Would you be offended if...

[Guest saintish]

This question comes from my reflection on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/jewish-beliefs-board/33640-does-lds-faith-offend-jewish-6.html#post598376

It seems like for Mormons (myself included) it is hard for us to understand why people of other faiths object to baptisms of the dead. While I don't completely understand their objections, I do respect them and sympathize. I am trying to think of an analogous situation within other religions.

Here’s my attempt: assume Islam had an initiatory ordinance, would you be offended if Muslims subjected the names of soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to this ordinance?

[Blackmarch]

This question comes from my reflection on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/jewish-beliefs-board/33640-does-lds-faith-offend-jewish-6.html#post598376

It seems like for Mormons (myself included) it is hard for us to understand why people of other faiths object to baptisms of the dead. While I don't completely understand their objections, I do respect them and sympathize. I am trying to think of an analogous situation within other religions.

Here’s my attempt: assume Islam had an initiatory ordinance, would you be offended if Muslims subjected the names of soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to this ordinance?

AS an LDS, I would not be.

[Jennarator]

I would not, because I don't believe they have the authority to make what they are doing legit. For all care people could be praying over me, trying vodoo and such and since I know that Satan can't get his way with me unless I let him. If a cult popped up that decided to throw their Holy Water at people on the streets to "save" them, I would only be concerned about it messing up my hair. If my husband was in the millitary, died in Afghanistan, and they did some kind of religious cerimony to have his spirit join their religion, I would know that I don't belive it to make any differnce. They don't have the authority to do anything.

Now, if they did have the authority, and I just didn't know it or believe it, and it did end up saving my husband's spirit because he accepted it on the other side, I would be greatful they could do that and give him the choice on the other side.

I, personally, don't see the harm in what we do as LDS, because we make it clear that the spirits on the other side can accept or reject what we did. I suppose some people don't understand that. I can see that if they thought we were forcing them to be LDS how it could offend them. But I think since we are not forcing them to accept it on the otherside, then we should continue to do what we are doing. Eventually all will need their work do so they can have the chance to accept or reject.

[rameumptom]

They can do whatever they like in that manner, as long as they are not digging up bodies and desecrating them.

[Guest saintish]

so then what do you make of the Jews complaints about LDS baptisms for the dead? is it pure hatered of mormons?

[Jennarator]

so then what do you make of the Jews complaints about LDS baptisms for the dead? is it pure hatered of mormons?

I just think part of it is that they don't fully understand. Perhaps some might also think we are focing them, when we are just giving them the chance to accept or reject. I'm sure many other things need to be taken into consideration as well.

[Backroads]

I wouldn't be offended. In my eyes, anything that anyone does for me that is positive in their faith is a compliment to me. They like me!

I don't know if "offense" is the right word. Some people simply feel different about their faith.

[Guest saintish]

I just think part of it is that they don't fully understand. Perhaps some might also think we are forcing them, when we are just giving them the chance to accept or reject. I'm sure many other things need to be taken into consideration as well.

In Jewish eyes what we are doing is blasphemy, they don't particularly care that we are doing it but they don't want us to involve the names of their loved ones.

Perhaps another example would be better: suppose a satanic cult holds a ritual which causes souls to be devoted to Satan in the afterlife. Now we know they have no power to do that but would you still like them to use the names of your ancestors for that purpose?

[Jennarator]

In Jewish eyes what we are doing is blasphemy, they don't particularly care that we are doing it but they don't want us to involve the names of their loved ones.

Perhaps another example would be better: suppose a satanic cult holds a ritual which causes souls to be devoted to Satan in the afterlife. Now we know they have no power to do that but would you still like them to use the names of your ancestors for that purpose?

To be 100percent honest. No, I wouldn't care enough to worry about it. I might have the passing thought, well that seems kind of dumb, other than that, I wouldn't care.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Jennarator

[Guest saintish]

OK, well then if you did care do you believe that you would have the right to ask them to not preform that rite?

[Jennarator]

Only if they involve the actual badies of the dead.

[Vort]

In Jewish eyes what we are doing is blasphemy, they don't particularly care that we are doing it but they don't want us to involve the names of their loved ones.

Perhaps another example would be better: suppose a satanic cult holds a ritual which causes souls to be devoted to Satan in the afterlife. Now we know they have no power to do that but would you still like them to use the names of your ancestors for that purpose?

OK, well then if you did care do you believe that you would have the right to ask them to not preform that rite?

saintish, you aren't getting the answers you want, so you keep changing the question.

People already answered you. They said that the idea of proxy conversion would not bother them. Your switch to "devoting their souls to Satan" is specious and utterly irrelevant.

If you just keep changing the question around, you'll eventually arrive at the answer you want. But if your point is actually to learn something, maybe you would do better to pay attention to the responses rather than recraft your question to evoke the desired response.

[rameumptom]

Their view is that many Jews died in the holocaust for their beliefs. They see it as a blasphemy to their faith, as well as to history, for us to baptize. I can understand that, to a point.

That said, I would not be offended if Muslims or Baptists baptized Joseph Smith or my grandmother in proxy into their religions. The baptism would be meaningless if my ancestor did not accept it. And if they did accept it, then that is their choice, not mine, to make.

[Jennarator]

Their view is that many Jews died in the holocaust for their beliefs. They see it as a blasphemy to their faith, as well as to history, for us to baptize. I can understand that, to a point.

That said, I would not be offended if Muslims or Baptists baptized Joseph Smith or my grandmother in proxy into their religions. The baptism would be meaningless if my ancestor did not accept it. And if they did accept it, then that is their choice, not mine, to make.

Exactly what I meant. :)

[estradling75]

I don't see the Jewish position of 'don't baptize our dead' as coming from a place of bigotry. Because for me a bigot against the Church or its rites would be against them all, which they are not.

I see the position coming from heighten sense of persecution, and its related protectiveness to the Jewish Identity. Basically if someone gets hit on often enough they are going to start flinch at totally harmless movements.

[Guest saintish]

saintish, you aren't getting the answers you want, so you keep changing the question.

People already answered you. They said that the idea of proxy conversion would not bother them. Your switch to "devoting their souls to Satan" is specious and utterly irrelevant.

If you just keep changing the question around, you'll eventually arrive at the answer you want. But if your point is actually to learn something, maybe you would do better to pay attention to the responses rather than recraft your question to evoke the desired response.

Why the contention vort? I resent the attitude and false presumption that I am simply trying to get people to agree with me. If you refuse to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes that’s your problem not mine.

I am trying to understand the Jewish opposition to baptisms for the dead. I actually agree that it is a harmless practice but if we are ever going to convince anyone else of that we must understand the reasons why they object. I am less concerned with why Mormons think it is ok and more concerned with why Jews object (perhaps I should be talking to Jews). I refuse to believe that it boils down to bigotry and stupidity.

[Vort]

Why the contention vort? I resent the attitude and false presumption that I am simply trying to get people to agree with me. If you refuse to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes that’s your problem not mine.

I am trying to understand the Jewish opposition to baptisms for the dead. I actually agree that it is a harmless practice but if we are ever going to convince anyone else of that we must understand the reasons why they object. I am less concerned with why Mormons think it is ok and more concerned with why Jews object (perhaps I should be talking to Jews). I refuse to believe that it boils down to bigotry and stupidity.

Perhaps you are right about the contention. My apologies. The other thread, specifically volgadon's personal attacks, have me feeling a bit peckish about the whole topic.

I think you are also right about asking Jews rather than Mormons. Good luck with that. I have spoken with quite a few, and their reactions so far have always boiled down to volgadon's diatribe: Basically, the actions are offensive because they are offensive. If you don't see them as offensive, it's because you're closing your eyes. They never offer justification for their taking offense beyond "we are a persecuted people, and such things offend us". That's it.

I wish you luck getting any more response from them. Even volgadon, who is (or claims to be) LDS, does not get past that response. If you manage to get something more, please let me know, because I'd love to have a bit more rational reason than "it offends me because it just does."

[mordorbund]

They can do whatever they like in that manner, as long as they are not digging up bodies and desecrating them.

Why draw the line at the physical body? The dead is no longer using it. The living don't care about it enough to preserve it. No one is checking up on it periodically (except maybe Catholics looking for beatification). Why would it not be ok for them to ceremonially dress and initiate the body? They have to deal with the stench and the logistics, not me.

[Vort]

Why draw the line at the physical body? The dead is no longer using it. The living don't care about it enough to preserve it. No one is checking up on it periodically (except maybe Catholics looking for beatification). Why would it not be ok for them to ceremonially dress and initiate the body? They have to deal with the stench and the logistics, not me.

I would have a problem with others digging up the remains of my loved ones, or for that matter taking their ashes, and doing some religious rite with them. That is far beyond the pale. Most people would agree that such could be interpreted, in fact would be interpreted, as a desecration of someone's remains.

The same cannot reasonably be said about someone's name. I can name my chid, or my boat, or my dog, after someone who is dead. Using that name in a private worship ceremony cannot reasonably be considered offensive. It can, however, unreasonably be considered offensive, as we have constant proof.

[rameumptom]

Because the movement or changing of the physical body is different than a symbolic event that can be done elsewhere. The family purchased the plot of land for that burial, and are connected to the body: placing flowers on special occasions, pulling weeds, fixing the tombstone. These are events that are done because the body is present in most cases. For someone to nab the body without permission would be trespassing, theft, and physically destroying the visible part of the individual. It goes beyond the symbolic action of an idea, to an actual physical act.

Huge difference.

[mordorbund]

I would have a problem with others digging up the remains of my loved ones, or for that matter taking their ashes, and doing some religious rite with them. That is far beyond the pale. Most people would agree that such could be interpreted, in fact would be interpreted, as a desecration of someone's remains.

Would you mind clarifying for me why it is beyond the pale; why it is desecration?

thanks

[Vort]

Would you mind clarifying for me why it is beyond the pale; why it is desecration?

thanks

By Western cultural dictates, the remains of an individual belong to his family, for them to dispose of as they see fit (and in keeping with local laws). So frowned upon is desecration of a corpse that it is a criminal activity in all Western countries. (I suspect the same is true all over the world, but I am not sure of that.)

"Desecration" means violating the sanctity of something. For a group to unearth or otherwise take some of the remains of the deceased without the express permission of the survivors is a gruesome theft, not to mention illegal. To subject those remains to religious rites without the permission of the survivors violates the sanctity of the resting place of the remains and of the family's determination of the state of those remains; ergo, a desecration.

Note that none of these principles applies to someone's name, especially in the context of a non-public ceremony.

[Dravin]

Here’s my attempt: assume Islam had an initiatory ordinance, would you be offended if Muslims subjected the names of soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to this ordinance?

Nope, I'd not be offended. Islam has no authority (with God) to actually do anything, and if they do then what they are doing is probably for the best.

so then what do you make of the Jews complaints about LDS baptisms for the dead? is it pure hatered of mormons?

I think Estradling put it well.

OK, well then if you did care do you believe that you would have the right to ask them to not preform that rite?

They do, of course I'm American. People can request or say what they like with a few exceptions (slander, incitement to violence, death threats and the like). Of course the right to ask someone not to do something isn't the same thing as the right to prevent them from doing something.

[dahlia]

so then what do you make of the Jews complaints about LDS baptisms for the dead? is it pure hatered of mormons?

I was Jewish before converting. When I first heard of baptisms for the dead in reference to Jews, I was upset. It has nothing to do with Mormons (I didn't even know anything about Mormons at the time). It has to do with many millions of Jews having died at the hands of Christians. They died for their faith then and they don't need Mormons or anyone else coming around to try to make them Christians or change their faith.

Having an understanding of baptisms for the dead now, I don't know if I am still offended, but I absolutely understand why Jews don't want it done and would never do it myself. For that matter, I wouldn't include my Christian relatives who were strong in their faith for baptism in the dead. My temple work will have to be limited to those relatives I don't know anything about, not people who I know were at Mass or in their Baptist church every Sunday.

For those who are born Mormon, you can't imagine how bizarre baptism for the dead sounds to those who are unaware of its biblical basis. I understand if people of any faith would be upset hearing that their dead relatives are being baptized.

[LDSJewess]

This question comes from my reflection on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/jewish-beliefs-board/33640-does-lds-faith-offend-jewish-6.html#post598376

It seems like for Mormons (myself included) it is hard for us to understand why people of other faiths object to baptisms of the dead. While I don't completely understand their objections, I do respect them and sympathize. I am trying to think of an analogous situation within other religions.

Here’s my attempt: assume Islam had an initiatory ordinance, would you be offended if Muslims subjected the names of soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to this ordinance?

I would be offended beyond words!!!! I don't believe one iota of the Muslem religion, but I would be infuritated if I had a son or daughter who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and then Muslems took their names and desecrated their names by performing an inititory right over them.

I have the same very strong opinion regarding Muslems that are trying to build a Mosque at ground zero.

Jews do not hate Mormons. They have a very live and let live attitude and tolerance of other faiths. But the live and let live thinking is that they do as they wish others can do as they wish so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

One thing I may add in this series of conversations is that Jews do believe in a conscious afterlife. Mormons believe in a concious afterlife. So if we all believe that life and consciousness does exist after physical death AND that death is merely an event and the extension to our current lives, then why is it so hard to believe it is different doing something involving the dead as the living. We would not take a person of another faith by the arm or carry them to the Temple in their sleep and baptize them, so why is it ok to do so when someone is dead? Just because they are not in this life? But they are alive just not here.

I have to say that if when I was investigating the church almost 20 years ago, I came across a congregation that thought of me as a hater because I was mindful of the feelings of the Jews regarding how they wanted to preserve their idenitiy and their memory in this life, and affter their death, I would have not joined the church.

I think it is important for ALL people to be mindful and respectful of the feelings of others regardless of whether or not they are in agreement.

It is true what they say about the discussion of religion and politics. These things are very personal and passionate to people. I believe that as we are taught in the LDS church to show a good example. We can live by example and we can do ordinances on those that do not oppose it. But to judge the minds and hearts of a peeople and assume that they are bigots and haters because they want to be FREE to practice their own religion in this life and the next without and interference is not setting a good example at all.

I have been reading a lot of terms from people that say Jews hate Mormons and Jews are bigots. But what I am seeing is anti semitism in it's most simple form. I don't believe for a moment that is what the Church would want us to do.

The LDS church has graciously complied by agreeing not to baptize holocaust victims without their permission. If it is the churches decision, then why are members that still want to take issue with it.