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

gore wrote:

The extra strange thing is that Romney is a Mormon (LDS has a king) and Santorum is a Catholic (Catholic church has a king), but the fundamental protestants are lining up behind Santorum anyway. There was a time when Americans were afraid that church kings would actually give orders to American politicians, which would seem to be very much at odds with a lot of the special brand of crazy the fundies ascribe to.

So, well, I don't really know where I'm going with that.

It is quite a change, and it's due to three things, I think:

1) identity is sometimes less about what you have in common with the other guy, and more about how much your enemies have in common. When conservative Protestants had little to fear from secularism, their biggest enemy was Catholicism. Papism looks quaint these days compared to fears of 'moral relativism'.

2) the Catholic Church has become significantly more Evangelical-friendly, especially during its time under Pope John Paul II;

3) In comparison to Mormonism, Evangelical Protestants tend not to become Catholics, and the Catholic Church does not poach Protestants from the Bible Belt. The Mormons, on the other hand, they are both very effective at and very committed to gaining members at the expense of denominations like Baptists. Bible Belt Protestants can be friends with Catholics because they know Catholics won't woo away their members.

edit: I guess I should add a fourth reason (kinda related to 1, but the opposite idea), that Protestantism in American politics is much less Mainline and much more Evangelical these days. I think the Evangelical (and I realize I'm generalizing about Evangelicals here--sorry to the roughly 1 in 5 Evangelicals that vote for the Democrat nominee in Presidential elections) idea of the role of religion in government only had a problem with the source of those 'orders from a king' and not the idea of a government official being beholden to his church. Again, especially with how popular JPII was and how the Catholic Church seemed to be leading the charge against the same kind of secularism Evangelicals disliked, Catholic Church interference in politics actually became attractive to Evangelicals as opposed to abhorrent.

Larry, if I misinterpreted your comment about Abrahamic religions and Utah, I apologize. It read as smugly condescending towards others leaps of faith. Utah is no more unlikely a place for G*d to inspire scripture than was Carthage, Nicea, or Rome. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced that there wasn't scorn in that comment of yours.

Personally, I my view on faith is most strongly influenced by mystics, such as Soren Kierkegaard. Faith is absurd. This doesn't mean it is bad, this doesn't mean that it must be unreasonable, but the justifications for belief are wholly other for faith than they are for other kinds of belief fixing. Faith != reason.

I do not argue that all faith decisions are equally true. I do not argue that all faith decisions are equally valid. The law of non-contradiction, if nothing else, assures us that they are not. What I argue is that there is no neutral rational ground upon which competing faith claims can be decided. We mere mortal humans lack the tools to answer these questions definitively. Thus the need for faith and/or skepticism.

Oso:

There is scorn in it, but it was mostly directed at individuals who think that Mormonism and Catholicism are identical and interchangeable, and make the mistake of saying things about Catholicism that just completely untrue, usually from extrapolation than all religions are the same.

I can respect skepticism and a healthy amount of critique on Catholic doctrine. Hell, I engage in such things myself. I find myself a lot less tolerant when someone criticizes the Catholic faith on grounds that it worships the Buddha.

LarryC wrote:

I can respect skepticism and a healthy amount of critique on Catholic doctrine. Hell, I engage in such things myself. I find myself a lot less tolerant when someone criticizes the Catholic faith on grounds that it worships the Buddha.

Yeah, I was kinda like, "when did Catholics start quoting the Bible let alone stop?" Going back to something gore brought up, that was always a flashpoint of tension between Protestant and Catholic theology: Protestants claiming Catholics don't pay enough attention to the Bible while Catholics accused Protestants of bibliolatry.

LarryC wrote:

Oso:

There is scorn in it, but it was mostly directed at individuals who think that Mormonism and Catholicism are identical and interchangeable.

Note that no one in this thread was doing that.

He's probably pointing at me.

And a part of me really does wonder exactly what the difference is between old men in robes in Italy declaiming God's law with a capital G and enforcing it all over the world with both economic and social power, and 13 guys in suits in Utah doing the same (the Prophet and his Apostles).

The fact that the Catholics have been doing it longer doesn't strike me as much of a distinction.

momgamer wrote:

He's probably pointing at me.

If he is, you haven't done it either. There's a very large difference between saying other religions do similar things and saying those other religions are identical and interchangeable.

momgamer wrote:

The fact that the Catholics have been doing it longer doesn't strike me as much of a distinction.

The gulf between their art and architecture is pretty broad.

Stengah wrote:
momgamer wrote:

He's probably pointing at me.

If he is, you haven't done it either. There's a very large difference between saying other religions do similar things and saying those other religions are identical and interchangeable.

When the people saying that there's a large difference between the two make mistakes about which is Catholic and which is not, I tend to view that difference with a rather large grain of salt.

LarryC wrote:

When the people saying that there's a large difference between the two make mistakes about which is Catholic and which is not, I tend to view that difference with a rather large grain of salt.

Still not seeing where anyone here's done that. Really though, this whole line of discussion belongs in a different thread.

Oso wrote:

Personally, I my view on faith is most strongly influenced by mystics, such as Soren Kierkegaard. Faith is absurd. This doesn't mean it is bad, this doesn't mean that it must be unreasonable, but the justifications for belief are wholly other for faith than they are for other kinds of belief fixing. Faith != reason.

We should be buds.

Sorry guys... you have your facts wrong about Utah and Mormons... NO Mormon scripture was written in Utah. It was written in northern New York state. The Book of Mormon's geography is very much like northern New York.

The reason I said Mormonism survived because of Utah is that there was no one in Utah to crap on their nonsense.

About Birth Control and Homosexuality and Catholics... Yes I think Catholics are okay with both these issues. The Catholic Church is not just a one way street... Hierarchy to Laity but rather two way Laity to Hierarchy also.

I know there are Catholics who would disagree... at least publicly.

goman wrote:

Sorry guys... you have your facts wrong about Utah and Mormons... NO Mormon scripture was written in Utah. It was written in northern New York state. The Book of Mormon's geography is very much like northern New York.

The reason I said Mormonism survived because of Utah is that there was no one in Utah to crap on their nonsense.

Okay, so it was written in New York instead of Utah, that doesn't change that what you call nonsense in Mormonism is also found in other Abrahamic religions.

goman wrote:

About Birth Control and Homosexuality and Catholics... Yes I think Catholics are okay with both these issues. The Catholic Church is not just a one way street... Hierarchy to Laity but rather two way Laity to Hierarchy also.

I know there are Catholics who would disagree... at least publicly.

Yes, like the Pope. The issue at hand isn't whether individual people who are Catholic or Mormon agree with their leaders, it's what the official stance of the churches are. I would be extremely surprised if there were no Mormons that disagreed with proxy baptism.

Stengah wrote:
goman wrote:

Sorry guys... you have your facts wrong about Utah and Mormons... NO Mormon scripture was written in Utah. It was written in northern New York state. The Book of Mormon's geography is very much like northern New York.

The reason I said Mormonism survived because of Utah is that there was no one in Utah to crap on their nonsense.

Okay, so it was written in New York instead of Utah, that doesn't change that what you call nonsense in Mormonism is also found in other Abrahamic religions.

goman wrote:

About Birth Control and Homosexuality and Catholics... Yes I think Catholics are okay with both these issues. The Catholic Church is not just a one way street... Hierarchy to Laity but rather two way Laity to Hierarchy also.

I know there are Catholics who would disagree... at least publicly.

Yes, like the Pope. The issue at hand isn't whether individual people who are Catholic or Mormon agree with their leaders, it's what the official stance of the churches are. I would be extremely surprised if there were no Mormons that disagreed with proxy baptism.

I was raised Mormon and lived in Utah and Southeast Idaho, and in my experience, you are not going to find a lot of Mormons who disagree with the official stance of the church. Any Mormon that holds a "Temple Recommend" will completely agree with baptism for the dead and will be honored to participate in such activities doing their "temple work". They will follow the "word of wisdom" and not drink coffee, they will pay their 10% to the church before paying anything else. In Utah and Idaho, the Mormons walk-the-walk, and somebody who doesn't believe that what the church says is 100% correct is a "Jack Mormon" and in need of some visits from their Home-teacher.

FightingFish wrote:
Stengah wrote:
goman wrote:

Sorry guys... you have your facts wrong about Utah and Mormons... NO Mormon scripture was written in Utah. It was written in northern New York state. The Book of Mormon's geography is very much like northern New York.

The reason I said Mormonism survived because of Utah is that there was no one in Utah to crap on their nonsense.

Okay, so it was written in New York instead of Utah, that doesn't change that what you call nonsense in Mormonism is also found in other Abrahamic religions.

goman wrote:

About Birth Control and Homosexuality and Catholics... Yes I think Catholics are okay with both these issues. The Catholic Church is not just a one way street... Hierarchy to Laity but rather two way Laity to Hierarchy also.

I know there are Catholics who would disagree... at least publicly.

Yes, like the Pope. The issue at hand isn't whether individual people who are Catholic or Mormon agree with their leaders, it's what the official stance of the churches are. I would be extremely surprised if there were no Mormons that disagreed with proxy baptism.

I was raised Mormon and lived in Utah and Southeast Idaho, and in my experience, you are not going to find a lot of Mormons who disagree with the official stance of the church. Any Mormon that holds a "Temple Recommend" will completely agree with baptism for the dead and will be honored to participate in such activities doing their "temple work". They will follow the "word of wisdom" and not drink coffee, they will pay their 10% to the church before paying anything else. In Utah and Idaho, the Mormons walk-the-walk, and somebody who doesn't believe that what the church says is 100% correct is a "Jack Mormon" and in need of some visits from their Home-teacher.

The fact that there's a specific term for them means they exist. It doesn't surprise me at all that they exist in far, far fewer numbers than there are Catholics that disagree with the Pope.

Stengah wrote:
goman wrote:

About Birth Control and Homosexuality and Catholics... Yes I think Catholics are okay with both these issues. The Catholic Church is not just a one way street... Hierarchy to Laity but rather two way Laity to Hierarchy also.

I know there are Catholics who would disagree... at least publicly.

Yes, like the Pope. The issue at hand isn't whether individual people who are Catholic or Mormon agree with their leaders, it's what the official stance of the churches are. I would be extremely surprised if there were no Mormons that disagreed with proxy baptism.

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

So, for example, it's cool for Catholics to be gay. It's even cool for people in the Church to know that other Catholics are gay. But it's not cool to tell the congregation that, "no, God doesn't really hate people who practice gay sex," cause that directly contradicts what the old dudes stated.

I assume that in this respect the LDS Church is similar, since its organizational structure in general is quite similar to the Catholic Church. When the old dudes (and the head old dude) decide something, you'd best fall in line (at least so long as some of those old dudes are looking your way) or run the risk of having to fall back on a safety religion (like, gasp, Protestantism).

Oh, and bringing this somewhat back around to being on topic, the most curious aspect of this particular case is that it's not actually clear to what extent the LDS old dudes were endorsing posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims. On record their PR mouthpiece is stating that, of course not, we'd never encourage such a thing, but the fact that nobody's been kicked out for it (that I know of) combined with the sealing of the records doesn't really speak to a strong position against it.

This, incidentally, kind of reminds me of what happened when the LDS Church tried to weed out polygamy. It became so unpopular with non-Mormons that the Church officially condemned the practice as a PR move, but they basically looked the other way as people kept practicing it. There are Mormon Fundies to this day who still refuse to accept the current law on this issue, although the LDS eventually just said "enough is enough" and started excommunicating those guys.

I kind of doubt they'll be excommunicating the proxy baptisers any time soon, though.

gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

anecdote: the priest my wife grew up with actually recomended birth control to us. after we were married.

Catholics, like hot dogs and everything else ever, are not monolithic.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

They excommunicated almost everyone involved when a 9 year old aborted the twins she was pregnant with due to her stepfather raping her since she was 6, she wasn't excommunicated herself because she was under 17 . Link. Apparently everyone under canon law that gets or is involved in an abortion is automatically excommunicated, which might be why you don't hear about it. Link. Even if it's the only way to save the life of the mother (and the child will die regardless). Link

Laws that cannot or are not enforced are not laws at all. Just guidelines.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

They excommunicated almost everyone involved when a 9 year old aborted the twins she was pregnant with due to her stepfather raping her since she was 6, she wasn't excommunicated herself because she was under 17 . Link. Apparently everyone under canon law that gets or is involved in an abortion is automatically excommunicated, which might be why you don't hear about it. Link. Even if it's the only way to save the life of the mother (and the child will die regardless). Link

Right, I remember that case now and in fact you've reminded me of another time this came up, but those aren't excommunications for Disagreeing With Papal Law Club. Those are excommunications for actions, not disagreements.

I know Communion is sometimes denied to pro-choice politicians (and sometimes lesbians, but that's under review it seems), but that's not "you don't get to be a Catholic anymore." Actually, wouldn't those be acts not disagreements too?

CheezePavilion wrote:
gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

Open defiance of God's law in a Church is an especially nasty sin of a very particular sort.

Note that you don't get kicked out for being homosexual, you get kicked out for lying about God and Jesus and claiming that they don't think homosexual acts are sinful.

A very good friend of my in-laws in Chicago was excommunicated for speaking openly about her homosexuality in Church. In her case, she won an automatic disqualification for heresy since her open embrace of homosexuality was viewed as an active endorsement of sin, which was considered to be a direct reproach against the teachings of the Church.

Obviously there's some grey area in all of this; if she'd had some tact she probably would have gotten away with it, but apparently she was a bit too enthusiastic. The Priest who was present apparently wouldn't have done her himself even so, but apparently somebody in the congregation tattled and that was that.

This is somewhat in contrast with LDS Church which doesn't even set the bar that high. Just being gay is enough to get kicked out of that club (but, presumably, they play by "don't ask don't tell wink wink" rules themselves).

gore wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gore wrote:

I know several Catholics who disagree with these and other officially held positions of the Vatican, but the number one rule of Disagreeing With Papal Law Club is that you Don't Talk to Clergy About Disagreeing with Papal Law Club. If you do too much of that, they don't let you be Catholic any more.

Um, I don't think this is true. The only excommunications I've heard of come when you start ordaining people the Church has said you can't ordain, or when you start celebrating sacraments against the orders of the Church.

Open defiance of God's law in a Church is an especially nasty sin of a very particular sort.

Note that you don't get kicked out for being homosexual, you get kicked out for lying about God and Jesus and claiming that they don't think homosexual acts are sinful.

A very good friend of my in-laws in Chicago was excommunicated for speaking openly about her homosexuality in Church. In her case, she won an automatic disqualification for heresy since her open embrace of homosexuality was viewed as an active endorsement of sin, which was considered to be a direct reproach against the teachings of the Church.

Obviously there's some grey area in all of this; if she'd had some tact she probably would have gotten away with it, but apparently she was a bit too enthusiastic. The Priest who was present apparently wouldn't have done her himself even so, but apparently somebody in the congregation tattled and that was that.

This is somewhat in contrast with LDS Church which doesn't even set the bar that high. Just being gay is enough to get kicked out of that club (but, presumably, they play by "don't ask don't tell wink wink" rules themselves).

Well that's the thing: you're talking about something beyond just disagreement at this point, aren't you? And isn't this anecdote vs. data? If disagreement is automatic excommunication if it gets too public, where were the mass excommunications of, say, the people associated with Catholics for a Free Choice? Even for that one diocese (link)

Under excommunication, Catholics may attend Mass but are forbidden to receive Holy Communion or other sacraments, such as marriage in the church.

The bishop won't formally record who is excommunicated or notify them individually, and has said he has no way of knowing whether someone is heeding the ban on receiving the sacraments. That will be left to the person's conscience, he said.

I'm not sure that's exactly 'kicked out of the club': even I thought excommunication was harsher than that! I had no idea that automatic excommunications were Don't Ask Don't Tell.

+++++

I don't know enough about Mormonism to say whether you're painting an accurate picture of that religion, but it's not like the average Catholic is running around fearing that the clerical banhammer is going to drop on them just for disagreeing. And of course, not every word out the the Pope's Mouth is Papal Law.

Oh, and you can totally disagree with Papal Law Club when it comes to killing people with wars and the death penalty. That's totally okay.

Stengah:

What you just implied there is a case in point about what I was saying about the nonreligious making unsavory and often unjustified generalizations about the religious, and Catholics in particular. You are saying things about the Catholic Church and laity that are simply not true.

While the Catholic Bishops' Conference in Manila discourages all forms of artifical contraception, they actually endorse effective non-device, non-pharmaceuticals practices of contraception, so clearly that's a bit of a split with the central doctrines that hold that the only purpose of sex is to have kids (even though they endorse the latter). I have not heard of any mass excommunications of Filipino bishops as a result of this.

Moreover, it is possible to get abortions locally in Catholic hospitals sponsored and run by religious orders and congregations, provided that an MD will sign off that continuing the pregnancy would probably be fatal to both mother and child. That practice is actually supported by text from the Old Testament Laws in the Bible, so I'd be genuinely surprised if it Papal Law to force a continued pregnancy that would provably be fatal for both mother and child.

Upshot here is, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to condemn the religious practices and beliefs of people you don't know?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well that's the thing: you're talking about something beyond just disagreement at this point, aren't you? And isn't this anecdote vs. data? If disagreement is automatic excommunication if it gets too public, where were the mass excommunications of, say, the people associated with Catholics for a Free Choice?

I'm not going to pretend to know the exact circumstances in any given situation that lead to being labeled a heretic or apostate, and I don't think even the Catholic Church itself is consistent about it. I just know that it can and does happen. I didn't really mean to imply that there was a specific threshold at which this gets triggered, or make any kind of statement on its frequency, so I apologize for derailing us into that territory.

My broader point is simply that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church both have actual codes of law, and that they have mechanisms to deal with people who openly violate those codes. In this particular case (as with polygamy early on) the LDS Church has opted to not use any of those tools, which makes it seem as if any attempt to "reign in" this practice is just pure lip service and not a real priority from the top down.

gore wrote:

My broader point is simply that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church both have actual codes of law, and that they have mechanisms to deal with people who openly violate those codes. In this particular case (as with polygamy early on) the LDS Church has opted to not use any of those tools, which makes it seem as if any attempt to "reign in" this practice is just pure lip service and not a real priority from the top down.

But there won't be rogue bishops who keep doing it--FightingFish will either confirm or correct, but I believe baptisms for the dead can only be performed in a Temple, not a ward or stake house.

gore wrote:

My broader point is simply that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church both have actual codes of law, and that they have mechanisms to deal with people who openly violate those codes. In this particular case (as with polygamy early on) the LDS Church has opted to not use any of those tools, which makes it seem as if any attempt to "reign in" this practice is just pure lip service and not a real priority from the top down.

And that's actually a very interesting point when it comes to baptisms for the dead. I don't believe there were any policies about having to be related to names submitted until the 90's. And it's just now that the church has let their members know that if they submit names of non-relatives they "may forfeit their New FamilySearch privileges. Other corrective action may also be taken." Where this differs from abortion is I believe their public statement is in direct opposition to their behind-closed-doors position. I left the church quite some time ago, but growing up I remember that the feeling was every person who has died should be baptized by proxy. Much like polygamy, this is their public stance being completely opposite from the way they feel things SHOULD be, which is why the church only hammers down on the practice when there is a public spotlight shown on it. Again, this is based on my personal experience in the church, where I was told that in the afterlife, I WILL have my multiple wives, but that it's just not appropriate to practice multiple marriages now.

The way I see it, if it's offensive to baptize my great great great uncle of whom I never knew and never knew of his feelings on theology, then it's offensive to submit a name of some random Holocaust survivor. And I do think it's offensive. My wife and I went through great lengths to have our names removed from the LDS records. One of the reasons we did that was so our daughter and son would not automatically be on the records as Mormon. If in the future, if somebody were to baptize my family after our deaths, whether I were related to them or not, it would be incredibly offensive to me. As an atheist, I don't feel it's hurting my eternal soul... it's tainting my "legacy"... if that makes any sense.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

But there won't be rogue bishops who keep doing it--FightingFish will either confirm or correct, but I believe baptisms for the dead can only be performed in a Temple, not a ward or stake house.

That is true. A "rouge" bishop or member would not be able to do sneak in and baptize a bunch of people. If it's done, it's sanctioned by the Powers That Be. They are falling back on the "oh, we didn't know that person wasn't a relative" stance, but I don't see how Hitler or Anne Frank could be done without somebody being like, "HEY! Wait a minute!"

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

What you just implied there is a case in point about what I was saying about the nonreligious making unsavory and often unjustified generalizations about the religious, and Catholics in particular. You are saying things about the Catholic Church and laity that are simply not true.

While the Catholic Bishops' Conference in Manila discourages all forms of artifical contraception, they actually endorse effective non-device, non-pharmaceuticals practices of contraception, so clearly that's a bit of a split with the central doctrines that hold that the only purpose of sex is to have kids (even though they endorse the latter). I have not heard of any mass excommunications of Filipino bishops as a result of this.

Moreover, it is possible to get abortions locally in Catholic hospitals sponsored and run by religious orders and congregations, provided that an MD will sign off that continuing the pregnancy would probably be fatal to both mother and child. That practice is actually supported by text from the Old Testament Laws in the Bible, so I'd be genuinely surprised if it Papal Law to force a continued pregnancy that would provably be fatal for both mother and child.

Upshot here is, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to condemn the religious practices and beliefs of people you don't know?

Taken to PM as to not bog down a thread about Mormons w/ squabbling about Catholics.