mormonboy51

Does the LDS faith offend the Jewish?

Recommended Posts

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.

Then this leads to a dilemma. There are exactly two possibilities:

  • The LDS ordinances for the dead are efficacious.
  • The LDS ordinances for the dead are not efficacious.

These are the only two possibilities. (If there is a third, please let me know.) Let us examine each in turn.

  • The LDS ordinances for the dead are efficacious. How can this be possible? It can be possible ONLY if the following two conditions are met:

    • God himself authorizes and approves of the LDS ordinances.
    • The individual for whom the ordinance work is done personally approves of and desires to receive the ordinances.

    By #1 above, the rites have divine approval, so therefore no man or woman can reasonably object to them. By #2 above, the individual has given consent and expressed desire for these ordinances, so it can in no possible way be claimed that they are being "converted away from Judaism" (or from anything else) without their consent.

  • The LDS ordinances for the dead are not efficacious. In this case, the LDS ordinances do nothing whatsoever to the dead person, to his family, to his memory, or to anything else in the entire world (except perhaps to the persons performing the ordinance). The worthless ordinances cause no effect; therefore, they do not in any sense touch the dead, and cannot be considered a desecration of the dead.
In other words, whichever of the two possibilities above is correct, neither constitutes a desecration of the dead.

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).

This has little or nothing to do with particular religious beliefs of Jews. This has to do with simple, obvious reason.

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.

Very interesting.

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?

What have I written that suggests I find it important to submit such names?

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.

I have made my beliefs on that topic clear, I think. My beef is not with the agreements or decisions of the Church's leadership; it is with the undisguised bigotry of those who rail against us for practicing private forms of worship that they don't like.

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.

Naming their bigotry for what it is does not constitute passing what Elder Oaks described as "final judgment" on people. By any 21st-century American measure, my grandmother was racist. She would certainly qualify in word and expression as a bigot today. Yet I have little doubt that she calmly awaits her resurrection and subsequent exaltation while she pursues the work God has for her.

We all have weaknesses. I daresay we all have prejudices and even bigotry. I hope not to be condemned by God for my weaknesses, prejudices, or bigotry. I do not condemn the Jews who rail against the Church for their ignorance; rather, I hope they eventually lose their hatred and bigotry. But that doesn't mean I will refuse to identify their bigotry for what it is.

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.

Where did you get the idea that I call out their bigotry "for the sake of...feeling superior in [my] thinking"? That is a false statement.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE=Vort;598237]What has that to do with offense at temple ordinances?

You tried to minimise the suffering and persecution of Jews by portraying it as a thing of the past. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because they suffered these for being Jewish. That has quite a bit to do with why they would find LDS rituals on behalf of their ancestors and relatives offensive.

Abstain from pork: Jewish religious belief.

Temple work: LDS religious belief.

Apples and oranges. Abstaining from pork is a dietary law, temple work isn't. Abstaining from pork isn't a form of proxy work for the dead. Your example is invalid.

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.

I am criticising your ignorant, intolerant and offensive opinions which are in public view on a message board. They do us absolutely no good.

Correct.

Then my hoping for logic (and by extension understanding) in your posts is probably a lost cause.

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

The point is that they are reasonable. They are not illogical, immature, or bigotted. The Church obviously agrees, given our compromise.

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.

With the long history behind this whole issue, it is and can be considered so even by tolerant individuals.

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.)

Again, an individual doesn't have to see the ritual as valid to find it offensive when applied to a relative or ancestor without permission. By way of pertinent, if imperfect analogy, f I went to, say, a synagogue and performed a pagan ritual there, then people could take offence even if neither I nor they believe in the validity or efficacy of the ritual.

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

A good deal of uncharitable possibilities suggest themselves.

Such as?

How so?

If you are still going to pretend that whith a long history of Christian persecution Jews are illogical, immature bigots if offended by proxy work done for Holocaust victims, then you've proven my points about your intolerance and ignorance.

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.

Your false and baseless accusation merits no response. As to the rest of this, you display a shocking propensity for logical fallacies. I did not call on you to prove a negative. It is very easy to prove one way or the other if the proxy ordinances done for and on behalf of Holocaust victims involve Holocaust victims. If it is done for and on behalf of a Holocaust victim, then it involves a Holocaust victim.

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.

The logical fallacies show no sign of letting up, do they. If I were to name my child Isaac that isn't taking the name Isaac away from Isaac 'Yatzek' Lubetski, son of Mordechai and Rochke (no relation to any real Yatzek, Mordechai and Rochke Lubetskis) murdered in Slobodka on 08/06/1941. However, if proxy work was to be performed for and on behalf of an Isaac Lubetski, death date of 08/06/1941, location Ukraine, whose parents are listed as Mordechai and Rochke, I think it safe to say that it is not just a random computer-generated combination of letters, dates and location, but involves that same Yatzek the Holocaust victim.

LDSJewess is absolutely right about the importance of a name, Yad Vashem literally means a memorial and a name.

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.

The fact remains that this thread wouldn't be here if they weren't offensive to Jews when done for and on behalf of deceased Jews. Contrary to your assertion, I have provided quite a bit of evidence, and you are welcome to reread my posts if you still believe I haven't substantiated the assertion.

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

This must be your favourite strawman. Nobody is claiming that the reason for offense is exhuming and physically touching their ancestors and relatives with our hands or any other instrument. You seem to believe that that is the only thing they should find offensive.

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

It doesn't have to be valid for it to cause offense. You harp on this, yet claim to understand. You are infringing on what they consider the sanctity of THEIR relatives and ancestors who were murdered for being Jewish.

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.

Part of the issue is that Christian ordinances performed for a Jew murdered because they were a Jew IS something that most Jews would consider mockery. These ordinances are performed for and on behalf of someone, ergo that someone is involved. They don't have to be actively involved, but they are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2010 at 2:52 PM, mormonboy51 said:

Does the LDS church offend the Jewish? Does our baptisms for the dead offend you because we could be baptizing someone who died in the holocaust?

I am not yet Jewish or Latter day Saint but I have the impression that a solid twenty to thirty percent of Jewish scholars might NOT be offended by Latter day Saints being baptized for deceased Jews.  

Yes..... a significant percentage of Jews would be offended but...... here is  something from "My Descent Into Death" by former Atheist Howard Storm that I believe would tend to pacify the wrath of the Jews who would tend to be offended.  

Quote

"I asked how God could let the Holocaust of World War II happen. We were transported to a railway station as a long train of freight cars was being unloaded of its human cargo. The guards were screaming and beating the people into submission. The people were Jewish men, women, and children. Exhausted from hunger and thirst, they were totally disoriented from the ordeal of being rounded up and sent on a long journey to an unknown destination. They believed that they were going to work camps, and that their submission to the brutality of the guards was the only way to survive.

We went to the area where the selection process was taking place and heard the guards talking about "the Angel Maker." We went to the place the guards were referring to as "the Angel Maker," which was a series of ovens. I saw piles of naked corpses being loaded into the ovens, and I began to cry. Jesus said to me, "These are the people God loves." Then he said, "Look up." Rising out of the smoke of the chimneys, I saw hundreds of people being met by thousands of angels taking them up into the sky. There was great joy in the faces of the people, and there appeared to be no trace of a memory of the horrendous suffering they had just endured. How ironic that the guards sarcastically called the ovens "the Angel Maker."

I asked how God could allow this to happen. They told me that this was not God's will. This was an abomination to God. God wants this never to happen again. This was the sacrifice of an innocent people to whom God had given the law to be an example, a light, to the rest of the world. This Holocaust was breaking God's heart. The anguish that Jesus was suffering at the slaughter of his people was too much for me to bear and I begged that we leave this place. I will never forget this: his anguish at this horror and what it represents. This was one of the low points in human history."

I asked, Why does God let things like this happen? They told me that God was very unhappy with the course of human history and was going to intervene to change the world. God had watched us sink to depths of depravity and cruelty at the very time that he was giving us the instruments to make the world a godlier world. God had intervened in the world many times before, but this time God was going to change the course of human events." (Howard Storm, My Descent Into Death, page 42,43)

 

Edited by DennisTate
spelling

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