Let'S End This Stuff Already

[blueadept]

I also am quite positive that you nor I will see any LDS missionaries in spirit prison. I am also very positive that you will be seeing missionaries from Jesus Christ in said spirit prison. They will be there to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and provide an opportunity for those they teach to accept the saving ordinances performed for them by thier LDS brothers and sisters.

You know, the way you all are selling this is that I might as well wait and see if my LDS wife was right and follow my heart now in following Christ in teaching his gospel to the youth and develop their testimony, visit the sick and elderly, and be on fire with my Catholic faith now. While I KNOW I'm in Christ's church now, I guess I'll be open to the thought that I may have been wrong in the next life and it doesn't matter. Okay.....I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

According to the specific words of the ceremony, it's about the dead being baptized and then confirmed members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." You can put any spin you want to on this. I just ask that you try to understand why others might think it really does sound like these are ordinances that give dead spirits the choice of joining your church so that they meet the qualifications of returning to God's presense.

Analytics is quite right in that the wording in the confirmation ordinance does specify that the recipient is being confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is true whether the recipient of the ordinance is living or dead.

Latter-day Saints profess that Christ established His church on earth and restored it in latter days, that it is the task of this church under priesthood authority to make the ordinances of salvation available to all, whether living or dead.

We can try to make it crystal clear that deceased persons are under no obligation to accept the ordinances performed in their behalf. But it won't do to try to pretend or imply that baptisms for the dead do not pertain to the Church, for it was Christ Himself who established the Church, and the Church is performing the work that He commanded.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My experience is that the several articles I have read from Jewish papers could not accuratelly represent the Lds Church position on baptisms of holocaust victims.

I, in fact, have never seen a vociferous opponent of the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead reflect an accurate understanding thereof. When invited to express their understanding in their own words, they either mischaracterize the Mormon belief and intent or they ignore the invitation altogether.

[Sleeper Cell]

The outburst of outrage (they use that word three times) from the Wiesenthal Center misrepresents the subject of the 1995 meetings.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of deceased Jews.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of Holocaust victims.

The Church promised only to stop using lists of Holocaust victims for Name Extraction purposes. Individual Church members are still submitting names for Temple work. They are supposed to submit the names of their own ancestors, but it is impossible to actually police that.

Regarding your last question, the Wiesenthal Center outburst answers it:

"The only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if Church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms."

Which is to say: what they, and Rabble-rouser (or Rabbi-rouser) Radkey actually want is for the Church to stop performing Baptisms for the Dead. That's what that coy little "change their practices and policies" actually means. They're trying to dictate to us how we should live our religion.

From the article:

We are grateful to activist Helen Radkey for exposing the latest outrage.”

It is a pity that the Wiesenthal Center doesn’t save some of their outrage for someone who seemingly has dedicated her life to fomenting discord between two religious groups.

[Cobalt-70]

That's fine. I'm happy for them too. That does not mean there is not some things to learn beyond their lives here. If there is, then what's the harm here? What would be wrong with an evangelical praying upon my death in hopes I am saved even though I was LDS? Anyone who finds offense in that seems to seek out offense.

That's not a good analogy, because you share with Evangelicals a belief in prayer. But what if, after your little old grandmother died, a Vodou sorcerer came to your mother's grave and performed a ritual that supposedly entrapped your mother's soul for use as a zombie? Would you be okay with that?

[Storm Rider]

http://www.wiesentha...467&ct=11624095

1. If Helen Radkey did not bring it to light no one would know or care about it. Why is it so offensive if its made public?

2. Can the LDS practice of baptism for the dead be thought of as a tribute to the dead in anyway? Why is offense found in this?

3. By baptizing people for the dead we are offering them what we see as a salvific ordinance, which, often, they do not find during their mortal lives. If so, can it, at all, be accepted as something akin to praying on behalf of the dead?

4. What will it take for the Church to put an end to these types of things (baptizing the certain folks that some find offensive)?

Frankly, what is needed is a firm, blunt response. We will not ever stop baptizing for the dead. It is one of our core beliefs and we feel compelled to work for the salvation of every sould that has ever lived. If you have a problem with it, understand this and repeat it often until it sinks in, it is your personal problem.

I am so tired of these individuals and their victimology that is constant and unrelenting. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and any desire to understand the beliefs of another will understand this is viewed as a gift to each and every deceased person. More importantly, the baptism is meaningless unless the individual chooses to accept it for themselves. Their lives, their dignity, their culture, and their heritage does not change.

I have no respect for Radkey and all those like her.

[Storm Rider]

I went to the FB page for SW where several people had commented on the Mormons and their loony beliefs and condemning postmortem baptisms. I left a direct, frank comment. It did not last long and was summarily deleted. A more tolerant, enlightened group has seldom been found. For a group that demands tolerance of others, it is interesting that they have all the tolerance and intelligence of a rock.

[Jeff K.]

In some respects this thread is irrelevant.

The church will not cease doing baptisms for the dead, regardless of the demands of non members. To do so would be a betrayal of Heavenly Father/Jehovah/God. The imperative is the equivalent of telling Jews they cannot celebrate Passover, because they aren't from the right tribe. The church will continue to carry out one of its core values regardless of how other people feel or want to feel about it.

The church has taken pains to be as sensitive as possible without betraying our core values to God. Among these being that members are to engage honestly in the listing of names, to only include those that are of a specific lineage to that family member. If members do not do this, they will be judged accordingly, churches don't exist to create audits for family trees anymore than the church audits members for the tithing they pay.

Finally, the ordinance does nothing unless the deceased family member accepts it, it would be a waste of time if it is rejected. But we are obligated as members to do this, whether it wastes time or not, like taking the sacrament, it is based on faith and hope, with a strong dose of charity. And it is offered in that light. One need not accept it, one need only understand it is being done, not with arrogance but humility and prayer. I think if people understood that, most of the issues would evaporate. There will always be some who cannot tolerate it, but there is nothing more we can do for them but leave them to their intolerance.

We can

[thesometimesaint]

I'm pretty sure every religion has some aspect(s) that offends some one of a different religion. As long as it neither brakes my bones nor picks my pocket it is none of my business what you believe.

[Jaybear]

Last month, a member of the LDS Church baptized Simon Wiesenthal's parents. This was not a mistake or coincidence.

Whoever did it, obviously knew about the accommodation that the LDS Church had agreed to make with the Wiesenthal Center.

Not surprisingly, upon discovery, the action led to this comment:

"We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples," Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Wiesenthal Center’s associate dean, said in a statement on the group’s website. "Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon church."

Based on the opinion expressed here, it seems patently obvious that the LDS Church has failed to covey to its members the need to be sensitive and respectful to the concerns expressed by the relatives of Jewish holocaust victims.

I have to wonder how your leaders would feel about the comments expressed by its more stalwart members here towards the Center, such as:

They're trying to dictate to us how we should live our religion.

But it seems fruitless to seek out and accommodate them due to the implacable anymousity so many have cultivated over the centuries.

Jerks.

Moreover, if anyone is endeavoring to deprive the dead of their freedom of choice in this debate, it is those who are trying to pressure Mormons not to express their deeply held belief regarding salvation for the dead.

I am so tired of these individuals and their victimology that is constant and unrelenting.

There will always be some who cannot tolerate it, but there is nothing more we can do for them but leave them to their intolerance.

If comments of this nature are typical of the rank and file members, the offensive baptism must have come as no surprise to the LDS leadership.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

With all due deference to the Weisenthal center we're not a dictatorship.

[Sleeper Cell]

Last month, a member of the LDS Church baptized Simon Wiesenthal's parents. This was not a mistake or coincidence.

Whoever did it, obviously knew about the accommodation that the LDS Church had agreed to make with the Wiesenthal Center.

Obviously?

If you don’t even know the name of the member in question, how do you know what that particular member did or didn’t know? Especially when you go on to say:

it seems patently obvious that the LDS Church has failed to covey to its members the need to be sensitive and respectful to the concerns expressed by the relatives of Jewish holocaust victims.

[blueadept]

Last month, a member of the LDS Church baptized Simon Wiesenthal's parents. This was not a mistake or coincidence.

Whoever did it, obviously knew about the accommodation that the LDS Church had agreed to make with the Wiesenthal Center.

Not surprisingly, upon discovery, the action led to this comment:

Based on the opinion expressed here, it seems patently obvious that the LDS Church has failed to covey to its members the need to be sensitive and respectful to the concerns expressed by the relatives of Jewish holocaust victims.

I have to wonder how your leaders would feel about the comments expressed by its more stalwart members here towards the Center, such as:

If comments of this nature are typical of the rank and file members, the offensive baptism must have come as no surprise to the LDS leadership.

I've been to the Museum of Tolerance that was founded by Simon Wiesenthal

www.museumoftolerance.com

I've met a couple of the Holocaust survivors. A true set of folks who displays what it means to not hold a grudge. The fact that the LDS church cannot keep such a prominent Jewish name such as this off their roles as requested by the Jewish community is sad.

[stemelbow]

That's not a good analogy, because you share with Evangelicals a belief in prayer. But what if, after your little old grandmother died, a Vodou sorcerer came to your mother's grave and performed a ritual that supposedly entrapped your mother's soul for use as a zombie? Would you be okay with that?

Sure. Have at it. Of course, if you're going to get after me for employing an analogy that is not good, then it would probably be good if you employed one that was better not worse. We're not entrapping any souls. These ordinances are done out of love, nothing less.

[Jeff K.]

The question I would need to know before I jump on the condemnation bandwagon. Was the genealogical work done by family members?

No one has answered that question. If not, the person who did them should be spoken to.

Jaybear is very good at taking things out of context and making it the whole truth. Note the quotes, for example mine...

Quote

There will always be some who cannot tolerate it, but there is nothing more we can do for them but leave them to their intolerance.

The full context:

The church will not cease doing baptisms for the dead, regardless of the demands of non members. To do so would be a betrayal of Heavenly Father/Jehovah/God. The imperative is the equivalent of telling Jews they cannot celebrate Passover, because they aren't from the right tribe. The church will continue to carry out one of its core values regardless of how other people feel or want to feel about it.

The church has taken pains to be as sensitive as possible without betraying our core values to God. Among these being that members are to engage honestly in the listing of names, to only include those that are of a specific lineage to that family member. If members do not do this, they will be judged accordingly, churches don't exist to create audits for family trees anymore than the church audits members for the tithing they pay.

Finally, the ordinance does nothing unless the deceased family member accepts it, it would be a waste of time if it is rejected. But we are obligated as members to do this, whether it wastes time or not, like taking the sacrament, it is based on faith and hope, with a strong dose of charity. And it is offered in that light. One need not accept it, one need only understand it is being done, not with arrogance but humility and prayer. I think if people understood that, most of the issues would evaporate. There will always be some who cannot tolerate it, but there is nothing more we can do for them but leave them to their intolerance.

I suppose all I can say is it goes to Jaybear's credibility.

I think the church is sensitive to the questions in place. I do not think others who attack the church are capable of showing equal sensitivity in this matter.

[thesometimesaint]

Blueadept:

If there is but one name to get us into heaven. Then all other religions are false, including the Jews. But proxy baptisms don't make anyone a Mormon than the unbaptism by Bill Maher removes them.

[stemelbow]

Last month, a member of the LDS Church baptized Simon Wiesenthal's parents. This was not a mistake or coincidence.

Whoever did it, obviously knew about the accommodation that the LDS Church had agreed to make with the Wiesenthal Center.

How do we know this? Who did it? What did he/she say about it?

Based on the opinion expressed here, it seems patently obvious that the LDS Church has failed to covey to its members the need to be sensitive and respectful to the concerns expressed by the relatives of Jewish holocaust victims

That's weak. members could be as insensitive as can be and your conclusion could still be false. Its also rather insensitive to attribute motives to people.

I have to wonder how your leaders would feel about the comments expressed by its more stalwart members here towards the Center, such as:

If comments of this nature are typical of the rank and file members, the offensive baptism must have come as no surprise to the LDS leadership.

I am curuious what is motivating people to do these. It seems pretty clear that doing it isn't helping. I'm curious to know if they are ignorant just happily thinking they are doing the LORD's work, or if they are insenstive, or if they are folks who are deliberately trying to make LDS look bad. Whatever the case, it ought to stop. There's a policy in place. Let's live it already.

[Jeff K.]

I too have been to the holocaust museum (they prefer shoah). My grandmother survived the holocaust (though not in a camp). I see no reason not to include her(which I did with my daughter named after her) as a family member to what I believe is an important opportunity, which she can still reject if she does not believe it to be true.

[wenglund]

I am deeply moved by Jaybear's implicit appeal for people to be "sensitive and respectful to the concerns" of those of differing faiths. Were his appeal not so selective and ironically directed against the faith for which he has shown little sensitivity and respect, but ample amounts of intollerance, one might actually think him genuine. But, some of the most incideous forms of bigotry often manifest themselves under the guise of moral indignation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Only do the work if we're wrong.......

Edited February 14, 2012 by Jeff K.

[ERayR]

You know, the way you all are selling this is that I might as well wait and see if my LDS wife was right and follow my heart now in following Christ in teaching his gospel to the youth and develop their testimony, visit the sick and elderly, and be on fire with my Catholic faith now. While I KNOW I'm in Christ's church now, I guess I'll be open to the thought that I may have been wrong in the next life and it doesn't matter. Okay.....I guess.

You could do worse. It never hurts to be anxiously engaged in God's work.

[blueadept]

I too have been to the holocaust museum (they prefer shoah). My grandmother survived the holocaust (though not in a camp). I see no reason not to include her(which I did with my daughter named after her) as a family member to what I believe is an important opportunity, which she can still reject if she does not believe it to be true.

So are you saying that a Jewish holocaust victim who has LDS connections that it's all right to do a baptism for them?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the agreement that the LDS church has with the Jewish community.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.

[Sleeper Cell]

I've been to the Museum of Tolerance that was founded by Simon Wiesenthal

www.museumoftolerance.com

I've met a couple of the Holocaust survivors. A true set of folks who displays what it means to not hold a grudge. The fact that the LDS church cannot keep such a prominent Jewish name such as this off their roles as requested by the Jewish community is sad.

I agree. Do you have any suggestions that would achieve this goal without interfering with the right of members of the LDS church to perform religious rituals for their own ancestors?

Even if this had not been objectionable to the Jewish community, it would still be objectionable to me as a Mormon. To me, our temple rituals are sacred. For me to knowingly submit the name of someone outside my family (without the permission of the closest living relative) or to knowingly violate any of the Church’s other requirements in this matter would, in my opinion, violate the sanctity of the temple.

[Scott Lloyd]

So are you saying that a Jewish holocaust victim who has LDS connections that it's all right to do a baptism for them?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the agreement that the LDS church has with the Jewish community.

The "Jewish community" has no greater claim on a deceased person than does that person's own direct descendants. If I had Jewish ancestors, I would not hesitate to have the temple ordinance work performed for them (knowing, that they had the right to accept or reject that work).

The agreement that the Church made reserved the right to have baptisms performed one's own ancestors, and the parties to the agreement know that.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd