Church apologizes for baptisms

[RMGuy]

Most of you have probably seen the latest headlines regarding the baptism of holocaust victims and survivors. I am curiou as to what the group thinks.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550827/LDS-Church-apologizes-for-Jewish-baptisms-for-the-dead.html

Mormon church apologizes for baptisms of Wiesenthal’s parents | The Salt Lake Tribune

-RM

[Vort]

I think those who take offense at the Church's baptisms are in desperate need of getting a life. I have very, very little sympathy for such whiners.

That said, the Church has made it crystal clear that members are to do work only for their own ancestors or those who have been long dead. Moreover, the Church has specifically told people to avoid doing ordinance work for Holocaust victims unless they are relatives. That such work continues can only be attributed to willful disobedience, which in a way I find even more disturbing than some oversensitive weirdo's (cough*Mokotoff*cough) bloviating about "baptizing dead Jews".

[NeuroTypical]

Actually, I was only aware of the headlines from two or three years ago, and the other headlines from five or six years ago.

It seems like this happens every few years.

Step 1: Some well-intentioned mormon somewhere on Earth gets a bright idea about doing temple work for holocaust victims.

Step 2: Somehow word gets around to survivors groups or Jewish folk, some of whom occasionally look for this sort of thing coming from us Mormons.

Step 3: A big kerfuffle happens, media reports are written, well-intentioned member is educated, temple ordinances are removed.

Step 4: Start at step 1 with a new well-intentioned Mormon

[pam]

I've often wondered why some are so concerned over this. Not talking about Holocaust victims but others in general. If they don't believe in it, what difference does it make then?

[annewandering]

Mostly it is one woman looking for baptisms to complain about. She spends her time searching for someone who was baptized by mistake to complain about and cause trouble about.

Any sensible person has to realize the church can only do so much. There's always going to be someone who gets gungho about an idea and not check to see if it's ok.

It wouldnt surprise me at all to find out that some have been sent in by people trying to cause trouble and embarrass the church as well.

I dont understand that either, Pam, but they dont like it and they obviously misunderstand what is being done. Apparently, this time, they have also decided that its insulting that we believe these people need anything more than what Judaism has already provided to them.

It's just better to accept they are insulted and wait, probably to the millennium, to do those peoples work.

Edited February 16, 2012 by annewandering

[RMGuy]

Anne,

that is an interesting approach, the waiting to the millennium part, but what about other groups that are also offended, and I can think of several that might say, we want this to cease....islam, jehovah's witnesses, etc., come to mind....should we hold off on them as well? What about if you are a direct descendent of a holocaust victim?

Vort,

I would guess that you are probably correct that the majority of these instances arise from either:

1. Well intentioned members that simply didn't know about the agreement, or didn't know the name they submitted was part of that group

2. Individuals out to cause trouble.

Loudmouth,

Good point.....how do we then stop the cycle?

-RM

Edited February 16, 2012 by RMGuy

[Dravin]

That such work continues can only be attributed to willful disobedience, which in a way I find even more disturbing than some oversensitive weirdo's (cough*Mokotoff*cough) bloviating about "baptizing dead Jews".

I think there is room for ignorance in there. If one wants to look it is easy to find the rules, but if one doesn't look in the first place it's also easy to not encounter them until some names have slipped through. While there are family history classes and consultants (whom should be aware of the policy) they aren't required to submit names to my knowledge. So I can see someone living in a cave, as it were, concerning the rules could stumble across these records and not stop to consider why all this low hanging fruit (as it were) hasn't be done.

[RMGuy]

Dravin,

I would think that in at least some cases it is even possible that individuals working back through their family history come across some individuals in this group and include them, not knowing that they were holocaust victims or survivors...then someone else reviewing the records finds that the work was done....

I can totally assume good intentions and that this isn't done on purpose. But if we as a church have made an agreement, then I would think we have an obligation to live up to the promises we make. So how can we prevent it happening in the future?

-RM

[MarginOfError]

I've often wondered why some are so concerned over this. Not talking about Holocaust victims but others in general. If they don't believe in it, what difference does it make then?

Just to try and explain the other side....The difference is that in many cases, they simply don't understand our doctrines well enough to know that proxy baptism doesn't make their ancestor mormon, but merely gives their ancestor the opportunity to accept mormonism if they so choose. In a way, they perceive a remarkable arrogance--we seem to be saying, "If we don't get you alive, we'll get you when you're dead." That kind of arrogance is just plain irritating*.

The other disconcerting thing about it is that we sometimes do proxy baptisms for a person when there are still people alive who have very real and close feelings for those people. For instance, when we baptize by proxy someone's father, or grandmother, people interpret that as a jab at qualities that they were known by. For example, if I were to baptize my scoutmaster's grandfather (both my scoutmaster and his grandfather were very devout Episcopalians), my scoutmaster would probably interpret that as a slight to their Episcopalianism. I think baptizing people to whom we are not related and for whom there are still living relatives with close ties is rude.

On another note, some of this goes on within the Church too, as recorded here and here. Perhaps we can imagine how we'd feel in these circumstances and apply that to how those outside the Church feel when we baptize their relatives.

* Again, I understand that isn't actually what we're saying, but it's what they perceive; and that perception feels very real to them.

[Dravin]

The difference is that in many cases, they simply don't understand our doctrines well enough to know that proxy baptism doesn't make their ancestor mormon, but merely gives their ancestor the opportunity to accept mormonism if they so choose. In a way, they perceive a remarkable arrogance--we seem to be saying, "If we don't get you alive, we'll get you when you're dead." That kind of arrogance is just plain irritating*.

From their perspective, even if that was our doctrine, it doesn't make anyone's ancestors Mormon. To do that we'd need a bit of pull with the man upstairs, pull that anyone who isn't LDS doesn't believe we have. It's akin to me declaring your great grandmother Martian.

The only argument I've heard that makes sense to me is the issue of record keeping. As a people (Jews) who have received the short and energetic end of the stick a few times in history, so the concern is we're essentially erasing Jews from history posthumously. Only issue is why the future is:

1) Getting access to and using LDS temple ordinance records for such hypothetical future records of their ancestors.

2) Using LDS temple ordinance records without bothering to learn what the implication is for someone having been baptized after they died.

So I suspect it's a gut reaction thing rather than a thoroughly laid out arguement, but gut reactions can be strong. I would classify your, "How dare you! Oppose!" to fall into the gut reaction camp.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Dravin

[zenbones]

I have some recent experience of something related to this. My wife added my grandfather to new.familysearch about a month and a half ago. I went to print out a card with his name on it last Friday as we were going to the Temple the next day. To my surprised someone had already baptized him. Now my Grandfather has only been dead for 27 years. And my Grandmother is still alive. We emailed the person who did it and she said she was related about 8 generations down the line, far removed from being a close relative. We asked her to cease and desist. She said she just got carried away. To be honest it upset me a lot. Let this be a lesson to all, you need to reserve the names of your ancestors as soon as you add them or find them. Or else someone will do it for you.

[HEthePrimate]

Jana Riess offers an interesting perspective: Mormons Just Don't Understand Jews.

[Dravin]

I mentioned that I could imagine her not wanting her Mormon ancestors, who sacrificed so much in their efforts to live their faith, to have that sacrifice nullified by outsiders of another religion a century and a half later.

I'm curious how she proposes to do such? A time machine? That's ultimately the issue. We're not destroying records nor do we have access to time machines. Declare them Rastafarian (or other religion of choice) posthumously? That's not nullifying their sacrifice.

In Mormonism, it’s true that an unrequested temple ritual doesn’t make you a Mormon. But in Judaism, it’s true that certain rites can make you a Jew, even if they are performed without your consent.

If we were using Jewish rituals to convert people I could see it (assuming such rituals didn't require any sort of authority) but we aren't. Otherwise the only way it'd be an issue is:

1) Believe the LDS rituals are efficacious

2) But while efficacious the aspect of choice is somehow null.

If you don't understand that the aspect of choice is in play then it's understandable (given #1), but according to her even some protesters are aware that choice is an important element.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Windseeker]

Just to try and explain the other side....The difference is that in many cases, they simply don't understand our doctrines well enough to know that proxy baptism doesn't make their ancestor mormon, but merely gives their ancestor the opportunity to accept mormonism if they so choose. In a way, they perceive a remarkable arrogance--we seem to be saying, "If we don't get you alive, we'll get you when you're dead." That kind of arrogance is just plain irritating*.

The other disconcerting thing about it is that we sometimes do proxy baptisms for a person when there are still people alive who have very real and close feelings for those people. For instance, when we baptize by proxy someone's father, or grandmother, people interpret that as a jab at qualities that they were known by. For example, if I were to baptize my scoutmaster's grandfather (both my scoutmaster and his grandfather were very devout Episcopalians), my scoutmaster would probably interpret that as a slight to their Episcopalianism. I think baptizing people to whom we are not related and for whom there are still living relatives with close ties is rude.

On another note, some of this goes on within the Church too, as recorded here and here. Perhaps we can imagine how we'd feel in these circumstances and apply that to how those outside the Church feel when we baptize their relatives.

* Again, I understand that isn't actually what we're saying, but it's what they perceive; and that perception feels very real to them.

There are some who are truly ignorant, perhaps this is how they view it.

Bill Maher Performs Unbaptism of Mitt Romney’s Dead Father | Edward Davies | Video | TheBlaze.com

Bill Maher is such a jack n apes

[RMGuy]

There are some who are truly ignorant, perhaps this is how they view it.

Bill Maher Performs Unbaptism of Mitt Romney’s Dead Father | Edward Davies | Video | TheBlaze.com

Bill Maher is such a jack n apes

But that leads to not one, but two questions:

1. Would Romney be right to be upset by such an event?

2. Would Romney have a right to be upset by such an event?

-RM

[Jennarator]

I personally, think it's no big deal, the whole baptizing people that have passed. I know they can take it or lleave it. I would think that if they didn't believe the baptism to be legit then it wouldn't even matter, so why bother?

For me it wouldn't matter if someone used my grandfather's name and did some sort of something with it, becasue I would not beleive that did anything. So again, who cares?

On the other hand, if someone specificlly doesn't want it done, I would respect that.

[Dravin]

It should be noted that I've primarily been commenting on logical issues. I recognize emotional concerns as very real. It doesn't make sense to care that the random person down the street called your dead mother an insulting expletive of your choice, but most people would get upset.

I was trying to get at that with the gut reactions can be very real comment, but I can see how that might not be particularly clear.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have some recent experience of something related to this. My wife added my grandfather to new.familysearch about a month and a half ago. I went to print out a card with his name on it last Friday as we were going to the Temple the next day. To my surprised someone had already baptized him. Now my Grandfather has only been dead for 27 years. And my Grandmother is still alive. We emailed the person who did it and she said she was related about 8 generations down the line, far removed from being a close relative. We asked her to cease and desist. She said she just got carried away. To be honest it upset me a lot. Let this be a lesson to all, you need to reserve the names of your ancestors as soon as you add them or find them. Or else someone will do it for you.

Ditto. My grandmother, who died less than 20 years ago (as a member), was done by proxy by a distant cousin about five years ago. I recognize the good intentions, but it felt strangely . . . violating. A Church member with a similar experience tells her story here.

The difference between this incident and previous incidents, though, is that thanks to NewFamilySearch the Church was able to identify the person who submitted this name and yank their privileges indefinitely.

It's a pity the Church is so opaque about discipline generally; because I suspect that as this kind of thing continues (and it will inevitably continue) I daresay the Church will discover that at least some, if not many, of these controversial submissions are coming from unbelieving Mormons who remain on the membership rolls and are deliberately trying to embarrass the Church.

I mean, really. Adolf Hitler? Multiple times? Who does that?

[RMGuy]

I mean, really. Adolf Hitler? Multiple times? Who does that?

Perhaps someone that takes the atonement at face value?

-RM

[mordorbund]

Actually, I was only aware of the headlines from two or three years ago, and the other headlines from five or six years ago.

It seems like this happens every few years.

Step 1: Some well-intentioned mormon somewhere on Earth gets a bright idea about doing temple work for holocaust victims.

Step 2: Somehow word gets around to survivors groups or Jewish folk, some of whom occasionally look for this sort of thing coming from us Mormons.

Step 3: A big kerfuffle happens, media reports are written, well-intentioned member is educated, temple ordinances are removed.

Step 4: Start at step 1 with a new well-intentioned Mormon

Seems like the cycle's even shorter than that. We had a thread on this less than a year ago.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/39993-would-you-offended-if.html

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps someone that takes the atonement at face value?

-RM

Smackdown duly noted.

[Traveler]

Jana Riess offers an interesting perspective: Mormons Just Don't Understand Jews.

I must admit that I do not understand - so would “they” feel so much better if we pronounced such souls forever excommunicated and damned to eternal hell?

The Traveler

[Guest]

I don't know why but for some reason, baptizing a holocaust victim after a request by the Jews not to do so relates somehow to the Powell dad getting buried next to his children. I don't really have a good grasp of the validity of the reasons but all I can attach it to is in the realm of respect for the dearly beloved and their surviving relatives.

[Vort]

But that leads to not one, but two questions:

1. Would Romney be right to be upset by such an event?

2. Would Romney have a right to be upset by such an event?

How do you figure it leads to those questions?

On the one hand, you have a private ordinance done reverently, with the best of intentions, and not for money, power, or any political gain.

On the other hand, you have a public mockery of an "ordinance" done with overt ill intentions, and done professionally to further the reputation of the doer.

There is no reasonable comparison between LDS proxy baptism and Maher's vomit.

[bytebear]

I recently read an article about the woman who is "blowing the whistle" on the church. She is... interesting. She has admitted to sneaking onto the website using others' accounts, either when they left their terminal, or using an inside source to gather information. I personally believe she is one of several who is purposely submitting controversial names (ironically by proxy) and then using that to embarrass the church.