Jump to content

Proxy Baptism for Jews


DanGB

Recommended Posts

From a previous thread, there seemed to be many members confused about the Church policy toward proxy baptisms on Jews. Here is a current article with Church spokesman giving update that the policy is still n force:

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19528&Itemid=86

So again it brings up the question, why did we compromise our beliefs in doctrine just to accomodate Jews?

If other religious or cultural groups complained would we compromise with them as well?

Link to comment

From a previous thread, there seemed to be many members confused about the Church policy toward proxy baptisms on Jews. Here is a current article with Church spokesman giving update that the policy is still n force:

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19528&Itemid=86

So again it brings up the question, why did we compromise our beliefs in doctrine just to accomodate Jews?

If other religious or cultural groups complained would we compromise with them as well?

We've really not compromised anything. The policy is that members are only to submit records for proxy temple work for their own ancestors. A Church member who happens to have a Holocaust survivor as an ancestor can do the vicarious work for that ancestor just like anyone else in his lineage. The agreement stated Church members would be forbidden to submit names of Holocaust survivors to whom they themselves were not related. That goes for any deceased persons, not just Holocaust victims.

If other groups complained, the Church would not have to change its policy to accommodate them, unless they objected to Mormon descendants having temple work done for their own ancestors. We have not made that concession regarding the Holocaust victims; hence no such precedent has been set.

Link to comment

I was involved, over a period of many years, in the work for about 60,000 holocaust victims. Wrote a modified temple ready program at the time, to help my good friend (more like a father) Stan James expedite the work.

Stan started with a list of 20,000, which we did, then we did both parents (with simple Mr./Mrs. from the original list).

We were down to about 2000 names left to do when the pressures hit and the Provo Temple shut us down. I temple readied up the final 2000 with my program and split them up to all the temples (except Provo of course) and sent them around the world to be finished.

I hit the post office and mailed them out on a Friday, following Sunday came a full front page article on it in the paper. I chickened out on my friend and went to the Church head quarters with a bag full of 3.5" floppies and mailing lists. I gave the bag to the guard at the bottom of the stairs and told him someone was going to want to talk to me. He assured me no one would and to go home. I told him I would be waiting in the bottom floor of the ivory tower. About 1/2 hour later I meet BKP for what I assumed was going to be my excommunication.

My friend/father forgave me. God Bless Stan James and his family

Link to comment

We've really not compromised anything. The policy is that members are only to do proxy temple work for their own ancestors. A Church member who happens to have a Holocaust survivor as an ancestor can do the vicarious work for that ancestor just like anyone else in his lineage. The agreement stated Church members would not submit names of Holocaust survivors to whom they themselves were not related. That goes for any deceased persons, not just Holocaust victims.

If other groups complained, the Church would not have to change its policy to accommodate them, unless they objected to Mormon descendants having temple work done for their own ancestors. We have not made that concession regarding the Holocaust victims; hence no such precedent has been set.

Then why the need for the 1995 agreement w the Jews and no other group?

May want to rethink your answer/logic. I've done Temple work!

Link to comment

Then why the need for the 1995 agreement w the Jews and no other group?

The agreement wasn't with "the Jews". It was with the comparatively small(and minor) group of agitators who presumed to speak for "the Jews".

The policy was a concession to their feelings, but it did not compromise doctrine then or now.

And the headline to the article you cited is flatly false and is contradicted by the article itself.

May want to rethink your answer/logic. I've done Temple work!
This statement is a non-sequitor.

As before the "agreement", we are free to do Temple Work for our own ancestors. We still believe that such Temple Work is necessary for all mankind, and as our numbers grow (and the Millenium begins), we will indeed complete all the necessary work.

Nothing has changed our doctrine or our belief.

We simply changed our practice to avoid unecessary antagonism to those who either don't understand our work and calling or who cannot get past their own prejudices.

Link to comment

From a previous thread, there seemed to be many members confused about the Church policy toward proxy baptisms on Jews. Here is a current article with Church spokesman giving update that the policy is still n force:

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19528&Itemid=86

So again it brings up the question, why did we compromise our beliefs in doctrine just to accomodate Jews?

If other religious or cultural groups complained would we compromise with them as well?

No beliefs have been compromised. If you read with comprehension you will find the policy is what it has always been, If you have ancestors that were Jewish holacot victims you will and should do the work for them. If you are not related then get busy on your own and leave other peoples ancestors for them.

Link to comment
We simply changed our practice to avoid unecessary antagonism to those who either don't understand our work and calling or who cannot get past their own prejudices.

Wait, this makes no sense in the scheme of "other far more vocal" antagonism. We get far more "hammered" as a church for our "exclusionary" policy or not allowing family, friends, and fellow Christians in the Temple to witness wedding vows. We even force US couples to wait one year for sealing if thet chose to accomodate, out of love, to have a ceremony of exchanging vows first outside the temple.

Where do we draw the line on avoiding "uneccessary antagonism" to show our compassinate side. Why not make the same compromisUe for temple weddings?

IMHO the answer is simple and consistent to where we compromised in he past: "The power of the public press"! We are an "image oriented Church". No Doubt!

Link to comment

Wait, this makes no sense in the scheme of "other far more vocal" antagonism. We get far more "hammered" as a church for our "exclusionary" policy or not allowing family, friends, and fellow Christians in the Temple to witness wedding vows. We even force US couples to wait one year for sealing if thet chose to accomodate, out of love, to have a ceremony of exchanging vows first outside the temple.

Where do we draw the line on avoiding "uneccessary antagonism" to show our compassinate side. Why not make the same compromisUe for temple weddings?

IMHO the answer is simple and consistent to where we compromised in he past: "The power of the public press"! We are an "image oriented Church". No Doubt!

DanGB read the **** article instead of trying to score points. While your reading try reading for comprhension, you appear to me to have some trouble with that.

Link to comment

I'm quite sure that Stan was not related to any of them, nor the 1000's of patrons that the names were handed out to in the locker room over the years. The book with the 20k names was found under a bridge somewhere.

I used to love to listen to some of his dreams of these people he loved so much.

However, one of the things I heard that was the biggest objection of the Jews was that Hitler had school children fill out genealogy charts in school as a means to identify his victims. They were thus more worried about their names in such as list than anything to do with the religious spiriutal side of things.

Being sensitive to the Jewish community's desires is/was the right thing to do.

DanGB, this was a genocide of what, 8 million individuals.

Link to comment

Wait, this makes no sense in the scheme of "other far more vocal" antagonism.

And yet it makes perfect sense once you remove the ark-steadier's glasses.

This act of courtesy did not require us to alter or compromise our doctrines (contrary to your rather trumphalist claims), nor did it require us to violate the sanctity and purity of the Temple.

We get far more "hammered" as a church for our "exclusionary" policy or not allowing family, friends, and fellow Christians in the Temple to witness wedding vows.

This change, were it adopted, would require us to violate the sanctity and purity of the Temple.

We even force US couples to wait one year for sealing if thet chose to accomodate, out of love, to have a ceremony of exchanging vows first outside the temple.
How do you manage to pack so much bigoted sneer into one sentence? I mean- were you to squeeze in any more derision and the covalent bonds would actually touch, triggering a fusion reaction!
Where do we draw the line on avoiding "uneccessary antagonism" to show our compassinate side. Why not make the same compromisUe for temple weddings?
Answered above.
IMHO the answer is simple and consistent to where we compromised in he past: "The power of the public press"! We are an "image oriented Church". No Doubt!

And you are a bomb-thrower and a troll.

Your opinion is worth precisely what we paid for it.

You have not contributed a single thread or post here that was not derisive, insulting, or inflammatory.

Your OP was a false accusation of capitulation. When you got pwned over that one, you simply moved down the list to your next-favorite criticism.

You're not here to learn, only to sneer and antagonize.

The sooner you're banned for your bomb-throwing, derision, and name-calling, the better.

Link to comment
DanGB, this was a genocide of what, 8 million individuals.

rockslider,

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying we should make exception for any persecuted group in history? You may have a compassionate point. So should we make the same policy to get approvals from direct decendents from those killed in the: inquisition, slaves, genocides in Africa, southeast Asia, Bosnia, 9-11.................? What s the qualification the Church needs to have to get approval for exposing to Gods potential saving??

Link to comment

So should we make the same policy to get approvals from direct decendents from those killed in the: inquisition, slaves, genocides in Africa, southeast Asia, Bosnia, 9-11.................? What s the qualification the Church needs to have to get approval for exposing to Gods potential saving??

And I'm not sure of your point, especially when you switched gears over to guests at sealing's etc.

If your point is about "qualification" of the dead, for proxy work in Mormon Temples

Link to comment
This act of courtesy did not require us to alter or compromise our doctrines (contrary to your rather trumphalist claims), nor did it require us to violate the sanctity and purity of the Temple.

So if a couple choses to show compassion to family, friends, and fellow Christians by having a civil marriage first, why does the Cburch make them wait 1 year for a temple ceiling. What doctrine would be violated w and immediate temple sealing? We do it for other countries!

Link to comment

So if a couple choses to show compassion to family, friends, and fellow Christians by having a civil marriage first, why does the Cburch make them wait 1 year for a temple ceiling.

It's worse than you know.

The evil and insensitive b-----ds at Church HQ make them wait a year for the floors, walls, chairs, and altar too!

Link to comment

So if a couple choses to show compassion to family, friends, and fellow Christians by having a civil marriage first, why does the Cburch make them wait 1 year for a temple ceiling. What doctrine would be violated w and immediate temple sealing? We do it for other countries!

The law of obedience and sacrifice.

Link to comment

So if a couple choses to show compassion to family, friends, and fellow Christians by having a civil marriage first, why does the Cburch make them wait 1 year for a temple ceiling.

The policy and practice is Temple-first. To do it any other way demonstrates a willingness to place the angst of Babylon before the wisdom and will of the Lord.
We do it for other countries!

We do it for other countries because we are legally required to- not for any other reason.

But you knew that when you switched to item # 4,387-d on your list of criticisms of the Church.

Again, your derail wasn't about actually learning anything- you just wanted to flog your apostacy a bit more.

Link to comment

Dan,

I sat in the parking lot five times for my three children. Have you also sat in the parking lot? Do you have compassion and feeling behind these questions or just poking at it with standard critic fare?

Sorry to hear you had to do that, rockslider. I wish I had been in that predicament, in a sense. None of my children who have married have even married inside the Church, let alone the temple. One of ours married a very wonderful young lady from Canada, in Canada, where the state insists upon a public wedding with a government official present -- so they had the "public" wedding in the government building three weeks before the "church" wedding, except in a odd case of reverse symmetry, no guests were invited to the "public" legal wedding (and we weren't even told about it until later), and they didn't treat their relationship as "married" until the "church" wedding, which we did attend. So they were legally married weeks before we were aware of it.

Link to comment

No beliefs have been compromised. If you read with comprehension you will find the policy is what it has always been, If you have ancestors that were Jewish holacot victims you will and should do the work for them. If you are not related then get busy on your own and leave other peoples ancestors for them.

Mine were. We have.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...