posted
In a different forum, I saw the following question :
quote:Mormons have been baptizing (posthumously, of course) deceased Jews in order to save their souls. Jews, especially those whose deceased relatives are being so treated, object. Any thoughts?
The poster didn't give a link, so I thought I'd come here for answers. Is this indeed a Mormon practice, or has the poster misunderstood something? And if it is, why Jews only? Surely other faiths could benefit just as much from posthumous baptism. Or is this a misunderstanding again?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. For everyone. The goal is to have all of humanity linked (sealed) together. For that to happen (as much as possible), those who were baptized with priesthood in this life must have the work done for them after they have died.
2. Yes, this was addressed before, but the problem is that the members submit names themselves, there is not a central location that does it. So while, the church tries to honor their promise to not do any Holocaust victims and will not allow them to be done, sometimes names slip under the radar.
posted
Forgive me if this is an insensitive or stupid question, but why is any worse to baptise Holocaust victims that other Jewish people who died naturally?
Also, do Mormons do this to atheists too?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is supposed to be the case, yes, Teshi. In actual practice, this is not always the case.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons do a lot of great genealogy work, and it is driven by the belief that: 1: You need to be baptized to enter heaven. 2: Those who have died and were never baptized deserve the same privilege to have their ordinances done.
Ideally families research their own genealogy, add it to a database, and do temple ordinances--including baptism. Since they are dead, it is called Baptism for the Dead.
It is all proxy work. Much like Christ suffered for us, a Mormon can get baptized for someone who passed away.
Not all proxy work is Baptism, but that is the one that seems to get the most media attention.
Many Mormons, who feel they have exhausted their family tree, will assist others. I am sure there is a lot of general proxy work that is done not directly tied to a temple patron.
With the holocaust victims, either someone had ancestors who died in the Holocaust, and in doing their own genealogy, they probably thought to extend the "blessings" to others. Or maybe the church specifically went after the Holocaust victims because the records were readily available.
I am not sure what happened, but the result was a lot of the holocaust victims had proxy work done for them. When the Jewish leadership caught wind of this, they went after the Mormon Leadership to get it to stop. The church tried, but apparently some people still submitted Jewish names.
I heard they reached an agreement recently that everyone is happy with. I think the gist of it is that if you are a direct ancestor, you can do proxy work for Jews (specifically the holocaust victims). If not, then the church will try and stop the work.
Personally I don't think proxy work is necessary--I just don't get it. I also wouldn't get offended if any religion did anything with my name after my death. Those who love me will know who I am. But I digress.
posted
Since you responded Iem, I'm leaning towards thinking that you're Mormon. Is this correct? If so, is a divergence of opinion about the issue acceptable to the Church? I would have assumed, although I don't know for certain, that their prophet recieved a revelation about the issue. If he didn't, then where did the idea come from?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I should be most annoyed if someone used my name, which is all I expect to pass on, as a prop in their religious fantasies. But I expect this doesn't surprise anyone here.
Sorry, I didn't read all 24 pages. Too much like work. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If so, is a divergence of opinion about the issue acceptable to the Church?
No it is not acceptable, however, nothing bad would happen except being denied the "exhalted" blessings of the temple. I am free to go to church, appreciate the environment, and support my wife.
I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
While I'm not trying to make an issue of this, I am deeply curious about your situation. If you've outlined this elsewhere, please direct me to it. I'm curious how you came to feel this way. Were you raised Mormon and then differed with the Church later? Or did you marry a Mormon? Do you consider yourself Mormon? Is this the only area in which you differ? If you disbelieve many things, do you ever feel hypocritical going to church?
I honestly mean no offense by any of these questions. If you find them offensive, please tell me and I will delete it. Or just feel free to ignore it. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Me: I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
YOu: While I'm not trying to make an issue of this, I am deeply curious about your situation.
My statement was only directed at myself. You have not been offensive or innapropriate in any way.
I will answer this question in a "comming out" thread I was waiting to write until my landmark. Maybe I can work on it now. It doesn't need to be a land mark. When I write it, I will post a link from this reply.
quote: My statement was only directed at myself. You have not been offensive or innapropriate in any way.
I'm glad to hear that.
quote: I will answer this question in a "comming out" thread I was waiting to write until my landmark. Maybe I can work on it now. It doesn't need to be a land mark. When I write it, I will post a link from this reply.
I look forward to reading it!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I went back and re-read the 24 page thread, and I just want to say my favorite part of it was when Bob talked about why he thought it was silly to believe that women couldn't serve as priests or pastors. Especially the remark about the churches that let them teach children but not adults - does that mean children aren't important?
I'm definitely going to use that next time I have a discussion about that subject. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob talked about why he thought it was silly to believe that women couldn't serve as priests or pastors. Especially the remark about the churches that let them teach children but not adults - does that mean children aren't important?
Just like to clarify that while women do not hold Priesthood responsibilities, that is something completely different than teachers or 'pastors'. In the LDS church, all worthy men are able to receive the priesthood, which holds sacred responsibilies, and not any more control or power than women.
Women just as well as men are called as Adult Sunday School teachers. Women, along with male Church leaders, address the worldwide membership in General Conference.
While the responsibilty of Bishop (or 'pastor')is a specific Priesthood office, they do not generally exclusively preach in Sunday sacrament meetings - they assign members of the congregation to give talks - usually no less than three a week - women very much included.
So while women do not hold the Priesthood, they don't have any less standing in the Church, and in fact teach and run auxiliary organizations of the church just as well and frequently as the men.
LDS understanding of Priesthood is very different than most faiths, so I just wanted to clear that up.
quote:So while women do not hold the Priesthood, they don't have any less standing in the Church,
But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right? So in that regard they DO have less standing in the church.
I'm not trying to attack LDS beliefs here, I address my concerns about why women can't hold sacred positions or positions of authority to all denominations and religions that feel that way, including my own. I'm somewhat of an anomaly - in many ways I've ultra conservative - except this one. I ran up against the leadership of my congregation when my husband and I were both asked to put on a class for adults on Wednesday nights, regarding the history of the Reformation, and the theology of the time period. When it was discussed that my hubby couldn't always be there, because of his schedule, the idea was abandoned becuase I couldn't be leading a class that included adult men. My husband, bless him, pointed out that even when he was there he was mostly window dressing, that all the research and work that had been done was mine. But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present.
It's very frustrating.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present.
Having been in three distinct adult LDS Sunday School classes taught by women specficially set apart for this calling, I'll let you know that, at least for us, it's not that way at all.
quote:But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right? So in that regard they DO have less standing in the church.
Let's put it this way - everything a Priesthood holder does is done to benefit others. No Priesthood holder can personally benefit himself with his priesthood.
Men have the Priesthood, women, among many other things give birth and have a special, irreplaceable relationship to their children. Both are responsibilities given to specific genders that they can't shirk off to the others.
quote:I'm not trying to attack LDS beliefs here, I address my concerns about why women can't hold sacred positions or positions of authority to all denominations and religions that feel that way, including my own
Can't speak for other denominations, but the key reasons why women don't hold the Priesthood in our church is...because that's the way God designed it. Women benefit from the Priesthood ordinances without having the responsibility.
But every single blessing and ordinance (apart from ordination to the Priesthood)in the Church that men can receive is also available to women.
quote: But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right?
We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it."
Basically, almost every priesthood responsibility has the capability of making any person go nuts. Women have more capability at keeping this from happening to men than men have at preventing it for women (In my opinion). I do not know a single leader I've seen in church (Outside of a single's ward, which is just all kinds of disorganized) that doesn't draw considerable strength from their spouse. My father, in particular, would not be anything at all if it weren't for my mother.
Anyway, I don't know what I'm meaning to say here, so just mark this off as me rambling again if you don't understand it Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm still wondering why this issue comes up each spring. (March of 2003, April 2004, now April 2005)
There is always a major rush of Mormon-based "news" right around the times that we hold our general conference. At the begining of October, and the first week of April.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok . . . that would explain this year. And possibly even last year. It would not explain 2003, which was triggered by (IIRC) a visit of one of Bob's relatives to Italy. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, I'm curious why it would bother you to be posthumously baptized. I can understand King of Men's objection, since he's so virulently anti-religion, but as an atheist who *doesn't* foam at the mouth at the mere mention of gods, why would you care? I assume that you believe, as an atheist, that when your body dies you'll cease to exist, right? So you wouldn't think that the baptism would actually *do* anything, right? So why care?
I hope that didn't come across as rude, by the way, to either Teshi or the Mormons here; I just feel like I'm missing some part of this that is obvious to everyone else.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth pointing out that just because you're baptized by proxy, you're not automatically a Mormon for eternity. A very big part of the beliefs surrounding baptism for the dead is that it's a choice - the deceased person can choose whether or not they accept the ordinances done on their behalf. We go ahead and do them, of course, but don't assume that the deceased has accepted it. That's up to them and God.
So really, if you don't believe that church ordinances mean anything and don't acknowledge the Priesthood authority we claim in performing them, I have always had a hard time understanding where the objection would be.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why virulence should make a difference; logic is logic. I don't know about Teshi, but I can give my own reasoning. As you observe, I believe in death after life. Therefore, the only thing that will remain of me is the memory of how I thought and what I was. To involve that memory in a religious ceremony would be completely counter to anything I ever believed.
You might argue that I wouldn't be aware of it, and that would be true, but it makes the matter no better. A posthumous baptism would be spitting on all that remained of me, while I wasn't even in a condition to defend myself.
Just because I won't be aware of it, doesn't mean I don't care about what happens after my death. I care about the fate of my future children and grandchildren, for example.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I wouldn't care. I believe that once I'm dead, all of my decisions have been made for good or ill--by me.
I'm wondering, though. I've been baptized, but another Christian denomination. If one of my offspring or someone else converted to the LDS church, would they "need" to baptize me?
For me, the thought isn't offensive. I don't think it would have any effect on me whatsoever in the "hereafter," but it sure is a nice gesture. Someone cares enough for me to give me a second chance to "accept" at the resurrection--well gee, that's awfully nice of them. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I actually think it's a nice thought--if I believed it would make a difference, well, I'd do it while I was alive.)
If I understand what I've read here correctly, it would very likely be your descendants who would be doing the baptizing. You might want to leave a letter for your children to pass down: "Please don't baptize me. Yeah. Thanks."
posted
two points, just to through a little well intentioned oil on the fires.
As far as women and the church, I've heard similar statements made be men in very chauvenistic religions (Middle Eastern Islam for example) that say "Oh we honor and respect women in all ways. It is because of this honor that we don't allow...."
LDS is a far cry from being anywhere near that man-centrist, but the comments above were a bit of a reflection.
Basically, it boils down to "Separate but Equal".
As far as the main topic of this thread, and why some people think baptism of some dead people, especially Holocaust victims, is wrong can be explained. There have been many martyrs to different religions. Those who died in the Holocaust, whether they were gypsies or jews or Catholics, are considered by those who survived as martyrs.
These are people who gave their lives, endured pain and suffering we can only imagine, for the faith that they held dear. To have someone else come along afterword and say, "well, we'll make them Mormon now because we think its better for them" makes those sacrifices they made empty and worthless.
The truth is that this is NOT what the LDS Church does. However, those who represent or identify with those martyrs do not research LDS teachings, they just see something that appears wrong and complain.
Similarly, it appears that some of those who do this, especially those who try to sneak in names of Holocaust victims, have not researched the ideals and beliefs of these people. They just see something that appears to be right, and try to do it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ok . . . that would explain this year. And possibly even last year. It would not explain 2003, which was triggered by (IIRC) a visit of one of Bob's relatives to Italy.
Actually, if Bob's was to be posted at all, it would have to have been posted during one season or another. It's a 1 in 4 chance that it was spring. I don't think there's much to wonder about unless this topic re-surfaces spontaneously in March a couple more times.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the other possible reason why some object: There is the possibility that Mormons are wrong about the effects of proxy baptism, but proxy baptism doesn't have no effect. It looks awkward, but the "doesn't have no effect" is precisely what I mean.
My understanding is that Jews believe that the prayers of the living can have an effect on the dead. I know Catholics believe this. While I personally don't believe proxy baptism would do any harm to my post-death self, my belief structure holds open that possibility. So if others object for that reason, I have to admit the possibility that the proxy can do harm.
quote: There have been many martyrs to different religions. Those who died in the Holocaust, whether they were gypsies or jews or Catholics, are considered by those who survived as martyrs.
I don't doubt this is true, but why is this, exactly? Personally I think there is a bid difference in dying for a cause (martyrdom) and simply dying because someone hates your people. Do we consider the victims of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Iraq, or the Sudan martyrs? How are the Jews different beyond the fact that the ethnicity being cleansed was both religious and cultural? I think there's a strong case to be made that the extermination of the Jews was more cultural than religiously motivated, even if religion was used as an excuse. I don't recall any stories of Jews being given the opportunity to renounce their religion, thereby saving themselves. I thought they were rounded up regardless of whether they were practicing the religion or in some cases even if they had left it altogether, simply because they were of Jewish heritage? Is this martyrdom?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I teach adults - I'm one of the Gospel Doctrine teachers, the main sunday school class for adults. I've been a missionary and I've taught the teacher development class.
I'm fine with people having problems with the way things are, but it's important to get an accurate picture. Being upset over a situation that does not exist is self-defeating.
Added: <-- LDS
Added:
quote:We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it."
I don't believe this. I think these are Just-So stories, to try and justify a policy that doesn't need to be justified. The question is whether or not the direction came from the Lord. If it didn't, it can't be justified. If it did, it doesn't need to be.
I believe that it came from the Lord, as with the commandment to give everyone who has ever lived the opportunity to be baptized, whether in this life or the next.
You know that problem with Christianity, where if you do not believe in Christ you cannot be saved, and how it condemns all who never had a chance to make a choice? Baptism for the dead gives everyone that choice.
posted
Good point, KarlEd. And statistically, you're right. However, from my perspective, the issue keeps coming up adjacent to Passover (just over two weeks before, halfway through, and just under two weeks before, respectively).
Dunno, maybe it connects to the Red Sea somehow . . .
quote: The truth is that this is NOT what the LDS Church does. However, those who represent or identify with those martyrs do not research LDS teachings, they just see something that appears wrong and complain.
I will NOT get sucked in to this again, I will NOT! get sucked into this again! . . . but I am going to give in and link to one of my posts from last year. *notes number of post in question and laughs hysterically*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe this. I think these are Just-So stories, to try and justify a policy that doesn't need to be justified.
I am very glad to hear this, kat, 'cause honestly the statement you quoted, along with some other stuff in there, seemed incredibly insulting/condensending to both genders.
Obviously some people believe it... it just gives me hope that some people don't. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, thank you for linking to that. I was not aware of that belief, and having it explained does help to bring clarity. Thank you.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The church tried, but apparently some people still submitted Jewish names.
Which those people are not supposed to do, since the Church says NOT to. Can't we excommunicate them, or at least smack them upside the head? Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: Teshi, I'm curious why it would bother you to be posthumously baptized.
Since I believe that once I'm dead the only thing that remains of me is the memory of me, I would want that memory to respect the me that was rather than the me someone else would have liked me to be.
I don't begrudge the act; it's clearly one of great goodwill. I just would prefer people planted a tree or a forest or something instead .
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the other thread entirely, so I don't know if this is addressed there or not, but one thing that should be known is that it's not just Holocaust victims that are not supposed to have temple work done. There are a number of countries where, if the individuals you're doing work on were born, married, or died there, that work must be submitted through a separate department in church headquarters where it may or may not be approved to be done. A number of middle-eastern countries are on that list. In order for the work to be approved, the person submitting must be a direct descendant.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Here we go. The 24-page thread: ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My husband, bless him, pointed out that even when he was there he was mostly window dressing, that all the research and work that had been done was mine. But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
