Let'S End This Stuff Already

[Jeff K.]

Right. Because the one thing missing in the lives of the holocaust victims was the opportunity to become members of the LDS Church.

Their families should be thanking you. Yet, instead, you are called insensitive. Its so nice that this board is here to expose those who take offense as the "ignorant", "intolerant" "jerks."

Point 1: The church censured those who carried out the act of submitting names for those who are not of their line for the ordinance of baptism by proxy (which only works if it accepted in the next life).

Point 2: As the grandson of a holocaust survivor I think the jerk is the person who myopically and continually criticizes the church for attempting to accomodate the sensitivities of victims who may not understand what is being done and why. As I have stated before I did the work for my grandmother who survived it in hiding in Germany. Our daughter who is named after her, did the baptism when she was old enough to do so. Am I a jerk for following my family lineage? Am I a jerk for seeing something and seeking to offer it to those who passed before? Do I not have the right to the name of my ancestors?

Or is the jerk someone who hates the church, disdains it, and unloads and projects his own anguish and bitterness. The sad sould who ignores any and all good, ignores any and all accomodation for the sensitivity of others in order to do little more than whine and complain. Truly it must be a miserable existence to know the thousands and even millions of baptisms done, carried out with the obligation of love by family, continue to undermine the efforts of jerks to condemn them and their very existence.

I will continue to submit may family names, with the hope my family which has passed on will accept what is offered. If they do not, there is no sin in wasting time with the hope they will. If they have, our joy will be great in the next life. And the jerks who complain in this one will be viewed as pitiful excuses for love. We know they don't really care about anything beyond their own limited bitterness.

[LeSellers]

As I understand it, the agreement is that LDS won't do ordinances for people who are not their ancestors.

Not quite accurate.

The LDS Church will do salvific Temples ordinances for anyone whose name appears in the records providing (not necessarily in this order):

1. The name came from a name extraction program sponsored by the Church. These programs never involve persons (if they were still alive) younger than 110 years of age. We might call these people "fair game", since they are presumed to be dead, and there is no "targeting" by anything except geography (where they were) and chronology (when the recorded event—birth, marriage, death, etc.—occurred).
   -or-
   
2. The person presenting the person's name has the permission of the most direct descendant to do so.
   -or-
   
3. The person's name was submitted by a direct descendant.
   

In the cases of baptism and endowments, only the person's name and his date of birth (christening or similar event) or death is required, and even then it can be an approximation. However, in the cases of sealings (to spouse or parents) the marriage date is the distinguishing datum, and both spouses (or parents) must be identified (and their preceding ordinances complete).

In no case, however, is any ordinance done for a child who is known to have died before reaching the age of eight years (except for the sealing to his parents). The knowing, in many cases, is not a likely thing, so I little doubt that many baptisms have been done to no purpose on that very account.

Or so I understand the principles.

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jaybear]

Point 1: The church censured those who carried out the act of submitting names for those who are not of their line for the ordinance of baptism by proxy (which only works if it accepted in the next life).

...after the activity in question become public knowledge through the efforts of Ms. Radkey, who is painted here the bad actor.

Point 2: As the grandson of a holocaust survivor I think the jerk is the person who myopically and continually criticizes the church for attempting to accomodate the sensitivities of victims who may not understand what is being done and why. As I have stated before I did the work for my grandmother who survived it in hiding in Germany. Our daughter who is named after her, did the baptism when she was old enough to do so. Am I a jerk for following my family lineage? Am I a jerk for seeing something and seeking to offer it to those who passed before? Do I not have the right to the name of my ancestors?

Point one: No one has criticized the LDS Church for "attempting to accomodate" the concerns of relatives of holocaust victims.

Point two: Calling those who take offense "victims who may not understand what is being done and why" is not productive or accurate.

Point three: You have also claimed to have many gay friends, which I presume you think adds credibility to your argument.

Point four: No one accused you or other Mormons of being a jerk. That label was used by your side.

Point five: Even if you are in fact the relative of a holocaust victim, that fact does give you any special powers in discerning who is behaving like a jerk.

Point six: Your coy statement: "Or is the jerk someone who hates the church, disdains it, and unloads and projects his own anguish and bitterness" is a personal attack and a clear violation of the board rules.

Point seven: If you can't present a constructive argument without resorting to mischaracterizing the other person's argument or to personal attacks, then you should rethink the validity of your position that your advocating.

I will continue to submit may family names, with the hope my family which has passed on will accept what is offered. If they do not, there is no sin in wasting time with the hope they will. If they have, our joy will be great in the next life. And the jerks who complain in this one will be viewed as pitiful excuses for love. We know they don't really care about anything beyond their own limited bitterness.

Again, mischaracterizing the dispute. No one is complaining about your doing this work for your family.

BTW, just how does a deceased person, who has not been resurrected, manifest his rejection of the proxy baptism. This sounds to me like folk doctrine.

[stemelbow]

I may be confused by Jaybear's participation here. Let's see if we can get this cleared up some.

Is anyone here advocating that its okay or cool for an LDS person to go against the guildelines of the Church when it comes to doing temple work? Does anyone approve of the submitting of the name in question?

It seems like Jaybear is taking issue with something no one here is advocating. But it also seems he thinks its fine if we do follow the guidelines. In the end everyone is in agreement, perhaps?

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, it could have been much worse:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/15/mormons-still-baptizing-dead-jews-despite-agreements-to-end-practice.html

Of course, there are some real doozies among the reader comments.

[wenglund]

It seems like Jaybear is taking issue with something no one here is advocating. But it also seems he thinks its fine if we do follow the guidelines. In the end everyone is in agreement, perhaps?

To those of us who have become well acquainted with Jaybear over the years, the primary reason he is taking issue and sticking his nose where it doesn't rightly belong, is because of his contempt for and prejudice against the LDS Church. Simple as that.

Perhaps he supposes that his contempt will somehow be masked behind the guise of self-righteous indignation disengenuously in sympathy for the alleged plight of holocaust Jews, and that he may play the victim when called out for calling out the Church. Yet, nobody but him is being fooled.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 15, 2012 by wenglund

[Jeff K.]

after the activity in question become public knowledge through the efforts of Ms. Radkey, who is painted here the bad actor.

She is not a good actor, in fact her posing as the innocent is some of the worst acting out there. She is an anti Mormon which is commonly known, your view of her is mixed with your own bitterness towards the church.

Point two: Calling those who take offense "victims who may not understand what is being done and why" is not productive or accurate.

It is accurate when addressing anti Mormons, we should be able to address things as they are since it provides the proper context as to motivation.

The separate catagory people who may not understand is exactly the issue because they do not understand, and therefore take offence where none was intended. Anti Mormons seek to give offense and claim none in intended. It is part of their contextual deception, in short they would lie in order to make a point.

Point three: You have also claimed to have many gay friends, which I presume you think adds credibility to your argument.

From your standpoint I am sure that is accurate, it does give one insight that others who are not familiar with a culture or group may not have. So what is your point?

Point four: No one accused you or other Mormons of being a jerk. That label was used by your side.

But then anti Mormons are intolerant jerks, they can't stand letting us practice our religion. We know them and their kind all to well. You will never hear a kind word from them. Which makes them jerks.

Point five: Even if you are in fact the relative of a holocaust victim, that fact does give you any special powers in discerning who is behaving like a jerk.

Actually it does. See my earlier answer.

Point six: Your coy statement: "Or is the jerk someone who hates the church, disdains it, and unloads and projects his own anguish and bitterness" is a personal attack and a clear violation of the board rules.

A personal attack? Do you hate the chruch? disdain it? unload and project your own anguish and bitterness? Isn't that a clear definition of a "jerk"? If you aren't those things, what is your point?

Point seven: If you can't present a constructive argument without resorting to mischaracterizing the other person's argument or to personal attacks, then you should rethink the validity of your position that your advocating.

I wish there were an irony icon I could use.

BTW, just how does a deceased person, who has not been resurrected, manifest his rejection of the proxy baptism. This sounds to me like folk doctrine.

I will continue to submit may family names, with the hope my family which has passed on will accept what is offered. If they do not, there is no sin in wasting time with the hope they will. If they have, our joy will be great in the next life. And the jerks who complain in this one will be viewed as pitiful excuses for love. We know they don't really care about anything beyond their own limited bitterness.

I suggest you look up the word "faith". Which to you is also probably "folk magic".

[stemelbow]

Jeff,

She is not a good actor, in fact her posing as the innocent is some of the worst acting out there. She is an anti Mormon which is commonly known, your view of her is mixed with your own bitterness towards the church.

I believe it was said above that those who are not following the rules the Church has outlined have found themselves subject to discipline from Church. In a way, without Radkey, the Church would not be able to find these individuals who deserve discipline. We can thank her, even if she points out the embarrassment.

[Calm]

In no case, however, is any ordinance done for a child who is known to have died before reaching the age of eight years.

Except for being sealed to parents.

[ERayR]

I think the distinction between "for" and "of" is lost on most people. It is more of an ownership issue. People say "my" ancestors for a reason. Moreover, the Jewish people as a whole feel a strong proprietary interest in all those who died in the Holocaust. This was a very personal thing to Jews, and people see them as having died for Judaism. Therefore, they can be a little upset when it seems like Mormons are claiming (true or not) that they (or at least some of them) are actually Mormons now.

Who would you say had the greater "proprietary interest" in someone who had died in the Holocaust, the "Jewish people" or a grandchild of said person?

[wenglund]

Jeff,

I believe it was said above that those who are not following the rules the Church has outlined have found themselves subject to discipline from Church. In a way, without Radkey, the Church would not be able to find these individuals who deserve discipline. We can thank her, even if she points out the embarrassment.

I can appreciate you trying to find the nominal silver lining in an otherwise impossing, dark and ugly Radkey cloud.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blueadept]

Who would you say had the greater "proprietary interest" in someone who had died in the Holocaust, the "Jewish people" or a grandchild of said person?

That's the million dollar question for the grandchild IMHO. Do they honor their Jewish tradition and the guidelines set forth by its leaders or do they follow their LDS beliefs and follow the guidelines of their leadership?

I'm actually fine with the RCC's position in not worrying about baptising our Jewish family members.

Edited February 15, 2012 by blueadept

[Scott Lloyd]

BTW, just how does a deceased person, who has not been resurrected, manifest his rejection of the proxy baptism. This sounds to me like folk doctrine.

Hmm. By saying, "No, thank you," perhaps?

And if this is folklore to you, why are you wasting our time and yours attacking us over it? I, like Stemelbow, am wondering what the purpose is for your presence on this thread, other than to try to embarrass and annoy the Latter-day Saints.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

Except for being sealed to parents.

Oops!

Thanks for the correction (which I have included above).

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, it could have been much worse:

http://www.thedailyb...d-practice.html

Of course, there are some real doozies among the reader comments.

I presume much of what you said in the interview was left out of the article. Will this appear in print, or is it just an on-line blog?

The article has some inaccuracies, including this specimen:

Jewish and Mormon leaders first devised a pact to stop all baptisms of dead Jews in 1995, but soon after, Radkey made public that the church had reneged.

The 1995 agreement pertains only to Holocaust victims and in any event does not preclude ancestors identified by Mormon descendants.

Also, for having appeared under the imprimatur of a national news magazine of the stature of Newsweek, the article seems to have been carelessly proofread: baptismal "rights" rather than rites, for example. And the name "god" is written with a lower-case g.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

I don't think we have to give up anything to allow for people's negative feelings about this. It seems like it should be more of a "I understand your feelings but I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the practice" rather than "you are stupid!"

What I do find ironic is that one of the complainers in an article was described as a user of the geneaology services the church offers. I think most people would consider the data base to be of value and perhaps we could do more to make the connection for them. The only reason the world has access to it is because the church does baptisms for the dead. And I still think this has more to do with our view of the afterlife than anything else and we don't seem to be taking advantage of that. Our idea of life after death is probably the most robust and comforting a religion has to offer. The idea that the dead are helpless dupes is an odd regression to the meaning of hell as hades filled with trapped shades.

[Grundelwalken]

Here's the Churches take on the whole thing. Some seem to have the right idea about the whole thing. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550827/LDS-Church-apologizes-for-Jewish-baptisms-for-the-dead.html

Sorry for the length, couldn't find the hyperlink feature and my computer is refusing to go to tinyurl. MW

[Calm]

Sorry for the length, couldn't find the hyperlink feature and my computer is refusing to go to tinyurl. MW

The board does it automatically, I believe.

[Daniel Peterson]

I presume much of what you said in the interview was left out of the article.

Yes, it was. I expected it would be, of course. And that's not necessarily to impugn the reporter. We talked for, oh I don't know, maybe forty-five minutes. She certainly couldn't use everything I said.

Will this appear in print, or is it just an on-line blog?

I don't know. I never look at Newsweek anymore, but would surely be interested to hear if the article appears in print.

The article has some inaccuracies, including this specimen:

The 1995 agreement pertains only to Holocaust victims and in any event does not preclude ancestors identified by Mormon descendants.

I expressly discussed that with her. Evidently, she wasn't listening.

Also, for having appeared under the imprimatur of a national news magazine of the stature of Newsweek, the article seems to have been carelessly proofread: baptismal "rights" rather than rites, for example. And the name "god" is written with a lower-case g.

I've heard elsewhere and in other contexts, over the past few years, that Newsweek is in serious decline in terms of circulation, and more than a few think that it's in serious decline with regard to ideology. I suppose it wouldn't be all that surprising to find that the quality of its writing is declining, too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's the Churches take on the whole thing. Some seem to have the right idea about the whole thing. http://www.deseretne...r-the-dead.html

Sorry for the length, couldn't find the hyperlink feature and my computer is refusing to go to tinyurl. MW

To use the hyperlink, define the word or phrase you want linked in your text. Then find the little chain-link icon in the toobar above where you type your post. Click on it and enter the url of your link into the box that pops up.

Of course, you can't do this if you use a smart phone or other handheld device. That is, I haven't figured out how to do it on my iPod Touch.

Incidentally, although the Deseret News is owned by the Church, it is a general-circulation newspaper, and an article such as this should not be regarded as "the Church's take," just the portions where a Church spokesman is quoted.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

From the article:

Listing Jews as 'Christian' on one of the most researched genealogical sites in the world inadvertently aids and abets denial of the Holocaust."

Since there is no religious listing that I am aware of and certainly not one that alters the category after baptism, this does not help in understanding what is actually going on. And if someone is targeting for baptism those who died in the Holocaust solely because they died in the Holocaust, it seems more like a recognition of what they went through than a denial of it, much like the baptism of the Founding Fathers were a recognition of their lives and contribution, not a rejection of their various religious beliefs or what motivated them to accomplish what they did.

Though I do understand the reason why the individual feels that way, his perception misses the concept that those who submit the names (if they do so with positive intent toward the individuals and not to cause problems with the Church or just to think themselves cool for doing so) are actually celebrating the lives of these victims, not trying to diminish them.

I do not know if knowing that LDS generally view giving someone the opportunity to accept baptism in this light (not diminishing, but celebrating/honouring them) would change how they feel about the ordinance themselves or ever help them find the idea even close to acceptable, but I would think it would lower the level of outrage.

[Calm]

At the very least, Foxman hopes that the LDS Church "will increase its vigilance of its computer system, launch an education program for its members and appropriately discipline those church members who violate the policy.

It would be interesting to have the number of how many names total are submitted, how many are rejected and on what grounds and how many errors slip through the cracks and who eventually finds them, how long it takes them, etc.

I would think the sheer volume of the names submitted would cause anyone to think twice about accusing the Church of not acting in good faith when an occasional inappropriate name gets through, especially if it can be shown that the Church does respond according to its commitment when notified of error either by its own watchdogs or someone who has taken it upon him/herself to act as such.

[Calm]

Church members who perform temple baptisms for their deceased relatives are motivated by love and sincere concern for the welfare of all of God's children

One more comment...

I would like to see more often in the Church's statement a direct, instead of implied, comment stating that we do baptisms for the dead because we believe God has commanded us to do them. I would like it made very clear that it is not an idea that we came up with on our own and ran with because we thought it was a good thing.

[blueadept]

It would be interesting to have the number of how many names total are submitted, how many are rejected and on what grounds and how many errors slip through the cracks and who eventually finds them, how long it takes them, etc.

I would think the sheer volume of the names submitted would cause anyone to think twice about accusing the Church of not acting in good faith when an occasional inappropriate name gets through, especially if it can be shown that the Church does respond according to its commitment when notified of error either by its own watchdogs or someone who has taken it upon him/herself to act as such.

Names are rejected?

The only cases that I'm aware of is if the work has already been done even if it was recently done. Isn't it an honor system that Temple-worthy LDS have followed the church's guidelines?

[Calm]

Names are rejected?

The only cases that I'm aware of is if the work has already been done even if it was recently done. Isn't it an honor system that Temple-worthy LDS have followed the church's guidelines?

Names can be rejected for several reasons, one would be lacking documentation, incorrect dating, etc. With computers doing the processing, such errors are easier to catch these days but not necessarily easy to catch as it seems some would think from their accusations of lack of good faith efforts. The Church has stated an commitment to develop better technology to identify errors (including inappropriate names) in the future. I am thinking this may include determining whether or not the submitter is a direct descendant as well as a program that flags potentially problematic names (matching them to a list including close matches). I am not aware of the current state of such efforts though.

The article has one example of a rejected name where the work had not been done....the individual was still alive.

I have seen accusations that don't differentiate between names submitted and in the process of verification, names submitted for the database, and names the work has actually been done for. The Church has to depend on the honour system for the first, but does attempt to exercise control to the best of their ability over the second two but that depends on the level of tech that is currently available.

Edited February 15, 2012 by calmoriah