Mormon Church restricts access to names of Jews to prevent secret unsolicited proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims

Pages

Because that is apparently a problem.

Also on the look out for serial pray-ers and people who say, "bless you" when Buddhists sneeze.

I saw this on The Daily Show lat week and it was so bizarre it was difficult to wrap my head around. The entire issue of posthumously baptizing people is weird, creepy, disturbing and amazingly offensive.

Potentially special hell time for me;

Spoiler:

Wait, who wouldn't want to be forcefully re-manifested from non-existence and given their own planet to rule over?!

I'm confused however. Since the Jews (presumably) don't believe the Mormon religion is correct it would follow that they don't believe Mormon baptism does anything. As such I don't understand how it matters.

I get that it's perhaps pissing on the memory of those people but I don't think anyone is being hurt or desecrating graves or anything, they're just playing pretend a little too publicly. Accept that some people are just assholes and move on?

Bear wrote:

I saw this on The Daily Show lat week and it was so bizarre it was difficult to wrap my head around. The entire issue of posthumously baptizing people is weird, creepy, disturbing and amazingly offensive.

Incredible offensive.

I guess it's nice that the church did that though.

krev82 wrote:

I get that it's perhaps pissing on the memory of those people but I don't think anyone is being hurt or desecrating graves or anything, they're just playing pretend a little too publicly. Accept that some people are just assholes and move on?

Couldn't you use that same argument for physical destruction of dead bodies and desecrating graves, as you yourself brought up? They're dead, what do they care?

krev82 wrote:

Potentially special hell time for me;

Spoiler:

Wait, who wouldn't want to be forcefully re-manifested from non-existence and given their own planet to rule over?!

I'm confused however. Since the Jews (presumably) don't believe the Mormon religion is correct it would follow that they don't believe Mormon baptism does anything. As such I don't understand how it matters.

I get that it's perhaps pissing on the memory of those people but I don't think anyone is being hurt or desecrating graves or anything, they're just playing pretend a little too publicly. Accept that some people are just assholes and move on?

This is my take on it too. As an Athiest, I don't get offended if I find out someone prayed for my soul. I may roll my eyes and think they are stupid, but I won't be offended. Plus, on the off chance that I will die and become a god of another world, I wouldn't be offended if I am posthumously baptized. In fact, can I be prehumously baptized vicariously?

It is, though, quite a bit more significant than a Gesundheit, or even praying for someone. LDS baptism isn't a blessing in the same way it is to other sects--it's not something you do to a baby, or even a small child, and it isn't the business of absolving original sin, or being rebirthed free of sin and all that, it's the rite of passage after which you are a Member, and the dead who have been baptized are regarded as members of the Church.

I don't know a whole lot about the history of it, but it's done because of the quirks of LDS afterlife, the whole Eternal Families business, and the Church's young age--one has to be baptized to get into Most Awesome Heaven, but that's hardly fair to the perfectly nice people who died before God restored the faith to Joe Smith in the 1800's. Maybe that doesn't make it any more big of a deal, but I can certainly see why the families of Holocaust survivors would be infuriated that their relatives who died because of their faith had been somewhat smugly recruited into another that they never believed in.

As a practicing Mormon, I think I can say there are a lot of misconceptions around the practice of baptisms for the dead (among many other things). We believe firmly in agency and free will, even after death, and everyone who has been baptized posthumously has the opportunity to accept or reject it. It does not "force" them into being members of the church. I think this article does a nice job of explaining it.

I will say that I've gotten a kick out of some of the response to this story. See: http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

soonerjudd wrote:

As a practicing Mormon, I think I can say there are a lot of misconceptions around the practice of baptisms for the dead (among many other things). We believe firmly in agency and free will, even after death, and everyone who has been baptized posthumously has the opportunity to accept or reject it. It does not "force" them into being members of the church. I think this article does a nice job of explaining it.

Misconceptions or not, there is no historical, theological, or exegetical support for baptism of or for the deceased in Christendom, nor, for that matter, any form of baptism done in abstentia. The is no evidence that the Christ, the canonical Scriptures, nor the Great Church Councils ever allowed for the baptisms of or for the dead.

There has never been any mechanism with the universal Church that would allow for or sanction baptism of or for the deceased for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the Council of Arles established the orthodoxy of baptism and that does not include any inclusion of the deceased. The closest we come to anything like that would be St. Augustine's belief that one could be baptized by their own blood if they died a martyr.

soonerjudd wrote:

As a practicing Mormon, I think I can say there are a lot of misconceptions around the practice of baptisms for the dead (among many other things). We believe firmly in agency and free will, even after death, and everyone who has been baptized posthumously has the opportunity to accept or reject it. It does not "force" them into being members of the church. I think this article does a nice job of explaining it.

So you'd have absolutely no problem if a cleric at the local mosque decided it was within their religious rights to start "baptizing" all the dead Mormans into Islam?

Seriously, that's one of the most f*cked up religious practice I think I've ever heard of. What gives your church the right to do anything on behalf of anyone else?

I'm with KrazyTaco[FO] here. As long as they aren't actually doing anything outside of their own enclosed experiences, what do I or anyone care? Desecrating dead bodies is not nothing. It would upset my friends and families, even though I may not personally care. So long as they don't go around imposing their beliefs in the name of this proxy baptism, I don't see the problem. Would anyone care if they were proxy-voted into a Nobel Prize?

LarryC wrote:

I'm with KrazyTaco[FO] here. As long as they aren't actually doing anything outside of their own enclosed experiences, what do I or anyone care? Desecrating dead bodies is not nothing. It would upset my friends and families, even though I may not personally care. So long as they don't go around imposing their beliefs in the name of this proxy baptism, I don't see the problem. Would anyone care if they were proxy-voted into a Nobel Prize?

The difference with KC's position is that as an atheist, he just doesn't car either way.

In the case of the Mormon baptism, I'm betting many of the recipients were very spiritual people and would be incredibly offended.

I think it might be that the posthumous baptizing of an unwilling recipient is akin to a form of spiritual kidnapping. The hubris of the Mormon church to think that they can baptize the deceased into their religion en masse, without their consent, is difficult to comprehend. Sure it doesn't really mean anything and it's just one of the many bizzarro practices that accompanies the Mormon church, it's just conceptually disgusting.

The whole practice is an artifact of the Mormon Church's usual position (among religions) that The Only Path To Heaven Is Through This Church, and if you believe in any other churches, well, you're going to burn forever.

But Mormonism is pretty new, and there were a lot of people that existed before Joseph Smith's con job, so they started asking uncomfortable questions about their parents and grandparents not being able to go to Heaven because Joe Smith was so rude as to start his racket so late. And thus came about the concept of post-death baptism, and the intense focus on genealogy... there's a lot of dead people that missed their chance to hear The Word in life, so lo and behold, it can be done posthumously!

It's no mistake that the argument is very similar to people arguing about superhero battles, over whose power is strongest. It's the same basic thing.... one set of fictions conflicting with another set of fictions. And just like other fictional conflicts, no resolution is possible. Some people will be offended, some people won't be offended, and some people will roll their eyes about the nerds arguing over Superman v. Batman.

Bear:

That's still a little cognitively dissonant. If I were an Envangelist and really, truly, and honestly believed that God only honors my sect, then everybody else's words are just so much saliva hitting the pavement. There's no spiritual kidnapping going on there, since Mormonic baptisms are worthless, right?

I'd react the same way if I were to be given honorary membership in some no-name fraternity in the middle of nowhere. As long as they don't ask for fees and start asking me to "uphold my membership," they can think whatever the heck they want.

Sometimes what makes an act more than just trivially wrong isn't just a matter of how offended the other person is, but of what it says about how the actor thinks of other people.

edit: great example from SLC Punk--I don't have an issue if someone calls me 'gay' because I don't think there's anything wrong with being ga; however, if that person considers it an insult, that's what makes it wrong regardless of whether or not I'm insulted.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Bear wrote:

I saw this on The Daily Show lat week and it was so bizarre it was difficult to wrap my head around. The entire issue of posthumously baptizing people is weird, creepy, disturbing and amazingly offensive.

Incredible offensive.

I guess it's nice that the church did that though.

It displays a mind-boggling level of arrogance and presumptuousness, too. Part of me wants to laugh and shake my head, like when I see a redneck with a confederate flag the size of my bed sheet flying on the back of their Ford F-150. The other part of me just stands slack-jawed in shock.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Sometimes what makes an act more than just trivially wrong isn't just a matter of how offended the other person is, but of what it says about how the actor thinks of other people.

edit: great example from SLC Punk--I don't have an issue if someone calls me 'gay' because I don't think there's anything wrong with being ga; however, if that person considers it an insult, that's what makes it wrong regardless of whether or not I'm insulted.

It may be a function of where I've been raised but I really and honestly don't care about what other people are thinking and even less on how that reflects on their morality. Whether they're evil or not is their business, and I'm too busy trying to stay alive to care very much.

As long as they keep it to themselves, they can think whatever the hell they want to think. I'm too busy to get offended over things that don't affect me (even if they sent my family a newsletter welcoming me as a new Church member).

I think that just shows that they have WAY too much time and not enough trouble on their hands. Good for them, but unless they want to send cash and goods my way, their good fortune doesn't help me.

LarryC wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Sometimes what makes an act more than just trivially wrong isn't just a matter of how offended the other person is, but of what it says about how the actor thinks of other people.

edit: great example from SLC Punk--I don't have an issue if someone calls me 'gay' because I don't think there's anything wrong with being ga; however, if that person considers it an insult, that's what makes it wrong regardless of whether or not I'm insulted.

It may be a function of where I've been raised but I really and honestly don't care about what other people are thinking and even less on how that reflects on their morality. Whether they're evil or not is their business, and I'm too busy trying to stay alive to care very much.

As long as they keep it to themselves, they can think whatever the hell they want to think. I'm too busy to get offended over things that don't affect me (even if they sent my family a newsletter welcoming me as a new Church member).

I think that just shows that they have WAY too much time and not enough trouble on their hands. Good for them, but unless they want to send cash and goods my way, their good fortune doesn't help me.

Well, if YOU can live with such a senseless act of arborcide, that's your prerogative.

Spoiler:

; D

LarryC wrote:

As long as they keep it to themselves, they can think whatever the hell they want to think. I'm too busy to get offended over things that don't affect me (even if they sent my family a newsletter welcoming me as a new Church member).

If they were an innocuous group that did simply kept to themselves, I'd be right there with you. But the Mormon Church* is heavily involved in the anti-gay marriage movement. I don't want to any organization like that to try to claim me as a member posthumously, when I can't defend myself.

*I am aware that there are many Mormons that are not anti-gay.

Honestly, I really don't care what those folks do in their little "let's pretend" game after I die. Their brand of silliness doesn't offend me any more than the scores of well meaning if insipid folks who have offered to "pray for [me]".

It's not my place to say someone else is wrong to take offense. I will say, though, that I am a religious non-Mormon, and that they can do whatever they want after I'm gone. Once I'm out of here, this world can't touch me.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
soonerjudd wrote:

As a practicing Mormon, I think I can say there are a lot of misconceptions around the practice of baptisms for the dead (among many other things). We believe firmly in agency and free will, even after death, and everyone who has been baptized posthumously has the opportunity to accept or reject it. It does not "force" them into being members of the church. I think this article does a nice job of explaining it.

Misconceptions or not, there is no historical, theological, or exegetical support for baptism of or for the deceased in Christendom, nor, for that matter, any form of baptism done in abstentia. The is no evidence that the Christ, the canonical Scriptures, nor the Great Church Councils ever allowed for the baptisms of or for the dead.

There has never been any mechanism with the universal Church that would allow for or sanction baptism of or for the deceased for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the Council of Arles established the orthodoxy of baptism and that does not include any inclusion of the deceased. The closest we come to anything like that would be St. Augustine's belief that one could be baptized by their own blood if they died a martyr.

I'd throw that in with medieval practices of hiring clergy to pray for the deceased (which I think presumed that the deceased was in limbo or purgatory).

It's interesting to me that the LDS came to posthumous baptism to solve the "what about grandpa" problem. I think most sects just go with the Romans line that we're only responsible for the extent of revelation that we have received.

I kind of like it when people say they're praying for me. It means they're thinking of me, wish me the best, and are appealing to what they believe to be an all-powerful entity to bend the laws of the universe in my favor. I'm not going to throw that back in their face, even if I think there's no one listening.

soonerjudd wrote:

As a practicing Mormon, I think I can say there are a lot of misconceptions around the practice of baptisms for the dead (among many other things). We believe firmly in agency and free will, even after death, and everyone who has been baptized posthumously has the opportunity to accept or reject it. It does not "force" them into being members of the church. I think this article does a nice job of explaining it.

Personally, I don't think people have a whole lot of choice in anything once they're dead. Even so, I tend to subscribe to Paleocon's posthumous philosophy: once I'm dead, the treatment of my corpse is more about my loved ones than it is about me. My mom believes very firmly that my body should remain intact after death so I've taken myself off the organ donor list. Other than that, they can have at it.

If I read soonerjudd's post correctly isn't the posthumous baptism simply intended to open up the choice to the deceased? Let's say you're an old Viking who's dead and has been living in Valhalla. Turns out one of your descendents is Mormon and decides to have you baptized. So you're sitting here, fighting and drinking when this guy runs up to you and hands you a message. It say "Hi, great,great,great, great,great,great grandpa. I just had you baptized so if you like you can leave Valhalla and come over to the Mormon side of the afterlife. What do you think?" The dead viking then has the opportunity to send back a reply saying "Sounds good! I'm tired of all this fighting and drinking anyway!" or "No way! I'm staying here with my broskis fighting by Odin's side!" It's up to the dead guy. The baptism just gives him the option, right?

If so, then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Kehama wrote:

If I read soonerjudd's post correctly isn't the posthumous baptism simply intended to open up the choice to the deceased? Let's say you're an old Viking who's dead and has been living in Valhalla. Turns out one of your descendents is Mormon and decides to have you baptized. So you're sitting here, fighting and drinking when this guy runs up to you and hands you a message. It say "Hi, great,great,great, great,great,great grandpa. I just had you baptized so if you like you can leave Valhalla and come over to the Mormon side of the afterlife. What do you think?" The dead viking then has the opportunity to send back a reply saying "Sounds good! I'm tired of all this fighting and drinking anyway!" or "No way! I'm staying here with my broskis fighting by Odin's side!" It's up to the dead guy. The baptism just gives him the option, right?

If so, then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Respect.

If I already made the choice while I was living why would you give it to me again?

I imaging it's the same reason why all those credit card companies keep trying to give me plastic when I've repeatedly turned down their offers.

LarryC wrote:

I imaging it's the same reason why all those credit card companies keep trying to give me plastic when I've repeatedly turned down their offers.

Because they only see you as a number and not as a human being. Exactly.

Kehama wrote:

If I read soonerjudd's post correctly isn't the posthumous baptism simply intended to open up the choice to the deceased? Let's say you're an old Viking who's dead and has been living in Valhalla. Turns out one of your descendents is Mormon and decides to have you baptized. So you're sitting here, fighting and drinking when this guy runs up to you and hands you a message. It say "Hi, great,great,great, great,great,great grandpa. I just had you baptized so if you like you can leave Valhalla and come over to the Mormon side of the afterlife. What do you think?" The dead viking then has the opportunity to send back a reply saying "Sounds good! I'm tired of all this fighting and drinking anyway!" or "No way! I'm staying here with my broskis fighting by Odin's side!" It's up to the dead guy. The baptism just gives him the option, right?

If so, then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Yes. It's giving the dead a choice. It doesn't force anyone to change anything or do anything. And they get to make that choice after they've seen whatever is really going on out there in the afterlife.

momgamer wrote:
Kehama wrote:

If I read soonerjudd's post correctly isn't the posthumous baptism simply intended to open up the choice to the deceased? Let's say you're an old Viking who's dead and has been living in Valhalla. Turns out one of your descendents is Mormon and decides to have you baptized. So you're sitting here, fighting and drinking when this guy runs up to you and hands you a message. It say "Hi, great,great,great, great,great,great grandpa. I just had you baptized so if you like you can leave Valhalla and come over to the Mormon side of the afterlife. What do you think?" The dead viking then has the opportunity to send back a reply saying "Sounds good! I'm tired of all this fighting and drinking anyway!" or "No way! I'm staying here with my broskis fighting by Odin's side!" It's up to the dead guy. The baptism just gives him the option, right?

If so, then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Yes. It's giving the dead a choice. It doesn't force anyone to change anything or do anything. And they get to make that choice after they've seen whatever is really going on out there in the afterlife.

Hold onto your horses a moment. It's only "giving the dead a choice" because the Mormon church says it is. Given that we have no way of verifying the dead's status vis-a-vis free agency, isn't this circular logic of the highest order?

I could be baptising dead Buddhists left right and center, and say "don't worry - all the dead freshly baptized people get ice-cream, so it's OK!"

Jonman wrote:
momgamer wrote:
Kehama wrote:

If I read soonerjudd's post correctly isn't the posthumous baptism simply intended to open up the choice to the deceased? Let's say you're an old Viking who's dead and has been living in Valhalla. Turns out one of your descendents is Mormon and decides to have you baptized. So you're sitting here, fighting and drinking when this guy runs up to you and hands you a message. It say "Hi, great,great,great, great,great,great grandpa. I just had you baptized so if you like you can leave Valhalla and come over to the Mormon side of the afterlife. What do you think?" The dead viking then has the opportunity to send back a reply saying "Sounds good! I'm tired of all this fighting and drinking anyway!" or "No way! I'm staying here with my broskis fighting by Odin's side!" It's up to the dead guy. The baptism just gives him the option, right?

If so, then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Yes. It's giving the dead a choice. It doesn't force anyone to change anything or do anything. And they get to make that choice after they've seen whatever is really going on out there in the afterlife.

Hold onto your horses a moment. It's only "giving the dead a choice" because the Mormon church says it is. Given that we have no way of verifying the dead's status vis-a-vis free agency, isn't this circular logic of the highest order?

I could be baptising dead Buddhists left right and center, and say "don't worry - all the dead freshly baptized people get ice-cream, so it's OK!"

You can't have it both ways. Either they made the whole thing up and it's their dream and they get to decide who walks around without pants, or they don't know a damned thing and have no power over any of it so their definition of who wears the pants doesn't matter.

Pages