Let'S End This Stuff Already

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I understand that a member of the Church who knowingly and with impunity violates that policy of the Church is subject to Church discipline.

There is and has been a good-faith effort on the part of the Church to honor the agreement.

[blueadept]

I thank everyone for explaining this issue in how such prominent individuals of other faiths could possibly be justly baptised by the LDS church in your eyes even in regards to holocaust victims. Very enlightening.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I've made this point before, but it's a very telling indication of the weakness of their position in this matter when antagonists have to stretch and strain to come up with the ugliest, most outlandish scenario they can conceive of to shore up that position.

As to the first sentence in Cobalt's post, see my sig line, the part in gray.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

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:

Yes. Given the overt hostility directed toward the Simon W. center, its obvious to me, and I would suggest to most rational adults, that the selection of SW's parents was not coincidental.

You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise.

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

The full context:

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

There you go again with the failed "out of context" apologetic. You meant exactly what I quoted you saying.

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-

What makes you think I care if you are sensitive and respectful? You can and should be as rude and condescending as your heart desires.

Just don't be surprised when this attitude displayed by members undermines your Church's ability to rebuild a bridge that is in badly need of repairs.

Scott: There is and has been a good-faith effort on the part of the Church to honor the agreement.

The repeated violations, coupled with the flagrant disrespect expressed by members here towards the Center tell a different story.

I also find it illuminating that it was Radkey and not the LDS Church that uncovered the recent problem.

Am we really supposed to believe that she can do a better job of monitoring compliance than your Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

The repeated violations, coupled with the flagrant disrespect expressed by members here towards the Center tell a different story.

I don't see flagrant disrespect displayed here so much as indignation about the knee-jerk, misguided "outrage" expressed. Respect is a two-way street.

I also find it illuminating that it was Radkey and not the LDS Church that uncovered the recent problem.

Am we really supposed to believe that she can do a better job of monitoring compliance than your Church?

Helen Radkey is a well-known anti-Mormon who has made a full-time cottage industry of trying to embarrass the Church on this matter.

The Church expends its resources where it sees fit. That it doesn't spend as much time as Radkey does at this I think is to be reasonably expected. The policy of the Church has been well-publicized, and when the policy has not been followed, remedial action is taken. And, as I said, when the Church's own members knowingly violate the policy, I understand they are subject to Church discipline, which, to a faithful member, is very serious.

That said, I hold with Pahoran's suspcion that it is not always Church members who are doing the violating. I would not put it past certain non-members to maliciously and fraudulently submit names for temple work just to foment or exacerbate conflict.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I thank everyone for explaining this issue in how such prominent individuals of other faiths could possibly be justly baptised by the LDS church in your eyes even in regards to holocaust victims. Very enlightening.

Please clarify. Are you saying you think Latter-day Saints should sign away their right to have ordinance work performed for their own ancestors? If so, why?

Incidentally, the Church does not baptize deceased persons. It has baptisms performed for them, with the understanding that they have a right to accept or reject the work. As I've explained before, proper phrasing is important in conveying an accurate understanding.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

What makes you think I care if you are sensitive and respectful? You can and should be as rude and condescending as your heart desires. Just don't be surprised when this attitude displayed by members undermines your Church's ability to rebuild a bridge that is in badly need of repairs.

I appreciate you looking past the beam in your own eye when lecturing LDS on the counter-productivity of certain attitudes. You have a gift for stating the ironic and a nack for deflecting. I am ever so glad for your continued object lessons on much needed bridge building. What a guy!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

The Deseret News ran a story yesterday saying that the perpetrator's account had been banned. So they do know who it was. Hope they have more success in banning than message boards do....

[blueadept]

Please clarify. Are you saying you think Latter-day Saints should sign away their right to have ordinance work performed for their own ancestors? If so, why?

Incidentally, the Church does not baptize decased persons. It has baptisms performed for them, with the understanding that they have a right to accept or reject the work. As I've explained before, proper phrasing is important in conveying an accurate understanding.

I've always understood that the proxy baptism could be accepted/rejected by the person. I just misunderstood that the LDS church agreed to not do proxy baptisms for the holocaust victims and I now have a better understanding of your agreement. I also have a better understanding in how some prominent Popes have been proxy baptised as well.

Edited February 14, 2012 by blueadept

[Jeff K.]

The obvious escapes some few of us, even when pointed out to them. Hubris.

I think it good that the perpetrator is somehow censured for their action, if they were not of a lineage that allowed for the research and ordinance.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've always understood that the baptism could be accepted/rejected by the person. I just misunderstood that the LDS church agreed to not do baptisms for the holocaust victims and I now have a better understanding of your agreement. I also have a better understanding in how some prominent Popes have been baptised as well.

What does your better understanding have to do with "how some prominent popes have been baptized"?

Incidentally, it is misleading to say a deceased person has been baptized. The correct phrasing would be that they have had baptisms performed for them.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

it seems likely that there's going to be an article on this topic in Newsweek sometime in the next relatively short while. (I don't know exactly when.) If anybody sees it, I would appreciate a heads up.

[blueadept]

What does your better understanding have to do with "how some prominent popes have been baptized"?

Incidentally, it is misleading to say a deceased person has been baptized. The correct phrasing would be that they have had baptims performed for them.

I edited my comments to say that I understood the practice of 'proxy baptisms' and why LDS feel justified even in cases of famous individuals of other faiths.

[Scott Lloyd]

I edited my comments to say that I understood the practice of 'proxy baptisms' and why LDS feel justified even in cases of famous individuals of other faiths.

That's better, but it still fails to convey the understanding that the baptisms are not binding unless the deceased accepts them. It's better still to phrase it the way I suggested.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

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.

The Vodou priests are not actually entrapping souls either, but like Mormons, they are seen as purporting to manipulate the fate of your ancestors' soul. At least that's the way many non-Mormons see the issue. I think we ought to respect that. Unless it's your own ancestor, leave them alone.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[LeSellers]

I edited my comments to say that I understood the practice of 'proxy baptisms' and why LDS feel justified even in cases of famous individuals of other faiths.

You might find this interesting:

“I will here say that two weeks before I [Wilford Woodruff, postle and later President of The Church of Jesus Christ] left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God ... .I straighway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. I then was baptized for every president of the United States except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them. "(JD 19:229, September 16, 1877.)

“On the same day these ordinances were performed, President Woodruff records in his journal that he baptized brother McAllister for 21, including Gen Washington & his forefathers and all the Presidents of the United States that were on my list except Buchanan, Van Buren & Grant... .Sister Lucy Bigelow Young went Forth into the font and was Baptized for Martha Washington and her family and seventy (70) of the Eminent women of the world... .There were Baptized in all to day 682” (Woodruff, Journal 7:367-69)--Arnold K. Garr, Epilogue, Christopher Columbus, p. 71-73.

James G. Bleak, Clerk to Brigham Young wrote “I was also present in the St. George Temple and witnessed the appearance of the Spirits of the Signers... .the spirits of the Presidents....And also others, such as Martin Luther and John Wesley... .Who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done. Wilford Woodruff was baptized for all of them. While I and Brothers J.D.T. McAllister and David H Cannon (who were witnesses to the request) were endowed for them. These men.. ..laid the foundation of this American Gov., and signed the Declaration of Independence and were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth to perform this work. Martin Luther and John Wesley helped to release the people from religious bondage that held them during the dark ages. They also prepared the peoples hearts so they would be ready to receive the restored gospel when the Lord sent it again to men on the earth.” (Personal journal of James Godson Bleak-Chief Recorder of the St. George Temple)

Enjoy,

Lehi

Edited February 14, 2012 by LeSellers

[stemelbow]

The Vodou priests are not actually entrapping souls either, but like Mormons, they are purporting to manipulate the fate of your ancestors' soul.

What do you mean by "purporting to maniuplate"? I don't see how LDS are attempting any manipulation. Its an offer. You were the one who said they were entrapping in your supposed analogy. either way, as i said, I find no offense, per se. Why would others find offense in the much more benign LDS rite?

At least that's the way many non-Mormons see the issue. I think we ought to respect that. Unless it's your own ancestor, leave them alone.

I agree that we ought to leave them alone unless related. That is the Church's policy. I don't know why people don't abide by it.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Vodou priests are not actually entrapping souls either, but like Mormons, they are purporting to manipulate the fate of your ancestors' soul.

This is a false statement. Mormons are not manipulating anyone's fate through baptisms for the dead.

At least that's the way many non-Mormons see the issue.

Then they are wrong. And they have no standing to take offense at what clearly is their own misconception.

I think we ought to respect that. Unless it's your own ancestor, leave them alone.

Church members are instructed to do that already.

But see my sig line the part in gray.

And I don't respect a lack of effort to understand an issue before taking offense at it. See my sig line, the part in blue.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

What do you mean by "purporting to maniuplate"? I don't see how LDS are attempting any manipulation. Its an offer. You were the one who said they were entrapping in your supposed analogy. either way, as i said, I find no offense, per se. Why would others find offense in the much more benign LDS rite?

Most non-Mormons are not familiar enough with Mormon theology to understand that fine distinction.

[Sleeper Cell]

Yes. Given the overt hostility directed toward the Simon W. center, its obvious to me, and I would suggest to most rational adults, that the selection of SW's parents was not coincidental.

You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise.

Isn’t that is sort of like saying that given the strong hostility directed toward the LDS Church by “activist Helen Radky” its obvious to me that the unknown person who submitted these names (in direct violation of official church directives) was a disgruntled member acting at the behest of Radky in an effort to make the church look bad?

Even the spokesmen for Wiesenthal Center do not claim that the person who submitted these names was motivated to do so out of hostility toward the Simeon Wiesenthal Center.

BTW, it is possible to have a strong disagreement without being overtly hostile. Just a thought.

[Cobalt-70]

Then they are wrong. And they have not standing to take offense at what clearly is their own misconception.

And I don't respect a lack of effort to understand an issue before taking offense at it. See my sig line, the part in blue.

The way I was brought up, if I offend someone, it is on me to apologize and make it right, rather than to blame the other person for "getting all offended." If I offend a Korean man by giving him a backslap, I don't blame him for being offended about something that is perfectly acceptable in a frat house.

[blueadept]

This does explain the LDS mentality on this issue.

“I will here say that two weeks before I [Wilford Woodruff, postle and later President of The Church of Jesus Christ] left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God ... .I straighway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. I then was baptized for every president of the United States except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them. "(JD 19:229, September 16, 1877.)

“On the same day these ordinances were performed, President Woodruff records in his journal that he baptized brother McAllister for 21, including Gen Washington & his forefathers and all the Presidents of the United States that were on my list except Buchanan, Van Buren & Grant... .Sister Lucy Bigelow Young went Forth into the font and was Baptized for Martha Washington and her family and seventy (70) of the Eminent women of the world... .There were Baptized in all to day 682” (Woodruff, Journal 7:367-69)--Arnold K. Garr, Epilogue, Christopher Columbus, p. 71-73.

James G. Bleak, Clerk to Brigham Young wrote “I was also present in the St. George Temple and witnessed the appearance of the Spirits of the Signers... .the spirits of the Presidents....And also others, such as Martin Luther and John Wesley... .Who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done. Wilford Woodruff was baptized for all of them. While I and Brothers J.D.T. McAllister and David H Cannon (who were witnesses to the request) were endowed for them. These men.. ..laid the foundation of this American Gov., and signed the Declaration of Independence and were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth to perform this work. Martin Luther and John Wesley helped to release the people from religious bondage that held them during the dark ages. They also prepared the peoples hearts so they would be ready to receive the restored gospel when the Lord sent it again to men on the earth.” (Personal journal of James Godson Bleak-Chief Recorder of the St. George Temple)

That said, I don't envision the US Bishops being ecumenical on this issue anytime in the near future.

[stemelbow]

Most non-Mormons are not familiar enough with Mormon theology to understand that fine distinction.

There are a lot of things in the world that many people aren't familiar with. I don't see why that matters. Its as though you are saying they are justified in their offense because they don't know what we believe. I don't know a whole lot about jainism. I'm quite offended in their religious practice! whatever.

[Jeff K.]

The way I was brought up, if I offend someone, it is on me to apologize and make it right, rather than to blame the other person for "getting all offended." If I offend a Korean man by giving him a backslap, I don't blame him for being offended about something that is perfectly acceptable in a frat house.

You offend me. Will wait for the apology.

[Jeff K.]

The public rebuke of the Church member responsible for the Wiesenthal baptisms is an encouraging sign to Gary Motokoff, a prominent Jewish genealogist who has participated in discussions with Mormon leaders.

"I hope this reprimand is going to be typical of what happens to people who violate this [Mormon Church] policy," Motokoff says, hoping the response of the Church will send a strong message to members. "It's the missing piece of the puzzle."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/14/146854645/mormon-baptism-of-wiesenthal-kin-sparks-jewish-outrage