When Mormons Intrude On Jewish Practices: We Can Apologize For Our Actions, But Not Our Beliefs.

[altersteve]

I want to ask a sincere question:

How would you feel if another religion, according to it's doctrine, determined that some type of ordinance or ritual was necessary for your dead parents or grandparents to gain a place in an afterlife that neither you nor your dead relatives agreed with? What if that ritual was carried out without your permission?

Would you allow the ritual to take place? How would you feel about the use of your family's genealogy for such purposes?

Would it matter if the group was a Christian sect? Non-Christian sect? Would it matter if the group was more aligned with occultism and mysticism than it was with Abrahamic-based beliefs?

H.

If someone were to perform a ceremony for my grandfather that they believe would allow him to be saved, I would see it as a loving act of kindness and I would be touched by it, and I'm sure my grandfather would as well. I would, however, make it known that I do not believe their ceremony would have any effect.

[LDSToronto]

If someone were to perform a ceremony for my grandfather that they believe would allow him to be saved, I would see it as a loving act of kindness and I would be touched by it, and I'm sure my grandfather would as well. I would, however, make it known that I do not believe their ceremony would have any effect.

What if the act was not meant for salvation? How would you feel then?

H.

[LeSellers]

What if the act was not meant for salvation? How would you feel then?

Then what is the purpose of the question?

We Saints do Temple work for the dead precisely because it is redemptive, not because we like doing the acts themselves. What kind of ritual, ordinance, or other action would anyone do on behalf of the dead that is not salvific? Maybe I'm just too unimaginative.

If we assume that these people would be doing such things to, not for, the dead, the whole parallel game flies out the window.

Lehi

[MorningStar]

I another religion believe they knew the way to Heaven and had an ordinance to make it possible after my death to return to Heavenly Father, I would hope they would care enough about me to do so. We believe we are all brothers and sisters and that Heavenly Father needs us to do temple work so His children can return to Him. People choose to take offense at our good intentions.

[MorningStar]

Double post

[Calm]

I kind of have to doubt the accuracy of the guy's impressions.

Could you explain fuller the idea of "kiddush hashem, for the sanctification of God’s name." Or perhaps direct me to a website that explains terms as I keep stumbling across Jewish discussions that talk about catergories of behavior and what they impact but don't give enough info in the context for me to figure out what is meant.

[Calm]

I want to ask a sincere question:

How would you feel if another religion, according to it's doctrine, determined that some type of ordinance or ritual was necessary for your dead parents or grandparents to gain a place in an afterlife that neither you nor your dead relatives agreed with? What if that ritual was carried out without your permission?

Would you allow the ritual to take place? How would you feel about the use of your family's genealogy for such purposes?

Would it matter if the group was a Christian sect? Non-Christian sect? Would it matter if the group was more aligned with occultism and mysticism than it was with Abrahamic-based beliefs?

I would be very grateful for the efforts to save me and my family's souls, that someone cared enough to put time and resources beyond just words into that effort tells me that it is more about me and mine then themselves (assuming they do not believe they are somehow getting 'points' for the number of people for which they do proxies). What belief they have doesn't bother me as long as their intent is to get me and mine into a better place than I would be without it.

[Calm]

The problem is that no other faith does this so I'm at a lost why LDS members would welcome something that isn't happening. This only becomes valid once it actually happens and seems to be a bit of an empty welcoming that's purely speculative IMHO.

There have been stories related of sincere individuals who have baptized infants at hospitals and such without parents' permissions. Extremely rare, but has happened.

And some LDS don't understand that prayers for the dead aren't about saving their soul, but rather easing of the way so to speak (hoping I've got that right), so they interpret the act as pretty much the same thing, except that it is done on an individual basis.

[Calm]

Just don't let us know about it IMHO.

We're not the ones making it public.

I do think it makes a difference that someone has to go looking for the information. LDS on an individual basis may tell nonLDS about their efforts, but I don't see the Church as a whole or most individuals doing so though they certainly discuss it among others of the community.

[Calm]

There were millions of secular Jews in mid-XX Europe, and they were among those persecuted, too.

Which makes me wonder if Jews who have lost their faith in God and are atheist or agnostic are viewed in the same manner as Jews who convert to another faith by devout Jews...

And if converting to Christianity is viewed any different (because of the history between the faiths) as converting to a nonChristian faith.

[Calm]

I would, however, make it known that I do not believe their ceremony would have any effect.

For me that would depend on the context in which I was told about it.

And as far as effect, having someone do something for me because of love always has an effect in my belief, even if I am currently unaware of it. A ceremony may not have the effect that the belief expects, which is what I think everyone is saying when they say it has no effect.

[LDSToronto]

So any idea why the church doesn't just explain this is an act of love and carry on? Why respect the wishes of families of holocaust survivors if this is an act of love and salvation? Why not just keep insisting no harm is done?

H.

[blueadept]

I'd like to talk to any Saint who "would be disturbed".

You can start with the LDS that was 'disturbed' by Bill Maher's unbaptisms then...

[LeSellers]

You can start with the LDS that was 'disturbed' by Bill Maher's unbaptisms then...

I haven't run into any. I suppose they exist, but ...

Lehi

[LeSellers]

So any idea why the church doesn't just explain this is an act of love and carry on? Why respect the wishes of families of holocaust survivors if this is an act of love and salvation? Why not just keep insisting no harm is done?

It hasn't worked in the past. Why assume a different outcome in a hypothetical future event?

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

I haven't run into any. I suppose they exist, but ...

Lehi

Post the link on your facebook wall, you'll find them... (don't ask how I know)

[altersteve]

What if the act was not meant for salvation? How would you feel then?

H.

What else would it be for besides salvation?

[LDSToronto]

It hasn't worked in the past. Why assume a different outcome in a hypothetical future event?

Lehi

I have to go help a chum move, so I can't respond to this properly, only this: This is one of those core doctrines and the LDS church seems to be doing everything wrong - compromising (we won't baptise certain people) and blaming (it wasn't our fault, it was our membership who did it) and threatening (and if they do it again, they will be punished).

I mean, come on - we can find all the excuses in the book about why this is the right thing, but that really just lets the church off the hook.

H.

[LDSToronto]

What else would it be for besides salvation?

doesn't matter, does it? But for the sake of argument, suppose it was for damnation.

[MorningStar]

doesn't matter, does it? But for the sake of argument, suppose it was for damnation.

What if they tried to turn me into a pickle or make me the Queen of France after I died? How horrible that would be! Except they can't actually do that.

[volgadon]

Could you explain fuller the idea of "kiddush hashem, for the sanctification of God’s name." Or perhaps direct me to a website that explains terms as I keep stumbling across Jewish discussions that talk about catergories of behavior and what they impact but don't give enough info in the context for me to figure out what is meant.

Kiddush HaSHem in general means any act that will glorify, honour and magnify God, particularly in the public sphere. An integral part of this is keeping the commandments and behaving piously. This tied into the concept of "be killed rather than transgress." This are things like murder, incest and idolatry. For most other things, if coerced you could comply with a clean conscience. Preferring to die rather than transgress the commandments was considered the penultimate way of magnifying the name of God. Kiddush HaShem can be used in the particular sense of being killed over your Jewish identity. It ensures one a place of honour in the World to Come, even for the sinners of Israel, as a famous bit of Holocaust folklore has it.

[KevinG]

I thank Christians who pray for me all the time. I've even had a woman lay hands on me in a store to bless me as she prayed.

Her faith not her religion is a source of blessings for me.

While I understand we should be sensitive to those who died for their religion, we should not be in perpetual apology for seeking to bless all of Heavenly Fathers children.

As the Church and its faithful and obedient members do not baptise ancestors of others without permission we don't need to beat ourselves up over it or insist political candidates who happen to be Mormon make public statements to repudiate the exceptions committed by those disobedient to our own rules.

Given Romney's run at the Presidency I suspect the sudden concern for this and other Mormon issues.

[Pahoran]

Is it possible that their beef has something to do with the notion that, once a dead soul has received ordinances in the temple, there is now a claim that the dead soul has somehow become "Mormon"?

As every informed person knows, we do not count such people as members. That claim is mere agitprop and has never once been made in good faith.

They are no longer Jewish because they have accepted Jesus Christ and his ordinances. I wonder if that would irritate any of my Jewish friends, knowing that their ancestors died in the Holocaust, or suffered for who they were, only to have that identity stripped away by a Christian church.

H.

As every informed person knows, posthumous proxy ordinances do not result in anyone's "identity" being "stripped away." That claim, too, is mere agitprop.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Sure - doesn't the author explain it here:

" Jews must stand together firmly and publicly in condemning these actions as deeply offensive to the Holocaust victims who died for kiddush hashem, for the sanctification of God’s name. “For the sake of Zion, we must not be silent” (Isaiah 62:1) about this deep insensitivity.

Yet, on the other hand, I also believe that this Mormon intrusion on Jewish religious practice (Jews believe that we are only judged by the deeds we do while we are still alive) is sad—perhaps, even tragic—given the potential alliance that Jews and Mormons could have with each other."

No, he doesn't "explain" it. Mere assertion is not explanation.

Does Baptism for the Dead involve gate-crashing Bar Mitzvah celebrations? No. Does it interfere with Sabbath observance? No. Does it force anyone to eat pork? No. Does it stop anyone circumcising their babies? No. Does it disturb the graves or remains of the deceased? No.

Does it "intrude on Jewish practices?"

No.

What's actually happening is that a Jewish writer is trying to intrude upon Mormon practices. The accusation that we are intruding upon their practices is a rather manipulative form of pre-emptive strike, intended to put us on the defensive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I have to go help a chum move, so I can't respond to this properly, only this: This is one of those core doctrines and the LDS church seems to be doing everything wrong - compromising (we won't baptise certain people) and blaming (it wasn't our fault, it was our membership who did it) and threatening (and if they do it again, they will be punished).

Given that this is you, the fact that you assume the Church is "doing everything wrong" is to be expected.

The claim that "we won't baptise certain people" is false. If their descendants join the Church and submit their names, the work will be done in good conscience and in accordance with our agreement. The agreement only meant that those particular groups would not be targeted. Agreeing to remind members to stick to their own ancestral lines is a very minimal "compromise" indeed.

Likewise, as your own recent bit of malfeasance amply demonstrated, these submissions are rogue submissions, explicitly contrary to Church submission rules. They cannot be done by accident, but they require at least a submitter who is absolutely determined to flout the rules to get them in there. So no, it wasn't the Church's fault; it was the fault of the unprincipled individuals who did not deserve the Church's trust.

Which leads me to your last point: since FamilySearch is an honesty-based system, the Church is absolutely 100% entitled to act against those who dishonestly abuse it.

As far as I'm concerned, the Church is doing just what it should.

Regards,

Pahoran