posted
I am trying to type cautiously to keep myself from getting banned, but suffice to say I share your outrage, Lisa. Foul doesn't begin to describe it.
I've gone round this issue with Mormons on this board before, and they've let me know how important a part of their faith this posthumous baptism is - I don't like the practice for myself, I don't agree with it, and I would be very hurt and angry if anyone did it to me and anyone I loved but I am truly shocked, and horrified they would do this after making promises and assurances to people of the Jewish faith they would not. That's just...well...your word foul is a good one.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
<edit>Maybe I should follow mph's lead and leave the issue alone; it's obviously something very contentious, and I generally prefer to stay out of such things.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there should be a law against it, if that's what you mean, and I would if it was a material harm.
But it's disgusting and contemptible. It shows their contempt for others, and I can't think of enough bad to say about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
How can you use this apologetic in a discussion of a spiritual nature?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about being materially harmed. The LDS Church was casual about a man's faith, when he went through hell on earth because of and in defense of it. You's think that he'd be allowed a little bit of peace in death.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I kind of agree with mph (we have had this conversation before, repeatedly -- it was in fact the original reason I registered at Hatrack), this is disgusting.
What happened to the agreement that would only add people who were actual ancestors of current church members? I could be wrong, as I certainly don't personally know all of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but I believe this is an absolutely clear violation of that agreement.
Peter, from our perspective, this is little different from desecrating his grave.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:“It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate his memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive God’s eternal blessing.”
Now I'm wondering if individual members are just being sloppy and not checking or if there's a bigger problem going on.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
Not speaking for Lisa or people of the Jewish faith, but I think the reason she cares is in the title of her thread. This is a desecration of the memory of someone important to her and to Jewish people. It's a disrespectful act, it may not cause physical harm to anyone but it may well cause emtional harm to his family and to the people who honor his memory.
And I have been here for the discussions about this in the past. Gotten upset, even took a break from Hatrack because of the way people reacted I know it's a hotbed issue. And I know that most Mormons will not see this the way I do or the way Lisa does and you'll think we're over-reacting or showing prejudice against the Mormon faith.
That's the way these threads always go. You may not think it's offensive. But WE DO. We find it hurtful and disrespectful. And the Mormon church was asked not to do it to Holocaust victims, and from what I understood the last time we argued this, they agreed. They've broken their word, apparently. And done something that other people, of varying faiths, find offensive. Please understand, in the issue of continuing conversation, that this is offensive to us, even if you don't know why or don't understand why we'd have a problem with it. The fact remains, some of us do have a problem with it.
And can't we all agree that the church should keep its word?
Edit: And can't we all agree Belle, as an English major, should know the difference between "its" and "it's"?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the outrage myself, not minding if I get baptized into other religions posthumously, but I see the discussion has nothing to do with rights and more to do with perceptions of decency and decorum.
<edit>Wow, I started this when there were only a handful of responses. It is in response to Lisa and PC's answer to my "swing my fist" question</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the harm if someone paints a swastika on a Jewish grave? It's just paint. It comes off. And it doesn't hurt the person who is dead.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yep. It's pretty bad, after we said we wouldn't.
Let's find the octogenarian that did it and hang her up by her wattle. It's the only solution.
Or, since y'all claim to be willing to live by the agreement and there keep being violations, you could institute some type of check. I don't know how names are submitted, but perhaps ask people to verify that they are related to the person whose name they are submitting.
Give me a break, Scott.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
It has no effect, obviously, but it certainly is not meaningless. The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man. The meaning is deceit.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are rules about what names you are supposed to submit. Not everyone follows them. I'm sorry people feel disrespected by something that is done, from a Mormon perspective, out of love, although I do think it would be more loving if people followed the rules.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
That's fine. I know there are people in that camp, too. And I don't think my faith or salvation would ever be threatened if someone baptized me after my death, but I still wouldn't want it done, nor would I want it done to my loved ones.
My grandfather is dead, and until I met my husband he was the man I loved most in the world. I don't believe his spirit is on earth, and I believe his physical remains in his grave are just so much dust, nothing important. But I still wouldn't just shrug my shoulders and not care if someone spray painted his marker and tore up his gravesite. It would upset me, hurt me, and offend me.
As Rivka has said, to those that feel this way, this is a similar type desecration. So even those like Storm that don't care one way or another, at least try to understand that some of us indeed do care. And that doesn't mean we question our faith. It's a matter of respect.Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man.
If you think that the reasons people do this is out of contempt for others, you obviously have no understanding of this issue.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
What strikes me as odd isn't so much the going back on word. It's that the posthumous baptisms happen without expressed approval.
Storm,
Protestant Christianity places a primary emphasis on ones personal relationship with G-d. I think that for more community-based religions, that depend on a community's relationship with G-d, being publically baptized, or having your faith publically called into question or stripped is a bit different.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man.
If you think that the reasons people do this is for contempt for others, you obviously have no understanding of this issue.
The road to hell, Porter. It is a demonstration of contempt for all we hold dear, regardless of the reasons it's being done.
I'm quite sure that there were inquistors who tortured their victims out of love as well, to spare them eternal hellfire.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, it's from love becasue of what we believe. And we don't see it as disrespect.
But I'm not going to argue this any more. I value you as a friend and don't want to fight. We do pretty well when we stay away from this issue. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I agree that is out of love - but it is also out of arrogance. A "you don't know any better and can't be trusted to choose" kind of arrogance. It is the same kind (though, mercifully, not the same degreee) of arrogance that led the Catholic Church (in prior days) to decide that people were better of dead than unconverted.
It is possible to believe that your faith is best without imposing it on others.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the discussion about the Golden Rule ever comes up again, this will be the first thing I mention as an example of people "doing unto others" against their will.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hier also urged the Utah-based Church to remove the names of all other Holocaust victims from the list.
Not all Holocaust victims were Jews. Jewish Holocaust victims cannot necessarily be categorized under a single, unified proclamation of faith or ancestry. And certainly, not all Jewish Holocaust victims fall under Hier's jurisdiction. Jews own the Holocaust about as much as blacks own the American slavery issue.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are the one that appeared to bring up people's intentions (contempt, etc.). If you don't think that people's intentions matter, why are you even bothering to bring them up?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, all I can say is that is not what I believe about it. I would be happy to try to explain by e-mail my feelings on the subject-- but as I said before, I'm bowing out of this thread.
posted
Somewhere in Salt Lake City, a little old woman who adored Simon Weisenthal's example of courage and perseverance is being "counselled" about her "misdeeds..."
"Sister Smith, why did you break our oath with the Israelites?"
"What-- young man, I--"
*SMACK*
"You shut your mouth, granny."
"But you asked me a question!"
*SMACK*
"Now. Look what you've gotten us into, you dirty old woman. Give me your temple recommend."
"No--please...How else will I get access to the temple cafeteria's Monday special? Meatloaf and mac-n-cheese..."
*SMACKSMACK*
"AUGGH! I'm so, so sorry."
"We know, Sister Smith. We know. But there is a price to pay...a sacrifice to make..."
I've got no patience for this discussion, especially within the terms as Lisa's set them up. So...yeah. You get flippant.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You are the one that appeared to bring up people's intentions (contempt, etc.). If you don't think that people's intentions matter, why are you even bothering to bring them up?
To you, contempt is merely an issue of intent. Fine. That's bizarre, I think, but clearly you don't get that an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent.
That being the case, I hope that anything I post in the future will be judged by the same standard. By my stated intent, and not by the way it comes across to others.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the "I can't bring myself to care to terribly much" camp, but I often go to socials and picnics with the "I completely understand where you coming from" camp. I can't put this into a religious perspective, except in so far as I can assume to know how someone else views things. But I can put this into an individual respect perspective.
If my grandfather believed his whole life that apples are better than oranges and even went so far as to hunt people that viciously murdered those that thought apples are better than oranges, and then after he died, a group of orange lovers came over and changed his epoteth to read "Here Lies a Great Lover of Oranges!", well, I would be pretty darned upset.
I agree with those that say is is very disrespectful to the dead, regardless of intent or motivation.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Somewhere in Salt Lake City, a little old woman who adored Simon Weisenthal's example of courage and perseverance is being "counselled" about her "misdeeds..."
"Sister Smith, why did you break our oath with the Israelites?"
"What-- young man, I--"
*SMACK*
Thanks for demonstrating what promises mean to you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any member of the Mormon church is willing to discuss this, which by looking at recent posts seems doubtful, I have one question:
Why sign the agreement? If this is out of love and there's no disrespect, why should the church agree not to do it? Why sign this 1995 agreement mentioned in the links?
Doesn't that suggest that somewhere, somebody in the church recognizes the disrespect and desecration this represents to the Jewish people?
Any why sign an agreement and make promises and then not abide by them? Even if this were done by an individual, not someone in the church, the ceremony is performed in the church, correct? So, have a list you check against anytime anyone comes in for the ceremony and tell your assumed little old lady, Scott - "hey, Sister Smith, this name is on a list we've agreed as a church not to perform this rite for. Sorry, but you cannot do it, the church will honor its agreement." That's not that hard and it's what any group that intended to honor its agreement would do.
Right now the feeling I get is that the church signed the agreement to make bad press go away, and never had any intention of honoring it. Whether that's true or not, you can't deny that's the impression that is out there.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or, since y'all claim to be willing to live by the agreement and there keep being violations, you could institute some type of check. I don't know how names are submitted, but perhaps ask people to verify that they are related to the person whose name they are submitting.
Give me a break, Scott.
[sincere]
There has been a mistake. I wish there hadn't been. The Church is trying its best, with *volunteers* who are generally very old, very technophobic, very GOOD Mormons who don't have a penchant for reading memos, or remembering them.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry. It's not worth much, because the more I read of Lisa and her ilk's abuse of Mormonism (like we're a monolithic, centrally controlled super-amoeba-zombie), the less I'm inclined to be sorry, and the more I'm inclined to give her type the finger.
And I'm still waiting for that opt-out list. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time. And given the fact that the church apparently has no interest in keeping existing agreements, it probably wouldn't mean much anyway.
kmb is absolutely right: this is about arrogance.
[edit: Darn you, Scott! *shakes fist* The whole thread you're flippant, until right the second before I post? ]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it the fact that this name appeared in the IGI that is offensive, or the doctrine of proxy ordinances?
Church leaders do not approve every entry into the IGI. They do not police it or explicitly dump Jewish names onto it. They have agreed to remove Mr. Wiesenthal's name from the IGI.
I don't see how this is so offensive. If the church had outright refused, that would be offensive. But expecting the church to police the IGI to a degree that every single submission has to be approved by church leaders is lunacy. That's like asking wikipedia to proof-read and double check every single article, edit, reference, and comment submitted to their servers.
(General info on the IGI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index As you can see, records are obtained from all over... although it's interesting to note that even this article seems to have a negative view of the IGI.)
Whatever you may think of the LDS doctrine of proxy ordinances, there are logistical issues here that make it impossible for the church to enforce their agreement with the Jewish community to the degree that some Jewish people would like. If someone could link to a written copy of the agreement, it might clarify what has actually been agreed to by both parties. I doubt entry-by-entry policing of the IGI is in there.
Unlike other "minor and unimportant religious cult[s]" (quoted from the comments on the second link), the Mormon church does not control their members to a degree that makes total control of who submits what to the IGI possible, if Mr. Mr. Wiesenthal's name was submitted by a member of the church in the first place.
I do understand, however, how the LDS doctrine of proxy ordinances can be offensive, and I’m glad that Mormon leaders have agreed to remove the offending entry.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
perhaps I'm misunderstanding the mormon practice in question, but my initial interpretation is that this is fairly similar to someone of any religion actively evangelizing to you despite your protest/assurance that you are perfectly happy with your own religion (or lack therof).
I am fully aware that the primary motivation of the vast majority of those is love/concern (in their eyes) but it's also incredibly condescending to me because the whole basis is that I am wrong and just don't know it.
I don't think anyone is thinking that the Mormons in question are actively intending contempt, but they are indirectly showing it through this practice (especially where it has been expressly stated that this should not occur).
If I were walking down the street and someone splashed some holy water on me and said some prayers (even assuming it doesn't slow me down or muss my clothes) I would be insulted because I never asked for them to baptise me. I never expressed anything less than blissfulness at my own current spirituality etc...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To you, contempt is merely an issue of intent. Fine. That's bizarre, I think, but clearly you don't get that an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent.
I don't get how an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent either. Can you explain how?
I mean, "contempt" is an attitude the one holds towards something or someone, right? And thus a contemptuous act would be something that indicates such an attitude in the person committing the act. But if the intent of the person committing the act is such that it implies they have no such contemptuous attitude, how could the act still be contemptuous?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When one side believes that acts done in the name of the deceased matter, then they have a right to be frustrated when a large organization continues to perform acts in the name of the deceased, even after they have agreed not to.
If it was a mistake, it's not the first. It seems that nothing was put into place to seriously attempt to keep the agreement that was made.
Still, though, the fact that it continues to happen is a mark of arrogance - both of the "we know best" variety and the "our agreement with you isn't important enough to us to hold to" variety.
To the "I don't see what's the big deal" crowd - the same argument can be made to defend racial slurs or sexual harrassment. It has been made clear that this practice is offensive. If the practice continues, it is because those doing it aren't considerate enough about those being offended to stop.
Saying "I don't see what's the big deal" is also a somewhat arrogant statement. It's implying that the feelings of others aren't significant, and that if they're offended it's their fault.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wonder Dog, if they can't cope with the logistical issues, they should put halt the process until they can cope with those issues.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the more I read of Lisa and her ilk's abuse of Mormonism (like we're a monolithic, centrally controlled super-amoeba-zombie), the less I'm inclined to be sorry, and the more I'm inclined to give her type the finger.
What exactly constitutes Lisa's "ilk?" I mean, talk about offensive, Scott. Are you shooting that finger my way, too?
If the church had no way of controlling or policing the activity, then it should never have promised to do so. Again, I reiterate - the rites have to be performed in a temple, right? Then the person from the Temple who is responsible for recording the baptism checks the names and ensures they are not on the list. If the people doing this are too old or too technophobic to handle it, then someone else should do it who isn't too old or too technophobic!
Again, I'm not seeing the problem here.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The official policy of the Church since 1995 is that the names of Holocaust victims and survivors are not to be added to the list of those for whom work can be done.
However, the Church's databases are in incredibly poor shape; it's not at all uncommon for duplicates of names and incorrect information to appear, and, as Scott's been pointing out, individuals can add whomever they want.
Oversight, to maintain the Church's promises, needs to be improved. Currently it's sporadic; there are only a handful of people in Salt Lake who occasionally run through the database and remove names. Obviously, this leads to a lot of names being removed in cases like this. Further, this promise needs to be made clear to members at the local level, whom, I have no doubt, are doing this with the best of intentions but quite likely have never heard of the pledge.
Weisenthal's name has been removed.. Indeed, the presence of his name on the IGI database does not necessarily imply that any proxy work has actually been done, despite what Lisa's links imply, particularly as his name appeared only a week ago and was taken down yesterday.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
]
