Would you be offended if...

[Maureen]

...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....

I would suspect that if the LDS church is true, then during the Millenium, all people will be more accepting since they will see things more clearly.

M.

[RipplecutBuddha]

let me re-post something I said in a separate thread regarding this issue.

Sometimes the reaction comes from a mild misunderstanding of what we believe we are doing through proxy work in the temple. Here are some of them;

-we baptize dead people

-we count temple baptisms in our membership count

-we force the spirits of the dead to accept the baptism

Allow me to clear these up at least. When a proxy baptism is performed, someone else is standing in a baptismal font in the temple. The only presence of the deceased is their name, and we believe their spirit may be present as well.

Proxy baptisms cannot be included in our membership counts because the person has passed on. All deceased members are taken off of the annual count, just like any other census would be handled.

Finally, when we do perform a proxy baptism, we believe that the individual in the spirit world is then given the option of either accepting it or rejecting it. We believe that our intelligences exist in the afterlife as we were in this life. We will still retain our identity, thoughts, preferences, etc. that we have developed in this life.

Thus if someone were to pass through death that was strongly opposed to the LDS church, then when their proxy baptism is performed, chances are they would reject it. Through temple work, we are only offering them the option to decide for themselves.

I hope this helps clear things up at least a little bit.

Now, having said that, people are going to be offended in life. The root causes can range from bigotry and real emotional hatred of another person/group, to a simple misunderstanding of intent, or poor communication.

Whatever the cause, we cannot live our lives walking on eggshells for the rest of the world in hopes that we won't offend anyone. All we can do is seek to be as clear and honest as possible in our communications. Some people will be offended no matter what we try. Even Christ offended people, did he change his actions to please them?

Those of us with a deep and abiding faith in Christ also have a deep belief that truth is eternal and unchanging. If someone is offended at our beliefs, turning away from them would be turning from truth we believe Christ has given us.

Now, with proxy baptism we believe it is based on eternal principles inseparably connected to the salvation of God's children. Because we seek to see as many people return to God's presence as possible, we perform this ordinance for those who may not have had the opportunity to hear of Christ or accept His gospel while in this life.

We aren't seeking to grow the population of the LDS church, and we aren't seeking to tear people from their historical heritage. We are performing a ceremony in the name of that person with the belief that in the spirit world, they will have the opportunity to either accept it or reject it.

At any time a relative or associated individual protests the ordinance in connection with specific names, the practice is stopped with those names. While we believe it is vital that everyone be offered the Gospel of Christ, we are not here to cause conflict.

The names of Holocaust victims will not be submitted for temple work until objections against it are lifted.

If one does not like our ordinances because they believe we defile the dead, that is an incorrect belief, because only the names are used in the temple.

If one does not like our ordinances because they think they are evil, that is a personal belief that can rane from pure religious differences to incorrect or incomplete information to real and actual bigotry. One does not necessarily lead to another, but any one of them can be the root cause for the disagreement.

Finally, it is not our role as LDS to alter our beliefs to please the rest of the world. We still believe the holocaust victims need to have their names put through the temple. However, and not to be repetitive about this issue but....so long as there are objections standing against their temple work being done, it will not be done. We strive to treat every person respectfully, living or dead.

[Vort]

Allow me to clear these up at least.

I appreciate your intent, but am sorry to say that you are clearing up nothing. Those with ears to hear have already learned this. Those of ill will, who wish to claim harm (or at least hurt feelings) over our practices, have no intention of listening to or understanding any such thing, as we have constant witness of.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I agree. I just wanted to be sure it had been said recently in the thread. More of a reminder than anything.

[LDSJewess]

let me re-post something I said in a separate thread regarding this issue.

Sometimes the reaction comes from a mild misunderstanding of what we believe we are doing through proxy work in the temple. Here are some of them;

-we baptize dead people

-we count temple baptisms in our membership count

-we force the spirits of the dead to accept the baptism

Allow me to clear these up at least. When a proxy baptism is performed, someone else is standing in a baptismal font in the temple. The only presence of the deceased is their name, and we believe their spirit may be present as well.

Proxy baptisms cannot be included in our membership counts because the person has passed on. All deceased members are taken off of the annual count, just like any other census would be handled.

Finally, when we do perform a proxy baptism, we believe that the individual in the spirit world is then given the option of either accepting it or rejecting it. We believe that our intelligences exist in the afterlife as we were in this life. We will still retain our identity, thoughts, preferences, etc. that we have developed in this life.

Thus if someone were to pass through death that was strongly opposed to the LDS church, then when their proxy baptism is performed, chances are they would reject it. Through temple work, we are only offering them the option to decide for themselves.

I hope this helps clear things up at least a little bit.

Now, having said that, people are going to be offended in life. The root causes can range from bigotry and real emotional hatred of another person/group, to a simple misunderstanding of intent, or poor communication.

Whatever the cause, we cannot live our lives walking on eggshells for the rest of the world in hopes that we won't offend anyone. All we can do is seek to be as clear and honest as possible in our communications. Some people will be offended no matter what we try. Even Christ offended people, did he change his actions to please them?

Those of us with a deep and abiding faith in Christ also have a deep belief that truth is eternal and unchanging. If someone is offended at our beliefs, turning away from them would be turning from truth we believe Christ has given us.

Now, with proxy baptism we believe it is based on eternal principles inseparably connected to the salvation of God's children. Because we seek to see as many people return to God's presence as possible, we perform this ordinance for those who may not have had the opportunity to hear of Christ or accept His gospel while in this life.

We aren't seeking to grow the population of the LDS church, and we aren't seeking to tear people from their historical heritage. We are performing a ceremony in the name of that person with the belief that in the spirit world, they will have the opportunity to either accept it or reject it.

At any time a relative or associated individual protests the ordinance in connection with specific names, the practice is stopped with those names. While we believe it is vital that everyone be offered the Gospel of Christ, we are not here to cause conflict.

The names of Holocaust victims will not be submitted for temple work until objections against it are lifted.

If one does not like our ordinances because they believe we defile the dead, that is an incorrect belief, because only the names are used in the temple.

If one does not like our ordinances because they think they are evil, that is a personal belief that can rane from pure religious differences to incorrect or incomplete information to real and actual bigotry. One does not necessarily lead to another, but any one of them can be the root cause for the disagreement.

Finally, it is not our role as LDS to alter our beliefs to please the rest of the world. We still believe the holocaust victims need to have their names put through the temple. However, and not to be repetitive about this issue but....so long as there are objections standing against their temple work being done, it will not be done. We strive to treat every person respectfully, living or dead.

Ok I think I see what the problems is on how Jews view this:

It is the we count temple baptisms in our membership count

Now I do understand that a deceased person baptized by proxy is not considered to be a member, but correct me if I am wrong, that the LDS church DOES indeed keep a record of a name including birth, death and possibly proxy baptismal dates???? Is this not so?

We have gone round and round on this issue, but the issue is not whether Jews believe or disbleieve that proxy baptism can effect them spiritually. It is all about the name and the remembrance of their name throughout posterity for many many generations to come with their name being identitfied as a Jew. The other reason is that Jews were in the past forced to convert to Christianity or be killed which of course still strikes a very raw nerve.

Some Jews have thought of prozy baptism as something akin to the forced baptism of Jews practiced for centuries in Europe during the Middle Ages.

But the primary reason that Jews oppose the idea of proxy baptism is that they feel it disparages the memory of a deceased person which can obscure the historical record for future generations. In addition it is thought that when a Jew is baptized by proxy, the door is open for all of his deceased ancestors to be baptized as well. And if their baptismal records place before the public a revisionist view that these deceased Jews were Mormons, even though it is not a religion that they accepted in life, it askews the records for future generations of Jews for many generations to come.

Jews are taught to be committed to enumerating descendants, but would feel this would be difficult as they fee that records regarding the baptisms would distort their family ties and their historic links to Judaism.

Edited June 12, 2011 by LDSJewess

[Dravin]

But the primary reason that Jews oppose the idea of proxy baptism is that they feel it disparages the memory of a deceased person which can obscure the historical record for future generations. In addition it is thought that when a Jew is baptized by proxy, the door is open for all of his deceased ancestors to be baptized as well. And if their baptismal records place before the public a revisionist view that these deceased Jews were Mormons, even though it is not a religion that they accepted in life, it askews the records for future generations of Jews for many generations to come.

It's on the records of the Church that the ordinances are noted. It's not like the church is going to go editing genealogical records crossing out "Jew" with "Mormon". If the hypothetical in the OP took place it's not like all the records on the planet are going to change to accommodate it like some sort of time traveler changing the time line or something so that now all the records out there recording my hypothetical dead soldier brother's faith now indicate he was Muslim. You'd have a bunch of records in some Mosque somewhere reporting that the ordinance was done which one is free to discount as kooky people making and recording kooky claims if they so desire.

Also cries of revisionism make absolutely no sense. The LDS claim is that ordinances have been done on their behalf*, not that they were LDS.

* It's generally assumed by members the work is accepted by those it is performed on behalf of, but to my knowledge there is no record made by the Church that work was accepted by the deceased and even if it was the claim would be that they are now LDS.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Dravin

[LDSJewess]

You may know this BUT THEY DON'T. They don't go to the Temples to see the work done unless the became members of the LDS church in life and became Temple Worthy in life. The problem is that Jews believe this because they assume that theeir records and information is obtained from public records and somewhere it is indicated that ordinances have been done. They also are concerned that hundreds even thousands of years from now there will be records that may be mis-construed that they were baptized into anotheer religion and that their posterity may think that they were no longer practicing Judaism. The problem is not hatred, and intolerance and the problem is not boigotryu on the part of either Jews or Mormons. The problem is in lack of understanding. The fact that the ordinances are sacred to Mormons and not open to public view makes it even harder to understand to non-Mormons. The important part is that we all must maintain respect and tolerance for the choices that each individual makes.

[curiousheathen]

As a non-Mormon baptisms for the dead are one of the most offensive things to me. I would be equally offended by the Muslims doing something similar, as I also would find it offensive if my fellow Pagans started going around doing the same thing.

I know this was specifically for Mormons, but sometimes non-Mormon insight can be helpful. I'd be happy to explain via pm or whatever to avoid derailing the convo if anyone wants to know why.

[Dravin]

You may know this BUT THEY DON'T.

Then it might behoove them to do some research before they start accusing someone of something.

[LDSJewess]

Dravin,

I got to tell you that in my experience it is Jews that do more questioning about just about everything and research just about everything in much more detail than any other group of people I have encountered.

But Jews are human and they have to leave some things to speculation especially in the event where things are not open knowledge.

In the Jewish culture, there is no baptism, cleansing, immersion or similar for the dead, BUT they are very familiar with immersion ceremonies because Jewish converts undergo a very similar immersion ceremoney to baptism. They don't call it baptism per se, but it is pretty much the same idea. If one converts to Judaism, they immerse in water much like a Christian baptism, so this is not something Jesus just came up with nor is it unique to followers of Jesus. Since Jesus was a Jew he knew thias ritual among Jews as well, so immersion+conversion in the frame of reference of a Jew.

Secondly, Jews since the beginning have been fastidious about keeping records of anmes and who was the son or daughter or who and what tribe and so on and so on. Records are a huge deal to Jews. And Jews are aware that Mormons investiagte records of people all over the earth. The holocaust records were gathered, recorded and maintained by Jews, so naturally if Mormons search these records, then if they do ordinances on the names, then it would stand to logical reason that Mormons after performing ordinances would record and maintain a record of the ordinance. So again a Jew's frame of reference would be about how they view record keeping and the importance of it.

No one is foolish enough to think there could be more than one record or copies of records etc: but the issue is posterity. When decendants way down the line are searching for their own family history, what records may they come across? None of us can know for sure how that plays out because we are talking about possibilities in our future.

To a Jew (and I am telling you how they think of it), is like if a person dies as a Jew and the family places a Star of David on their tombstone or a memorial plaque, but then somewhere down the line and places a cross on the tombstone or errects another memorial plaque with a cross. I know Mormons don't do this. I am only saying that Jews are not asking to have their dead left out of ordinances becauser of hatred or bigotry toward Mormons or any other religion. No they don't fully understand, and unless you are a Temple Worthy Mormon to witnmess it, even some Mormons would not understand.

Perhaps the greatest concern for just about any Jew is having their identity or memory erased. That is what the Nazis tried to do. I think in their minds, any non-Jewish ordinance involving their names is a sophisticated way of erasing their memory and identity.

[Dravin]

Dravin,

I got to tell you that in my experience it is Jews that do more questioning about just about everything and research just about everything in much more detail than any other group of people I have encountered.

Except apparently with little details like we aren't editing genealogical records or claiming in our records that those who receive proxy baptism were always LDS/LDS in life. These aren't exactly closely guarded secrets, asking any LDS person who does the least bit of genealogy/temple work would have informed them such isn't the case.

Secondly, Jews since the beginning have been fastidious about keeping records of anmes and who was the son or daughter or who and what tribe and so on and so on. Records are a huge deal to Jews.

That's great, it means they aren't relying on LDS ordinance records to determine who was a practicing Jew in life or not (which really, would be a horrible source for such information).

When decendants way down the line are searching for their own family history, what records may they come across?

You mean the records that indicate someone was baptized after they died? Anyone who uses religious records without seeking out the necessarily context to interpret them properly probably deserves the confusion.

I know Mormons don't do this. I am only saying that Jews are not asking to have their dead left out of ordinances becauser of hatred or bigotry toward Mormons or any other religion.

I never said they were. I dittoed Estradling who said:

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.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Dravin

[RadDad]

no prob

[RipplecutBuddha]

Ok I think I see what the problems is on how Jews view this:

It is the we count temple baptisms in our membership count

Now I do understand that a deceased person baptized by proxy is not considered to be a member, but correct me if I am wrong, that the LDS church DOES indeed keep a record of a name including birth, death and possibly proxy baptismal dates???? Is this not so?

The only records we keep on any proxy work are those you indicate. Vital information to specifically identify the individual, what work was performed for them in the temple, and what dates the work was done.

We cannot record whether they accepted the ordinance as that act, we believe, takes place in the spirit world by the individual themselves. There's no way for us to know how many people have accepted the ordinance work we've done in the temples, Jewish or otherwise. Further, such information is not what we are concerned with. We are only concerned with extending the opportunity to the individual for a decision to be made.

We do keep track of what proxy work has been completed, however those numbers never have been, nor will they ever be, included in the population counts of the church.

As Vort has repeatedly stated, whether someone views proxy work as offensive, is entirely their choice, however they must make a decision as to why they are offended.

A. They can be offended if they view proxy work in the temple as actual and effectual work done that has a real consequence upon the dead.

B. They can be offended if the proxy work defiles and/or disturbs the deceased in any real way physically.

Since most people offended by proxy work in the temple are basing their decision on an emotional response, rational thinking rarely enters into the discussion.

It's pretty safe to say most non-mormons don't view anything we do in the temple as valid in any way shape or form. As such, option A. is not a rational conclusion.

It's also quite clear that the LDS church never has, nor will it ever physically effect the deceased in any way. The only presence of the deceased during a proxy ceremony is their name; something that cannot be taken from a deceased person at all. Nor does posession of a deceased person's name influence their physical remains at all. As such, option B. is also not a rational conclusion.

So long as opponents maintain that their dislike of the practice is emotional in its basis, I have no problem with it at all. This is why I support the decision to not perform the proxy work for Holocaust victims. If someone just doesn't like the idea of it, cool.

[Guest saintish]

I think there is a clear third option and i think it is the one that a majority of mainstream christians take.

c. Mormons distort the real christian baptism as found in the bible and therefor mock the sacred rite.

this may sound offensive to us but i think it is a legitamate veiw. we have to remember that other christians dont have prophets or continuing revelation, the Bible is their only souce of authority. I think we miss the make by saying A. and B. are the only options. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to be offended.

[mordorbund]

As Vort has repeatedly stated, whether someone views proxy work as offensive, is entirely their choice, however they must make a decision as to why they are offended.

A. They can be offended if they view proxy work in the temple as actual and effectual work done that has a real consequence upon the dead.

B. They can be offended if the proxy work defiles and/or disturbs the deceased in any real way physically.

Since most people offended by proxy work in the temple are basing their decision on an emotional response, rational thinking rarely enters into the discussion.

It's pretty safe to say most non-mormons don't view anything we do in the temple as valid in any way shape or form. As such, option A. is not a rational conclusion.

It's also quite clear that the LDS church never has, nor will it ever physically effect the deceased in any way. The only presence of the deceased during a proxy ceremony is their name; something that cannot be taken from a deceased person at all. Nor does posession of a deceased person's name influence their physical remains at all. As such, option B. is also not a rational conclusion.

And now we come back to my questions from before. Western culture accepts that it is offensive to "defile" or disturb the remains, but there is no rational reason for it (or at least, no one has given me a rational reason for it). Grandpa doesn't need his skull anymore, by all means drink wine from it.

It sounds like the Jewish culture associates the name with the identity of the person and it should not be used injudiciously. The honor their culture maintains towards their dead through their names should be respected by those who honor their dead through their remains.

[Vort]

And now we come back to my questions from before. Western culture accepts that it is offensive to "defile" or disturb the remains, but there is no rational reason for it (or at least, no one has given me a rational reason for it). Grandpa doesn't need his skull anymore, by all means drink wine from it.

It sounds like the Jewish culture associates the name with the identity of the person and it should not be used injudiciously. The honor their culture maintains towards their dead through their names should be respected by those who honor their dead through their remains.

This equivalency does not work. If it were the case, there would only be one Mordecai, or at least no more than one per family. People would never speak the name of any dead outside their family, because such would be a desecration of the name. A monument listing the names of the dead would be utterly out of the question.

This is fundamentally a matter of bigotry. They don't like our religious rites when applied to "their" names, when in no tangible sense can they claim "ownership" of such names. You can dress it up as a persecution complex forged by the horrors of the Third Reich and/or by centuries of discrimination, but ultimately it is what it is. They might as well get in a snit because we claim to be adopted into the descendency of Abraham; after all, Abraham was their ancestor, not ours, so how dare we claim kinship?!

[Guest saintish]

after a discussion with someone about this topic I am begining to think that it may be a mix of both stupidity and bigotry.

for your enjoyment:

“Holocaust victims families don't want you changing history and have their family member's name on a list making it look like they were victims because they were mormons and not jews. and you getting that tragic story credited to your victimology.”

[mordorbund]

This equivalency does not work. If it were the case, there would only be one Mordecai, or at least no more than one per family. People would never speak the name of any dead outside their family, because such would be a desecration of the name. A monument listing the names of the dead would be utterly out of the question.

We don't get to dictate how they use the names and memories of their dead. So if they feel it is honoring the memory of their deceased to etch the name into a wall, that is their perogative (I seem to remember a similar practice in Western culture as well). If they think it's a culturally fitting use of the name to appropriate it for their children, in hopes that their children will grow to the stature of a Mordecai, then that is for them to decide. I'm not saying that there aren't inconsistencies - I think every culture has to come to grips with the ideal and the tangible world.

It is my understanding that in your culture, marriage and family is sacred; and yet you have a process for divorce that divides asunder that holy union. I understand that temples are sacred for you; and yet you have facilities in them to fill with fecal matter. Imagine that! sewage in the House of the Lord. The name of the Lord is so sacred for you, that you call the Priesthood by a different name; but then you have talks given in the name of the Lord that contain quips and jokes. I could take this material and write God's Holy Jokebook. Similarly, the Priesthood name was changed to avoid the too frequent use of God's name, but I think the name of the Priesthood is used less frequently than congregational prayers, talks, and lessons where the name is used. The point being that there is an ideal of sacredness and sanctity, but it is left to the culture to decide what that means in practical terms.

[Maureen]

....this is fundamentally a matter of bigotry. They don't like our religious rites when applied to "their" names, when in no tangible sense can they claim "ownership" of such names. You can dress it up as a persecution complex forged by the horrors of the third reich and/or by centuries of discrimination, but ultimately it is what it is....

...by the same token, you should realize that the fact that you really, really believe something does not make it so....

:)

m.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Maureen