Would you be offended if...

[LDSJewess]

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.

Ok just to get this straight though. Using the op analogy, do you think that if you had a loved one who was a soldier that died in Iraq or Afghanistan, that Muslems would take his or her name and do a religious ordinbance on them because they liked them?????

[Dravin]

Ok just to get this straight though. Using the op analogy, do you think that if you had a loved one who was a soldier that died in Iraq or Afghanistan, that Muslems would take his or her name and do a religious ordinbance on them because they liked them?????

Presumably they are doing it because they care for his soul (or out of obedience and with the idea that it's beneficial to his soul in some manner). "Liking" him as a person probably isn't the best way to describe it though.

Actually that brings up an interesting side question, what if they had a rite damning them to hell, would you be offended? Personally I'd still be meh about it, they can't actually **** anyone to hell, they're welcome to claim they're doing so though.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Dravin

[Lossie_Bear]

I wouldn't be offended because I'm strong enough in my faith to know what is true and what is not. I wouldn't be offended because in my eyes it would be an act I didn't believe would have any real significance.

On the other hand, to make it general and say 'soldiers that died' makes it easier to say that. Even though I have family in the Navy stationed out there, I think it might be harder for me if it were a very close family member of mine. If my son died and I felt that a religion was desecrating his name I might be more defensive-my emotions would cloud my better judgment, and my emotional connection to my son would make it hard to swallow. THIS is how I think some Jewish members must feel..

Even though I'm LDS, and I know baptism for the dead is an essential part of the gospel, I can still see why someone of another faith might misunderstand our intentions and be offended or hurt.

In this I'd like to reach out to those who might feel this way and say: In no way shape or form would I even imagine disrespecting those you love. When I do this for my family, and loved ones.. I truly feel it gives them the chance to accept the gospel, and if they so choose.. deny it. It's simply a choice we want to present to those we love. I always seek the approval of the family of those I baptize that are not of my family tree. I do this because our God is not unfair, he is just. And if there are those who haven't had the chance to be baptized and wish to be.. I know our Father will grant this unto them. So, I try my best to do right by those I love, and by the loved ones of others.. but if I can't do this for them, I know that in the end mercy and fair judgment will be granted to those who were unable to attain a stand in for their body.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Lossie_Bear

[mordorbund]

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.

Let me summarize then the source of offense and you tell me if it's accurate. It would be offensive to someone in Western culture if someone exhumed the deceased and perfomed initiation rites on it because:

• The grave is legally owned by the survivor and cannot be tampered without consent.
• The corpse itself is legally owned by survivor and cannot be tampered without consent.
• Legality aside, the survivors' culture dictates that it is offensive to disturb the grave, so the survivor is offended.
• The survivors' culture also dictates that it is offensive to disturb the corpse, so the survivor is offended.

Looking at this, I wonder how well defined the second point is. Does a widow actually own the remains of her husband? In the event of her death, are the remains owned by the children? How many generations does this go? Am I co-owner of my grandparents' remains with my cousins? (I'm actually kind of curious now)

Legality aside, it sounds like in our culture the grave is sanctified by the presence of the body. So if the ritual is performed before the burial, the grave remains undesecrated. What culturally sanctifies the decaying corpse?

[Blocky]

A lot of us say 'I'd be ok with an other religion doing baptisms for the dead, I know it doesn't change anything.' At the same time a lot of us wouldn't be ok with others damning the dead to hell and eternal torment. Why not, it doesn't change anything, right? It's important to honor the livings memory of the dead. This means something different to different people. I can see how baptisms for the dead, even when done in a loving hopeful way, could be seen as insulting.

[Blackmarch]

A lot of us say 'I'd be ok with an other religion doing baptisms for the dead, I know it doesn't change anything.' At the same time a lot of us wouldn't be ok with others damning the dead to hell and eternal torment. Why not, it doesn't change anything, right? It's important to honor the livings memory of the dead. This means something different to different people. I can see how baptisms for the dead, even when done in a loving hopeful way, could be seen as insulting.

if the rite were to condemn a dead person to hell or torment or some equivalent, i'd find that saddening, but ultimately wouldn't care. (better for it to be done for someone who is dead and moved on)

If it involved digging up the remains of someone, then yes that would be offensive, in both the tradition of disturbing their resst as well as trespassing private property, and defiling a gravesite.

[Traveler]

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

Shakespeare once wrote, ”Nothing is as good or bad as it seems, only that thinking makes it so”.

I have contemplated for myself what best legacy to leave for my body of flesh and bones when my spirit has departed from it. I have determined that my last act of service and love towards G-d and my fellow man would be to leave my body to science; that some good could come in the capacity of teaching or discovery. I cannot think of any greater discretion of my body than to leave it worthlessly rotting in the ground (becoming dust - the scriptural symbol of that which is of all the most worthless) until the day of resurrection.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

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?

Islam does have something very similar. Two things are necessary, according to Islam, for a soul to return to Allah (G-d). One is to read the Qur’an. The other is to complete the Hajj (which is similar to our temple covenants). According to Islamic theology - a person can be saved after they are dead if someone will complete this for them. A Islamic friend of mine has promised me that when I die he or one of his family will complete the Hajj in my behalf (I have already read the Qur’an) . In turn I have promised to do his temple work when he dies.

I am not at all offended but deeply honored. I believe offenses come from misunderstandings - mostly concerning intent.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

If LDS perform live ordinances like baptism and sealings with the participants consent (or an underage person requires a parent’s consent), why not apply the same standard to proxy work? As LDSJewess has pointed out, the LDS church can’t trick or deceive a potential member into being baptized. I would think the LDS church would want potential members to realize the importance of the ordinance and be fully informed of what the ordinance means before an investigator consents to baptism. Why wouldn’t performing a proxy baptism be just as important? Why perform a proxy ordinance without the consent of at least a close family member, if the work is that important. From what I’ve been reading, I think the objection to the proxy work is more about the ability to give consent then with the ritual itself.

M.

[Vort]

If LDS perform live ordinances like baptism and sealings with the participants consent (or an underage person requires a parent’s consent), why not apply the same standard to proxy work?

Because the person for whom the ordinance is being performed is dead, and thus cannot give his/her consent.

As LDSJewess has pointed out, the LDS church can’t trick or deceive a potential member into being baptized. I would think the LDS church would want potential members to realize the importance of the ordinance and be fully informed of what the ordinance means before an investigator consents to baptism. Why wouldn’t performing a proxy baptism be just as important?

You seem to think that performing the baptismal ordinance means the person is being baptized. This is incorrect. The person is being baptized conditionally, that condition being that the person desires and consents to the baptism. No consent means no baptism.

Why perform a proxy ordinance without the consent of at least a close family member, if the work is that important.

Generally speaking, this is exactly what is done. Still, the question of proxy baptism for a dead adult is much different from the baptism of a living minor.

From what I’ve been reading, I think the objection to the proxy work is more about the ability to give consent then with the ritual itself.

If this were the case, then there would be no objection, for the reasons explained above.

[Maureen]

Because the person for whom the ordinance is being performed is dead, and thus cannot give his/her consent.

A child cannot give consent, but children still get baptized. A deceased person does not stop being real to a family member. I know LDS that see their deceased family members as still present in a spiritual sense. An LDS mother loosing a child, still includes that child when telling people how many children she has. I'm sure members of other faiths view their deceased family members similarily. If you believe proxy work "shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers", why not just be concerned with your own fathers and children and let others worry about theirs.

You seem to think that performing the baptismal ordinance means the person is being baptized. This is incorrect. The person is being baptized conditionally, that condition being that the person desires and consents to the baptism. No consent means no baptism.

Then why bother? If you are aware of people who would not consent, then why bother with busy work that will more than likely not produce what you want. Stick with your own family history work and the hope it brings. Why take the time to do work for people that you do not know. They mean nothing to you in a personal way, but they mean everything to their own family.

M.

[Vort]

A child cannot give consent, but children still get baptized.

I probably do not understand your point. A child most certainly can give consent; no child would be baptized against his or her own will. But in addition to his or her own consent, a minor child requires the consent of a guardian adult. Such a proscription does not apply to a dead person, and certainly not to a dead adult.

A deceased person does not stop being real to a family member. I know LDS that see their deceased family members as still present in a spiritual sense. An LDS mother loosing a child, still includes that child when telling people how many children she has. I'm sure members of other faiths view their deceased family members similarily. If you believe proxy work "shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers", why not just be concerned with your own fathers and children and let others worry about theirs.

I don't understand why you keep coming back to this point. I am not worried about others. I am content with doing proxy work for my own family. This is not a question of what I want to do; it's a question of how and why people find things offensive.

Then why bother? If you are aware of people who would not consent, then why bother with busy work that will more than likely not produce what you want.

Again, I probably do not understand what you're driving at. It sounds like you are saying that people who are not Mormon and who die are unlikely to accept the gospel in the next life. If that is what you are saying, then I disagree. I see no reason to put such limitations on people's choices.

Stick with your own family history work and the hope it brings. Why take the time to do work for people that you do not know. They mean nothing to you in a personal way, but they mean everything to their own family.

Because it costs me little, and the surviving family nothing, for me to submit their name to have their work done. And if I do the work myself, I'm volunteering the effort, because even if I didn't know the person, I believe him to be a child of God and thus worth the rather minimal effort of a few hours' time.

You seem to think that doing temple ordinances harms the survivors. This suggests that you find the ordinance work itself intrinsically offensive. Why?

[Maureen]

I probably do not understand your point. A child most certainly can give consent; no child would be baptized against his or her own will...

Not true; there are parents that do not ask the child for their permission - my husband was not asked.

...This is not a question of what I want to do; it's a question of how and why people find things offensive.

OK then, why Vort are you so offended by Jewish people that take offense with rituals done on their behalf without their permission?

...I see no reason to put such limitations on people's choices.

You would prefer that they didn't have a say at all?

You seem to think that doing temple ordinances harms the survivors. This suggests that you find the ordinance work itself intrinsically offensive. Why?

And this suggests that you are paranoid and suspicious of other people's comments. Why is that Vort?

M.

[Dravin]

Because the person for whom the ordinance is being performed is dead, and thus cannot give his/her consent.

It has been noted that the consent of the deceased is required for the ordinance to have any efficacy. So proxy work does not result in people being forced into ordinances against their will. Of course as LDS we presuppose it's obvious they'd want to, but records note which work has been put out there for people to accept, and while people have received spiritual confirmations of acceptance, that James Smith had his work for him as noted in the records is just that, a statement the proxy work has been completed not accepted.

[Vort]

I probably do not understand your point. A child most certainly can give consent; no child would be baptized against his or her own will...

Not true; there are parents that do not ask the child for their permission - my husband was not asked.

Good point. I should have said that it is improper and unusual for a child to be baptized without his or her consent. Your husband is a rare, though probably not unique, exception.

That still does not negate my point.

OK then, why Vort are you so offended by Jewish people that take offense with rituals done on their behalf without their permission?

I am not, because we don't do any rituals for people who don't give their permission. Such a thing is not possible. If the person does not give permission, the ritual is of no effect. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

...I see no reason to put such limitations on people's choices.

You would prefer that they didn't have a say at all?

You have not understood me, or you have ignored what I said. We never baptize people, even by proxy, without their explicit permission.

You seem to think that doing temple ordinances harms the survivors. This suggests that you find the ordinance work itself intrinsically offensive. Why?

And this suggests that you are paranoid and suspicious of other people's comments. Why is that Vort?

I think your nastiness is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I am neither paranoid nor suspicious of others' comments.

Now please answer my questions.

[Maureen]

...I think your nastiness is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I am neither paranoid nor suspicious of others' comments.

But your nastiness in the other thread was and is appropriate?

Now please answer my questions.

Your one and only question seems more rhetorical since you are only speculating about what my comments could possibly mean. In other words it's not a real question, only a jab.

M.

[mnn727]

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.

I agree 100% and would like to point out thats its a realitivly small (but vocal) percentage of Jews that care about our baptisms for the dead.

[Vort]

But your nastiness in the other thread was and is appropriate?

Which nastiness might that be? That I think bigotry is at the root of complaints about temple proxy root? That's not nastiness, that's my opinion on the matter.

Your one and only question seems more rhetorical since you are only speculating about what my comments could possibly mean. In other words it's not a real question, only a jab.

You are wrong. It is not rhetorical, it is a sincere question. Let me restate it, in context, so you can answer it.

You seem to think that doing temple ordinances harms the survivors. This suggests that you find the ordinance work itself intrinsically offensive. Why?

[Maureen]

Which nastiness might that be? That I think bigotry is at the root of complaints about temple proxy root? That's not nastiness, that's my opinion on the matter.

No, it is nastiness; especially since it is just your opinion. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

...You seem to think that doing temple ordinances harms the survivors.

Your perception of what I think is incorrect.

This suggests that you find the ordinance work itself intrinsically offensive. Why?

First of all, to assume that I would answer this in the affirmative is arrogant. And second, it is my opinion that if you perform rituals because you personally believe they are valid for you and your family, then great; but don't assume that those same rituals are appreciated or sought after by people of other faiths.

M.

[Vort]

No, it is nastiness; especially since it is just your opinion. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

How does it being my opinion make it nasty?

First of all, to assume that I would answer this in the affirmative is arrogant.

How so?

And second, it is my opinion that if you perform rituals because you personally believe they are valid for you and your family, then great; but don't assume that those same rituals are appreciated or sought after by people of other faiths.

What on earth made you think that I believe LDS temple rites "are appreciated or sought after by people of other faiths"? What an absurd belief that would be. I am quite sure I have never even suggested anything of the sort.

[Maureen]

Vort, it is my opinion that you are as thick as a brick. Your questions suggest that you cannot think outside of your own little world? Why?

M.

[Vort]

Vort, it is my opinion that you are as thick as a brick. Your questions suggest that you cannot think outside of your own little world? Why?

Are such personal attacks really warranted, Maureen?

You haven't yet answered my questions.

[john doe]

Okay guys, let's lighten up and call it a night before someone says something they wish they hadn't.

[Vort]

Okay guys, let's lighten up and call it a night before someone says something they wish they hadn't.

Hmmm. Somehow, I kinda doubt that Maureen is in danger of saying anything she will regret.

[Traveler]

Maureen: Sorry to interrupt but the point missing in all this is that according to our LDS theology every adult (accuntable person) that ever lived on earth will have their work done for them sooner or later.

The sad thing in our society is that for the most part what is done - outside of the temple - for the dead is for the vanity and/or confort of the living. That which is done for the dead in the temples is for the salvation of the dead. And our service will mean absolutely nothing if the dead do not accept it 100% without any reservations.

Any policy of not doing the work for someone is nothing more than PR that must change. In essence, with some groups, the work is delayed - but it will be done.

The Traveler

Edited June 11, 2011 by Traveler