quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't get how an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent either.
Wouldn't it be like a stronger form of condescention? It's entirely possible to be unintentionally or unconsciously condescending. You might argue that contempt is such a strong sentiment that it would be difficult to be unintentionally or unconsciously contemptuous, but I wouldn't take it as a given.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place. A temple ordinance for and in behalf of those who are dead is important to both the living and the dead, as it allows the person the OPTION of accepting the ordinances of salvation.
Now perhaps Mr. Weisenthal has decided that he'd opt out of those ordinances and that he is happier walking a different path. No harm done, at least he had all the options on the table. But perhaps he is instead more informed as to certain eternal truths that he was NEVER exposed to in life.
I'm sorry but I would much rather the kind old man have the option of accepting salvation and eternal happiness rather then appease his fans.
Were I to die, and find out that I was on the right track but had missed the true way of God and part of that way was to have others vicariously perform those ordinances for me, I would be extremely upset if my family, friends, and in this case "admirers" got in the way of that process.
Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Why take offense when none was intended? When we perform these ordinances we don't chalk those people up as LDS or Mormons. We don't pretend that we are making them something they are not.
But those people who are dead NEED those ordinances done, and we happily do them as it draws us closer to those who are dead and it draws them to us.
This life is such of such a small duration how can you begin to use it as a means to dictate how we treat the person in the next one? You might as well say that because I wanted to be a paleontologist from kindergarten until 10th grade that I should be locked into that path and no other the rest of my life.
If we are in the wrong, certainly the person is not effected in anyway, if we are in the right, you are getting in the way of their happiness.
I understand that you believe in your religion and that Mr. Weisenthal is a hero and champion of that religion. My father walked into a Taoist shrine as a missionary and on the altar, no lie, were Guang Gong, The Buddha, The Virgin Mary, Christ, and Joseph Smith. The head monk said that they celebrate the truthfulness of all religion and even Joseph Smith said somethings they believed in. They felt they were honoring his memory, even if in my opinion they clearly do not understand the man and his words.
Would my father have been justified in being angry, calling the police and in some way getting them to seize the Christian icons they had upon their alters? I do not think so, let them worship as they see fit.
Its not as if Mormons are marching on Mr. Weisenthal's museum or any memorials and trying to assert that he is a Mormon now. I don't know why I even wrote all this, it obvious this discussion has been brought up before and its doubtful I brought anything new to the table. I would suggest approaching the situation from your opponents point of view and leaving emotion at the door. I think you will find there is no need to get bent out of shape or angry about this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
My contacts (I have friends who work at the Wiesenthal museum) say no.
If there were, would I still be outraged? Yes. Would I figure I had a chance in heck of getting anything done about it? No. Would it be a violation of the agreement? Not as I understand it.
quote:Wonder Dog, if they can't cope with the logistical issues, they should put halt the process until they can cope with those issue.
Amen. I'd rather if they just stopped making excuses and took care of the problem.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
Ohh true story, I'd like to know this too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 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.
I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site. Maybe he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling he doesn't much care that his church is doing the baptisms, so long as it isn't brought to light so that people of my ilk get upset about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
BB outlines the Mormon side of the issue well; however, I think this is a bit stickier than that because for both sides rather important religious issues are at stake. I think that the Church's promise qualifies the normal imperative for temple work that LDS feel here.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: 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 agree. Having experience submitting my own family names into the IGI myself, the Church leadership can take his name off of the records and all other Jews, but they cannot prevent these names being submitted by members again. The LDS church can take them off again once they learn that someone has submitted them again, but can't prevent it. There are millions of names being submitted each year, and there is a lot of duplicate names submitted. This is simply due to the fact that when you have hundreds of thousands LDS members researching their family history and submitting names, there is bound to be some crossover in lineage that occurs.
So, as Wonder Dog said, if you object to posthumous baptism overall, that is another discussion. But don't be too quick to assume that the LDS church is specifically ignoring their pledge or being contemptuos.
And as a strictly hypothetical question (from an LDS point of view) for discussion (hopefully not argument), WHAT IF a deceased Jewish person had the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them in the spirit world and decided they wanted to be baptized into the LDS faith, but found that they were unable to because they were Jewish during mortality and no one was allowed to perform their baptism?
I don't post that question to say that the LDS church should go against their pledge. I think it's important for them to keep their promises. I just ask that question for the sake of a slightly different angle of discussion.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be difficult to know where to insert the dividing line in the genealogical record between those who can be baptized and those who can't.
The LDS Church has supposedly agreed not to perform baptisms for Jews who are not direct ancestors, but there's this thing called a "Family Group Sheet," which lists brothers and sisters of an LDS member's direct ancestor, and all people on that group sheet are likely to be baptized as a prerequisite to that family group receiving the posthumous temple sealing ordinance. Which of those brothers and sisters should be excluded from posthumous baptism, and why should the nature of their deaths or the outspokenness of another living descendant have any bearing on that decision?
We don't own our ancestors.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From jewishgen.org, the specific points of the 1995 agreement were:
*Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.
*Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
*Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
*Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.
*Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
*Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.
The church specifically made no promise that future problems wouldn't occur, or that future names would be added to the IGI. You may disagree with the policy, you might find it tacky, arrogant or even contemptous, but I see no evidence that the church is not acting in good faith to enforce its promises.
<edit>Man this thread moves fast. Here's a link to the page with the point by point agreement. Which, BTW, is predictably biased in its exposition.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site.
Lisa, any member of the Church can imput names into IGI. Futher, merely imputing a name into IGI does not mean that a baptism has taken place.
It's my impression that Scott's technophobes are the elderly volunteers who are currently in charge of removing names that fall under the agreement. I think their ranks need to be beefed up.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
I disagree. Whoever accepted the Mormon idea of that acception was wrong to do so. If a descendent of mine were ever, God forbid, to become a Mormon and tried to have my posthumously baptised, I'd come back and haunt her. It'd make Poltergeist look like Casper by comparison.
Weisenthal was a proud Jew who suffered because he was a Jew and did his best to avenge others who suffered for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish. No offspring of his has the right to okay the desecration of his memory.
If such a thing did happen, it would not be a violation of the agreement that the Mormons made. But it would be disgusting nonetheless.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this... Mormons do it but don't advertise they're doing it. It can't hurt anyone if they don't know.
Yes, they're doing it out of love. I think it's misguided but kind of sweet. But going out and listing it where people will find it doing geneological searches? You know that's going to offend people who don't share your beliefs.
Yes, I realize I'm saying "I don't care what you do as long as you don't flaunt it." This is a different case. This is taking someone precious to another person and saying "hey, he's one of US now. Even though he's dead. He's not one of You anymore. Doesn't matter what he did in life." If you don't put it on the net, then who's to get offended by it?
All this being said, if you want to baptise me after I'm dead, knock yourself out. (That is, assuming Methodist baptisms don't count.)
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Absolutely, I would. Do what you have to, or what you think you have to, to your own. Keep off of my people.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the church had no way of controlling or policing the activity, then it should never have promised to do so.
Controlling? Policing?
This is what we promised to do:
quote: *
Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church. *
Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed. *
Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family. *
Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church. *
Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy. *
Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.
quote:The church specifically made no promise that future problems wouldn't occur, or that future names would be added to the IGI.
SR, I think you're being a bit disengenuous here, because when things like this come up (as they did in 2000), it's this very agreement that the General Authorities cite when they order names removed. Specifically, this clause:
quote:*Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
quote:Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
This, I think, the Church needs to do a better job on.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Originally posted by BlackBlade: But those people who are dead NEED those ordinances done...
BlackBlade, I know you think that, but it doesn't matter to us how you feel about it. Those are our people. If some inquisitor tortures me because "You NEED that to help you avoid hellfire", should I be grateful?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Absolutely, I would. Do what you have to, or what you think you have to, to your own. Keep off of my people.
We're not ON your people in the first place. You act like we believe by doing these ordinances the person is hounded down by spirit missionaries who then proceed to force them into some baptismal font, dunk them underwater, and then strapped down and forced to endure a 2 hour film strip where they are told why they are wrong.
OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Suppose we call the tail a leg.
But Mormonism is a branch of Judaism. We've got witnessed historical accounts of Moses and Elijah and a bunch of other Jews visiting Joseph Smith and conferring on him the keys of their ministries.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be sure to tell your children and grandchildren. They are the only ones who have the right to enter your name in.
I agree with Matt et. al. : It shouldn't have happened. I'm also sure the name was entered by some rank and file member and is not part of some vast conspiracy. The issue is how to police it, and whoever's job it is to police the database didn't catch it.
I also think that it depends a great deal on who submitted the name. If it is a descendent of the person in question, Lisa owes one the church massive apology.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand being disgusted if you go against your promise not to baptize someone after they have died. But I don't understand disgust at performing a posthumous baptism for an ancestor of a different faith. I can understand disagreement and a disbelief toward the baptism, but not disgust. When an LDS person goes to get baptized for a descendant, even if from another faith, they do not go with contempt for their faith. They simply honestly believe that everyone should have a right to accept a baptism for them, knowing full well that this baptism means nothing unless the deceased person accepts the baptism in the spirit world. An LDS person is not trying to desecrate their religion.
If another faith had this same doctrine and tried to get baptized for me into their faith, after I died, I would not be offended, unless they promised me they would not do so. My LDS beliefs are not threatened if somebody else hopes or even wishes that I believed differently. I am quite used to other Christians believing I am lost and need to become a true Christian, but I don't find that disgusting. They are entitled to their beliefs.
I just think disgust, outrage, sacreligious, etc. are strong words for people that are generally trying to do good things with good intentions. You don't have to agree, but why is another person's different religious desires for you so offensive, as long as they are not breaking a promise or imposing on your rights?
If you had a descendant that was baptized for you after you died, and you strongly disagree with Mormonism, then why not simply look at them as you would a misguided child who is trying to help you clean, but actually makes a bigger mess? You don't get mad at that child...instead you understand the good intent behind it. Wouldn't that be a much better response than to make plans to haunt that descendant? (and no I don't think I'm misguided, but you're entitled to that opinion )
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
You mean besides the fact that you promised not to? Since that clearly doesn't count for much?
Because it will make you our enemies. Maybe you care, maybe you don't. But that's about the size of it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site.
As has been pointed out-- no one was baptised.
I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world.
quote:Maybe he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling he doesn't much care that his church is doing the baptisms, so long as it isn't brought to light so that people of my ilk get upset about it.
Consider yourself corrected. We made an agreement-- we should stand by it. We should take steps to correct where we've made mistakes.
That said-- I don't really care about your, or anyone's, opinion in regards to proxy work or any other crazy Mormon practices. I care about God's opinion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Suppose we call the tail a leg.
But Mormonism is a branch of Judaism. We've got witnessed historical accounts of Moses and Elijah and a bunch of other Jews visiting Joseph Smith and conferring on him the keys of their ministries.
It isn't funnier the second time, you know.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesitng that NOWHERE has ANYONE stated that Mr. Wiesenthal actually had ordinances preformed for him. The church has removed his name from the IGI, make it impossible for anyone other than a direct descendant to have ordinances perfromed for him. This is perfectly in line with thier agreement.
Once again, the IGI is a GENEOLOGICAL INDEX. It is NOT a list of people who have had ordinances performed for them by the Mormon church. Other people use the IGI for lots of different things.
Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can. Seriously, beyond anyone's objections to the doctrine, what else are the Mormons supposed to do?
(I think it's very interesting that this thread seems to be more about the doctrine of proxy ordinances than the statement made in the title "Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal" - the Mormons have seemingly done their best NOT to desecrate his memory, by removing his name from the IGI.)
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I also think that it depends a great deal on who submitted the name. If it is a descendent of the person in question, Lisa owes one the church massive apology.
When the devil has icicles hanging from his nose.
It was a nasty and disrespectful thing to do before the Mormons agreed to stop it, and it'll remain a nasty and disrespectful thing to do regardless of that agreement. It's already been confirmed that this was not due to your little loophole, Kat, but it wouldn't make it okay if it had been. As I said before, the only difference would be that it wasn't a violation of the promise you made.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place.
Clearly, you ignored the explanation you were given of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Not to mention my explanation, which I linked to.
What do I have to do, quote it?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The violation of the promise is what I am concerned about.
The actual ordinance is under commandment, and the Lord's opinion takes precedence over yours.
However, if it wasn't a descendent then whoever submitted it should be properly ashamed of themselves, and I am glad the name was removed as soon as its inclusion was discovered.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any as much as others would insist otherwise, the Mormon's appear to be keeping their end of the agreement. It seems to me that many people are having a hard time understanding what that agreement is really about. Call the Mormon church dishaonest over this is either a sign osseeking fault where there is none or simply not understanding what's really going on.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
quote:If we are in the wrong, certainly the person is not effected in anyway, if we are in the right, you are getting in the way of their happiness.
This has been commented on already, but I'd like to reemphasize that "Mormons are wrong about their faith" does not mean that what they are doing is either meaningless or harmless. Many faiths believe that the actions of the living can affect the dead - including my own. It's actually kind of strange to think something can be wrong in only one way.
I don't actually believe that there is harm to the dead through the posthemous baptisms, but I don't disbelieve it, either.
However, I must comment on the irony of the original poster decrying this as a lack of religious respect and an expression of contempt and disrespect. Perhaps you can hold onto those feelings and decide not to make some of those expressions of contempt or disrespect concerning other religions in the future.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Mormonism is the true church of Jesus Christ. There's no branching, there's no... division. We're the body, the legs, the arms, the hair, the eyeballs, the nose...the whole shebang.
quote:When the devil has icicles hanging from his nose.
Heretic. Jews don't believe in the devil.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can. Seriously, beyond anyone's objections to the doctrine, what else are the Mormons supposed to do?
Put something in place to make sure it doesn't keep happening?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The church didn't agree to not do what Lisa wants them not to do. She wants them (as far as I can tell from her posts) to have promised not to allow any Holocaust victims (or survivors, or Jews in general, or anyone who doesn't in life express a desire) to be baptized. But that's simply not an agreement I think the church leadership would be willing to make, because of the ungovernability of it balanced against the imperative to do baptims for the dead.
All they promised was 1) we'll tell our members not to and 2) when they do we'll do our best to fix the problem. Perhaps they need to do a better job on (1), although as a trained FHC worker I was certainly aware of the policy from the training materials, and would encourage everyone I worked with only to do work for direct ancestors; I think they church leadership has been very reactive on (2). Honestly, with no disingenuity intended, I don't see where they are remiss in their obligations.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found the whole discussion fascinating, so thanks for posting the original links. I wasn't around for the earlier threads.
I've always thought it was a choice to become offended by anything, especially other people's opinions, actions, or arrogance. So you can choose to ignore it, realizing there are people who think and do differently from you--or you can waste emotional energy worrying about it. I don't know if that applies to this situation, but I try to remember it as often as possible.
*edit* I draw a line where people's actions or institutions trample on other's constitutional rights. I just don't see harmless actions/opinions as "foul".
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa - the agreement was made by Mormon leaders, and it appears they've kept what they agreed to. Your rage seems misplaced.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can.
quote:Once again, the IGI is a GENEOLOGICAL INDEX. It is NOT a list of people who have had ordinances performed for them by the Mormon church. Other people use the IGI for lots of different things.
I don't think either of these are particularly true. The IGI is used for proxy work; it's not a confirmation that it's been done, but if your name is on it long enough, it will be. And certainly the Church has not done everything it could to keep the promise, particularly in educating the laity about it.
It's also fairly certain that his name was not in fact submitted by anybody related to Weisenthal. This is, again, a sticky problem, and I think finding a resolution is not served by blame or angry rhetoric.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are two instances when it can be considered wrong for someone to practice a religious belief: 1) When they agreed not to through a promise or a contract. 2) When it infringes on rights, as wiggin stated.
You cannot compare torturing with posthumous baptism. Torturing someone because you honestly believe God wants you to is wrong because you are infringing on someone else's rights. Baptizing someone after promising not to is wrong, also, because keeping promises is important. But posthumous baptism in general does not infringe on anyone's rights. Speaking someone's name and getting baptized for them does not violate them in any way, unless you consider a difference of belief a violation. But if that was the case, then we wouldn't be allowed to speak, because most discussions I hear in the world every day are between people that disagree, sometimes passionately.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
A filter would be fine. As I said, the agreement clearly excludes those with current Mormon descendants. So while I hate it, if a current member of the church could prove ancestry, then I accept that there's nothing I can do about that (except perhaps work on bringing said descendant back where they belong).
I'd actually be happier if there were simply a rule that you had to prove ancestry to add anyone to the list to begin with. Mostly for simplicity's sake.
(Oh, and could you do me a huge favor and drop the extraneous apostrophes? They're driving me nuts.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It isn't funnier the second time, you know.
It gets even funnier when you learn my last name and where my family comes from (which you won't). I have at least as much claim on any Jew who died in the Holocaust as any other Jew here. But when I think about it, I have no claim.
Many Holocaust victims were Jewish by ancestry, but that is no indication of how devout they were in life. Some victims may even have chosen to be Christians, just as my Great Great Grandfather did. That wouldn't have stopped the Nazis, and it didn't. There are some Christian Jews in those mass graves. It's silly for any modern-day rabbi to lay claim to them.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who exactly has shown eveidence that Mr. Weisenthal's name was not submitted by relatives? rivka's contacts? How do they know?
We're taking a lot of people's comments at face value. All the sources agree, however, that his name has been removed.
To my knowledge, the Mormon church has made their agreement wiht the Jewish community part of thier official training for lay-people to become researchers. Do you want it re-hashed over the pulpit every week?
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, it appears anyone can register and enter information. Was Mr. Weisenthal entered in a particular way that indicates it was an LDS member who put him in?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
This agreement is no different, in terms of ethics, than the agreements we make with communist/Islamist countries in regards to proselyting.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
