mormonboy51

Does the LDS faith offend the Jewish?

Recommended Posts

And how, exactly, does privately doing ordinances for names on a list impose in any possible sense or degree on the Jewish religion?

Because THEY think of it as an imposition. It's a matter off common courtesy and respect.

For that matter I have a number of friends who embrace other Christian faiths or no faith at all, and they have asked me not to submit their names in the event that they die befoe I do. To me it should be their choice. That is a part of what free agency is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because THEY think of it as an imposition. It's a matter off common courtesy and respect.

So then, if I think of it as an imposition for Jews to wear yarmulkes, does that mean they should take them off in my presence? Hey, it offends me!

For that matter I have a number of friends who embrace other Christian faiths or no faith at all, and they have asked me not to submit their names in the event that they die befoe I do. To me it should be their choice. That is a part of what free agency is all about.

How so? How does "free agency" possibly enter into this discussion? Although I'm perfectly happy to withhold ordinance work from all those who specifically request it. If they wish to [email protected] themselves through their own ignorant prejudice, that is their business. (What's with the "swear word" filter, anyway? "[email protected]" is not a swear word.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Vort that makes no sense. If you baptize a Jew without their permission it is not offending them, it is imposing the ordinance on them.

No Jew will require that you wear a yarmulke or anything else.

Not to mention you have spent a great deal of time calling pople ignorant, dumb, prejudice etc: Do you really think heavenly father wants you to express such contempt for people who simply want to live their lives and die as they choose. Jews do not believe in the same concept of being [email protected] and all I can say is prefer to follow instructions of Jesus to judge not lest we be judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Vort that makes no sense. If you baptize a Jew without their permission it is not offending them, it is imposing the ordinance on them.

Huh? What Jews are getting baptized without their permission? Are Mormons digging people up? That's just nonsense.

No Jew will require that you wear a yarmulke or anything else.

Likewise, no Latter-day Saint will require that you get baptized.

Not to mention you have spent a great deal of time calling pople ignorant, dumb, prejudice etc: Do you really think heavenly father wants you to express such contempt for people who simply want to live their lives and die as they choose. Jews do not believe in the same concept of being [email protected] and all I can say is prefer to follow instructions of Jesus to judge not lest we be judged.

I reserve the right to call out prejudice and intolerance where I see it. There can be no doubt that the hatred expressed by some Jews for LDS posthumous ordinances qualifies as prejudice and intolerance.

Those ordinances in no possible way affect any Jew, living or dead -- unless the Jews wish to admit that Latter-day Saints actually do have divinely given power over eternal ordinances. But if that's the case, they have no standing to argue, because they are arguing against God.

Jews can't have it both ways. Either the LDS ordinances are efficacious or they are not. If they are, then no decent person can possibly object. If they are not, then it's plain old religious bigotry on the part of the Jews. Given their history, I would think the Jews should be the last people to carp at others over their religious practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort, you haven't really grasped the issue at all. Jews have been persecuted and at times heavily pressured to accept Christianity, or at least forced to acknowledge the superiority of Christianity. The idea of a Christian group summarily performing an ordinance initiating Jewish ancestors into Christianity strikes a raw nerve with Jews. All the more so when it affects those who are percieved the martyrs of this generation, IE, Holocaust victims. There is also the concept of shemad or being cut off from the Jewish people, which is what happens when converting to a different faith. If you baptise someone's ancestor without asking the descendant, how do you think they would react? It is a different matter, such as with my family, when you do work for immediate ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort, you haven't really grasped the issue at all.

On the contrary, I have grasped the situation just fine. I simply refuse to accept the babbling that passes for reasoning on the issue.

Jews have been persecuted and at times heavily pressured to accept Christianity, or at least forced to acknowledge the superiority of Christianity. The idea of a Christian group summarily performing an ordinance initiating Jewish ancestors into Christianity strikes a raw nerve with Jews.

That it might "strike a raw nerve" is of no moment. It's a religious rite, nothing more. We aren't digging up Jews. We aren't forcing conversion at the point of a sword. We aren't forcing anyone to acknowledge the superiority of anything. We are saying prayers.

If they don't like how we say prayers, then that's really not our fault, is it?

All the more so when it affects those who are percieved the martyrs of this generation, IE, Holocaust victims.

Answer me this, volgadon:

How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper affect those Holocaust victims?

There is also the concept of shemad or being cut off from the Jewish people, which is what happens when converting to a different faith.

Same question: How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper cut any Jews, living or dead, off from their people?

If you baptise someone's ancestor without asking the descendant, how do you think they would react?

How would they react, or how should they react? They should react exactly as I would react when my Catholic friends tell me they have lit a votive candle and prayed for the soul of my deceased father: With gratitude for their kind thought, however silly or superstitious their religious rite might seem to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest saintish

You are completly missing the point vort, I certianly hope you see baptisms for the dead as more than "saying a prayer". Jews see baptisms for the dead as our attempt to make their ancestors mormon, and we are doing it against the will of the dead and their living relatives, believing that the deceased have to accept the ordinance is immaterial to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, I have grasped the situation just fine. I simply refuse to accept the babbling that passes for reasoning on the issue.[/quotes]

I think your comments below tell a different story.

That it might "strike a raw nerve" is of no moment. It's a religious rite, nothing more. We aren't digging up Jews. We aren't forcing conversion at the point of a sword. We aren't forcing anyone to acknowledge the superiority of anything. We are saying prayers.

It IS something more for Jews. That is what you refuse to see.

If they don't like how we say prayers, then that's really not our fault, is it?

It is not that they don't like how we say prayers, but that we are imposing them on their ancestors without their permission.

Answer me this, volgadon:

How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper affect those Holocaust victims?

It is the idea. Our saying prayers AND performing initiatory ordinances of a different religion on behalf of Holocaust victims is seen as a distinct lack of respect for those individuals who were murdered for being Jewish.

Same question: How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper cut any Jews, living or dead, off from their people?

Again, it is the idea of someone performing such a rite, which has those implications, for you grandmother who was brutally murdered on account of her being Jewish.

How would they react, or how should they react? They should react exactly as I would react when my Catholic friends tell me they have lit a votive candle and prayed for the soul of my deceased father: With gratitude for their kind thought, however silly or superstitious their religious rite might seem to me.

You are working on a different set of assumptions. For Jews this is not a kind thought, considering their struggle throughout the centuries to keep their distinct identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completly missing the point vort, I certianly hope you see baptisms for the dead as more than "saying a prayer".

What I see baptisms for the dead as accomplishing is irrelevant.

Jews see baptisms for the dead as our attempt to make their ancestors mormon, and we are doing it against the will of the dead and their living relatives, believing that the deceased have to accept the ordinance is immaterial to them.

Then that is purely stupid. No other word for it. And we are under no obligation to kowtow to sheer, unmitigated stupidity.

Do the Jews believe we have the power to "make" their ancestors Mormon against their will? I don't believe you will find a single Jew who would admit to believing such.

So what's their beef? We can't make their ancestors non-Jewish (in their minds), or cannot do so against their ancestors' wishes (in our minds), so what exactly is the problem?

The problem is this: They don't like our religious rites.

Period.

And that is bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS something more for Jews. That is what you refuse to see.

Baloney. The religious rites are ours, not theirs. We get to define what they mean, not the Jews. The fact that certain Jews choose to attach meaning to our religious rites which we don't attach to those beliefs shows them to be bigots.

It would be as if we took offense that the Jews don't eat pork, assigning some malicious meaning or intent to that Jewish law.

It is not that they don't like how we say prayers, but that we are imposing them on their ancestors without their permission.

Absurd. How can I possibly "impose" anything on a dead person? The very idea is utterly ridiculous.

It is the idea. Our saying prayers AND performing initiatory ordinances of a different religion on behalf of Holocaust victims is seen as a distinct lack of respect for those individuals who were murdered for being Jewish.

Then that's a stupid way to view things.

I might take umbrage at Jews wearing yarmulkes, interpreting it as a total lack of respect for me. But guess what? It isn't. The fact that I interpret it as such is of no moment whatsoever, except that it would expose me as a neurotic ninny.

Same thing with baptisms for the dead.

Again, it is the idea of someone performing such a rite, which has those implications, for you grandmother who was brutally murdered on account of her being Jewish.

Means nothing.

You are working on a different set of assumptions. For Jews this is not a kind thought, considering their struggle throughout the centuries to keep their distinct identity.

This is the point, voldagon:

The Jews don't get to decide whether my intentions or thoughts are kindly.

And as I have said many times before, even if we were making voodoo dolls of their ancestors and poking them with pins -- so what? But the fact is, we are not. In our own minds, we are performing rites of deep and sacred significance which we believe offers a hope of salvation to them. In their minds, we are praying over a list of names. Whatever. In neither case is there any hint of disrespect. The disrespect exists only in the minds of the Jews who take offense, and only because of sheer religious bigotry.

There is not a single reasonable point to be debated that suggests the LDS temple rites are any sort of "forced conversion". That is sheer, pure, unmitigated stupidity, and anyone who clings to that thinking is either stupid or lying. In neither case are we obligated, by law or by ethics, to change our beliefs or how we pursue those beliefs.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see baptisms for the dead as accomplishing is irrelevant.

Perhaps, but baptism, regardless of efficacy, is more than a mere prayer. It is an iniatory ritual.

Then that is purely stupid. No other word for it. And we are under no obligation to kowtow to sheer, unmitigated stupidity.

Do the Jews believe we have the power to "make" their ancestors Mormon against their will? I don't believe you will find a single Jew who would admit to believing such.

It is our attempt to do so that they find offensive. In other words, it is our behavior and lack of respect. I(n other words, they don't believe that we have the power to make their ancestors Mormon, but our attempt to do so is offensive to them. I firmly believe that at the moment we should limit temple ordinances for Jews only to those whose descendants are in the church and who submit the names themselves.

So what's their beef?

We've answered, you've stuck your fingers in your ears. At least two of us here are LDS of Jewish extraction and understand both sides of the picture.

We can't make their ancestors non-Jewish (in their minds), or cannot do so against their ancestors' wishes (in our minds), so what exactly is the problem?

The problem is this: They don't like our religious rites.

No, they don't like our religious rites when applied arbitrarily towards their own ancestors. Otherwise they really don't care what we do.

Period.

And that is bigotry.

You haven't shown much inclination yourself towards understanding others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but baptism, regardless of efficacy, is more than a mere prayer. It is an iniatory ritual.

That is a distinction without a difference, unless you happen to be LDS. For non-LDS, including Jews, the distinction is meaningless. It is, in effect, exactly a prayer.

Do the Jews believe we have the power to "make" their ancestors Mormon against their will? I don't believe you will find a single Jew who would admit to believing such.

It is our attempt to do so that they find offensive. In other words, it is our behavior and lack of respect.

BUT WE DON'T MAKE ANY SUCH ATTEMPT!

You apparently are having some difficulty in understanding this point, voldagon. So let me emphasize it to help you see the fallacy in this argument:

We Latter-day Saints make no attempt whatsoever to "make" Jews into Mormons.

Is that sufficiently clear now? Do you now understand this most basic point, the crux of the whole argument?

Latter-day Saints don't make any attempt whatsoever to change Jews into Mormons. Period. We only provide Jews the opportunity for salvation, if they wish to seize it.

Can this point be made any clearer?

I firmly believe that at the moment we should limit temple ordinances for Jews only to those whose descendants are in the church and who submit the names themselves.

Seeing as how this is current Church policy, I could not agree more.

So what's their beef?

We've answered, you've stuck your fingers in your ears.

Not so, voldagon. I have listened most intently, reading every word you have written in this thread. You keep pursuing a false notion, a lie that you refuse to identify as a lie. You keep claiming that the Jews don't like how we keep trying to make their ancestors Mormon, when you know full well that we do no such thing.

At least two of us here are LDS of Jewish extraction and understand both sides of the picture.

It appears I, too, understand both sides of the picture. The difference is, I'm willing to be honest and call a spade a spade.

The problem is this: They don't like our religious rites.

No, they don't like our religious rites when applied arbitrarily towards their own ancestors.

What do you mean, "their ancestors"? We don't dig anyone up. We have ink on paper, and we speak words that includes the (often badly butchered) pronunciation of words. This can have no bearing in any possible sense on their ancestors.

Unless, of course, we speak by the authority of God.

But otherwise, our ordinances never touch their ancestors to any possible degree whatsoever.

You haven't shown much inclination yourself towards understanding others.

Why? Because I have refused to accede to the nonsensical lie that we "make their ancestors Mormon", or that we are trying to do so?

On the contrary, I understand their feelings. But feelings are not the end-all and be-all of existence. At some point, reason and rationality have to make an entrance, as well. We live in a pluralistic society where other religions are allowed and tolerated.

The Jews, as much as or more than any other religious group on earth, should understand this point.

What we have in the Jewish complaint against LDS temple ordinances is unmitigated religious bigotry. It is you, not I, that refuses to see the situation as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baloney. The religious rites are ours, not theirs. We get to define what they mean, not the Jews. The fact that certain Jews choose to attach meaning to our religious rites which we don't attach to those beliefs shows them to be bigots.

They are hardly bigots. Whether or not you have good intentions, for Jews baptism is a big deal, hearkening back to centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution merely because they happened to be Jewish. You have no clue, really.

It

would be as if we took offense that the Jews don't eat pork, assigning some malicious meaning or intent to that Jewish law.

No Jew is taking offence at LDS abstinence from wine.

Absurd. How can I possibly "impose" anything on a dead person? The very idea is utterly ridiculous.

It is imposing a ritual on a dead person without his family's consent. Or, in other words, you are performing an initiatory ritual strongly opposed to the faith of someone murdered for that faith, without his family's consent.

Then that's a stupid way to view things.

Charming. It reveals more about you than about the validity of the Jewish POV.

I might take umbrage at Jews wearing yarmulkes, interpreting it as a total lack of respect for me. But guess what? It isn't. The fact that I interpret it as such is of no moment whatsoever, except that it would expose me as a neurotic ninny.

Same thing with baptisms for the dead.

Jews haven't taken offense at LDS wearing garments for themselves, which is why your yarmulke example fails miserably on every level.

Now, if we suppose a hypothetical, where your LDS ancestors lived in a predominantly Jewish land for centuries, and were beaten, persecuted and publically humiliated for refusal to wear yarmulkes, and now Jews don yarmulkes on behalf of your ancestors murdered by other Jews for being LDS, then you might just have a point.

Means nothing.

To you, which shows how completely you fail to understand others.

This is the point, voldagon:

The Jews don't get to decide whether my intentions or thoughts are kindly.

No, but they can certainly find them deeply offensive, regardless of how 'kindly' your intentions are. Considering the negative implications of such ordinances to the historical memory of Jews it behooves us to be Christlike, and not adopt your attitude of contempt and derision.

And as I have said many times before, even if we were making voodoo dolls of their ancestors and poking them with pins -- so what? But the fact is, we are not. In our own minds, we are performing rites of deep and sacred significance which we believe offers a hope of salvation to them. In their minds, we are praying over a list of names. Whatever. In neither case is there any hint of disrespect. The disrespect exists only in the minds of the Jews who take offense, and only because of sheer religious bigotry.

There is not a single reasonable point to be debated that suggests the LDS temple rites are any sort of "forced conversion". That is sheer, pure, unmitigated stupidity, and anyone who clings to that thinking is either stupid or lying. In neither case are we obligated, by law or by ethics, to change our beliefs or how we pursue those beliefs.

Well, considering that we do initatories on the assumption that the deceased has accepted baptism, and so on, I wouldn't be too sure that there are no reasonable points. But then again, who are you to judge what is reasonable, when you have displayed both by verbiage and content a distinct intolerance and refusal to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are hardly bigots. Whether or not you have good intentions, for Jews baptism is a big deal, hearkening back to centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution merely because they happened to be Jewish. You have no clue, really.

Again with the condescension?

Yes, I have a clue. Really. And I daresay that the Jews alive today have not "suffered centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution". Is that part of their family history? Yes. Does it mean they should be allowed to interfere with the religious rites of others? No.

No Jew is taking offence at LDS abstinence from wine.

I said nothing about wine.

It is imposing a ritual on a dead person without his family's consent.

Baloney. Where's the dead person? Did we dig him up?

We are imposing no rituals on anyone. That is a lie.

Charming. It reveals more about you than about the validity of the Jewish POV.

Interestingly, I am criticizing ignorant bigotry, while you are criticizing me as an individual.

Jews haven't taken offense at LDS wearing garments for themselves, which is why your yarmulke example fails miserably on every level.

It succeeds well for all those who don't have their fingers firmly in their ears and their eyes shut tight.

To you, which shows how completely you fail to understand others.

Once again, you maintain that I fail to understand others simply because I disagree with them.

No, but they can certainly find them deeply offensive, regardless of how 'kindly' your intentions are.

You are giving lie to your own words, voldagon:

It is our attempt to do so [force their ancestors to become Mormon] that they find offensive. In other words, it is our behavior and lack of respect.

You can't have it both ways, voldagon. Are they offended at the actions themselves, or are they offended at our intentions in performing those actions? Quit changing sides based on what fits your thesis at the moment. Pick one.

Considering the negative implications of such ordinances to the historical memory of Jews it behooves us to be Christlike, and not adopt your attitude of contempt and derision.

So is your point that I'm wrong or that I'm mean?

But then again, who are you to judge what is reasonable, when you have displayed both by verbiage and content a distinct intolerance and refusal to understand.

You keep asserting that I don't understand, or that I refuse to understand. Your assertion is false, however, unless you can show more evidence than the fact that I refuse to accept the specious "reasoning" for the complaints.

Also, try to keep the personal edge off your attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a distinction without a difference, unless you happen to be LDS. For non-LDS, including Jews, the distinction is meaningless. It is, in effect, exactly a prayer.

It is hardly a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if non-LDS don't believe in its validity, it is still intended as an iniatory rite. Circumcision may be meaningless to Southern Baptists, but it is still an iniatory rite. In effect, it is not a prayer.

BUT WE DON'T MAKE ANY SUCH ATTEMPT!

That might actually have some effect if you bothered to understand the other's position first. You don't understand why it could be construed as such and keep bringing up irrelevant analogies intend to display your command of the moral high-ground. I'm reasonably confident in my ability t explain our position in a dialogue, because I grew up in both traditions, the LDS and Jewish ones.

You apparently are having some difficulty in understanding this point, voldagon. So let me emphasize it to help you see the fallacy in this argument:

Considering that I was at the temple on my day off last week performing ordinances for my wife's Ukrainian ancestors, I really don't have any difficulty in understanding this point of yours.

We Latter-day Saints make no attempt whatsoever to "make" Jews into Mormons.

Is that sufficiently clear now? Do you now understand this most basic point, the crux of the whole argument?

Vort, your hysterical font sizes and italics aside, you are the one who fails to understand the crux of the argument.

Latter-day Saints don't make any attempt whatsoever to change Jews into Mormons. Period. We only provide Jews the opportunity for salvation, if they wish to seize it.

Can this point be made any clearer?

You refuse to see why, given their historical position, Jews would see proxy ordinances as an attempt to do just that, even with your caveat.

Not so, voldagon. I have listened most intently, reading every word you have written in this thread. You keep pursuing a false notion, a lie that you refuse to identify as a lie. You keep claiming that the Jews don't like how we keep trying to make their ancestors Mormon, when you know full well that we do no such thing.

Perhaps you have listened, but I search in vain for an indication of understanding.

It appears I, too, understand both sides of the picture. The difference is, I'm willing to be honest and call a spade a spade.

Then I guess you'll have no problem with me calling your spade a spade, that is, your ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance.

What do you mean, "their ancestors"? We don't dig anyone up. We have ink on paper, and we speak words that includes the (often badly butchered) pronunciation of words. This can have no bearing in any possible sense on their ancestors.

Then why do we do it? Why is the name on the paper the name of THEIR ancestor?

Unless, of course, we speak by the authority of God.

They don't have to consider it as having God's authority to find the attempt offensive.

But otherwise, our ordinances never touch their ancestors to any possible degree whatsoever.

Why then are their names involved?

Why? Because I have refused to accede to the nonsensical lie that we "make their ancestors Mormon", or that we are trying to do so?

On the contrary, I understand their feelings. But feelings are not the end-all and be-all of existence. At some point, reason and rationality have to make an entrance, as well. We live in a pluralistic society where other religions are allowed and tolerated.

The Jews, as much as or more than any other religious group on earth, should understand this point.

What we have in the Jewish complaint against LDS temple ordinances is unmitigated religious bigotry. It is you, not I, that refuses to see the situation as it is.

Come on, Vort, lets not pretend that you do understand their feelings. A simple survey of your choice of adjectives would suffice to show otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is hardly a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if non-LDS don't believe in its validity, it is still intended as an iniatory rite. Circumcision may be meaningless to Southern Baptists, but it is still an iniatory rite. In effect, it is not a prayer.

Circumcision violates the integrity of the body. Are you suggesting the pronouncing the name of a dead person is tantamount to cutting the genitalia of a living baby?

That might actually have some effect if you bothered to understand the other's position first. You don't understand why it could be construed as such

Clearly, this is difficult for you. Let me try again to explain:

I understand why some Jews might be offended. But their offense is illogical and nonsensical. In the same sense, I understand why my daughter might scream with frustration when playing a Pokemon game, but that doesn't mean I condone her screaming or that I think it's justified. Furthermore, I expect more of adults than I do of ten-year-olds.

I'm reasonably confident in my ability t explain our position in a dialogue, because I grew up in both traditions, the LDS and Jewish ones.

Strange, then, that you have no comprehension whatsoever of the invalidity of the arguments made against LDS temple ordinances. One would think you, better than most, would be in a position to see exactly how specious such arguments are.

Considering that I was at the temple on my day off last week performing ordinances for my wife's Ukrainian ancestors, I really don't have any difficulty in understanding this point of yours.

Apparently, you do.

Vort, your hysterical font sizes and italics aside, you are the one who fails to understand the crux of the argument.

Then why don't you tell me what the crux of the argument is?

You refuse to see why, given their historical position, Jews would see proxy ordinances as an attempt to do just that, even with your caveat.

On the contrary, I see why. I simply maintain that it's irrelevant and illogical, and that furthermore it is religious bigotry to pursue something that, by their own belief, so clearly does not touch them (or their ancestors).

Perhaps you have listened, but I search in vain for an indication of understanding.

Translation: "I search in vain to see that you agree with me."

Then I guess you'll have no problem with me calling your spade a spade, that is, your ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance.

Then demonstrate my "ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance" (is there an echo in here?) as I have demonstrated the bigotry of those who rail against LDS temple ordinances. Don't just call names, voldagon. Man up and let's see the evidence.

Then why do we do it? Why is the name on the paper the name of THEIR ancestor?

Now you are asserting the validity of LDS ordinances. But if the Jews accept the validity of LDS ordinances, they cannot object to them -- because if LDS ordinances are valid, they are divine. So either the LDS ordinances are valid (as we believe) and thus are of God, or the LDS ordinances are invalid (as the Jews believe) and thus are of no possible moment whatsoever.

They don't have to consider it as having God's authority to find the attempt offensive.

Of course not. Similarly, I can find any number of things about the Jews offensive, from their yarmulkes to their belief in the Torah to their laws of kosher. But the fact that I might find some Jewish practices or beliefs offensive does not MAKE those practices or beliefs offensive. It might, however, make me a bigot if I am offended by them.

Why then are their names involved?

Why shouldn't they be? This is a complete non sequitur. The ordinances in no possible sense touch the dead people whose names are being pronounced.

Unless you accept that the LDS rites are divinely authorized. But we have already discussed that point; no practicing Jew could accept that they are divinely authorized or object to them if he did.

Come on, Vort, lets not pretend that you do understand their feelings. A simple survey of your choice of adjectives would suffice to show otherwise.

Why? Because I don't agree?

You labor under the delusion that, if only someone could see the truth as you see it, they would most certainly share your opinion. You are wrong. I see the truth, I understand the feelings of the parties involved, and yet I still maintain that those who rail against LDS temple ordinances are not merely illogical, but bigoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest saintish

Well to get back to the op's question, the LDS faith does offend at least some Jews on the issue of baptisms of the dead. However illogical or bigoted it may or may not be.

Btw I never said I agree with the Jews position on LDS vicarious ordinances but i can put myself in their shoes and understand and sympathize with them as does the church as is evident by them stopping all ordinances for holocaust victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I never said I agree with the Jews position on LDS vicarious ordinances but i can put myself in their shoes and understand and sympathize with them as does the church as is evident by them stopping all ordinances for holocaust victims.

Indeed. Recognizing another's bigotry and hatefulness does not mean that you cannot sympathize with that person's feelings, however misguided those feelings might be.

The Church has chosen to reaffirm what it has taught all along: We are responsible to perform ordinance work for our dead, not necessarily for everyone else's. Since this is such a politically sensitive topic, the Church wisely agrees simply not to pursue ordinance work for Holocaust victims. Waiting another 50 or 100 years might inconvenience the poor souls who would otherwise eagerly accept the work, but that is apparently a worthwhile sacrifice as compared with the hostility generated by doing the work for them in the face of the bigoted ignorance that would otherwise raise its ugly head even worse than it has so far.

I support the Church in this, of course. I completely and fully agree with the mandate that we perform no ordinance work for Holocaust victims unless we are related to them or have permission of their relatives.

But that does not mean I must close down my mental faculties and turn a blind eye to open bigotry, or refuse to identify it for what it is. The Church doesn't call the bigots out on their ignorance, and wisely so. But I'm not the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is my stand on the entire thing.

I am Jewish by heritage and LDS by faith. I do not have any known immediate biological family members that were murdered in the holocaust, but I do have a number of very dear friends both still living and now dead that survived the holocaust and knew the pain and suffering of seeing their own beloved family members murdered (including young children). Jews are not merely a religion, they are a people - a Nation no matter what their choise of religion. That is perhaps what you don't quite understand Vort. Jews regardless of their religious affiliation consider all Jews their "people" and they are still grieving over the holocaust victims because they view these victims as their people i.e. a very part of ourselves. They are not just a part of our National history, they are a part of our very identity.

I will not under any circumstances do any ordinance on a Jew (especially a holocaust victim who either died in the holocaust or who was a victim that survived and dies later) UNLESS that person agrees to it before their death. I take this stand for perhaps no other reason than pure respect.

I do not believe that ordinances are performed to make anyone a Mormon, BUT the ordinances are done with the belief that the deceased on the other side is aware of the ordinance, and can accept it or not. But since we as Mormons assume they are aware of it (so they can accept or decline), then they are conscious of it So it isn't like well we are just "praying over their names."

Consider this analogy. Suppose an LDS man and woman experienced the joy of having a beloved baby boy and they believed that after death there is a state consciousness with the ability to accept of decline an ordinance. We don't know to what degree of consciousness there would be and if it came with emotions and to what degree. But there has to be emotion in play in the afterlife because if there were not, what would be the point of families reuniting. We believe that we continue to learn and progress so it stands to reason their will be emotion as well as memory of the life we left on earth.

So on with the analogy. Suppose the beloved child of the LDS couple was murdered BECAUSE he was the child of an LDS family? What incredible grief that would bring to the parents and loved one's of that child. The hope to keep the family going was to meet up some day in the afterlife with their child.

So along comes a sect of Jewish people that believe that in order to have a covenent with God, all male children must be circumcised; and this sect of Jews believe in circumcising by proxy.

Now as an LDS parent we can say, well let them do as they may because I don't believe that stuff. But they DO believe there is a life and consciousness after death. Are you telling me that if an LDS couple knew that their murdered child was being subjected to an ordinance that you did not believe in, no one would be offended? And if they felt offended or negative emotions about such a thing, would they be ok with being called a bigot because they did not wish their baby's name to be submitted to this sect of people to perform their ordinance on their beloved child that they are still grieving the loss of.

If you have ever had a family member or dear loved one die by violent or unnatural means, the grief passes all human understanding. When people grieve, the one thing they have to hang onto is the memory, the identity of themself with the deceased and the hope for carrying on that identity into the next life.

I am glad that you fully agree with the mandate that we perform no ordinance work for Holocaust victims unless we are related to them or have permission of their relatives.

Quote" The Church doesn't call the bigots out on their ignorance, and wisely so. But I'm not the Church." End Quote

The best words of the final sentence of your quote Vort is AND WISELY SO. The church's wisdom comes from revelation as we all know. And the curch finds it wise not to call the Jews bigots. The church treats the situation with wisdom and tolerance because it is the right thing to do. And since the final word of the church comes down from divine relevation then essentially the wisdom comes directly from God.

Edited by LDSJewess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jews are not merely a religion, they are a people - a Nation no matter what their choise of religion. That is perhaps what you don't quite understand Vort.

Actually, I fully understand that. Most Jews with whom I have had much contact are not very religious, so the idea of Judaism as a social and ethnic construct rather than only a religion is one I'm very familiar with.

I do not believe that ordinances are performed to make anyone a Mormon, BUT the ordinances are done with the belief that the deceased on the other side is aware of the ordinance, and can accept it or not. But since we as Mormons assume they are aware of it (so they can accept or decline), then they are conscious of it So it isn't like well we are just "praying over their names."

This is spoken from the viewpoint of a believing Latter-day Saint. No practicing Jew would state this belief.

Consider this analogy. Suppose an LDS man and woman experienced the joy of having a beloved baby boy and they believed that after death there is a state consciousness with the ability to accept of decline an ordinance. [...] Suppose the beloved child of the LDS couple was murdered BECAUSE he was the child of an LDS family? [...] So along comes a sect of Jewish people that believe that in order to have a covenent with God, all male children must be circumcised; and this sect of Jews believe in circumcising by proxy.

Now as an LDS parent we can say, well let them do as they may because I don't believe that stuff. But they DO believe there is a life and consciousness after death. Are you telling me that if an LDS couple knew that their murdered child was being subjected to an ordinance that you did not believe in, no one would be offended?

I have no idea if they would be offended. This is a hypothetical couple we're talking about, so I can't say what their reaction would be. Or perhaps I can say exactly what their reaction would be, because they're just hypothetical.

What I'm saying is this: The LDS couple should not be offended at this virtual proxy "circumcision". Why not? Because no penises are being cut! They have not dug up my precious baby and defiled his corpse. They are doing absolutely nothing to my child. On the contrary, they think they're doing him a favor! How touching that would be to me. No, I would not be offended, I would be touched. Naturally, I wouldn't believe for any part of a second that their proxy "circumcision" did anything useful for my child. But offended? Of course not.

Not unless I hated Jews, that is. Then I might be perturbed that they're doing their filthy religious nonsense over the name of my precious child. But in that case, it's bigotry, not a rational response.

And if they felt offended or negative emotions about such a thing, would they be ok with being called a bigot because they did not wish their baby's name to be submitted to this sect of people to perform their ordinance on their beloved child that they are still grieving the loss of.

I expect they would not "be ok" with being called a bigot. Few people, I suppose, would be okay with that. But that is exactly what they would be, because only anti-Semitic bigots would object to this hypothetical Jewish sect praying their strange little prayers and performing their strange little rites over the name of a dead person.

If you have ever had a family member or dear loved one die by violent or unnatural means, the grief passes all human understanding. When people grieve, the one thing they have to hang onto is the memory, the identity of themself with the deceased and the hope for carrying on that identity into the next life.

I understand this. I have had a close relative murdered at 19 years old. I still maintain that there is no reasonable cause for anyone, Jew or gentile, to take offense at LDS temple ordinances. Doing so is prima facie evidence of bigotry. There is no other reasonable explanation.

The best words of the final sentence of your quote Vort is AND WISELY SO. The church's wisdom comes from revelation as we all know. And the curch finds it wise not to call the Jews bigots. The church treats the situation with wisdom and tolerance because it is the right thing to do. And since the final word of the church comes down from divine relevation then essentially the wisdom comes directly from God.

LDSJewess, we are part of a discussion list. A "discussion list" is, by definition, a place where things are discussed, where opinions are shared. You will never see a General Authority on this list, because they rarely discuss their opinions publicly. It would be inappropriate. But that does not mean that it is inappropriate for us to do so.

If a Jew were to say to me that he thinks proxy LDS temple ordinances are offensive, I probably would not call him a stinking bigot to his face. (I might, if he were a sufficiently big jerk about it, but probably not.) But that doesn't mean I refuse to identify anti-Mormon bigotry as a rule. Likewise, when my 90-year-old grandmother used to say less-than-kind things about "negroes", I never one time called her a bigot or dressed her down for her "racism" or "intolerance". But that doesn't mean I refused to identify racism in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again with the condescension?

Nice to meet you. My name is Kettle, you must be Ms. P.

Yes, I have a clue. Really. And I daresay that the Jews alive today have not "suffered centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution". Is that part of their family history? Yes. Does it mean they should be allowed to interfere with the religious rites of others? No.

There actually are plenty of Jews alive today who have, and still do, face serious persecution. It is not a thing of the past in most of the world.

I said nothing about wine.

No, but abstinence from pork is in the same category of practices as the Word of Wisdom, not proxy work.

Baloney. Where's the dead person? Did we dig him up?

We are imposing no rituals on anyone. That is a lie.

Interestingly, I am criticizing ignorant bigotry, while you are criticizing me as an individual.

You are criticisng a large group of people as ignorant bigots. I am criticisng your ignorance and intolerance, pray show me the difference.

It succeeds well for all those who don't have their fingers firmly in their ears and their eyes shut tight.

Really? Comparing a proxy ordinance for the deceased to an individuals's choice in what to wear for themselves is a good analogy? Not only does it succeed, but succeeds well?

Once again, you maintain that I fail to understand others simply because I disagree with them.

Your position seems to be that you are right, and if people disagree or are offended it is because they are illogical religious bigots who are as immature as a ten year old.

You are giving lie to your own words, voldagon:

You can't have it both ways, voldagon. Are they offended at the actions themselves, or are they offended at our intentions in performing those actions? Quit changing sides based on what fits your thesis at the moment. Pick one.

Our actions are construed as disrespectful, so much for your understanding the issue.

So is your point that I'm wrong or that I'm mean?

Yes.

You keep asserting that I don't understand, or that I refuse to understand. Your assertion is false, however, unless you can show more evidence than the fact that I refuse to accept the specious "reasoning" for the complaints.

See above.

Also, try to keep the personal edge off your attacks.

The proverbial goose and gander come to mind.

Circumcision violates the integrity of the body. Are you suggesting the pronouncing the name of a dead person is tantamount to cutting the genitalia of a living baby?

What circumcision involves is irrelevant. What matters is that it is an initiation rite. To become Jewish (if an uncircumcised male) one undergoes circumcision. To become Muslim, one repeats a credo. To become LDS one is baptised. And lets not minimise what is done in proxy work. We do more thn merely pronounce a name, we do so in conjunction with rituals for the person who bore that name.

Clearly, this is difficult for you. Let me try again to explain:

I understand why some Jews might be offended. But their offense is illogical and nonsensical. In the same sense, I understand why my daughter might scream with frustration when playing a Pokemon game, but that doesn't mean I condone her screaming or that I think it's justified. Furthermore, I expect more of adults than I do of ten-year-olds.

Right, comparing those who disagree with you to immature ten year olds really shows that you understand why a person might legitimately feel the way they do.

Strange, then, that you have no comprehension whatsoever of the invalidity of the arguments made against LDS temple ordinances. One would think you, better than most, would be in a position to see exactly how specious such arguments are.

I can see how specious your arguments are. I can also see how specious the argument is that someone many years in the future might stumble across an ordinance list and conclude that those Jews were actually Mormons, but the point remains that there are valid reasons why a Jew would be offended when we do temple work for a relative or ancestor murdered in the Holocaust without that making them a bigot.

Apparently, you do.

To paraphrase a certain someone in this thread, man up and show how.

Then why don't you tell me what the crux of the argument is?

That Jews can find our proxy work on behalf of their ancestors and relatives offensive without being illogical bigots. The Church at least has shown understanding and has worked out compromises.

On the contrary, I see why. I simply maintain that it's irrelevant and illogical, and that furthermore it is religious bigotry to pursue something that, by their own belief, so clearly does not touch them (or their ancestors).

You have failed to show how proxy work for Holocaust victims DOESN'T involve the Holocaust victims. That exhumation argument of yours is, to borrow a phrase, baloney. Especially with Holocaust victims, sometimes all that is left is a name.

Translation: "I search in vain to see that you agree with me."

Don't give up your day job. Your repeated mantra of "illogical and bigotted" shows precious little understanding, as does your downplaying of what our ordinances involve.

Then demonstrate my "ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance" (is there an echo in here?)

No more an echo than in 'calling a spade a spade.' it isn't spade-a-spade, right? I am calling your ignorance and intolerance by the title of 'ignorance and intolerance.'

as I have demonstrated the bigotry of those who rail against LDS temple ordinances. Don't just call names, voldagon. Man up and let's see the evidence.

You've demonstrated your own, really. If you insist, I can certainly catalogue this beyond what I've already done.

Now you are asserting the validity of LDS ordinances.

Have done nothing of the sort. The point is, if the ordinance has nothing whatsoever to do with their ancestor or relative, then why do we use that name? You know perfectly well that our ordinances involve the person who bore the name that is on the card.

But if the Jews accept the validity of LDS ordinances, they cannot object to them -- because if LDS ordinances are valid, they are divine. So either the LDS ordinances are valid (as we believe) and thus are of God, or the LDS ordinances are invalid (as the Jews believe) and thus are of no possible moment whatsoever.

How can you possibly claim to understand when you tear down strawman after strawman? This is not their position at all. You are performing an ordinance that you consider valid for their ancestor or relative without gaining their consent first. Quite a few posters here have already outlined why said ordinances could be found offensive by Jews.

Of course not. Similarly, I can find any number of things about the Jews offensive, from their yarmulkes to their belief in the Torah to their laws of kosher. But the fact that I might find some Jewish practices or beliefs offensive does not MAKE those practices or beliefs offensive. It might, however, make me a bigot if I am offended by them.

All of your examples involve practices that are performed by a Jew for themselves, not for others. Jews don't find our temple practices offensive UNTIL applied to their ancestors and relatives.

Why shouldn't they be? This is a complete non sequitur. The ordinances in no possible sense touch the dead people whose names are being pronounced.

How do the temple ordinances not involve those they are being performed for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again with the condescension?

Nice to meet you. My name is Kettle, you must be Ms. P.

Yes, I have a clue. Really. And I daresay that the Jews alive today have not "suffered centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution". Is that part of their family history? Yes. Does it mean they should be allowed to interfere with the religious rites of others? No.

There actually are plenty of Jews alive today who have, and still do, face serious persecution. It is not a thing of the past in most of the world.

I said nothing about wine.

No, but abstinence from pork is in the same category of practices as the Word of Wisdom, not proxy work.

Baloney. Where's the dead person? Did we dig him up?

We are imposing no rituals on anyone. That is a lie.

Interestingly, I am criticizing ignorant bigotry, while you are criticizing me as an individual.

You are criticisng a large group of people as ignorant bigots. I am criticisng your ignorance and intolerance, pray show me the difference.

It succeeds well for all those who don't have their fingers firmly in their ears and their eyes shut tight.

Really? Comparing a proxy ordinance for the deceased to an individuals's choice in what to wear for themselves is a good analogy? Not only does it succeed, but succeeds well?

Once again, you maintain that I fail to understand others simply because I disagree with them.

Your position seems to be that you are right, and if people disagree or are offended it is because they are illogical religious bigots who are as immature as a ten year old.

You are giving lie to your own words, voldagon:

You can't have it both ways, voldagon. Are they offended at the actions themselves, or are they offended at our intentions in performing those actions? Quit changing sides based on what fits your thesis at the moment. Pick one.

Our actions are construed as disrespectful, so much for your understanding the issue.

So is your point that I'm wrong or that I'm mean?

Yes.

You keep asserting that I don't understand, or that I refuse to understand. Your assertion is false, however, unless you can show more evidence than the fact that I refuse to accept the specious "reasoning" for the complaints.

See above.

Also, try to keep the personal edge off your attacks.

The proverbial goose and gander come to mind.

Circumcision violates the integrity of the body. Are you suggesting the pronouncing the name of a dead person is tantamount to cutting the genitalia of a living baby?

What circumcision involves is irrelevant. What matters is that it is an initiation rite. To become Jewish (if an uncircumcised male) one undergoes circumcision. To become Muslim, one repeats a credo. To become LDS one is baptised. And lets not minimise what is done in proxy work. We do more thn merely pronounce a name, we do so in conjunction with rituals for the person who bore that name.

Clearly, this is difficult for you. Let me try again to explain:

I understand why some Jews might be offended. But their offense is illogical and nonsensical. In the same sense, I understand why my daughter might scream with frustration when playing a Pokemon game, but that doesn't mean I condone her screaming or that I think it's justified. Furthermore, I expect more of adults than I do of ten-year-olds.

Right, comparing those who disagree with you to immature ten year olds really shows that you understand why a person might legitimately feel the way they do.

Strange, then, that you have no comprehension whatsoever of the invalidity of the arguments made against LDS temple ordinances. One would think you, better than most, would be in a position to see exactly how specious such arguments are.

I can see how specious your arguments are. I can also see how specious the argument is that someone many years in the future might stumble across an ordinance list and conclude that those Jews were actually Mormons, but the point remains that there are valid reasons why a Jew would be offended when we do temple work for a relative or ancestor murdered in the Holocaust without that making them a bigot.

Apparently, you do.

To paraphrase a certain someone in this thread, man up and show how.

Then why don't you tell me what the crux of the argument is?

That Jews can find our proxy work on behalf of their ancestors and relatives offensive without being illogical bigots. The Church at least has shown understanding and has worked out compromises.

On the contrary, I see why. I simply maintain that it's irrelevant and illogical, and that furthermore it is religious bigotry to pursue something that, by their own belief, so clearly does not touch them (or their ancestors).

You have failed to show how proxy work for Holocaust victims DOESN'T involve the Holocaust victims. That exhumation argument of yours is, to borrow a phrase, baloney. Especially with Holocaust victims, sometimes all that is left is a name.

Translation: "I search in vain to see that you agree with me."

Don't give up your day job. Your repeated mantra of "illogical and bigotted" shows precious little understanding, as does your downplaying of what our ordinances involve.

Then demonstrate my "ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance" (is there an echo in here?)

No more an echo than in 'calling a spade a spade.' it isn't spade-a-spade, right? I am calling your ignorance and intolerance by the title of 'ignorance and intolerance.'

as I have demonstrated the bigotry of those who rail against LDS temple ordinances. Don't just call names, voldagon. Man up and let's see the evidence.

You've demonstrated your own, really. If you insist, I can certainly catalogue this beyond what I've already done.

Now you are asserting the validity of LDS ordinances.

Have done nothing of the sort. The point is, if the ordinance has nothing whatsoever to do with their ancestor or relative, then why do we use that name? You know perfectly well that our ordinances involve the person who bore the name that is on the card.

But if the Jews accept the validity of LDS ordinances, they cannot object to them -- because if LDS ordinances are valid, they are divine. So either the LDS ordinances are valid (as we believe) and thus are of God, or the LDS ordinances are invalid (as the Jews believe) and thus are of no possible moment whatsoever.

How can you possibly claim to understand when you tear down strawman after strawman? This is not their position at all. You are performing an ordinance that you consider valid for their ancestor or relative without gaining their consent first. Quite a few posters here have already outlined why said ordinances could be found offensive by Jews.

Of course not. Similarly, I can find any number of things about the Jews offensive, from their yarmulkes to their belief in the Torah to their laws of kosher. But the fact that I might find some Jewish practices or beliefs offensive does not MAKE those practices or beliefs offensive. It might, however, make me a bigot if I am offended by them.

All of your examples involve practices that are performed by a Jew for themselves, not for others. Jews don't find our temple practices offensive UNTIL applied to their ancestors and relatives.

Why shouldn't they be? This is a complete non sequitur. The ordinances in no possible sense touch the dead people whose names are being pronounced.

How do the temple ordinances not involve those they are being performed for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the temple ordinances not involve those they are being performed for??

Is this a serious question??

From the perspective of a believing Jew, no LDS ordinances do anything....ever.......for anyone.....There is no consequence......at all.....

Your question is only valid from the perspective of one that accepts the ordinance as real and valid, or as an action that results in actual consequences. Tell me what part of the Jewish faith is required to accept as real, or even allows as valid, any single LDS practice whatsoever?

I agree that because many Jews find the practice offensive, we ought to accomodate their concerns accordingly, and we have. Further, I understand why they are offended. Their position is very clear, and their reaction is quite understandable. However, I don't have to agree with their reasoning for taking offense. Were that the case, I would have to leave the church through logical deduction. After all, I couldn't very well worship a God that commanded evil things of his true believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There actually are plenty of Jews alive today who have, and still do, face serious persecution. It is not a thing of the past in most of the world.

What has that to do with offense at temple ordinances?

No, but abstinence from pork is in the same category of practices as the Word of Wisdom, not proxy work.

Abstain from pork: Jewish religious belief.

Temple work: LDS religious belief.

You are criticisng a large group of people as ignorant bigots. I am criticisng your ignorance and intolerance, pray show me the difference.

I am criticizing those who would interfere with legal and ethical religious practices because they don't like those practices. You are criticizing me because you don't like my opinions.

Really? Comparing a proxy ordinance for the deceased to an individuals's choice in what to wear for themselves is a good analogy? Not only does it succeed, but succeeds well?

Correct.

Our actions are construed as disrespectful, so much for your understanding the issue.

I understand that our actions are "perceived as disrespectful". My point, which I have made exhaustively, is that such perception is not reasonable.

What matters is that it is an initiation rite. To become Jewish (if an uncircumcised male) one undergoes circumcision. To become Muslim, one repeats a credo. To become LDS one is baptised.

So what? If Jews want to circumcise by proxy for my dead relatives, let them. It is not offensive and cannot be considered so, except to a bigot.

And lets not minimise what is done in proxy work. We do more thn merely pronounce a name, we do so in conjunction with rituals for the person who bore that name.

And in the minds of anyone, those rituals mean absolutely nothing, and do absolutely nothing to the dead person whose name is being pronounced. (Unless you're a believing Latter-day Saint, which offended Jews are not.)

Right, comparing those who disagree with you to immature ten year olds really shows that you understand why a person might legitimately feel the way they do.

How interesting, volgadon. Do you understand why I feel the way I do?

but the point remains that there are valid reasons why a Jew would be offended when we do temple work for a relative or ancestor murdered in the Holocaust without that making them a bigot.

Such as?

That Jews can find our proxy work on behalf of their ancestors and relatives offensive without being illogical bigots.

How so?

You have failed to show how proxy work for Holocaust victims DOESN'T involve the Holocaust victims.

Seriously? You really want me to prove a negative? The onus is on you to demonstrate that it does involve the Holocaust victim.

I think you're a thief. Prove me wrong.

That exhumation argument of yours is, to borrow a phrase, baloney. Especially with Holocaust victims, sometimes all that is left is a name.

Following that line of reasoning, we can conclude that we should never name a child the same name as someone who is dead, because we are taking his name away.

You've demonstrated your own, really. If you insist, I can certainly catalogue this beyond what I've already done.

So far, you have done nothing at all except assert that LDS temple ordinances are offensive. You have produced not a single argument to substantiate that assertion.

Have done nothing of the sort. The point is, if the ordinance has nothing whatsoever to do with their ancestor or relative, then why do we use that name? You know perfectly well that our ordinances involve the person who bore the name that is on the card.

So what? In what way does it touch the dead, incinerated individual?

This is not their position at all. You are performing an ordinance that you consider valid for their ancestor or relative without gaining their consent first.

But I'm not performing an ordinance that THEY consider valid for their ancestors. Ergo, nothing offensive is happening.

How do the temple ordinances not involve those they are being performed for?

Because the individual is not present, is not in any way affected by what takes place, is not placed in a position of public mockery, or anything else of the sort. If you are not a believing Latter-day Saint, there is no possible way that you can believe the LDS ordinances touch the person whose name is on the card.

Edited by Vort
Removed needless ad hominems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort,

Since we are all mortals there is no way that you or anyone else can speak for another human being in this world or the next on what they do or do not believe.

Just because a Jew does not belong to the LDS church does not mean they absolutely dis-believe the LDS ordinances can or cannot touch a person. Jews are not so black and white in their thinking and beliefs as you seem to be. Jews are highly encouraged to seek and study for themselves. There is no specific creed or dogma among most Jews (save perhaps the most Orthodox that are quite the minority).

Jews are for the most part open to theory and think in terms of possibilities. Although the majority do not believe in a literal hell as many christians do, they do believe in life after death which can most possibly and even probably include a full consciousness and personal identity of themselves, their name and identity with other Jews. It is why the naming of a Jew is so important and why lineage is also important to a Jew.

One thing that is highly impoetant to the majority of Jews is the REMEMBRANCE of their dead ancestors.

A Practice called yahrzeit is when a living family member or dear friend will light a candle over the name of the deceased on the anniversary of their death. It is a way of remembering their name. A prayer called the Mourners Kaddish is recited in remembrance of the deceased. It is not a prayer for their soul. It is a prayer to honor God in their memory. The reciting of their name and remembering their name is extremily important.

There is a specific day of REMEMBRANCE holiday set aside for Jews who perished in the holocaust called Yom Hashoah. At this time many Jews make candles or get them from synagogues and Jewish Community centers and label each one with the NAMES of the murdered ones. They then light the candle and say the Mourners Kaddish which is a prayer NOT FOR THEIR SOUL but to HONOR GOD IN THEIR MEMORY since the murdered Jews may not have family or people around to say the Mourners Kaddish for them. Again the name of the deceased is important because as the other poster stated, that is all they have. Their name is their constant even when there is no one to remember them as they were in life.

There is a very heart warming story of a man who just before his death in the gas chamber siad that he hoped that "his people": Not his family sindce they were also about to die, but his people the National of Israel, fellow Jews, would say Kaddish and REMEMBER HIS NAME. Not people that remembered him opersonally but his name. It is that important.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with LDS or being LDS. It is an important ritual. Even though I am a member of the LDS church, I want upon my loved ones to observe Yahrziet after my own death and say the Morners Kaddish and honor God in my memory.

For Jews this gives comfort to the surviving family and for many it is believed it also gives comfort to the deseased as well. A Jew's name and the memory of that name is very important. It is what Jews have that they hold dear whether it is etched on a yahrziet wall in a synagogue, or remembered on the inside cover of a prayer book, or spoken verbally by another or merely scralled on a sheet of paper.

Now back to the baptism ordinances. Vort, WHY would it be important for you to submit the name of baptize by proxy a name presented to you someone who did not give their consent or whose living family members opposed it? Why is it so important to YOU? I ask this especially since the Church has agreed not to baptize holocaust victims per their request and/or the request of their relatives still living.

Believe me when I come across a fellow Jew that tells me they would be fine with me performing an ordinance, I would be proud and honored to be able to be a part of it. And I would also likely still recite the Mourners Kaddash for them on the anniversary of their death.

For those that have expressed that they do not want their name submitted for baptism, OR even if an athiest Jew asked me to not recite Mourners Kaddish for them, I would refrain from doing that too because I believe that truly loving our neighbors as ourselves as Jesus taught us to do; means to also honor and respect their wishes, and to leave the judging of them to God. And there is no honor in calling them derrogatory names or accusing anyone of bigotry when they simply are not comfortable with having their precious name and identity (and yes it is precious to them), for the sake of you feeling superior in your thinking. It simply serves no good purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now