posted
I don't believe that it would be difficult, in this age of the Internet and fast computers, to quickly check to see if a name submitted for posthumous (sp?) baptism belonged to a Holocaust Jew.
I also don't think the LDS Church should ever have promised not to perform posthumous baptism for anyone, Holocaust Jews or not. It's my understanding that posthumous baptism isn't, even to Mormons, forcible baptism of the dead. The dead person has to accept it for it to have any spiritual weight, and I doubt (both personally, and that Mormons think this say) that the way it works is that once the process of posthumous baptism is begun, in the spirit world the baptizee is locked into the ceremony, unable to leave. Given the Mormons emphasis on Free Agency, I rather suspect Mormons think that the dead person can just 'walk away' from the ceremony, or not enter into it at all.
I don't know, though-I'm hardly an expert.
The reason I don't think the LDS church should never have made that promise is based on a few concepts. One, Mormons don't believe (I think) that the deceased person is forced in any way even to take part in the baptism, wherever they are after they die. Two, Mormons feel it is critical to joy for the living and the dead to be baptized. Finally, I think it's presumptuous in the extreme for living ancestors to say, "Don't do this for my dead relatives." (This is assuming, of course, that Mormons don't view posthumous baptism as forced in any way).
If I'm dead, I'll still speak for myself, thanks kindly. I think anyone in such circumstances, however understandable their outrage might be, is speaking more for themselves and less for the dead.
However, if the President of the LDS Church has promised the procedure will stop, then that's that. The Church should not drag its feet or even appear to be doing so, in both eliminating the practice and remedying its past execution. Any member of the Church who violates this discontinuation should be disciplined somehow.
-----
quote:And before you start trying to defend it...
Yes, I can't imagine why anyone would have a knee-jerk reaction to your post.
quote:However, this difference is more pointedly so when it comes to dealing with Judaism, because it's not just that Christians think that the Jewish faith is incorrect, but that they are incomplete. That they still have yet to see the proverbial light.
But that's not hateful, that's just religious bigotry.
First of all, it's not religious bigotry for a Christian to view a Jew's spiritual and cultural worldview as incorrect. On this issue and homosexuality, simple disagreement does not equal bigotry (even though I largely agree with your stance on both issues, except for that). Bigotry is defined as strong partiality and intolerance of contradicting conditions and ideas. Saying, "Jews or Muslims have it wrong," is not intolerance, it's simply disagreement.
This is of course not to say that there are not many Christians who are bigots, concerning Jews and others. And if a Christian person or group attempts to advocate their own view of the godhead while attempting to restrict advocacy of contrary views of godhead in the same arena, then yes, I'll agree, that's bigotry and unacceptable (and, incidentally, contrary to one of the articles of the LDS faith).
quote:The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry, when someone defiles the life of someone's faith by performing a rite that the dead person never agreed to in life. It's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves, claiming that this negates the dead person's faith. It's even more hateful when it's done "for their own good." When their deaths are made "right" according to belief that the dead did not follow. After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs.
I don't think Mormons claim that posthumous baptisms 'negate' the deceased's faith. I think the belief is, they must voluntarily accept it either living or dead. The corporeal stand-in is, I think, a result of the belief that the physical rights of baptism must be performed for the baptism to have any spiritual 'oomph'. And it was nice of you to refrain from equating Mormons to Nazis for five whole paragraphs. Again, I can't imagine why anyone might have a knee-jerk reaction to your post.
My thoughts in this post hinge on my understanding that posthumous baptism are still voluntary; that is, Mormons believe that those who are dead are not forcibly baptized. I'm only a very new Mormon myself, though, so I can't be sure-I expect there are people here who know the answer to that question.
quote:I really don't want to debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice itself - we did that to death last year, and it got ugly. Talk of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, etc, etc, only serve to get people upset and angry.
Yeah, people hate seeing how their infringements on others is so damaging.
quote:In all these cases, the living wishes of the deceased are taken into account. Now, I know the Mormon church will not proxy baptize anyone with relatives who object, but they also don't seek out those relatives. Also, if a single member of the family is Mormon and decides to proxy baptize their entire lineage, what recourse do the other family members have?
According to the articles, the agreement with the church was that only immediate family members could request a proxy as of 95. Unless someone who was a direct relative converted, the church said it wouldn't do it. Yet, they still do it. They just don't contact the relatives or bother to remove the names they already put in there, even though they expressly agreed that they would not proxy baptise those not directly related to a member of the church. In other words, there is a breach of contract.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, attacking someone's beliefs by saying they are hateful, and then calling someone ignorant, is not normally conducive to keeping the conversation civil.
If you don't want it to be personal, then keep your own sentiments free of vitriol.
Note: I'm not attacking you. I have no reason nor desire to. However, it seems that you've jacked up the tension level on this thread, when it's already a touchy subject. Can we please come back from the derailment now and talk about the new development, rather than essential disagreements in philosophy?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dammit people, "bigot" does not equal "racist." Stop reacting like it does.Bigotry is an attitude of intolerance, and this qualifies completely. Seriously, you people need to get over your misconceptions of the word.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, once you call someone hateful and a bigot, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to complain about someone getting personal with you by responding to your statements, no matter how badly you think they did it. You started calling names; to date, you have not been called one in this thread.
Further, declaring an entire collection of religious faiths to include "ignorance of other faiths" based on your dislike of ONE member's use of one quote by a spiritual leader is definitely skating the edge of bigotry yourself.
quote:Bull. Show me where I attempted to interpret LDS theology in this thread. You're backpedaling to cover your ignorance. I'm saying that the LDS church has no right to do this to the dead of those not of their faith. It's insulting, arrogant, and hateful. I've explained why. No one has yet to explain how it is not. Instead, you just personally attack me.
Well, I do know that Mormons believe good people of all faiths are pleasing to God, and that good non-Mormons can still return to God and, even if they never convert, still attain one level or another of heaven. While you certainly did not say those things aren't true, the spirit of your words certainly leads to that conclusion.
I'll admit the practice of posthumous baptism could be considered arrogant, ignorant, and / or insulting. But hateful? Maybe some people view Mormons who do this with hatred, but I would disagree that those Mormons doing it are doing so out of hatred.
I think you're spelling Gandhi wrong, though I've seen it both ways
And I really do think when you start equating people with Nazis, John, some people will take it personally and attack you. I think your surprise and indignation at that is disingenuous.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't called any single person a name. Like I already said, bigotry is defined as:
quote:big·ot·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-tr) n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
It's not name-calling. I'm not calling someone a hood-wearing, goose-stepping freak, I'm saying that the actions are displays of a pervasive and wholehearted attitude of intolerance. Stop misunderstanding this simple fact.Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While you certainly did not say those things aren't true, the spirit of your words certainly leads to that conclusion.
So, when you decide to conclude something different from what I actually said into something I did not, I'm accountable? Interesting.
quote:And I really do think when you start equating people with Nazis, John, some people will take it personally and attack you. I think your surprise and indignation at that is disingenuous.
No, I made the reference to the Nazis because these are Holocaust victims, Jeff. There is a direct correlation here. That correlation is that this is just another example of their lives being marginalized for some other group's plans. I think your direct ignoring of that is rather disingenuous.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
You did compare the LDS practice of posthumous baptism to Nazi genocide of Jews.
quote:The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry, when someone defiles the life of someone's faith by performing a rite that the dead person never agreed to in life. It's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves, claiming that this negates the dead person's faith. It's even more hateful when it's done "for their own good." When their deaths are made "right" according to belief that the dead did not follow. After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs.
No, you didn't say, "They're like the Nazis!" But your indignation at people being offended by those words...well, I think it's unreasonable. People get upset when you equate them or a part of their beliefs to Nazi-ism, which is what you've done.
And I still don't think posthumous baptism is intolerant. Unless Mormons believe the dead person is forcibly baptized, even if they don't want it, then I will continue to disagree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I believe you when you tell me that's what you meant. I do not think that John is equating Nazis to Mormons.
I just think that when you protest as though it's a shock some people will, or that they'll be offended, etc., is impratical. It's unrealistic. But that's an older argument between you and I. *shrug*
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You conveniently ignored my point about your religious stereotyping based on a single example, I noticed.
I made a whole thread on this topic before, so don't try to say I've not addressed it. Here, I'll repeat it:
quote:I'm currently doing working on a pseudo-academic essay/thesis (I'm not doing it for a grade, and I'm not a grad student... yet) discussing the ubiquitous attitudes that have indelibly influenced Western civilization, and how that influence has impacted relations not only with other cultures, both in the Western world and other regions of the world. It's going to mostly be based on historical information, but not the "old style" of listing separate dates and names in lieu of the "new style" of addressing whys and hows and putting them into some outward perspetive. It's an incredible task, and I wouldn't even be attempting it if I wasn't going to be doing it with some people far more qualified than I am. Still, I'll probably constantly be looking for more reference (for all of you lay theologians and religious historians).
One of the sources has me faccinated because of something that's been bumping around in my head on an unrelated subject. It has to do with something I read in James Carroll's Constantine's Sword, which is one of two books I'm currently grabbing some notes from. Here are some of the passages, beginning with some setting:
quote:In 1979, Karol Wojtyla came home to nearby Krakow as Pope John Paul II. He celebrated Mass in an open field for a million of his countrymen, and on a makeshift altar this same cross had been mounted—hence its size, large enough to prompt obeisance from the farthest member of the throng. Visiting the death camp, the Pope prayed for and to Father Kolbe, who had voluntarily taken the place of a fellow inmate in the death bunker. The Pope prayed for and to Edith Stein, the convert who had also died in the camp, and whom he would declare a Catholic saint in 1998. She was a Carmelite nun known as Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, but the Nazis murdered her for being a Jew. In his sermon, the Pope called Auschwitz the “Golgotha of the modern world.” As he had at other times, John Paul II expressed the wish that a place of prayer and penance could be built at the site of the death camp to honor the Catholic martyrs and to atone for the murders...
That basically puts some context into the rest of what I'll be quoting.
quote:I thought of the Pope’s designation of this place as Golgotha, and I recognized the ancient Christian impulse to associate extreme evil with the fate of Jesus, precisely as a way of refusing to be defeated by that evil. At the Golgotha of the crucifixion, death became the necessary mode of transcendence, first for Jesus and then, as Christians believe, for all. But I also thought of that banner, “Do Not Christianize Auschwitz and Shoah!” Can mechanized mass murder be a mode of transcendence? I could imagine the narrowed eyes of a Jewish protester as he detected in prayers offered before the cross at Auschwitz echoes of the old refrain “Jews out!”—only now was it Jewish anguish that was expected to yield before Christian hope? If Auschwitz must stand for Jews as the abyss in which meaning itself died, what happens when Auschwitz becomes the sanctuary of someone else’s recovered piety?
And this is the complications, where differing points of view start creating conflicts.
quote:Perhaps the voice a troubled Christian most needs to hear is that of the Jew who says the Holocaust must be made to teach nothing. “What consequences, then, are to be drawn from the Holocaust?” asks the theologian Jacob Neuser. “I argue that none are to be drawn, none for the Jewish theology and none for the Jews with one another, which were not there before 1933. Jewish theologians do no good service to believers when they claim that ‘Auschwitz’ denotes a turning point.” That voice is useful because if Jewish responses to the Holocaust, which range from piety to nihilism, are complex and multifaceted, Christian interpretations of the near elimination of Jews from Europe, however respectfully put forth, must inevitably be more problematic. The cross signifies the problem: When suffering is seen to serve a universal plan for salvation, its particular character as tragic and evil is always diminished. The meaningless can be made to shimmer with an eschatological hope, and at Auschwitz this can seem like blasphemy.
But what about an effort less ambitious than the search for meaning or the imposition of theology? What if the cross at Auschwitz is an object before which Christians only want to kneel and pray? And, fully aware of what happened there, what if we Christians want to pray for the Jews? Why does that offend? How can prayers for the dead be a bad thing? But what if such prayers, offered with good intentions, effectively evangelize the dead? What if they imply that the Jews who died at Auschwitz are to be ushered into the presence of God by the Jesus whom they rejected? Are the Jews then expected to see at last the truth to which, all their lives, they had been blind? Seeing that truth in the beatific vision, are they then to bow down before Jesus the Messiah in an act of postmortem conversion? Shall the afterlife thus be judenrein too? Elie Wiesel tells “a joke which is not funny.” It concerns an SS officer whose torment of a Jew consisted in his pretending to shoot the Jew dead, firing a blank, while simultaneously knocking him unconscious. When the Jew regained consciousness, the Nazi told him, “You are dead, but you don’t know it. You think that you escaped us? We are your masters, even in the other world.” Wiesel comments, “What the Germans wanted to do to the Jewish people was to substitute themselves for the Jewish God.” Here is the question a Christian must ask: Does our assumption about redemptive meaning of suffering, tied to the triumph of Jesus Christ and applied to the Shoah, inevitably turn every effort to atone for the crimes of the Holocaust into a claim to be the masters of Jews in the other world?
Of course, the first answer (for that final question) to spring to mind is an emphatic "of course not!" However, what if it's not an overt or even intentional effort? What if it's the result of centuries upon centuries of pointed doctrine, starting with the separation of Paul from traditional Hebrew law? However, it isn't individuals like Paul or Luther that are what Carroll is directly referring to here. Instead, he's talking about how tragedy and grief is both viewed and handled by each faith, and how it addresses them differently.
quote:Even when the cross of Jesus Christ is planted at Auschwitz as a sign of Christian atonement for that hatred, and not anti–Jewish accusation, the problem remains. By associating the Jewish dead with a Christian notion of redemption, are the desperate and despised victims of the Nazis thus transformed into martyrs whose fate could seem not only meaningful but privileged? What Jew would not be suspicious of a Christian impulse to introduce that category, martyrdom, into the story of the genocide? Jews as figures of suffering—negation, denial, hatred, guilt—are at the center of this long history, although always, until now, their suffering was proof of God’s rejection of them. Is Jewish suffering now to be taken as a sign of God’s approval? Golgotha of the modern world—does that mean real Jews have replaced Jesus as the sacrificial offering, their deaths as the source of universal salvation? Does this Jew-friendly soteriology turn full circle into the new rationale for a Final Solution?
Uneasiness with such association has prompted some Jews to reject the very word “holocaust” as applied to the genocide, since in Greek it means “burnt offering.” The notion that God would accept such an offering is deeply troubling. When the genocide is instead referred to as Shoah, a Hebrew word meaning “catastrophe,” a wall is being erected against consolations and insults of a redemptive, sacrificial theology of salvation. Shoah, in its biblical usage, points to the absence of God’s creative hovering, the opposite of which is rendered as “ruach.” Ruach is the breath of God, which in Genesis drew order out of chaos. Shoah is its undoing.
Not counting things like belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, this has to be an incredible difference in outlook between the faiths that is rarely, if ever, properly addressed. It's a common Christian motif to turn tragedy, even when performed by the worst of evil, into the benevolent and intentional plan of the creator. It's the most regular part of apologetics that is taught even the young or budding Christian: why do bad things happen to good people? The thing is, such a view partially marginalizes the significance of the evil performed, as well as the tragedy of the victims. Granted, it is intellectually possible to have both the "God's plan" view and still sympathize greatly with the victims and recognize the evil for what it is. However, the honest truth is that the great majority of people—even smart people—do not. It's not even that the views that he describes some Jewish theologians or groups as having are that incomprehensible. In fact, I'd say they are generally easy to sympathize with. It's that this is generally viewed as something one doesn't want to do, instead choosing to turn it into a triumph of sorts, when taken in the Christian point of view.
quote:What is the relationship of ancient Christian hatred of Jews to the twentieth century murderous hatred that produced the death camps? The cross need not be labeled as the cause of the Holocaust for the link to be felt. When can that link be seen for what it is? What does it mean when Christians as well as Jews are jolted by the imposition, across two thousand years, of the name “Golgotha” on the place called Auschwitz? What is going on here? I asked myself that November day, standing before the cross. And I ask it still.
I actually found myself asking similar questions after watching "The Passion of the Christ" this past Sunday. The movie, while I don't think is meant to be outwardly antisemitic, definitely embraces some of those ideas and misconceptions regarding the points of view of the different cultures involved in what can easily be argued as the single most pivotal incident in the last two millenia. And while this situation with the cross at Auschwitz is based more on the Roman Catholic church, other Christian faiths are not exempt from inclusion. The Eastern Orthodox church has had its own share of pogroms. All of the antisemitic groups that exist today in the US (and some abroad) embrace various Protestant doctrines. There is no group in the history of the last two thousand years that has experienced more adversity and hardship at the hands of so many other cultures than the Jews, and yet there is still far too little done to actually understand them outside of the context of "descendants of people who killed Jesus." It's really astounding.
And this isn't meant so much as an accusation as it is a "Why? How? What (things) caused this?" These are the adequate questions to work toward a solution (and a better understanding).
This is not a single incident, nor is it even a single incident from a single Christian church. It's been going on for centuries, and the LDS Church is just chiming in right along with all the rest. This is just yet another example of it. Weren't you the one who pulled the whole "read my other posts!" card with me? How ironic.
quote:No, you didn't say, "They're like the Nazis!" But your indignation at people being offended by those words...well, I think it's unreasonable. People get upset when you equate them or a part of their beliefs to Nazi-ism, which is what you've done.
No, I DIDN'T call their beliefs Nazism. I said that it is, according to the point of view of the holocaust victims society and the Jews who are demanding this stop, the same kind of utter disregard for their faith. I understand that people get all up in arms over Nazi remarks, but I'm not comparing Smith to Hitler, nor the LDS to the Nazi regime. I'm comparing the disregard to Jewish life during the Holocaust to the disregard to the dead of the proxy baptisms. That you continue to read between some nonexistant lines is indicative of your own problem, not what I'm actually saying.
quote:And I still don't think posthumous baptism is intolerant. Unless Mormons believe the dead person is forcibly baptized, even if they don't want it, then I will continue to disagree.
And that completely disregards the point of view of those who are not Mormons, and do not want their lives, nor the lives of their ancestors, toyed with without consideration for the faith and lives of people after they are dead, no matter what decisions are made by the dead. As far as Judaism is concerned there is no afterlife in the sense that the LDS do, so it's a slap in the proverbial face from the start.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, you seem not to understand why you've received a hostile reaction.
In your initial post you used the words: "extremely insulting" "practically hateful" "hateful" "that's just religious bigotry" "hateful act" "arrogance and religious bigotry" "that's all the Nazi's were doing" (emphasis mine)
Now, semantics aside, you used some supercharged words there that seemed designed to trigger an emotional response. The adjectives and comparisons were such that they put people on the defensive, and more, polarized them.
To bring semantics back into this, denotative meaning means very little when it comes to discourse and conversation. Connotative meaning is paramount, and regardless of the dictionary definition of a word, people have certain reactions not at all based on Noah Webster.
If someone gets offended because of the connotation of your words, you can't dismiss their anger because of their "ignorance" of the denotative meaning. "Ignorance" in it's own right is a charged word.
Whether you intentionally use these words for effect, or whether you just don't take time to rephrase your words tactfully, I don't know. Either way, it has stirred up people's emotions, and gotten them away from the topic.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't see how that definition fits into LDS/Christian disagreement with Jewish theology.
As said before, the proxy baptism is seen as presenting a choice. Not forcing anything.
It's forcing those of other faiths to abide by theological "rules" of afterlife, when the different faith has a completely different outlook of death than the LDS church does. It is forcing in that it is putting the life and death of a person in a perspective and role outside of the faith to which they belonged, disregarding that life and faith in lieu of the LDS point of view. It's not just arrogant, it's demanding the dead make a choice they should not have to, because their faith in life did not work according to LDS theology.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not a single incident, nor is it even a single incident from a single Christian church. It's been going on for centuries, and the LDS Church is just chiming in right along with all the rest. This is just yet another example of it. Weren't you the one who pulled the whole "read my other posts!" card with me? How ironic.
You know what, every time I think you have the potential to be civil, some thread like this comes along. I was talking about your calling Christians as a group ignorant of other faiths based on what one person IN THIS THREAD said: "Apparently, it must also include an inherent ignorance of other faiths, if you truly feel you know what you're talking about with regard to Ghandi's words."
You know what, you're a lost cause. You choose to throw around your righteous rage, use purposefully divisive language, and then have the nerve to get offended when other people get offended. At least have the guts to say, "Yeah, what I said was offensive." Don't try to act like you're innocent in this. Sheesh.
Dagonee
Edit: And actually, I never pulled the "read my other post card." I complained because you called me bigoted based on a post IN WHICH I SAID NOTHING BIGOTED. I then pointed to my other posts IN THE SAME THREAD to show how much you were talking out your rectum. But the point, which was that attempting to understand the other side of an argument does not make one a bigot, didn't depend on those other posts.
posted
And yet even in the sentence you quoted, my pointing of the ignorance was to a specific person, once again showing that you are incorrect and assuming shit about me or my words without accurately weighing what is said. Yeah... lost cause. And once again, the topic becomes me, instead of the topic. Wonderful way to make it personal, Dags.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you're not even being honest. The antecedent to "it" in the quoted sentence was "Christianity." So you tarnished all of Christianity based on ONE person's statement. Which was exactly my point.
quote:Yet Christianity has a zero tolerance for it. Apparently, it must also include an inherent ignorance of other faiths, if you truly feel you know what you're talking about with regard to Ghandi's words.
I haven't made this personal. You did by whining about people making this personal when they were responding to your vitriol. Apparantly not liking your posts is a personal attack.
posted
No, your constant harping on me for reasons not having to do with the topic is, Dags. Don't try to attribute meaning to what I say according to what you want it to be. It makes you look like an ass. I was addressing Berg's ignorance on Gandhi's views. Get off your high horse.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably, most dead people who aren't christian, chose at some point in their life not to be baptised. This goes doubly for people who were murdered during the holocaust, as converting would make it much easier to hide... and many people actually did this, or at the very least tried to.
In other words, we've already rejected baptism. Someone said "Its not forced, presumably the dead can walk away from it." Well, great, can I cirucmsize you? I mean, we can get you on the table and start the ceremony, and we'll go through with it, so you'll have to fight to get away...
Presumably, we've made our choices during life. We shouldn't be forced into making those choices again by self-centered jerks who think that its going to make me happy to be forced into a baptism ceremony, even if I'm not "forced" to take baptism. I'm still part of the ceremony.
I don't understand why baptism of the dead is central to the LDS faith, and frankly, I don't really care. Its not just offensive, its an act that displays an amazing degree of lack of compassion. Those who engage in the ceremony DON'T actually care about the desires of the dead. Like, when someone comes to my door, I can at least say "I'm not interested," and he will leave, without trying to put me through any conversion ceremonies.
However this fits into your nice little theology, and you justify it to yourself, its unjustifiable FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of those who are upset about those, you are going to fail to justify your actions. This is why it is, at the very least, self-centered, and jerkish.
All other insults are debatable, but I'd be inclined to agree with as many insults as could be tossed regarding this ritual, as I hate when other people get involved in my own faith.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get off yours. I'm harping on you for what you said in THIS thread - which was obnoxious and vitriolic. Constant harping? Please. I respond to the posts I choose to respond to. Yours happen to asinine enough with a high enough frequency that they attract my attention fairly often.
Are you incapable of admitting that what you said was offensive?
posted
I never said my post was not offensive. I said I wasn't saying the LDS is Nazi. I said my post was not incorrect. it was not incorrect. As even Paul has said, when taken from a non-Mormon, non-Christian point of view, this is a reprehensable practice. I have said that it goes beyond simple arrogance and intolerance, going into the realm of hatefulness. I have backed up the reasoning, and not one person has given it adequate challenge outside of saying "it's perfectly fine from the LDS point of view."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Cow. It's not. If the agreement is as all of the articles seem to say, it's a breach of contract.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John: Are you interested in helping form other people's opinions or simply hearing yourself speak? Paul has made largely the same points (which I happen to mostly agree with, by the way) without creating the same divisiveness you have.
My interest in this, since the specific dispute is between mormons and jews, is strictly related to my fear that some judge will issue an injunction banning a religous ritual which causes no physical harm. If this case ever goes to court, I will be on the LDS side, not because I think they're doing right but because I oppose government restriction of religious practice.
quote:In other words, we've already rejected baptism. Someone said "Its not forced, presumably the dead can walk away from it." Well, great, can I cirucmsize you? I mean, we can get you on the table and start the ceremony, and we'll go through with it, so you'll have to fight to get away...
If you want to circumcise me by proxy after I'm dead, go for it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even religious practices which infringe on the religions of others? Because that's what this is, an act that infringes on the religion of others without even asking the relatives of those it infringes upon. It breaks its own contract while it infringes upon people without ever asking for their acceptance.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, Cow. It's not. If the agreement is as all of the articles seem to say, it's a breach of contract.
Not (necessarily) true. As I explained earlier, not all written signed agreements are legally enforceable. It's also not clear from the summary posted earlier that they are in material breach of the agreement. Since I can't find the text of the agreement, I can't say for sure. But the summaries from the Jewish sources lead me to conclude there's no breach of contract action here. Best case is probably intentional infliction of emotional distress, which would have serious First Amendment issues attached.
quote:Not what I asked. CAn we do it now? Not by proxy?
And how is this relevant or applicable to the situation here? We're not forcibly baptizing live people against their will.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Jon, can I say that your faith was wrong and irrelevant in life, and that now you must make a choice after death according to rules my belief sets forth, not by what yours do? Is it okay if hundreds, thousands, or more people do this to LDS dead on a regular basis? Is it okay if we do it to your ancestors?
And if so, does that mean you expect every other faith in the world to abide by your decision? Does that mean you expect other faiths of the world decide according to your faith, and not their own? Because that's what proxy baptisms do to non-Mormon dead.
And even more of an insult is that there are curches of the LDS faith that are defying a contract made by its leaders to stop such behavior, which means not just a philosophical insult, but a legal insult as well.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am a Christian who finds proxy baptism extremely distasteful.
I feel it is an intrusion, it is a presumption, and it completely disrespects the choices someone has already made.
I was baptized into my faith, and I believe that my baptism meant something, I did it out of obedience to God and as a sign of the covenant God holds with me. I took it seriously and I hold it sacred.
To think that someone would ever stand up and be baptized for me - that makes me sad, angry, frustrated, all kinds of emotions.
If someone has chosen baptism in a certain faith, or if they have chosen not to be baptized, then that should be honored and respected.
Now, I don't believe in the same type of heaven the Mormons do. I don't think there will be baptisms in the afterlife or marriages. So, the natural conclusion would be: Why do I care? If I don't believe what they say will happen will happen, what does it matter?
Well, I do care. Very, very much. Because it's taking something very important to me, my baptism in my faith, and presuming that it "isn't good enough" and then defiling it by doing something in my name that I never gave anyone a right to do. I don't think that it's meaningless, I think when you do something in a person's name it's significant. And while no one can separate me from Christ and certainly a proxy baptism won't affect me after I'm gone on, as a living person here today I find it deeply offensive.
For a group of people with a long history like the Jewish people, when many of them have accepted death rather than be converted and baptised as Rivka said, I can certainly understand why this would be disturbing and disrespectful.
Since the church has apparently recognized this, (which I applaud) then it needs to do whatever is necessary to keep its word and honor the agreement. Even if it is difficult to compare the databases, surely the good name of the church is important enough for them to put in the effort?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even religious practices which infringe on the religions of others? Because that's what this is, an act that infringes on the religion of others without even asking the relatives of those it infringes upon. It breaks its own contract while it infringes upon people without ever asking for their acceptance.
Here's my problem with that reasoning, which I'm not unsympathetic to. The people who oppose gay marriage do so because of the effects they view such unions as having on themselves. Others have argued on this board that purely mental effects and emotional distress are not reasons to infringe the liberties of others. It's hard for me to to see how the same principle wouldn't apply here.
quote:Even religious practices which infringe on the religions of others? Because that's what this is, an act that infringes on the religion of others without even asking the relatives of those it infringes upon.
Religions do this all the time, though. Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved? What if my religion says that no one should have the right to do that? Tough. I'm not being hurt by it, and if I take offense, it's my fault for being offended where no offense was intended.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Dag, you don't have to, and I didn't ask you to. Just trying to focus on the topic at hand.)
I'm curious, outside of this agreement, if a case could be made in general, with regards to posthumous rights.
It was mentioned that proving living wishes is problematic and damn near impossible, unless it was written somewhere. But, if it *is* written somewhere by the deceased, might that not be a legal barrier against this practice?
I know last year it was discussed that your living wishes don't matter to the Mormon church, for a number of reasons. First, it's not a forced thing, so you can always reject it again. But mainly because you might change your mind after death, in their belief.
But, from a legal standpoint, I'd think there's more of an issue regarding living wishes. The government can't make a statement like "you can change your mind after you're dead". It has to go on living wishes.
And, even if it's not in his will, I can't imagine someone like Elie Weisel would take kindly to the thought of being baptised by proxy after death.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since this argument already had gotten heated I'm going to ask my question and hope it doesn't get worse. :-/
In the Jewish faith, does the actual act of proxy baptism make any difference at all to the deceased? I'm not asking if it's offensive, clearly plenty of people think it is, I mean, does it actually change what happens to that person in the after life? I admit to being rather ignorant of the Jewish concept of after life so I can't really get more specific.
I guess what I don't get is that it seems to me that the Jewish faith would certainly say that those preforming the proxy baptism have no power that other men (and women) don't have when it comes to influencing the afterlife, nor do the words spoken nor the actions preformed. What is it about the ceremony that would cause someone's soul to be negativly affected after death?
quote:Hey, Jon, can I say that your faith was wrong and irrelevant in life, and that now you must make a choice after death according to rules my belief sets forth, not by what yours do? Is it okay if hundreds, thousands, or more people do this to LDS dead on a regular basis? Is it okay if we do it to your ancestors?
Sure, as long as none of my ancestors expressed an opinion otherwise. The "force someone to make a choice" argument is ridiculous, anyway. If I invite you to convert to Mormonism, I've just "forced" you to make a choice.
quote:And if so, does that mean you expect every other faith in the world to abide by your decision? Does that mean you expect other faiths of the world decide according to your faith, and not their own? Because that's what proxy baptisms do to non-Mormon dead.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused here—which decisions are we talking about?
quote:And even more of an insult is that there are curches of the LDS faith that are defying a contract made by its leaders to stop such behavior, which means not just a philosophical insult, but a legal insult as well.
No, there are people of the LDS faith who aren't following the rules. Others have already discussed how difficult it is to check every name submitted—many of which are probably inaccurate or incomplete—against another database.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, do you think thinking someone is wrong = intolerance?
Do you really think being tolerant means thinking everyone is right, even if they don't have complete information?
In that case, I'm deeply offended at your intolerance of my religion.
--
Actually, I'm edging on offended, above definition applying or not. The only reason I'm not is because, well, I think you do not have complete information.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved?
That is NOT true for all Christians, Jon Boy. There are many Christians who believe baptism is done out of obedience, and as a symbolic acceptance of the new covenant, but it is not necessary for salvation.
Granted, that's another thread probably, but I just want to challenge your statement that baptism is what separates saved and unsaved. Not to everyone it isn't.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Belle. I realize that was a generalization, and I should've said something like, "For the sake of argument, let's say that. . . ." I realize that not all Christians believe that, but some (I'm not sure how many) do.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is, I doubt a living person would have legal standing to stop a religion from "baptizing" them via proxy, especially if any publication of the event was clear that it was a proxy (so there's no libel issue).
Every October 31, I pray for pretty much all the dead people I've known (directly or through some personal secondhand contact). I don't do anything specific, I just pray that they're all with the Lord and remember them to Him. The people I do this for include atheists, Christians, Hindus, muslims, Jews, and others. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, living or dead. If I knew for certain it did I would consider that in choosing to do it next time. But I would not follow any court order that told me not to.
quote:Religions do this all the time, though. Isn't baptism essentially a way of distinguishing saved from unsaved? What if my religion says that no one should have the right to do that? Tough. I'm not being hurt by it, and if I take offense, it's my fault for being offended where no offense was intended.
You're not being hurt by it because you agree with the practice. It's not your faith being insulted and called inadequate. It's not your faith being told, through ritual, that it cannot escape ecumenical differences in this world after death, and that your faith has no choice but to accept the rules of some other faith even after death. Yeah, tough luck for them. It's just like Elie Wiesel's "joke which is not funny" example, where even death cannot gain another faith absolution on its own terms, because unlike just a theological difference, it's an actual physical performance of this theological ideal upon those who cannot reject it openly to those conducting the ritual.
Just because you refuse to accept the validity of those other faiths does not make them invalid, just like the your own faith is not made invalid because others find it to not be so. The difference is that the LDS has a physical ritual displaying their indifference to the insult being played out.
And what makes this a legal wronging is that the LDS Church already agreed by contract to stop doing this to Holocaust victims, yet it persists in doing so and has said they will do nothing to end the insult. This may mean nothing to you, but all this is doing is perpetrating the same sins which have been put upon the LDS church in the past.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm comparing the disregard to Jewish life during the Holocaust to the disregard to the dead of the proxy baptisms. That you continue to read between some nonexistant lines is indicative of your own problem, not what I'm actually saying.
*sigh* It never gets me anywhere, but I'll once again add my name to the long list of people who frequently have problems with how you sometimes express yourself. Other than saying that, I'll drop the semantics aspect of it.
quote:And that completely disregards the point of view of those who are not Mormons, and do not want their lives, nor the lives of their ancestors, toyed with without consideration for the faith and lives of people after they are dead, no matter what decisions are made by the dead. As far as Judaism is concerned there is no afterlife in the sense that the LDS do, so it's a slap in the proverbial face from the start.
Here's the thing: ultimately, I don't regard living people as arbiters for the dead. When I die, I don't want my family or anyone else telling other people what to do or not to do with regards to my soul. I'll worry about that.
quote:It's forcing those of other faiths to abide by theological "rules" of afterlife, when the different faith has a completely different outlook of death than the LDS church does. It is forcing in that it is putting the life and death of a person in a perspective and role outside of the faith to which they belonged, disregarding that life and faith in lieu of the LDS point of view. It's not just arrogant, it's demanding the dead make a choice they should not have to, because their faith in life did not work according to LDS theology.
What nonsense is this? If the Jews are right, posthumous baptisms don't even reach the dead*! If the Jews are right, then Mormons are just chanting some rites in temples with some actors and some genealogical records!
Why can't people say, "They're wrong, what do I care what they do?" and have done with it? That's what I would do. If I die, and someone from the Nation-of-Islam or a Shinto-ist performs some rites for me, using a stand-in and my full name, why would I be upset? I don't think they're right about where I go when I die, I don't think that their rites will in any way forcibly affect my posthumous destiny, and in fact I'm doubtful as to whether or not I'll even hear them.
Let me reiterate, though, that since the LDS Church has promised not to do this, it should institute rapid and effective preventative reforms, as well as punishing any and all who continue posthumous baptism of Holocaust Jews-or anyone to whom the LDS Church has made such a promise.
-----
Paul,
quote:In other words, we've already rejected baptism. Someone said "Its not forced, presumably the dead can walk away from it." Well, great, can I cirucmsize you? I mean, we can get you on the table and start the ceremony, and we'll go through with it, so you'll have to fight to get away...
Yes, because of course physical mutilation while alive and while unequivocably forced is the same thing as posthumous baptism, which (I think) Mormons believe the dead don't even have to listen to if they choose not to.
quote:Presumably, we've made our choices during life. We shouldn't be forced into making those choices again by self-centered jerks who think that its going to make me happy to be forced into a baptism ceremony, even if I'm not "forced" to take baptism. I'm still part of the ceremony.
What if it's just some wrongheaded nincompoops in a phony temple, performing some ignorant superstitious rites that have no spiritual power whatsoever, and they throw your name in the mix?
What if you can 'close the door' after you're dead, too? You would have to admit, then, by your own words, that it wouldn't be as bad as you're saying.
And it's ironic that you admit an ignorance of the importance of posthumous baptism to Mormons, but go on to say those Mormons don't actually care about the dead being baptized.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
What, then, do you think are the requirements necessary to get into Heaven? (Since you mentioned it).
----- FC,
Sorry I'm derailing...I just don't think there'd be any legal issues at all, unless an actual binding contract was ever printed up and signed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Again, I can't imagine why anyone might have a knee-jerk reaction to your post.
