Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews

[Guest thebadlady]

I thought I would be angry about this, because I do angry so well, but I just can't rouse myself. I am *that* much of an athiest that I think whatever the belivin's do it silly and there really isn't any way to stop them. You can't change a belivin's mind and they can't change yours.

I am apathetic about people praying for my 'soul'. I mean, thanks and all, but I really am just fine. As long as no-one comes along and baptises me via spidermaning, I just really don't care.

So, as long as nothing physical is done, why bother? Its all a bunch of crap anyway. There is no god, no go along and enjoy your life.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Starbuck

Yes.


Re: El-ahrairah

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693076' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.59']If you did believe in a soul, you would have to be pretty messed up not to want it saved. And if you do not, no amount of mumbo-jumbo will "save" a nonexistent fantasy.[/quote]

I'd rather be damned to eternity for a choice I consciously make than to be given infinite bliss as a result of being saved against my will.

Also, it appears that you skipped over the rest of the post that you quoted. I already explained the irrelevance of my own disbelief in the afterlife when it comes to why I find the Mormon's practice so disrespectful and offensive.



[quote]Three people are in a boat. Person A believes the boat is in water, and Person B believes the boat is in acid that kills all life that touches it. Person C falls off the side. If Person A wants to throw him a life vest, would person B be insulted because he does not believe Person C is still alive?[/quote]

Irrelevant. The analogous portion is between A and C.

[quote]And would Person C, if he lives, be insulted by the life vest they threw to him since he wanted to swim to shore?[/quote]

I think he would be if he had professed a desire to attempt to swim to shore all on his own. Which is basically what non-Christians have done with regards to Christianity (or in this case, Mormonism).

I confess a bafflement over a self-professed religious person's nonchalant view on the violation of people's religious choice. I can see why some atheists would think this is about as meaningful as talking about X-man beating up the JLA, but for someone who actually believes in an afterlife and in souls and in salvation, it seems peculiar that one would find it acceptable for one religion to force its own tradition and rituals onto members of another faith. Where is the respect for each individual to make their own decision on the matter of faith?

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693128' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.37']Re: El-ahrairah

I'd rather be damned to eternity for a choice I consciously make than to be given infinite bliss as a result of being saved against my will.[/quote]
Sorry, but I find this statement practically impossible to comprehend. Assuming by "dammed' you mean the conventional meaning, I am at an utter loss as to why anyone would value the freedom of this choice over eternal perfection.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693128' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.37']I think he would be if he had professed a desire to attempt to swim to shore all on his own. Which is basically what non-Christians have done with regards to Christianity (or in this case, Mormonism).[/quote]
Yes, but what if you had a map showing the shore to be 500 miles distant, and he believed it to be 500 feet?
[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693128' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.37']I confess a bafflement over a self-professed religious person's nonchalant view on the violation of people's religious choice. I can see why some atheists would think this is about as meaningful as talking about X-man beating up the JLA, but for someone who actually believes in an afterlife and in souls and in salvation, it seems peculiar that one would find it acceptable for one religion to force its own tradition and rituals onto members of another faith. Where is the respect for each individual to make their own decision on the matter of faith?[/quote]
Neither I nor the Mormons believe it forces the religion on them. The LDS hold that only through their actions can the LDS faith be shown to the deceased, who then has a completely free choice whether to accept it or no.

[quote]Consider this scenario: I'm currently on a mission to save your dead great-grandmother's soul from Hell because she wasn't the right type of Christian.[/quote]
If that were true, I certainly would not be offended.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693187' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.21']Neither I nor the Mormons believe it forces the religion on them. The LDS hold that only through their actions can the LDS faith be shown to the deceased, who then has a completely free choice whether to accept it or no.[/quote]Then let's ask another set of questions. If the soul is in heaven, what is the point of the LDS baptism? If the soul is in hell, then shouldn't they already know which religion had the proper faith, so what does the baptism itself accomplish? A get out jail free card? If the LDS can retroactively save a soul through postmortem baptism, does that not move the agency of salvation from God and put it in the hands of the LDS? Should we not protect the souls from being badgered in the afterlife from proselytizing?

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693187' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.21']If that were true, I certainly would not be offended.[/quote]Good, because I hope to save her damn soul.

Now if you don't mind, I'll be off to go baptize dead Christians in the name of Satan.

[gryphon strike]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1692809' date='Feb 20 2009, 07.00']They are not converting unwillingly, in any sense. Either they remain rotting in the ground, or they remain in paradise or perdition, or else they have a free choice accept or deny the baptism.[/quote]
You are aware of the big debate that raged off and on about consent and when it is given. If a person is not capable of giving consent then none is given.
Baptism of those who have already departed is done without consent, NOW DO YOU SEE JUST WHY IT IS WRONG.

sorry also I did try to subtly point out that I for one am totally sick of the atheist evangelicsm thats been going on in this thread. For those atheists who have not done so I apolagise that you will be tarred with the same brush. The thing is that the vast majority of posts seem to be saying its all fake so why get upset, now hey you want to argue belief systems go do it elsewhere thats not what this thread is supposed to be about and the pages and pages constantly repeating the same thing have just clogged and destroyed what could have been a very good thread. Thanks for letting your beliefs destroy a thread that could have let others gain a greater understanding into the Mormon Religion ( like maybe why anyone would join ).

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='gryphon strike' post='1693204' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.44']sorry also I did try to subtly point out that I for one am totally sick of the atheist evangelicsm thats been going on in this thread. For those atheists who have not done so I apolagise that you will be tarred with the same brush. The thing is that the vast majority of posts seem to be saying its all fake so why get upset, now hey you want to argue belief systems go do it elsewhere thats not what this thread is supposed to be about and the pages and pages constantly repeating the same thing have just clogged and destroyed what could have been a very good thread. Thanks for letting your beliefs destroy a thread that could have let others gain a greater understanding into the Mormon Religion ( like maybe why anyone would join ).[/quote]Because respect for the dead and freedom from religions extends to the grave.

[Guest thebadlady]

When did athiests stop having an opinion? Does our second class status preclude us from objecting to anything the godpeople do? What if the Mormons baptise an athiest? Do we suddenly have souls?

al-
its a matter of free will and self respect. If I go the majority of my life being athiest, I want to stay that way. No lame get out of jail free cards. I don't want anyone making decisions for me. You keep your god, I will keep my self respect.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693194' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.33']Then let's ask another set of questions. If the soul is in heaven, what is the point of the LDS baptism? If the soul is in hell, then shouldn't they already know which religion had the proper faith, so what does the baptism itself accomplish? A get out jail free card? If the LDS can retroactively save a soul through postmortem baptism, does that not move the agency of salvation from God and put it in the hands of the LDS? Should we not protect the souls from being badgered in the afterlife from proselytizing?[/quote]
It is pointless from a conventional Christian standpoint, but the Mormons have a system called the "plan of salvation". Within it, they hold there is:

* Pre-mortal existence.

* Earthly life.

* Spirit world, wherein "gentiles" are given the opportunity to receive LDS doctrine.

* Final Judgment, where the soul is assigned either to one of the three "degrees of glory" in Heaven, or to the "outer darkness".

It does "put salvation in the hands of the LDS", just as Catholicism puts it in the hands of the Church. But the important factor is that in either case it is [i]God[/i] who delegates, and not relinquishes, the authority.

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693194' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.33']Now if you don't mind, I'll be off to go baptize dead Christians in the name of Satan.[/quote]
No amount of voodoo dolls or satanic rites can make a difference for others, as far as I'm concerned. As a Christian, I do mind, but only for [i]for your sake[/i].

[Lord Mord]

El-ahrairah,

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693187' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.21']Sorry, but I find this statement practically impossible to comprehend. Assuming by "dammed' you mean the conventional meaning, I am at an utter loss as to why anyone would value the freedom of this choice over eternal perfection.[/quote]

So, why not establish a theocracy? After all, why would anyone value the freedom of this choice over eternal perfection?


[quote]Neither I nor the Mormons believe it forces the religion on them.[/quote]

Yes, but you can hardly argue they don't have a vested interest. Even assuming the best possible intentions on their part, it would be all too easy for them to nfluence the evidence in their own favor. Since they are the only witnesses, I don't think we can take this matter as read.

[Guest thebadlady]

The Mormons got to the Wiki on Mormons, I'd bet. Its full of...not-crazy, at least as not-crazy as any fundie religion can be.

So, this is called "sealing" and it makes you stuck for eternity to your parents, spouse and children. The jury is out on polygamous marriages. But...you can get unsealed by order of the President of the church (like a Catholic annullment).

And so

[quote][edit] Sealings in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
LDS faithful believe civil marriages are dissolved at death if they are not later solemnized with a sealing, but that a couple who has been sealed in the temple will be married beyond physical death if they remain righteous. An illustrative difference in the marriage ceremony performed in LDS temples is the replacement of the words "until death do us part" with "for time and all eternity".

The LDS Church recognizes other monogamous, heterosexual marriages, both civil and religious, although they believe that such marriages will not continue after death because "Eternal Marriages" must be performed by a Priesthood authority. However, "Eternal Marriages" are also performed vicariously for the deceased so that once all the prior temple ordinances are completed for a deceased individual, couples who were not sealed during their life may accept the proxy sealing to each other and their children.

Couples who have children born to them before the couple is sealed, may have their children sealed to them after the couple is sealed. Couples who have children after being sealed do not have to have their children sealed to them in a separate ceremony. Children born to sealed parents are "born in the covenant" and are automatically sealed to their parents. Adopted children may be sealed to their adoptive parents once the adoption has been legally finalized.

Divorce rates for sealed couples are far lower than national rates.[1] Although a divorce legally dissolves a civilly-recognized marriage, the Church still recognizes a sealed couple as being sealed. A couple who has been sealed may request to have their sealing "canceled", but this is uncommon, occurs only under special circumstances and is only granted by the President of the Church. Some refer informally to a "cancellation" as a “temple divorce”, but the terminology designated by Church leaders is "cancellation of a sealing". If a sealing is cancelled, the sealing between them and any children remains in force, though the couple is no longer sealed.[2]

A cancellation typically follows after a civil divorce when a woman seeks to be sealed to another man. The Church's requirements for divorced men are equally strict, and even sometimes more so. A man must apply for a sealing clearance if he seeks to marry another woman after he has been civilly divorced. He is still required to receive a sealing clearance, even if he has already received a cancellation of sealing.[2]

It has been argued that the LDS Church’s policy on sealings and cancellations reflect its doctrine of plural marriage. Although the doctrine of plural marriage is currently prohibited from being practiced in the Church, a man can be sealed to multiple women. A widower may be sealed while he is alive to his subsequent wives. Additionally, after men who are dead may be sealed by proxy to all of the women to whom they were legally married while alive. Recent changes in church policy also allow women to be sealed to multiple men, but only after both she and her husband(s) are dead.[2]

Church doctrine is not entirely specific on the status of men or women who are sealed by proxy to multiple spouses. There are at least two possibilities:

Regardless of how many people a man or woman is sealed to by proxy, they will only remain with one of them in the afterlife, and that the remaining spouses, who might still merit the full benefits of exaltation that come from being sealed, would then be given to another person in order to ensure each has an eternal marriage.
These sealings create effective plural marriages that will continue after death. There are no Church teachings clarifying whether polyandrous relationships can exist in the afterlife, so some church members doubt whether this possibility would apply to women who are sealed by proxy to multiple spouses. The possibility for women to be sealed to multiple men is a recent policy change enacted in 1998. Church leaders have neither explained this change, nor its doctrinal implications.
The union of a sealed couple is regarded as valid only if both individuals have kept their religious commitments and followed LDS teachings. [b]Just as deceased individuals may refuse any temple ordinance (such as a sealing) done by proxy on their behalf, couples, parents and children who were sealed to each other during their own life may exercise their agency to refuse to accept a sealing of which they were a part. No one will be sealed to any one with whom they do not want to be sealed.[/b]

Only worthy members of the LDS Church, who hold current valid temple recommends, can attend and witness sealings. Non-member family and friends generally wait in the temple waiting room during the sealing ceremony.

Since the LDS Church rejects same-sex marriages, these unions are not performed in temples nor recognized by the LDS Church.[/quote]

Check it - dead people can refuse a sealing done on their behalf. Just because you are dead doesn't mean you lose your voice with the Mormons - oh, they will find you and try to convert you even when you are DEAD, but you can still say no.

Well, I feel a lot better about this. If someone tries to seal me by proxy when I am dead, I can still refuse it. Its kinda a nifty fantasy concept tho - the eternal lovers, etc. I wouldn't mind being sealed to my kids for eternity. :D

[Vegas]

I'd be far more disturbed if anyone who believed this agreed not to include Holocaust victims. I'm sort of stunned and disappointed any such decree was made at any point. Good thing they're not following that any more.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693225' date='Feb 19 2009, 21.09']No amount of voodoo dolls or satanic rites can make a difference for others, as far as I'm concerned. As a Christian, I do mind, but only for [i]for your sake[/i].[/quote]Yes it can make one hell of a difference for others, because you see, I have been invested with the power to do so by authority the Lord Jesus Christ. And when I baptize these dead Christians for Satan (it's all part of the bizarre divine plan. don't ask me. God works in mysterious ways), I will be saving them from your eternal company. That is until you die, and I baptize your poor soul so you can join them. I can only hope that your soul will the see the errors of your ways.

Even if this is a free salvation card, it is irrelevant whether or not heaven and hell exist, baptizing the dead is still disrespectful to the life and memory of the individual.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1693255' date='Feb 19 2009, 21.25']El-ahrairah,

So, why not establish a theocracy? After all, why would anyone value the freedom of this choice over eternal perfection?[/quote]
A theocracy means really "rule by God", and anything we could make is only a poor model of one. But the obvious answer is that not all people agree on what said theocracy would look like, so they compromise on secularism. My post on the 'freedom of choice" was assuming you [i]know[/i] what the consequences of said choice would be, which clearly is not so in reality.

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693280' date='Feb 19 2009, 21.43']Even if this is a free salvation card, it is irrelevant whether or not heaven and hell exist, baptizing the dead is still disrespectful to the life and memory of the individual.[/quote]
Yes, in some ways it is "disrespectful". But respect (at least for other humans) is [i]not[/i] the most important thing in the universe. From the Mormon position, respect for temporal memory is [i]infinitely[/i] less important than respect for things eternal.

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693280' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.43']Yes it can make one hell of a difference for others, because you see, I have been invested with the power to do so by authority the Lord Jesus Christ. And when I baptize these dead Christians for Satan (it's all part of the bizarre divine plan. don't ask me. God works in mysterious ways), I will be saving them from your eternal company. That is until you die, and I baptize your poor soul so you can join them. I can only hope that your soul will the see the errors of your ways.

Even if this is a free salvation card, it is irrelevant whether or not heaven and hell exist, baptizing the dead is still disrespectful to the life and memory of the individual.[/quote]

I am enjoying your devil's advocacy. (are you vested yet?)

[Teri]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1693194' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.33']Then let's ask another set of questions. If the soul is in heaven, what is the point of the LDS baptism? If the soul is in hell, then shouldn't they already know which religion had the proper faith, so what does the baptism itself accomplish? A get out jail free card? If the LDS can retroactively save a soul through postmortem baptism, does that not move the agency of salvation from God and put it in the hands of the LDS? Should we not protect the souls from being badgered in the afterlife from proselytizing?[/quote]

[quote name='gryphon strike' post='1693204' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.44']You are aware of the big debate that raged off and on about consent and when it is given. If a person is not capable of giving consent then none is given.
Baptism of those who have already departed is done without consent, NOW DO YOU SEE JUST WHY IT IS WRONG.[/quote]

Mormons have [url="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081016022543AADqXYd"]an unusual set of of beliefs about the afterlife[/url]. They are not retroactively "saving a soul", they are giving them an invitation to join the Mormon PART of heaven. Furthermore, EVERY soul is considered to be in waiting for the end of days before they will really enter heaven or hell. According to their cosmology, nobody is in EITHER place yet (except for the angels and demons.)

It's like heaven is a big arena where a super great rock show is going to be performed at the end of days. When you die, you get admitted to the huge crowd of everyone who has ever died, all waiting around outside the arena for the gates to open. All the tickets to the best seats in the house are reserved for Mormons. Posthumous baptisms are like offering someone in that crowd a free ticket to the Mormon box seats. They believe in doing this because most of the people in the past who have died did so before the Mormon revelations, so they didn't get a chance to get their best seat tickets while they were alive. Anyone can turn down the ticket and say "No thanks, I'd rather sit in the cheap seats with my friends."

I think it's insensitive to the memories of people who died largely BECAUSE they refused to convert to Christianity. It's demeaning the value of that choice. But all the objections about "conversion without consent" are off-base, since they are hinged on a misunderstanding of what the posthumous baptism means. It's like saying someone ought to get the consent of everyone they send a party invitation or show ticket to, just to send them the invite. I don't think that's reasonable. But it is reasonable to call it insensitive to send someone whom you know was an ardent Obama supporter an invitation to Sarah Palin's 2012 campaign kickoff rally. You're not forcing them to attend, so there's no [i]consent[/i] issue involved. It is just failing to respect their commitment to their ideals.

[TerraPrime]

Re: El-ahrairah

[quote]Sorry, but I find this statement practically impossible to comprehend. Assuming by "dammed' you mean the conventional meaning, I am at an utter loss as to why anyone would value the freedom of this choice over eternal perfection.[/quote]

Because it's about the meaning of life. This life.


[quote]Yes, but what if you had a map showing the shore to be 500 miles distant, and he believed it to be 500 feet?[/quote]

It's his life, and his choice to make, isn't it?


[quote]Neither I nor the Mormons believe it forces the religion on them. The LDS hold that only through their actions can the LDS faith be shown to the deceased, who then has a completely free choice whether to accept it or no.[/quote]

Neither you nor the Mormons realize that these people have already made the choice. Telling them that they need to choose again is both disrespectful and intrusive. Add to that the element that these people are already dead, and therefore, cannot offer protest nor consent, and the entire act is heinous.



Re: Teri

[quote name='Teri' post='1693293' date='Feb 19 2009, 21.00']But it is reasonable to call it insensitive to send someone whom you know was an ardent Obama supporter an invitation to Sarah Palin's 2012 campaign kickoff rally. You're not forcing them to attend, so there's no [i]consent[/i] issue involved. It is just failing to respect their commitment to their ideals.[/quote]

No, I disagree.

If I put my name on a no-call list, then I don't need someone to put me back onto it because they think I should get some product promotions. Yes, I have the choice to opt out again, but I already made my choice once, no?

[Lord Mord]

El-ahrairah,

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693284' date='Feb 19 2009, 18.48']A theocracy means really "rule by God", and anything we could make is only a poor model of one. But the obvious answer is that not all people agree on what said theocracy would look like, so they compromise on secularism. My post on the 'freedom of choice" was assuming you [i]know[/i] what the consequences of said choice would be, which clearly is not so in reality.[/quote]

I do not understand. Firstly, you are assuming a knowledge on the part of the deceased, and not only knowledge but a supreme kind of knowledge -- which is simply a massive and so far as I can tell entirely unwarranted assumption. Then, even with that assumption under your belt, you have to take on another massive assumption that the Mormons can be taken at their word that the deceased have consented. I don't see why we should have to make those assumptions -- I mean, yeah, you could make all kinds of assumptions that make a lot of rude or even awful behaviors just fine. In this case, the assumptions are just too big and too convenient.



[quote]Yes, in some ways it is "disrespectful". But respect (at least for other humans) is [i]not[/i] the most important thing in the universe. From the Mormon position, respect for temporal memory is [i]infinitely[/i] less important than respect for things eternal.[/quote]

Okay. So, arguably they don't mean anything ill by it. I don't see where that matters, if the act itself is offensive regardless. You do realize that it is possible to offend inadvertently? Given that has occurred in the past in a given case, and then the behavior is repeated, I think patience would reasonably be exhausted.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693296' date='Feb 19 2009, 22.11']Re: El-ahrairah

Because it's about the meaning of life. This life.[/quote]
As far as you are concerned, yes, but for both the Jews and Mormons, it is about another life as well. And my point was that [b]if[/b] the afterlife is true, and you know it, the only logical decision would be to choose salvation.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693296' date='Feb 19 2009, 22.11']It's his life, and his choice to make, isn't it?[/quote]
His choice, yes, and common human decency would tell you to tell him what will happen if he makes that choice.

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1693296' date='Feb 19 2009, 22.11']Neither you nor the Mormons realize that these people have already made the choice. Telling them that they need to choose again is both disrespectful and intrusive. Add to that the element that these people are already dead, and therefore, cannot offer protest nor consent, and the entire act is heinous.[/quote]
The Mormons believe they can still choose.

You believe there is no afterlife, so they cannot be insulted by being told to choose. The only way the act can be harmful to the dead is if it has an affect on the dead, and you believe it does not.

The families of the dead do not have [i]anything[/i] told to them, so they have no real cause for offense.

In whatever case, I fail to see how a well-meaning if misguided ritual done in private can be regarded as "heinous". Let me say again that I do [b]not[/b] believe in the Mormon religion, and I do [b]not[/b] believe that baptism for the dead has any affect. But I contend that it is of the highest intentions and harms no one.

[Dumas]

Theology, to those who do not believe, is the ultimate expression of the saying 'Words are wind.' And broken wind, at that. So what the Mormons 'actually' believe about these ceremonies has absolutely no bearing on what others think of them, especially with regards to their deceased kin.


People can be profoundly irrational about things touching their families, dead or alive. It is not something for outsiders to touch lightly. And the institutionalization of this sort of thing is just going to rub families the wrong way, regardless of any theological bullshit piled around it.

In every matter, by tradition, law (I think), and every rational principle, the family or a person chosen by the deceased speaks for the wishes of the dead. What in the nine hells gives the Mormons the right to overrule them? People with even a tiny knowledge of the Christian sects know that baptism is a ritual marking entry into the sect. Even if it is not technically binding on the dead, doing this entry by proxy is going to look pretty damn fishy to those who want nothing to do with those who did the baptizing.

[Lord Mord]

El-ahrairah,

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1693320' date='Feb 19 2009, 19.44']His choice, yes, and common human decency would tell you to tell him what will happen if he makes that choice.[/quote]


Insofar as a decision is being made, we have to assume it's being made by a living person, particularly when the only witnesses to the event have every reason to interpret the event in a way that suits our mutual creed. Or else no decision is being made at all, and the event is a hoax, which would also be insulting.