure to accept it is meaningless because truth is absolute. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true.
As long as we (Mormons) believe it is true, that is all we need. Go away and leave us alone.
Germit,
You are wrong in your statement ”…a FORMAL service that puts their name ON THE BOOKS is quite another.” When baptised, their names are not put on our books as members – they are recorded so that the person is not baptised again (which I believe has happened now and then by mistake). They are not and never will be considered a member of the LDS church until the Day of Judgement, and even then, it will only be if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour and then accepted the baptism performed on their behalf.
This being the case, they will not be seen as “Mormon victims of the Holocaust” as the person in the article thinks will happen.
I would like to point out, as David did, there are 2 meanings of the word “Jew” – the religion and the nationality/race. Not all of the Jews that died in concentration camps were of the Jewish religion, they were placed in the camps because of their nationality/race. So as David said, the rabbis cannot take charge of all of the Jews who died. I am not trying to diminish the crime but put a little perspective on it.
If you go into Wikipedia and look-up “Pink Triangle” there is a picture showing markings used in the concentration camps to denote different prisoners. Interestingly enough they had a symbol for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do they get a special mention about the atrocities against them in the Holocaust? What about the gay men, who were designated by a pink triangle?
But when it comes to baptism for the dead, we are doing God’s work and if we are right then everyone who becomes a beneficiary of this will be very grateful that God had given them that chance and to the people that did the work. If we are not then it won’t matter because as I said, they will not be seen as LDS until the Day of Judgement if they have accepted Jesus and the baptism. The scriptures say it is better to offend man than God.
Ralph: OK, on the books as a “baptized, but not yet a member” Ralph, you still don’t get it: there are many, myself included, that want NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with your church, other than however you characterize THIS one , blogging at MC, and if you were my physical neighbor, I’d take you out for a non-alcoholic Fosters. My name on AnY of your records as somehow participating in an LDS ordinance would not sit well with me. Maybe I’m totally unreasonable about that; maybe I’m fighting the will of God about that, but there it is. If I die tonight, and some LDS cousin of mine initiates this “blessing” for me posthmously, that is trampling all over what I want, and those who know me best, including my wife, would not know whether to laugh or cry. The situation is no better for someone who really hasn’t spoken as clearly as I on the issue: this is still an intrusion, not only on the dead person’s memory, but on the living (survivors). This is MUCH more than just praying for someone at your church, or lighting a candle in their name, or even having a Mass said for them. It is clear that you can have a Mass said for you and not EVER be Catholic, that ritual is NOT a prepatory to Catholic initiation.
The LDS insistence that ‘it really shouldn’t matter is a gross refusal to see this issue from a non-LDS perspective, I know that must be tough to do, but give it a whirl.
Sounds like the Jews have been trying , unsuccessfully, to get your group to see outside the Salt Lake City box for 14 years, without success…… sad. GERMIT
I imagine that many of the victim’s families feel aggreived because they see that the baptism-for-the-dead thing further strips the victims of their identities.
One part of the horror of the Nazi mindset was that the victims were ‘untermensch’ (sub-human), who didn’t have individual aspirations, fears, loves, or even names.
Whatever we think of the personal convictions of those who died (and they were as broad as you’d find in any population of 7 million people), it dishonours their memory to co-opt them into any singular religious category, particularly by means of proxy baptism.
If you want to convert, convert the living because “He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: [LDS] therefore do greatly err” (Mark 12:27).
Go to the church website and read in the news section about this issue. There is a link to a letter sent from general authorities to Ernest Michel.
Reading this thread, one would think the LDS church is aggressively going against the wishes of Jewish people. The church has apologized for PAST practices and has taken serious measures to conform to the desires of the Jewish community. Quoting a random comment from some blog that is rude and insensitive can certainly create an impression about LDS, but is not truly representative of the leadership or membership.
The church intended on doing this as a service to those who suffered in horrible circumstances. When the desires of that community were learned, the church stopped the practice. Yes, some names have had ordinances done for them since, but only by accident.
Please look at both sides (legitimate) of the issue. I highly recommend going to the lds.org website and reading the article I mentioned.
I doubt any evangelicals on this site would be willing to change their practices/beliefs for the sake of a few hurt feelings (even though the LDS church has taken measures to assuage the Jewish community and their fears/issues). You would simply respectfully explain your beliefs and extend a hand of friendship. I believe in baptisms for the dead are God’s will and design for His children. People should recognize it as such, a belief- and not get so offended. Ironically enough, the restored gospel is attacked relentlessly on this website and time and time again we are told it is out of line to cry about it, or to not let our feelings get in the way. Go figure.
Amanda,
What you fail to understand is that your belief is in a small way stealing identities. I IN NO WAY want my name in ANY of the Mormon databases. EVER. I feel I have that right being that it’s in fact my name and I have a right to choose where it goes and what it’s affiliated with. I feel that right should still be honored after that person has died.
If the Mormon community is that concerned about my eternity, they should try to get to me while I’m still breathing. After that, leave me alone.
FoF: I haven’t had time,yet, to read the article you referenced but I’ll catch up with that today. Thanks for the heads up.
Poetchick: your tag to IDENTITY THEFT is apt. This is a case where one groups desire for freedom of religion steps on identity and memory rights. And again, the ones fighting for the identity are the survivors, at least some of them. Amanda’s comparison is way flawed: I’m as vocal for free speech as anyone I know, but even free religious speech and practice has limits (although I’m not calling for LAWS to limit this situation, it would be too hard to police). The implied connection to the LDS church by placing these baptized dead on a list, even if not-yet-members is an affront to those who NEVER would have wanted that to happen in this life.
There is probably no way to prevent any of this legally, and the laws would be too prohibitive anyway; but the best recourse is to make the situation known to the rest of the world and let each one decide if this is God’s church or not.
This is one more case, Amanda, where LDS and orthodoxy do not, and will not, mix. We can agree to disagree respectfully, but to ask that someone ‘not feel hurt’ is over the top, this practice drags in an UN-willing (while living)participant and uses “god’s restored plan” to get around that. JUST PLAIN WEIRD. Germit
GERMIT
this is a long extract from an earlier MC posted on Sharon’s article: I don’t think I can improve on her analogy or I’d try. I think it’s ‘spot-on’
the new dean … of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, said
“It’s ridiculous for people to pretend they have the key to heaven. And even if they say they want to do somebody a favor … it’s not a symbol of love. It’s a symbol of arrogance.”
I’m sure Mormons would disagree with the Jewish position expressed by these men; yet it would be a good thing for Mormons to try to understand the issue from the Jewish perspective.
Perhaps Mormons could consider this scenario. A powerful and influential group has begun collecting the names of Mormon pioneers and martyrs. They are compiling them into a database which is accessible to researchers worldwide and will likely continue to be accessible for hundreds of years. This database includes records for each Mormon who has given his or her life, or sacrificed in another significant way, in consequence of their determination to remain faithful to the Mormon Gospel. Attached to each name is a letter of resignation from LDS Church membership, sent by proxy to Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
Though the letters are written and sent only to provide these departed ones the opportunity to leave Mormonism and join another church if they so wish, do LDS descendants of these Mormon pioneers merely shrug off their ancestors’ proxy resignations without another thought? Are Mormons not concerned about what future researchers may find and mistakenly believe about these LDS heroes?
I suspect Latter-day Saints would be very upset over Mormon pioneer proxy resignations from the LDS Church. They may even believe it to be an injustice to the memories of their loved-ones which.. is a devastating injury to everybody..
the kind of religious bigotry we’re talking about just doesn’t seem to HURT till it hurts OUR GROUP; until then, it’s “get over it..get past it..”
Cluff,
I’m glad you brought up Peter. A study of this passage reveals that the verb tense used for “be baptized” in the Greek is in the aorist passive imperative, which means that it does not have the same force as the imperative used for “repent.” We’re talking about two different actions, and while one action is a definite requisite to salvation, the other isn’t. (Now, please, don’t misconstrue the act of repenting as a work and go off in that tangent.) There are scholars that suggest that the call to be baptized is really an invitation. Calvin suggests that baptism is a sign and token of repentance. In Wesleyan language, it is an outward sign of an inward grace; in other words, we are regenerated through the gift of the Holy Spirit on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ, based on His merits as an outreach of God’s love and grounded in grace. What needs to be emphasized in not the human act, but the act of God as He redeems us. We need only look at Acts 3:19 to see that baptism is not binding while repentance is: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out.” There’s no mention of baptism. Also, we see that the source of wiping out our sins is God and not the physical act of baptism.
With regard to the concern of the Jewish community, the insensitive comments highlighted reveal a lack of knowledge and how this community has historically perceived baptism. Baptism is not unique to Christianity, and proselytes (Gentile converts to Judaism) were baptized into the Jewish faith. The Jewish community viewed baptism as a way in which the proselytes signified breaking their past and washing themselves from their defilement (Longenecker). So, by baptizing the Holocaust victims, the LDS Church is sending the message that they are defiled and in need of washing and breaking away from them. I’m sure the LDS Church does not intend for this message to be sent, but I think it’s what they’re inadvertently doing.
Grace amd Peace!
Germit,
It isn’t “ridiculous” to pretend that somebody has a key to heaven. In fact, didn’t Christ bestow such a key to Peter? We emphatically profess to have the “keys” to heaven.
Bottom line- LDS participate in temple work because it is a commandment from God. We would prefer that keeping such commandments didn’t offend people. We have stopped performing ordinances for those who died in the Holocaust as asked. Why then the continued discussion? And by the way, if people asked you to stop attempting to share the gospel, would you stop?
I narrowly escaped arrest on my mission for accidentally going door to door in the “wrong” neighborhood- very upscale place. After scolding from a homeowner and a police officer, we went to the next neighborhood and continued. We do not do these things to win some game or contest. We are doing what the Lord has asked.
Did not Christ warn that the world would be offended by His disciples?
As far as the group collecting mormon pioneer names, I personally would have nothing against it. We believe in the agency of man. I suggest the intentions of the two different efforts could not be more opposite. What they are doing doesn’t make sense anyway- the reason for collecting names is to perform ordinances. Having already been performed, removing names does nothing.
Identity theft? Religious bigotry? Please. We are taking agency away from nobody. They are not listed as members of the church, etc. These ordinances are null if a person rejects them after this life- they are of no effect even in our theology. We are changing nothing about their memory or identity. I know of no instance of a person’s history being altered by the fact that ordinances were performed for them in a mormon temple.
FoF: before I answer a few of your points I want to repeat a few things.
1)I have been part of a court case that literally went to the Supreme Court in defense of free speech in a secular setting that was religious in content; at the same university, that same cout case effectively gave MANY groups that same freedoms, so I want as broad an application of free speech as legally and morally possible.
2)I understand that the gospel, all by itself, is an offense to many people, and that is just flat unavoidable: many people find God and His ways/commands offensive, that won’t change for awhile. I accept that.
Having set those parameters, this is not offense by and because of the gospel, these are the after effects of bad theology (baptism for the dead) that morphs into bad social interaction. The appeal to what may or may not happen in the afterlife is (to my eyes) just a dodge. The PERCEPTION of a connection to your church after practicing this ordinance is not strained or unreal. The offense of a jew, or any other group, as a result of a ‘live’ conversion (assuming no coercion or power play) is one thing: that’s the offense of the cross. But this is something else; this is an ATTEMPT at a connection where none existed, and to make light of those living protecting the truth of their loved one’s life (no REAL connection to your church) show’s how you put YOUR church agenda over the truth.
You say, and I believe you, that the pioneer name gathering would not bother you. Perhaps, but your CHURCH would scream bloody murder, and for good reason. Your heroes would be misrepresented.
You say ‘we are taking agency away from nobody ” I’d say it’s more the case of MIXING the choices of those HERE with those of the departed (whatever that agency is..) We agree to disagree that all this is ‘the work of the gospel..’
I know the followers of Jesus have ALWAYS paid a high price of scorn for following in HIS steps, but this is an affront to personal choice and honesty.
FoF, your logic is a bit off. I don’t care if my actual identity is being stolen or not. I and many others would rather not have our names on any mormon data bases…are you saying we have no right to choose what lists our names get put on? The Mormon church, a church I have nothing to do with cannot take this freedom from me just because they believe in a phony religion that tells them I may not be saved. If you believe that, then preach the gospel to me…and please don’t liken baptism for the dead with preaching the gospel…that’s absolutely ridiculous.
Bottom line. The Mormon church has no right to include people’s names on their databases without permission. It makes no difference to me if my family would be affected by it…I’ll be dead so I won’t be around to care…BUT I DON’T WANT MY NAME ON THE MORMON DATABASE. The church needs to have a “do not baptize” list much like the telemarketers have for the people who want to opt out of solicitous calls.
I’ll save the mormons some time. I am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ…the real Jesus Christ, not the brother-of-satan- version of Jesus. So leave me, my family and my name alone. Thanks
Germit,
Thanks for the response. I know you think baptism for the dead is bogus. But we do not. I am convinced this is based on revelation and is a commandment from God. So, do we disobey God (our perspective) to not offend?
I understand the perception you relate. But it is a perception- that we think we are “winning” over these souls to “our side.” With your understanding of our doctrine, do you see that this isn’t the case? In our doctrine, each soul will have an opportunity to hear the full gospel at some point. Each soul will choose for himself.
I don’t think I have said anything that would be offensive to families of those who are dead. I am simply trying to explain how what we do doesn’t change identities, memories, or affect agency. The church no longer performs ordinances for the people mentioned in the article. Don’t know what else is required of the church. I understand your view, but can you understand ours?
How is this practice an “affront to personal choice and honesty?” The church has been up front and honest about all this and responded appropriately to the group concerned.
FoF: I won’t add to much to what I’ve said already, I appreciate your very real efforts to see this from another’s perspective. That’s something we all could use more of.
The PERCEPTION that I refer to is that the deceased has some kind of connection with your church. You and I know that this is an ‘opportunity offered’ but most will not even begin to appreciate the fine points of our discussion. I think the harm done by the perception is real. If someone were to hear that I’d been baptized post mortem into your church, a reasonable , but false, conclusion would be that I’d had a radical change of heart about the truth of your church. Such would not be the case. No one would reasonable make the same conclusion knowing that my soul was prayed for by my scientologist neighbor, or a crystal service and channeling done by my cleaning lady (if only I had one). I consider this a dishonest set-up, but I realize that given what your church has taught about the NEED for baptism for the dead, you are caught in the wake of JS revelation. I don’t expect you to change your mind about this, and I’m fully persuaded that your intentions are the best, but that doesn’t change how insensitive this practice is to the wishes and direction of the one it’s supposed to help. God and the entire spirit world have ready access to these departed ones….that’s not enough of a second chance ?? It goes without saying that our discussion does nothing to change whether or not this practice reflects God’s mind and heart or not. It’s either true or it isn’t, but I wish the lifetime decisions of the dead were honored , if God want’s to extend mercy on the other side, He is certainly able. GERMIT
Wow. Where to begin? (Let us always be kind and gentle with one another).
FoF: I love you mormons, I really do, but you guys just don’t get it. Not everybody wants to be like you. Is that OK? Why is that so hard to understand? Please remember your 11th and 13th Article of Faith.
Next: First you say “I am convinced this (baptisms for the dead) is based on revelation and is a commandment from God.” Then you say “The church no longer performs ordinances for the people mentioned in the article.” Well, which is it going to be? You place yourself in a bind here because now you say your church is refusing to perform a (purported) “commandment” (from the same God who authored the 10 commandments).
Obviously your church is “still” performing these baptisms for Jewish Holocaust victims, even after being asked numerous times in the past to stop, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation (thread). I think that all the families are asking for is just common sense decency, and respect for others.
But please … let’s keep it real here. Your church is “not” going to stop performing these posthumous baptisms for these Jews. What your church “will” do is continue to perform these baptisms, and keep the names separate and locked up tight from the published names and records.
Maybe this is what you should have done after the first outcry, for I believe there is some merit to what you’re church is doing (concerning posthumous baptisms).
It’s just that most people find your 11th and 13th Articles of Faith disingenuous after observing the behaviour of your church and comments made by your members concerning this matter.
Free,
Baptism for the dead is a commandment from God, however, out of respect for those descendants of the Holocaust victims who do not wish to have their ancestors baptised, we do not perform them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
We teach and believe that during the Millenium, this process of baptisms for the dead will still be continuing. Since only those who truely believe in Jesus will be on this earth at that point in time, there will be no one who will oppose this principle for these people. Then we shall start with their names again. But if we are not the true believers in Jesus, then we will not be on this earth to do this work, so they will have nothing to worry about.
So there is no “bind” because we are still performing the commandment from God using other names and waiting until we have the opportunity to do these names.
As far as the comment “Obviously your church is “still” performing these baptisms for Jewish Holocaust victims, even after being asked numerous times in the past to stop, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation (thread)” take into consideration that we have many names going into the system and we are only human – mistakes will happen. In this case, sometimes names of these victims do get through. So we are not doing it purposefully.
Also, if a descendant of one of these victims is a member and they want the temple work to be done, then it is allowed – again this means that some names get through, but in this case it is allowed as we have the descendant’s permission.
I hereby request that the Mormon Church not baptize any of my dead Gentile ancestors.
Aaron, if you were backed by the strength of a powerful Jewish law firm in, say, New York, or a powerful Jewish lobby in Washington, I have no doubt your “request” would be granted relatively quickly.
One does not mess with Jews in 21st century America, whatever your religious, political, or otherwise ethnical slant.
But really, your claim that the Mormon Church is guilty of offending the “Jewish community” is just plain silly. This whole deal is the result of a very small interest group. A very loud and powerful interest group, no doubt, but it is hardly a concern of the rank and file Jew in America, or anywhere.
Just cranky, powerful people trying to impose their will on others for no good reason but ethnic pride and power. And this is really very sadly being done in the name of Holocost victims–victims of a very similar sort of mindset.
mutu.
Mantis: I think you might well be on to something. And here is the point:
so your group allowed the request of this Jewish group (and I’d say GREAT, if I were Jewish) To get the same respect and sensitivity, do I need to employ a big law firm ?? Do I need to threaten litigation ?? If you just capitulated to legal pressure, maybe your group should change course and tell the Jews what to do with their legal lobby. IF it was the right thing to do to honor the Jewish request, THEN GIVE THE LITTLE GUYS THE SAME TREATMENT. I’m with AARON: as a representative of CLAN GERMIT: where can I GO, to get MY relatives in this “DO NOT BAPTIZE POSTHMOUSLY” list ??? Will your church honor that, and if not, why not ?? GERMIT
When it comes to respecting people’s private beliefs and rituals, hopefully you live in a country that demands you simply mind your own exclusive business. The day someones’ name becomes the exclusive business and domain of their descendants is a dark day in American history, in my opinion.
It’s odd that this sort of outrage comes in a day when the names of the living become less and less exclusive by the minute.
germit, you are foolhardy if you don’t recognize that when Mormons lose their freedoms of worship–in any degree or manner–then you lose your freedoms of worship as well.
mutu.
Mantis: I’m all for keeping the gov’t out of this; like I said, the laws to regulate this would be intrusive, awkward, and impossible to enforce fairly. I’m not calling for gov’t oversight, they aren’t doing such a great job as it is, maybe Barack will turn it all around….
I would LOVE to mind my own business, but when you put my name or the name of one of my loved ones on a list connected to a ritual that most people associate with ‘joining’ or ‘membership’ , then YOU have dragged me into it. I can choose to roll over and say ‘well, that’s just what those LDS guys are into…’ let them be…. but it’s YOUR church that’s walking on MY rights here, I just don’t have the political and legal clout of a large lobbying group to enforce it. That’s the elephant walking around inside of this thread , by the way, IF THE JEWS WERE UPSET, DO YOU THINK IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE OTHERS WERE AND STILL ARE ?? I have a grandaughter now attending an LDS church, so I may have to pursue this “don’t baptize me” list thing in earnest in a decade or two….how far will I get with that ?? Would your church respect MY wishes if I made them known ?? I’m a champion for worship rights: YOURS AND MINE, not YOURS AT THE EXPENSE OF MINE. Respectfully, GERMIT
Insensitive? Maybe. But given that it is a “free will offering,” the analogy you suggested doesn’t hold up.
You wrote, “I think it would be safe to say that President Monson and those who call him prophet would prefer that this initiative be stopped – or at least changed to keep President Monson’s name out of it.”
Sure, those who call him prophet may prefer that it be stopped, but ultimately, I would hope, it is President Monson who decides.
In other words, Mormons are doing baptisms for the dead on behalf of Jewish Holocaust victims, stating plainly and emphatically that it is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of thing. Yet, rather than let these “spirits” choose for themselves, their descendants want to speak and act in their name and for their sake.
Baptizing Holocaust victims does not make them Mormons; although it does give them to the choice–a choice that I don’t think anybody has the right to interfere with, assuming that these individuals still exist somewhere in a spiritual form.
To a descendant of a Holocaust victim, that person may just be a “cherished name and memory,” but given that temple-work is less about padding membership rolls than ensuring passage into Paradise, ie, saving souls…the most prudent thing to do would be to let these victims decide for themselves.
germit, your sensitivity in identifying and protecting what is YOURS is the type of sensitivity that invariably leads to bitter contention. In your case, however, I think the contentious spirit you have with Mormons is the very foundation for the sensitivity. For the Jewish special interest group that’s targeted Mormons over holocaust proxy rites, I sense that the situation is the reverse.
But regardless, I certainly hope you in the future can see that what your granddaughter may “wish” to do with family names in an esoteric religious rite is FAR, FAR, FAR less obstructive to your beliefs than your own “wish” that she not use those names in such manner. But maybe you won’t.
At some point do people have a right to get offended at by the belief that Jesus Christ died for THEIR sins, regardless of whether or not they choose to believe in Him? Are not all us zealous Christians guilty of infringing on the beliefs of others to some degree?
mutu.
Mantis: thanks for the post. Fact is, what my granddaughter does, or doesn’t do with my name is not so much an infringement of what I believe, or how I practice my faith; it’s an infringement on how I’m to be remembered, and that’s why Poetchick’s ‘identity theft’ tag is apt, in my opinion. Those who know me would probably get a good laugh out of a Mormon baptism: the idea of me hanging out in any kind of Mormon heaven , passing out tracks, or talking up JS’ 27 plus wives, would probably cross their minds. I can see where following what I suggest is an ‘obstruction’ to your faith, but that is just one more area where JS and I don’t see eye to eye. The real gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with this. My HOPE is that my granddaughter would respect grandpa’s wishes, but I won’t make it a case of win the battle , lose the war, but I’m not likely to be passive about it either. Hope this helps. GERMIT
I agree with you Germit! I want on that list as well. If the mean and nasty old telemarketers will honor my wishes and quit calling if my name is on their do-not-call list, then shouldn’t the Mormon’s do the same with baptisms?
And yep, I can just picture you up there, Germit, in Mormon heaven, hanging out near the punch bowl [Trimmed–a little humor some might find offensive]
And I have a sister who’s Mormon and I just know she’s waiting around for me to kick the bucket so she can go baptism crazy.
LDS Outsider,
I think the issue for Mormons is which prophets are they going to believe. The BOM does not teach about an opportunity to receive Christ after death, but teaches that this life is the time to prepare to meet God. The idea about baptism for the dead is what JS taught after he proclaimed to the world that the BOM is the most correct book on earth. So, one can and will find contradictions within Mormonism amongst its leaders.
BTW, I’m still waiting for Cluff to respond to my earlier post with regard to Peter’s speech in Acts 2.
Grace and Peace!
Too all who say they are offended by this practice and do not want their name nor their ancestors names done keep this in mind (and I have said it before on this thread). We believe that this practice will continue during the Millenium (ie Jesus reign on this earth) when only those who believe in Jesus will beon this earth. It will continue until everyone that has ever lived on this earth has been baptised, including you. This is because we believe that baptism is essential to entering the Celestial Kingdom, without it one cannot enter exaltation. We also believe that the same spirit and character that you have on this earth will be the same in the spirit world and in the resurrection. So if you are offended by this practice and reject it now, you still will be then regardless of any ‘proof’ given at that time. It will be your choice, and it will be a witness against you for rejecting baptism. This will ultimately stop you from being exalted.
Now as I said, this is if we are the true church. if we aren’t then we will not be here during the Millenium and the practice will not continue. But it is giving people a choice and a chance of exaltation, especially those who did not receive the chance in their life time.
Jackg, that is the answer to yourquestion about the BoM – its talking to those who have heard and accepted the truth as they will not get a ‘second chance’. Those who did not get a (proper) chance in this life, will get a proper chance in the next, otherwise God is unmerciful and the scripture in the Bible stating where there is no law there is no sin or punishment. Many have lived without knowing the laws of God, so they either get no punishment, which is unfair on those who had the law, or they get a chance to learn about God and His law and accept or reject it like everyone else. So they do not get a ‘second chance’, they get their one and only chance.
Germit and poet chick, (sorry so delayed)
memory rights????? I missed that one in the constitution…
All we are doing is geneology. Is it not an LDS members right to do their geneology? Many of you might not want to accept this but most everyone is related in some way to a mormon, and they are going to want to make sure they do work FOR you (based on their beliefs) as an act of love. If you cannot see this as an act of service and love, then quite frankly, you’re being selfish and sensitive. See it how we see it- that we mean well and offer our time as a sacrifice for those we love.
When no offense is meant, none should be taken..and moreover, Christ has said to turn the other cheek.
Memory rights??? I’m still laughing about that one 😉
Amanda wrote: See it how we see it- that we mean well and offer our time as a sacrifice for those we love. When no offense is meant, none should be taken..and moreover, Christ has said to turn the other cheek.
First, what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:39, is that you should make people treat you as a human. Note it says “right cheek” thus being smitten or slapped with the back of the hand, which in 1st century Roman culture meant you were a lesser human than the one slapping you. Turning the cheek made them hit you with their open hand putting you on the same level as them.
Now, I understand your emotional attachment to your argument, yet you reject the emotional portion of these Jewish leaders. Now “memory rights” may not have been the best term I would prefer to use the term “identity.” If I understand the Jewish position here, I believe they see this as a form of “identity theft.” If we define “identity theft” as the fraudulent appropriation and use of someone’s identifying or personal data or documents. Now if we used this information to obtain financial profit we are considered criminal, yet if we use this information for religious intentions ever thing is fine and dandy? That seems just silly.
Now the standard argument is that “if you don’t believe it why would it matter?” I think the question for most of these Jews is will their ancestors eventually be rewritten as dying because they were Mormon rather than because they were Jews? It seems to them that the Mormon Church is stealing their heritage and identities, and with that may rewrite history.
Lautensack
How terrifying and dreadful. If I died and awoke with the same heart-inclinations toward pride and lust and vanity and shallowness, I would most definitely be in hell.
But Jesus has promised me that after I die I will awake to him in paradise. In an instant, my whole self will be purified from all sin. The resurrection-power of Christ that began to morally transform me at conversion will have done its consummate work of removing the power and stain of sin.
Lautensack,
You err in your interpretation of our practices. When we baptize, it is only in proxy. The individual still has their agency to accept this gift. This is no different than the sacrifice Christ offered to mankind. Simply because he gave his life for all mankind does not mean all mankind will be saved. Certainly those who chose not to accept baptism in this life, or the next by proxy–they are entitled to that choice and to their “identity”.
Rewriting history?
Oh, the IRONY! LDS work on the genealogical front does more to preserve people’s identity than any organization that has ever existed. If I found a Jewish ancestor, it would be noted in my records, as well as any other important points of “identity”. Genealogy pinpoints exactly who people are, their parents, their religion..even some data entry areas ask about christenings, etc…Genealogy is also helping people around the world IDENTIFY with their ancestors (as if this isn’t the most important identity to have- family)..where their ancestors came from etc. And they can access this information without being members themselves! So I scoff at this “identify theft” argument. It’s quite ridiculous.
Amanda said:
“The individual still has their agency to accept this gift. This is no different than the sacrifice Christ offered to mankind.”
So if baptism for the dead, or baptism by proxy is identical to what Christ did on the cross, are you saying Christ’s death is insufficient? It really bothers me when people try to take the death of my Savior and trivialize it. Christ died to save ALL our sins, and only asks us to put our faith in him and allow him to reign over our lives. That’s it…
you also said: “…Genealogy is also helping people around the world IDENTIFY with their ancestors (as if this isn’t the most important identity to have- family)..”
Sorry, just had to point out that the most important identity I have is my identity through Christ…not my earthly family. It’s a scary thing when we start identifying ourselves through things of this earth.
Amanda: your reference to the constitution is out of place, I’ve never said that what your church is doing is illegal, and neither am I suggesting we need more laws to prevent it.
“If no offense is intended, none should be taken..??” I’m new to that nugget of wisdom, I think the standard for causing offense is higher than that. I’m pretty sure you don’t even believe it yourself, but it probably felt right when you typed it. You understandably circle the wagons around your religious practice: you’ve been told by your big guy that it is of God, what else can you do ? If I were Mormon, I’d probably do the same.
I’m also pretty certain you desire your own leaders and events to be rightly remembered, so I’m thinking this ‘right’, or whatever you choose to call it, is more important to you than you let on. And when you disagree in these things, the fact that the Mormon Coffe crowd only means the best for you and your church probably doesn’t square the offense with you.
Your post ,and those of Mantu, and Ralph, show an inability to see this issue from the opposing viewpoint. GERmIT
Germit,
I wasn’t offended- far from it. So no worries. I just had a good chuckle about your “memory rights” comment. I just think out of all the things to be upset about in the world, that wouldn’t be one of them. But that is just my humble opinion- I mentioned the constitution to simply put your comment in the context of silliness. I didn’t think you were saying what LDS did was illegal.
If we disagree with the opposing viewpoints (hence the operative term OPPOSING)- does not mean we don’t understand it- it means we disagree with it. But I don’t disagree with people’s emotions and experience on this topic. I mean no offense to those who are feeling offended-However, I take issue with their reasoning and actions they have prescribed for me personally and the leadership of the church.
I’ve been told by my big guy eh? HAHA, sorry but this is also striking my funny bone. Do you mind elaborating on that one? I don’t mean to be patronizing- if it seems that way, I’m truly sorry.
Poetchick,
Do you know what symbolism is? Do you know what types are? Easier yet, do you know what metaphors are? There are all kinds of these mechanisms in the bible that all point to Christ, and are used to teach principles. My example was also a mechanism to explain a principle of agency. I don’t mean to be rude, but you completely misunderstood the concept.
Ralph,
Thanks for your response. The only issue I see with what you say is that it works from a premise that we can question God and challenge Him on His ways. That’s what we do when we work from the parameters and limitations of this world and dimension. One thing we do wrong is confine God to time as we know it. He created time and, therefore, exists and operates outside of time. You see, we want things to make sense based on our reasoning of things. But, we can’t make up doctrines and pick and choose what scripture passages we want to believe in an effort to make God and His ways make sense to us. I don’t know what will happen with people who have not had an opportunity to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ. I don’t know if God will judge us according to the light we have received or not. It’s not for me to try and understand, and it’s definitely not for me to create a doctrine to fit my sense of justice. God is sovereign; you can’t forget that. And that means He can do whatever He wants because, in the end, who are we to question or to counsel God? I don’t think you can escape what the BOM teaches against what the D&C teaches without concluding (at least for me) that OC was the brains of the BOM while JS was the brains of the D&C; hence, we have the contradiction. But, that’s just my opinion. I still do appreciate your attempt to respond to the issue I raised.
Peace and Grace!
Amanda,
Forgive me, I should have checked my source, a Priesthood holder, former bishop, and friend, against the current doctrine of the Church noted on LDS.org. Perhaps he was confusing baptism and marriage sealing. Would it be safe to say that if a Jew from the holocaust was both Baptized and Sealed by Proxy that they then are considered “Mormon,” at least by the Mormon community.
Now you say my argument for “identity theft” is ridiculous, however if another group practiced similar beliefs and baptized your grandparents or great grandparents into their religion would you take offense to that? Would you feel as though their legacy had been cheated? I do wonder if another group baptized Joseph Smith Jr. or Gorden B. Hinckley by proxy into their religion if the Mormon culture would be up in arms about it saying that those men were LDS and that said group should in no way be allowed to baptize them into a religion that they did not believe in? Or as Sharon put it, allow it to seem as though President Monson was an advocate for Homosexual Marriage. Again all I am asking is for you to look at it from the prospective of the Jewish people who feel that the Mormon Church is stealing the identities of their families.
The Mormons are not the only ones who participate in genealogy research. The Jews also hold their own genealogies in high regard, note the OT and it’s abundance of them. As well as societies such as The Israel Genealogical Society (http://www.isragen.org.il/) and Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain (http://www.jgsgb.org.uk/) among others.
Lautensack
To All:
Amanda says “oh I wasn’t offended…” but I wansn’t necessarily talking about ONLY the baptism for the dead thing: consider the “who gets to call themselves MORMON thread” and how the LDS howl (some of them) at who exercises this ‘right’ or ‘claim’. Not that every LDS is equally sensitive, but the attitude of not caring changes drastically depending on which group is in control of the identity. If amanda is consistent, she should have no problem with any of the OTHER “mormon” groups using the title, and certainly not the least offended….no offense is intended, right ?
Lautensack,
You asked “Would it be safe to say that if a Jew from the holocaust was both Baptized and Sealed by Proxy that they then are considered “Mormon,” at least by the Mormon community”
The answer is NO. The ordinances for them have been done to give them the opportunity to accept or reject it. They are never considered a member of the LDS church regardless of how many temple ordinances have been done for them. Once the ordinances have been performed for anyone they are still ‘members’ of the religion they belonged to when they died. It is only if they accept the gospel taught to them in the spirit prison and then accept the ordinances that have been done for them that they can stand before God on judgement day and have Him accept them into the kingdom.
In other words, the temple ordinances are not effectual until the day of judgement. So a person is never considered by the LDS church to be a member after their temple ordinances are performed. Neither are they guaranteed to make the Celestial Kingdom if all the necessary ordinances are done, as it all depends on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Saviour after they have been taught in the spirit prison.
Ralph said, “it all depends on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Saviour.”
I think this is a misrepresentation of Mormon theology because salvation depends on whether or not a person is baptized. It’s back to the non-biblical formula of:
salvation = faith in Jesus xyz
The true biblical formula is:
salvation = faith in Jesus
It’s sad that our Mormon friends refuse to see the simplicity of it all.
Grace and Peace!
Jackg,
You are misrepresenting the LDS church with that comment. We teach that first and foremost is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. After we have this faith we should be willing to do whatever He has asked us to do, and we believe that one of these is baptism. If one is baptised and does not really believe in Jesus, just doing it to fit in with the group, then that baptism is null and void because of the lack of belief in Jesus.
Our salvation revolves around faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is a doing word, and we believe that our faith is what motivates us to do what Jesus has asked us to do. If we do not do these things then we are not showing faith in Jesus and we cannot be exalted. So yes, while we believe that baptism is a necessity for entry into the Celestial Kingdom, it is only because that is what we believe Jesus has asked us to do. In contrast to your belief that baptism is only on a ‘only if I want to’ basis, we believe that Jesus taught and required baptism as essential.
RalpH: we’ve been down this road about 1000 times or more, but to say that baptism is not essential for salvation is NOT the same as saying ‘I’ll go thru that if I want to…” Those are not the same statement, and to say so is misrepresenting the ev. Christian position, at least as far as we’re concerned. I actually LIKE your emphasis on faith and works, although we agree to disagree about what is necessary for salvation, and what is seen (works) as EVIDENCE OF salvation. I have NEVER met a christian who did NOT believe that FAITH IS A DOING WORD. NEVER. GERMIT
Germit,
I do know some Christians who have not and do not want to get baptised as they view it as unnecessary. They put it down to “if someone wants to they can as it has no bearing on salvation, but I don’t want to so I wont”. That is where I got the idea from.
As far as you never meeting a Christian who “did not believe that faith is a doing word”, I never said that. I was just emphasising a point that we as LDS believe as it added to my argument that our faith in Jesus should lead us to live according to His words.
As an aside, I remember a talk in conference quite a number of years ago where one of the GA’s made the comment that we are The Church of Jesus Christ and as such we should emphasise faith in Him in all of our talks and lessons. He made this comment because he had visited a ward and in the sacrament meeting, except for the prayers and songs no one mentioned the name of Jesus Christ or faith in Him. We are only human and we make mistakes, and some LDS try to emphasise our uniqueness (ie BoM, living prophet, JS, etc) more than what we need to focus on, which is Jesus. Since that talk I have always tried to focus my talks and lessons on faith in Jesus Christ regardless of the topic. And it works as faith is the underlying message of the gospel and salvation.
A little birdie told me that this thread somehow turned to the topics of adultery and prop 8? Next person who tries to veer the thread that far off is in danger of being banned. FoF, I’m talking to you. Can we please keep this civil? As much as I like pressing the delete button on off-topic comments, it gets old.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Lautensack,
You said, “Would it be safe to say that if a Jew from the holocaust was both Baptized and Sealed by Proxy that they then are considered “Mormon,” at least by the Mormon community.”
No. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. How we consider this information is that the work has been done for those name/names. In order to be considered a part of His fold, they must accept baptism by their own free will and choice. We are only offering the chance for them to accept. It is really beyond our knowledge whether they have accepted it or not. The more offensive doctrine is the common mainstream Christian teaching that those who do not accept Christ in this life are going to hell- and the Catholic teaching that babies need baptism or they are going to hell…Children are alive in Christ. Put against these two teachings, baptisms for the dead are pretty benign and actually seem very charitable.
No, I would not take offense if my grandparents were on the records of some other church as being “baptized”. Certainly not by LDS standards because we don’t have them on record as being “mormon”. We would only assert that the “work”, namely baptism for the dead” has been done for them- pending their own acceptance of this work, as I explained above. I know this is convenient for me to say. But when you are sure of your own testimony, anyone elses beliefs and practices cannot in any way be threatening. Perhaps, though, I will acknowledge that I may feel this way because I am so familiar with the practice having been around it my whole life.
I believe much of the offense is in the lack of understanding or our actual belief and practice of this ordinance.
I was in no way undercutting the genealogical research of other institutions- I am in fact grateful for their records, as is the church, because it obviously helps our cause to extend baptism to those beyond this life.
RalpH: appreciate you filling in some of the gaps with your post. I can see where you might get the idea about baptism , “I’ll do that if I want”… and indeed some christians, as some Mormons, hold that line of thot about LOTS of things. And in the case of BOTH, they do a disservice to both my faith and yours, their view is ‘maverick’ and selfish. You’ve posted here long enough to know, I’d hope , that the TYPICAL, NORMAL, christian response to baptism is not nearly so cavalier. That’s my point. For me to try to represent YOUR faith by what some jack mormons do or believe would be just as unfair. GERmIT
I liked your emphasis on the centrality of Christ, and faith in HIM first; that’s a good plan for any teaching or lesson.