Jewish and Mormon leaders issue joint statement

[Scott Lloyd]

That definitely makes more sense to me, but it doesn't answer the question of what "the Mormon Church will allow Jewish Holocaust victims to be the only category exempt from Church doctrine that calls for vicarious baptism for the dead, giving souls the choice to enter the Kingdom of God." means though.

Here is the verbatim text of this recent statement (not the article in The Jewish Week, but the statement itself):

Joint statement by Jewish and LDS Church leaders:

Goodwill and friendship have marked the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jewish people. The support that the state of Israel has given the Church in helping establish the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies is appreciated and continues to foster greater understanding between us.

Over the years, survivors of the Holocaust have pointed out to the Church that its practice of posthumous/proxy baptism has unintentionally caused pain due to the inclusion of names of those who perished in the Holocaust. As a result of dialogue and extraordinary efforts of the Church, computer systems and policy initiatives have been put in place that resolve this issue, which is greatly appreciated by The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants, the result of which will be felt throughout the world.

It is gratifying that the good faith efforts undertaken over the years to deal with an important issue of sensitivity to the Jewish Holocaust survivor community have eliminated a source of tension between our two groups, enhancing our ability to cooperate, including important programs of humanitarian aid across the world.

Nothing in there says that direct-line descendants will be prohibited from having baptisms performed for their own ancestors, even if the ancestors are holocaust victims. Moreover, the original agreement, made in the 1990s, never did stipulate that.

[frankenstein]

That definitely makes more sense to me, but it doesn't answer the question of what "the Mormon Church will allow Jewish Holocaust victims to be the only category exempt from Church doctrine that calls for vicarious baptism for the dead, giving souls the choice to enter the Kingdom of God." means though.

I do not think that quote is anywhere near correct to the actual policy. I think this is a gross error in interpretation to which the Church should set straight before all of the Children of Israel - including those by adoption - start repeating and believing it.

I do not think the Church would ever agree that certain people do not need Baptism or Faith in Christ to enter anything other than the lowest Kingdom of Heaven.

[bluebell]

I do not think that quote is anywhere near correct to the actual policy. I think this is a gross error in interpretation to which the Church should set straight before all of the Children of Israel - including those by adoption - start repeating and believing it.

I do not think the Church would ever agree that certain people do not need Baptism or Faith in Christ to enter anything other than the lowest Kingdom of Heaven.

I dont' think such a statement would necessarily mean that those people did not need to be baptized ever but rather that it was not the responsiblity of the membes of the church, at this time, to baptize them.

[bluebell]

Here is the verbatim text of this recent statement (not the article in The Jewish Week, but the statement itself):

Nothing in there says that direct-line descendants will be prohibited from having baptisms performed for their own ancestors, even if the ancestors are holocaust victims. Moreover, the original agreement, made in the 1990s, never did stipulate that.

What exactly was the break-through then?

The Jewish community seems to be under the impression that the church has singled them out in this regard-

[cdowis]

Official policy statement

Primary Responsibility

Church members are responsible to provide temple ordinances for the following individuals who have been deceased at least one year, without regard to worthiness, mental ability, or cause of death:

* Immediate family members.

* Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., and their families).

Other Possibilities

Church members may also provide temple ordinances for the following family members who have been deceased at least one year. For individuals born within the last 95 years, permission from the closest living relative is required. (See section 7, Permission to Do Ordinances.)

* Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to their family.

* Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).

* Descendants.

* Descendants of direct-line ancestors and their families.

* Possible ancestors. These are individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate. These may include individuals who had the same last name and resided in the same small geographic areas as known ancestors.

* Close friends. This is an exception to the rule that members should submit only the names of individuals of their own family and ancestors. Before performing ordinances for a friend, a member should obtain permission from the individual's closest living relative.

Persons Born within the Last 95 Years

For deceased persons born within the last 95 years, see section 7, Permission to Do Ordinances.

Restricted Submissions

Church members should not submit individuals that they are not related to (with the exception of close friends as described above). This includes:

* Famous people.

* Those gathered from unapproved extraction projects.

* Jewish Holocaust victims. Members cannot do the ordinances for Jewish Holocaust vicitims except under the following conditions:

o They are an immediate family member of the deceased (defined as parents, spouse, or children), or

o They have permission of all living immediate family members, or

o They have permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living.

source -- new.familysearch.org

[bluebell]

Official policy statement

source -- new.familysearch.org

Awesome and much more clear. Can we assume that this has been updated since the policy change then?

[Scott Lloyd]

What exactly was the break-through then?

I think Selek pretty much has it right. What has changed is a clearer understanding on the part of the Jewish leaders of the Church's efforts and intent, coupled with improved technology to help prevent violations of Church policy on the part of those who submit names.

[Scott Lloyd]

Awesome and much more clear. Can we assume that this has been updated since the policy change then?

What policy change?

[bluebell]

What policy change?

Whatever the 'policy initiatives' were that the article spoke of which resolved the issue i guess.

It seems that you would get two different answers on what exactly those policy initiatives were depending on whether you asked a Jewish person or a mormon.

[Calm]

Even the name of the submitter being required is not a new policy, the only changes I can see is the increased ability to doublecheck and correct submissions.

My impression of this particular Jewish community's more positive reaction (not all Jewish groups were upset by our policies or practices) is that while they may have recognized the intent as being proper, they judged by the results...intent was all well and good, but actual commitment to that intent is most often judged by results, (good intentions...etc. etc.). Since they weren't satisfied by the results, they doubted the actual commitment of the Church leadership.

Now that they can anticipate the results that they desire, they judge the current commitment higher....not only because of the future results, but because they have personally seen the technical improvements that are going to bring about those results (and likely understand the financial and time resources that the Church has committed to it where they didn't understand the complications before).

So it is possible the Jewish leaders pushing for changes don't see it as just a symbolic victory, but because of their focus on their personal issue with the Church believe that they were the primary motivators for the changes (instead of the changes being intended all along---not only because of the Holocaust issues but for more accurate genealogical work in general as the Church has stated before).

And I don't have a problem with that if it helps ease the unnecessary tensions even if I don't see it as the most accurate interpretation of the events.

[Calm]

Whatever the 'policy initiatives' were that the article spoke of which resolved the issue i guess.

It seems that you would get two different answers on what exactly those policy initiatives were depending on whether you asked a Jewish person or a mormon.

I don't think those involved understood exactly how the process worked in the past from the way it appears in the article, thus what appears to be policy changes to them due to lack of results in line with expectations before are really just improved technical support systems allowing the ongoing policy to be better implemented.

PS: Now that I think of it, there might be one policy change....does anyone know if in the past the person making the erroneous submission was contacted to prevent it happening again? If not, this seems to be a change.

PPS: It was a joint statement that talked about "policy initiatives" so it seems there were some changes that could be interpreted that way by both LDS and the Jewish community leaders.

PPPS: Hopefully bluebell hasn't already read this thread so will see this in case this question hasn't been answered yet.....from the first link given

Church leaders note that their policy specifically precludes proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims unless the name is submitted by an immediate family member or permission is granted from the most immediate family members.

Due to the time involved (not over a hundred years) this is not a policy change IIRC, I wonder if there will be any difference when it is over a hundred years or whatever the benchmark is for who does the submissions.

[bluebell]

I don't think those involved understood exactly how the process worked in the past from the way it appears in the article, thus what appears to be policy changes to them due to lack of results in line with expectations before are really just improved technical support systems allowing the ongoing policy to be better implemented.

PS: Now that I think of it, there might be one policy change....does anyone know if in the past the person making the erroneous submission was contacted to prevent it happening again? If not, this seems to be a change.

That could be, but the church itself was the one who claimed that their were policy initatives on the topic, which seems to imply a change from an old policy, unless i'm wrong on what "initatives" means in that paragraph (and i'm not being sarcastic, i could be completely confused on it).

[Calm]

That could be, but the church itself was the one who claimed that their were policy initatives on the topic, which seems to imply a change from an old policy, unless i'm wrong on what "initatives" means in that paragraph (and i'm not being sarcastic, i could be completely confused on it).

See my other comments above, there was at least one policy change:

Church members are now asked to certify that their submissions for proxy baptisms meet church policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Due to the time involved (not over a hundred years) this is not a policy change IIRC, I wonder if there will be any difference when it is over a hundred years or whatever the benchmark is for who does the submissions.

If the person died 95 years ago or less, the requirement to obtain approval from the closest living relative is in force whether or not the deceased person was a Holocaust victim. Once the second generation all die off, the most immediate family member could be any of the grandchildren, and when they are all gone, any of the great-grandchildren. Hence, I don't see a great deal of distinction here. As you rightly point out, the Holocaust victims' generation have not yet been dead for more than 95 years.

Direct-line descendancy seems to be the guiding principle in names submission.

[Scott Lloyd]

See my other comments above, there was at least one policy change:

"Policy initiatives" could refer to that and any of the other stricter controls that are now in place to ensure compliance with the original agreement.