LDS Church won?????t justify posthumous baptism of my ancestor

[_I have a question]

I still insist that no one's temporal or eternal well being or civil rights can in any way be adversely affected by the practice.

The Church of Latter-day Saints apologized Tuesday for posthumously baptizing Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal’s parents amidst much Jewish vitriol. But despite more than two decades of negotiations and agreements between the two groups to prevent such baptisms of dead Jews, the practice persists.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ctice.html

Jewish and Mormon leaders first devised a pact to stop all baptisms of dead Jews in 1995, but soon after, Radkey made public that the church had reneged. More recently, Jewish and LDS leaders agreed to halt baptisms specifically of Jewish Holocaust victims in September 2010. Since the baptisms indeed linger, Jewish groups’ and leaders’ feelings are a mix of deeply offended and angry.

Holocaust victims’ only crime was that they were Jews. Now [the church] is basically killing them again by eliminating their Jewishness,” said Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman, who also was part of an interfaith coalition to address the subject. He likens the situation to earlier quarrels between Jews and the Catholic Church over Jewish legitimacy, and says that, like the Catholics, the Mormons will come around and work to smooth their relationship with Jews.

“It’s important for them to know that we’re watching,” he said. “That’s how you keep people honest.”

Both Foxman and Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, agree that the church knows what it is doing, and that any efficacious solution must come from education and messaging within the church.

“I have nothing left to say to them,” said Cooper. “I don’t want to schlep aging survivors to another meeting. This wound remains open.”

Peterson, a Middle East expert who identifies as pro-Israel, insists that the posthumous baptisms, performed in about 130 LDS temples, honor all non-Mormons, including Jews, but he sees how the action would seem weird to outsiders.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long asked members to engage in baptisms for the dead only for direct relatives. More specifically, according to agreements reached between LDS and Jewish officials as recently as 2010, the LDS Church has promised that the names of Holocaust victims would not be submitted for baptism for the dead in any of the church's temples unless those names belong to direct ancestors of those submitting the names.

"We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and one of the Jewish representatives who participated in the Mormon/Jewish discussions of the matter. "Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon church dating back to 1995 that focused on the unwanted and unwarranted posthumous baptisms of Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust."

Cooper added that "the only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms, a move which this latest outrage proves that they are unwilling to do."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... e.co.uk%2F

[_Maksutov]

The fact still remains that no dead bodies are actually being dunked or even disturbed in any way by the practice. No one is actually being deprived of any civil rights or being materially harmed in any substantive way. No one alive or dead (especially not the dead) is actually being forced to convert to Mormonism by the practice, even if there was any validity to the Mormon doctrine on this issue, which I agree there is not. I can agree that the Church would be wise to mandate that Members submit only the names of actual ancestors of theirs for proxy work in the temple, but even that could be upsetting to other descendants of those same ancestors who were not members of the Church. The doctrine of proxy work for the dead is a legitimate source of amusement only. I still insist that no one's temporal or eternal well being or civil rights can actually in any way be adversely affected by the practice. Attempting to force the end of that practice by litigation or legislation is, as far as I am concerned, just as ridiculous as the practice itself, because that tends to imply or confer a validity or efficacy to it that just doesn't exist.

This isn't about what the Mormons believe. This is about what the descendants of people who didn't choose to be Mormon believe.

Go ahead and push the issue and see if it improves the image of Mormons in the world. I guarantee you it will not.

[_SuperDell]

Might be interesting to start a KKK for the dead Klavern.
I can posthumously put Joseph, Brigham and Spencer and McConkie and company in.

Why don't Mormons understand that dead or alive, many do not want any association with their CULT?

[_I have a question]

I wonder how the LDS Church would feel if dead LDS Mormons were being baptised into the FLDS without any permissions being granted? No harm, no foul, right?

[Guest]

This isn't about what the Mormons believe. This is about what the descendants of people who didn't choose to be Mormon believe.

Go ahead and push the issue and see if it improves the image of Mormons in the world. I guarantee you it will not

I agree, but I think this is entirely beside the point. Whether it improves the image of Mormons in the world or not, the fact still remains that no real, tangible harm is done to anyone, whether alive or dead, by the practice. I still maintain that choosing to be offended by it to the point of initiating litigation over it or trying to criminalize it by legislation is just as unreasonable and useless as the proxy temple work itself! I don't blame anyone just for being critical of the practice or offended by it, but I still deny that the offense is serious enough or causes enough harm to warrant dragging the issue through the courts via formal litigation.

I'm not saying that non Mormons have no right to speak out against it, or that the LDS Church should not be more sensitive and sympathetic to their concerns about the issue than they have so far demonstrated, but I still think that taking them to court over the issue is overkill.

[_Gunnar]

I wonder how the LDS Church would feel if dead LDS Mormons were being baptised into the FLDS without any permissions being granted? No harm, no foul, right?

Exactly right! At least not enough tangible harm to warrant the expense and time of formal and serious litigation.

Besides, as far as I know, the FLDS might very well already be doing that. It wouldn't harm or bother me in the slightest! I would just find it laughable!

[_Chap]

This isn't about what the Mormons believe. This is about what the descendants of people who didn't choose to be Mormon believe.

Go ahead and push the issue and see if it improves the image of Mormons in the world. I guarantee you it will not

I agree, but I think this is entirely beside the point. Whether it improves the image of Mormons in the world or not, the fact still remains that no real, tangible harm is done to anyone, whether alive or dead, by the practice. I still maintain that choosing to be offended by it to the point of initiating litigation over it or trying to criminalize it by legislation is just as unreasonable and useless as the proxy temple work itself! ...

Suppose I make a habit, on my way home after drinking with friends, of dropping in at the cemetery and pissing on the grave of (say) one of your grandparents. Just a little comfort stop on the way home with a full bladder, you see.

What harm have I done to them? None! In fact I will even have helped the daisies round their tombstone to grow a little more prettily. So it would be really silly of you to choose to be offended, wouldn't it?

I raise the point by way of hypothesis, you understand, merely to make a point that there are some actions that do no harm to the dead, but which all reasonable persons would agree may reasonably be complained of by the living. I am pretty sure that most people, including yourself, would object quite strongly in the case described.

One has to consider each case on its merits, does one not, rather than simply relying simplistically on the 'what harm does it do to the dead?' argument?

[_I have a question]

Why have a funeral and bury the dead at all? I mean, they're dead, right? They'd be no harm to them, temporal or eternal, were we to simply dump their bodies in landfill.

[_Maksutov]

This isn't about what the Mormons believe. This is about what the descendants of people who didn't choose to be Mormon believe.

Go ahead and push the issue and see if it improves the image of Mormons in the world. I guarantee you it will not

I agree, but I think this is entirely beside the point. Whether it improves the image of Mormons in the world or not, the fact still remains that no real, tangible harm is done to anyone, whether alive or dead, by the practice. I still maintain that choosing to be offended by it to the point of initiating litigation over it or trying to criminalize it by legislation is just as unreasonable and useless as the proxy temple work itself! I don't blame anyone just for being critical of the practice or offended by it, but I still deny that the offense is serious enough or causes enough harm to warrant dragging the issue through the courts via formal litigation.

I'm not saying that non Mormons have no right to speak out against it, or that the LDS Church should not be more sensitive and sympathetic to their concerns about the issue than they have so far demonstrated, but I still think that taking them to court over the issue is overkill.

That's your opinion, but you're not the one who is having the memory of their ancestor trampled on. Gay marriage does no harm to anyone but look at all the litigation and money and effort thrown at it. Good grief. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[_Chap]

Why have a funeral and bury the dead at all? I mean, they're dead, right? They'd be no harm to them, temporal or eternal, were we to simply dump their bodies in landfill.

Hey! Don't be so wasteful - a reasonably healthy corpse can supply enough food to fatten up a good few hogs. Where's the harm in that?