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

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!"

Also, if (for the sake of the argument) the dead people make a choice, no one alive will ever know it. All we'll hear is "person X has been baptized," we can't know if they accepted or refused.

momgamer wrote:

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.

Well no, there's also "it's their dream and they get to walk around without pants" but they don't get to decide what I do.

SixteenBlue wrote:
momgamer wrote:

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.

Well no, there's also "it's their dream and they get to walk around without pants" but they don't get to decide what I do.

This is getting confusing. I was addressing Jonman's point that they could be just trying to reassure people by saying it's just a choice when actually it did some sort of mean cosmic whammy on them. The dream, as far as I understand it, is them standing around in no pants, and offering others the choice to join them in shedding their pants. No forcing of anyone.

momgamer wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
momgamer wrote:

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.

Well no, there's also "it's their dream and they get to walk around without pants" but they don't get to decide what I do.

This is getting confusing. I was addressing Jonman's point that they could be just trying to reassure people by saying it's just a choice when actually it did some sort of mean cosmic whammy on them. The dream, as far as I understand it, is them standing around in no pants, and offering others the choice to join them in shedding their pants. No forcing of anyone.

Fair enough, I misunderstood what you were saying.

I got to the conclusion Judaism is the simplest religion - if you are born as Jew you die a Jew it's as simple as that. Jews also believe in reincarnation so if you do bad things in your previous life you'll pay for it in the next but if I understood there is a limit (something like 3 strikes and you reincarnate as a non human). I'm still not that good in Judaism because despite the fact I'm Jew but I don't practice all of the 613 laws of Judaism .

Mormon baptism of the dead might be a weird practice but a lot of good came out of it. The Mormons manage to build a huge database of a lot of the people who lived on this planet. This was very helpful for Jews who were seeking their family roots after the Holocaust . My aunt (mother side) once tried to find records about my grandfather's family in Poland but she found absolutely nothing. As far as we know my grandfather was the only person who survived from his whole family. Maybe the Mormons have better records but she might have tried that.

Jews also keep tabs on people who lived especially if they are decedents of a Mamzer (usually A child of a married woman where his father is not her husband or product ) . Anyone holding the status of a Mamzer or his/her decedents can't get married according to Jewish law. It's very difficult to get rid of that status and Jews tend to try to prevent this from happening at all costs. This is why there is also a problem with Agunot.

But like I said Judaism is a simple religion if you don't follow those 613 laws . You are a Jew until you die regardless of what you do or believe in . I don't think the Mormons can do anything about it even if they try really hard.

Why does something need to happen to your body on Earth to give you a choice in the afterlife? Hasn't your soul already left your body?

I'm amazed this hasn't been posted here yet. I'll just leave this as an example.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Why does something need to happen to your body on Earth to give you a choice in the afterlife? Hasn't your soul already left your body?

I have to bow out here. I don't count as any sort of authority in this anymore, and there are people in this thread who do. I just wanted to highlight that point of choice.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Why does something need to happen to your body on Earth to give you a choice in the afterlife? Hasn't your soul already left your body?

quantum entanglement.

Spoiler:

In all seriousness, if a person has taken the step of believing in the metaphysical, there's really no necessary logical impediment to think something happening to your body won't affect your soul just because it has left the body. If there's some kind of non-corporeal spirit that lives in the body and then departs it at death, there's not really a major issue once you've crossed that bridge to the idea of the spiritual plane of existence being affected by things that happen on the physical.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Why does something need to happen to your body on Earth to give you a choice in the afterlife? Hasn't your soul already left your body?

quantum entanglement.

Spoiler:

In all seriousness, if a person has taken the step of believing in the metaphysical, there's really no necessary logical impediment to think something happening to your body won't affect your soul just because it has left the body. If there's some kind of non-corporeal spirit that lives in the body and then departs it at death, there's not really a major issue once you've crossed that bridge to the idea of the spiritual plane of existence being affected by things that happen on the physical.

Sure, but what I asked was why does it need to happen, not how can it have an effect.

"Because it has to" is a valid answer though, I'm just genuinely curious.

So if dead people can make an informed decision, I guess necrophilia's alright?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How much does the soul weigh? Can a turducken be kosher? I'm eagerly awaiting the next thread...

Note: it's proxy baptisms. They're not actually digging the people up and baptizing them. So there's not actually a body involved in this case.

They're just... I don't have a clue what they're doing here.

Robear wrote:

How much does the soul weigh?

Nothing if it's a non-Catholic soul. Catholics are the only ones that have mass, you see (ba-dum-tish!)

Ow.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Note: it's proxy baptisms. They're not actually digging the people up and baptizing them. So there's not actually a body involved in this case.

They're just... I don't have a clue what they're doing here.

What I was told by a friend who did it: generally teenage members serve as a proxy corpse--the name of the deceased is said, the proxy corpse gets dunked, repeat.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Note: it's proxy baptisms. They're not actually digging the people up and baptizing them. So there's not actually a body involved in this case.

They're just... I don't have a clue what they're doing here.

What I was told by a friend who did it: generally teenage members serve as a proxy corpse--the name of the deceased is said, the proxy corpse gets dunked, repeat.

That is so far down the rabbit hole of crazy, I don't even know where to begin.

Super God is more powerful than Bat God! *dunks kid in water*

Malor wrote:

Super God is more powerful than Bat God! *dunks kid in water*

Dead to me.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Dead to me.

Should I have included 'amen'? Would amen make it better?

Malor wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Dead to me.

Should I have included 'amen'? Would amen make it better?

I think it is your ridiculous idea that Superman would beat Batman that many of us find so offensive. It doesn't matter how you couch your crazy doctrine, those of us that know the truth will always stand up. So take that anti Bat rhetoric elsewhere.

Hey, isn't that up to the dead people to decide for themselves?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

So if dead people can make an informed decision, I guess necrophilia's alright?

Only if they consent, which means you either need to be able to communicate with the dead, or make sure they're still alive when you get started.

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.

I hope the Scientologists start doing this too. I just got a wonderful mental picture of someone trying to set up a stress test table in one of the halls of Valhalla.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

So if dead people can make an informed decision, I guess necrophilia's alright?

Only if they consent, which means you either need to be able to communicate with the dead, or make sure they're still alive when you get started.

New reality TV series: The Corpse Whisperer (and Necrophiliac).

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Note: it's proxy baptisms. They're not actually digging the people up and baptizing them. So there's not actually a body involved in this case.

They're just... I don't have a clue what they're doing here.

What I was told by a friend who did it: generally teenage members serve as a proxy corpse--the name of the deceased is said, the proxy corpse gets dunked, repeat.

Yeah, I mean that's what I figured, but it's just so way out there. Either the physical baptism is important, or it's not. If it is, then the idea you can do it by proxy is ridiculous. If it's not, then why are they doing these proxy baptisms at all?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Note: it's proxy baptisms. They're not actually digging the people up and baptizing them. So there's not actually a body involved in this case.

They're just... I don't have a clue what they're doing here.

What I was told by a friend who did it: generally teenage members serve as a proxy corpse--the name of the deceased is said, the proxy corpse gets dunked, repeat.

Yeah, I mean that's what I figured, but it's just so way out there. Either the physical baptism is important, or it's not. If it is, then the idea you can do it by proxy is ridiculous. If it's not, then why are they doing these proxy baptisms at all?

This is essentially what I want to know.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Yeah, I mean that's what I figured, but it's just so way out there. Either the physical baptism is important, or it's not. If it is, then the idea you can do it by proxy is ridiculous. If it's not, then why are they doing these proxy baptisms at all?

Well, we're talking about Mormonism here. American exceptionalism, crystallized as faith.

In other words: 'cause they feel like it.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Why does something need to happen to your body on Earth to give you a choice in the afterlife? Hasn't your soul already left your body?

Tanglebones 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.

I hope the Scientologists start doing this too. I just got a wonderful mental picture of someone trying to set up a stress test table in one of the halls of Valhalla.

This is all based on the presumption that multiple religions' conceptions of the afterlife can be true. Most belief systems (at least the monotheist and atheist ones) don't allow for such. What's most potentially offensive here, and I think must at some level be just as offensive before death, is that Mormons think everyone else falls short of the "100% complete good ending," but apart from a scant few current religions (polytheist groups and buddhism come to mind), Mormon views on the afterlife tend to see things much more positively for those who don't make the cut--or at least that's the way it's been explained to me. In fact, it's more mainline Christian groups that are probably the toughest on outsiders.

wordsmythe wrote:

This is all based on the presumption that multiple religions' conceptions of the afterlife can be true. Most belief systems (at least the monotheist and atheist ones) don't allow for such. What's most potentially offensive here, and I think must at some level be just as offensive before death, is that Mormons think everyone else falls short of the "100% complete good ending," but apart from a scant few current religions (polytheist groups and buddhism come to mind), Mormon views on the afterlife tend to see things much more positively for those who don't make the cut--or at least that's the way it's been explained to me. In fact, it's more mainline Christian groups that are probably the toughest on outsiders.

As I understand it they have 3 heavens: rich Mormon heaven, regular Mormon heaven, non-Mormon Christian heaven.*

Do Catholics think Mormons go to hell for believing that JC came to America and told people to wear magic underwear? What about Protestants? Jews?

* Warning: this may not be exactly accurate