Anne Frank martyred again.

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Anne Frank martyred again.

Postby vison » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:41 pm

Here is a puzzling thing, puzzling to me, anyway. Baptizing the dead, including holocaust victims - even Anne Frank.

I listened to this radio program this morning and was struck once again with how weird the world is, sometimes.

One of the people interviewed was once a Mormon and is now devoted to exposing this practice and others.

For me, the concept of baptizing dead people is an absurdity and not much more. But the truth is that for the Jews who were interviewed during this program, it is not only absurd but insulting and worse.

Elie Wiesel, of all people, is on a list of those "ready" for baptizing. He spoke during the program.

One of the questions asked by the host was "Should Mitt Romney address this issue?"

Should he? The thing is, although the Mormon spokespersons in the interview kept saying that it's "not allowed", it still happens. Anne Frank, poor child, was martyred once again - by being baptized, her religion demeaned by the silly assertion that "the dead must be offered salvation". Not once, but 10 times, as far as anyone knows. It could very likely be more.

I fail UTTERLY to understand why anyone would espouse such a stupid belief. I use the word "stupid" advisedly. Much in the Mormon theology is bizarre IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO, but this particular item is the most offensive.

Surely a god could deal with this itself? Why would a god require living persons to baptize dead persons so they could be offered room at its table?

But why would I ask such questions. I'm stupid for even thinking it.

Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon. He - presumably - accepts the teachings of the Mormon church. While I don't suspect that HE personally has ever baptized a dead Jew, many other Mormons have. They routinely baptize dead people. For all I know, my ancestors could all have been baptized.

Knowing my ancestors, they'd laugh.

But still.

So, whaddya think?

Does this make Mr. Romney as . . ______________ . . . (fill in the blank) as Mr. Santorum?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:57 am

Are there any Mormons on TORC? Maybe they could respond.

I...was struck once again with how weird the world is, sometimes.


SOMETIMES? :shock:
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby oldtoby » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:56 am

I see stuff like this and its hard not to think that all religions are basically FUBAR.
User avatar
oldtoby
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 15281
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:40 pm
Top

Postby vison » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:02 am

oldtoby wrote:I see stuff like this and its hard not to think that all religions are basically FUBAR.


A person can laugh at it, but it's nervous laughter.

That such a thing is happening in 2012 in the USA means something, and it's not a good something. :(

Between Mr. Santorum's open lunacy and Mr. Romney's mostly silent but supposedly deep and sincere devotion to the Mormon church . . .

:pull:
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:42 am

Steven Colbert recently did a posthumous conversion of all dead Mormons to Judaism in response.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby portia » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:58 am

The whole idea of baptizing someone who is dead is, indeed, absurd. IMO it is also contrary to the purpose of baptism which is partly to point the person to what is considered a better life and to encourage the community to help.

What good is that to a dead person? If the person needs to be "saved" after death (and I am not going to go near that subject) the community of the living is not going to be involved in the process.

I classify that practice as equivalent to wearing a tinfoil hat. If I were Jewish, I do not think I would take it seriously enough to be insulted.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:48 am

I had thought so, too. But listening to the Jews who did object, and hearing their reasons, I changed my mind.

It's worth listening to the program.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:15 pm

vison wrote:
A person can laugh at it, but it's nervous laughter.

That such a thing is happening in 2012 in the USA means something, and it's not a good something. :(

....
:pull:


It means, that for all our progress over our superstitious ancestors, a significant portion of us are still operating from a medieval mindset.

A large enough portion of the American population to cause considerable political upheaval have a major contender in the Re-pub presidential primary. They flat-out reject modern cosmology and evolutionary biology in favor of "Jesus Did It" and are trying to legislate that the rest of us accept and live by their beliefs.


In 2012 (or there abouts) 48% of Americans believe in ghosts

80% believe in Angels

33% believe in UFO's

over 60% believe in psychic phenomena


Mormons are no more or less weird in their beliefs than anyone else.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby Cerin » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:05 pm

vison, I think if it were official accepted practice then Romney would have to address it, but I don't think he has an obligation to do so for practices that have been officially discarded.
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Postby Silverberry_Spritely » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:18 pm

"Poor child,"? Anne Frank is dead. I don't think she's feeling too bad about this.

Mormons aren't trying to demean anyone else's religion with their religion. Just, like all religious people, they're positive they're right. Doesn't require Mitt addressing it. Did Kennedy have to answer for the exclusivism of Catholicism in his period? No. Nor should he have had to.

Mormons claim to believe what they believe because they've had it "witnessed" to them. Well, if God came down and said to me, "Hey, girl, the only way to salvation is join the Mormon church," and goes on about the truths of the Universe, I'm not going to say, "WOW, those were some great special effects!" The definition of a jerk is someone who doesn't believe what s/he's seeing. Does baptizing the dead help anyone? No. Does it hurt anyone? No. Does Romney believe in this? I think any educated person is going to struggle with taking the Bible and Book of Mormon word for word. And they certainly shouldn't have to answer for the ideas behind a few weird but harmless practices.
Silverberry_Spritely
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: The OTHER Party City
Top

Postby vison » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:49 pm

SilveberrySpritely wrote: Does it hurt anyone? No.


I think before you assert that it doesn't hurt anyone, you might just check out what the various Jews interviewed had to say.

The long and the short of it is that many of those Jews who are aware of this lunacy are, in fact, hurt, insulted, offended, and frightened by it.

There are many who see it as the long first step to anti-Semitism, and I can quite understand why they would think that way.

For all the reassurance that "it isn't supposed to happen", it keeps on happening. One excuse the Mormons give is that they don't have a complete list of Holocaust victims: so if they inadvertently baptise a dead Jew who they thought died of something else, it's an "honest mistake".

Why is it always the Jews? That's a question that some Jews ask.

I find the whole spectacle sickening and disgusting. The stupid assumption that some god somewhere tells someone that "the dead must be offered salvation" and people in the year 2012 actually act on that idea? For the luvva pete. :roll:

I wonder if any of these morons have baptized Jesus? How about Moses? Sigmund Freud? Albert Einstein? Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel?

The notion that the Mormon church offers Jews something their own religion doesn't is one of the reasons Jews are offended. They've gone along for 5 or 6 thousand years. There are no ancient Phillistines left practicing their religion. There are no adherents of the Olympians, or of the Roman gods.

But there are still Jews. And I don't blame them one tiny little bit for being offended by the foolish acts of a "faith" that's scarcely 200 years old and founded on the testimony of a womanizing fraud.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Silverberry_Spritely » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:47 pm

I think calling the Mormon practice of baptizing anything that breathes (or once did) anti-Semitism is blowing this majorly out of proportion.

As I understand it, Mormons baptize dead relatives. If you can link yourself to them, you can be dunked for them. And I think the thought is that Jesus has already been baptized. But a LOT of non-Jews have been baptized.

No one is saying that the Jewish faith is any less valid. This is done as a private religious ceremony inside a LDS temple. Who are you to say someone's private religious practices are "stupid?" I guess Judaism is more valid because it's founded by thousands of years old womanizing frauds.

Look, I don't want my tax dollars to support Mormon baptism, but frankly, Mormons have a right to practice their religion just as much as Jews. And I don't think baptizing the dead is any crazier than circumcision, except there's no serious infection risk. (Hey, there's no permission that the involved party can grant either. Isn't THAT a travesty?)

Before you jump all over Mormons, at least realize no physical harm is even potentially committed. Yes, someone got hurt feelings. What do you want done? Is that worth restricting practice of religion or freedom of speech? Some Jewish people didn't like it. It doesn't mean Anne Frank is any less Jewish or any less of a voice of her people and generation. In a world where so much is screwed up, why focus on this kind of trifling thing?
Silverberry_Spritely
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: The OTHER Party City
Top

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:50 pm

Wow.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Postby Silverberry_Spritely » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:00 pm

portia wrote:I classify that practice as equivalent to wearing a tinfoil hat. If I were Jewish, I do not think I would take it seriously enough to be insulted.


Ever the voice of reason. Thank you!
Silverberry_Spritely
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: The OTHER Party City
Top

Postby oldtoby » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:07 pm

No one is saying that the Jewish faith is any less valid.


Seems to me that by baptizing dead Jews that is EXACTLY what the Mormons who are doing this are saying.
User avatar
oldtoby
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 15281
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:40 pm
Top

Postby Silverberry_Spritely » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:29 pm

oldtoby wrote:
No one is saying that the Jewish faith is any less valid.


Seems to me that by baptizing dead Jews that is EXACTLY what the Mormons who are doing this are saying.


Then you probably don't know much about Latter Day Saints, why they baptize, or understand this has nothing to do with saving her from hell, but (in their minds) offering her the potential to become God-like herself.

Nothing to do with saying, "Everyone else is scum and goes to Hell," and everything to do with offering her what they feel is the best way.
Silverberry_Spritely
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: The OTHER Party City
Top

Postby vison » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:41 pm

oldtoby wrote:
No one is saying that the Jewish faith is any less valid.


Seems to me that by baptizing dead Jews that is EXACTLY what the Mormons who are doing this are saying.


Well, having listened to the program and heard what was said, that's how many Jews think. I agree with them. And I agree that it could be the thin edge of the wedge into a very bad place indeed.

Personally, for me myself, I view all religion as equally valid. But I'm not the one in question, I am a disinterested but not uninterested bystander.

At no time, here or elsewhere, have I advocated restricting practice of religion or freedom of speech.

I don't regard it as a trifling matter. A man who intends to be the next POTUS belongs to a church that baptizes dead people. Another serious contender is of a different stripe, but is as out of place in the modern world as Mr. Romney. IMHO. Of course. :) Always IMHO.

In the world of 2012 I find it quite bizarre that two such men have risen to such prominence in the probably-still-most powerful nation on earth.

Your mileage may vary.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Cerin » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:38 pm

I don't quite get how this is done. Do you need a blood relative of the person you are posthumously 'baptizing'?

But as people have pointed out, the notion is absurd on so many levels. If someone claimed to have somehow figuratively inducted me into the Muslim faith (for example), it wouldn't actually affect me one iota. It's all in their own mind, just as it is all in these Mormons' minds that something they did has altered the eternal disposition of Anne Frank's soul.
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Postby heliona » Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:22 am

I'm like vison in that I'm not partial to any particularly religion and am not myself religious (nor was I brought up in a religious household).

However, I'm also disturbed by this. Not because of any potential anti-Semitism, although I can see why some Jews might feel that they are being particularly selected for this "baptism".

What disturbs me is the idea that people who are already dead and therefore have no way of ensuring that their rights and wishes are known and respected are having their religious beliefs violated. If I was religious and knew that my dead body would be baptised by another religion, I'd be furious! The same way I'd be furious that if a relative of mine who had chosen to follow a particular religion was baptised without their consent (which obviously they wouldn't be able to give, since they're dead!).

I get very irritated when people's wills are contested because their families are greedy and not happy with the wishes of their deceased relative (although admittedly sometimes there are good cases for contestation, so it is not a 100% accurate comparision). Why can't people just leave dead people alone, for goodness' sake? It is tantamount to saying that once you're dead, what you said and thought don't matter any more.

Whilst I appreciate that the Mormons are doing what they think is best and that I'm sure they believe they are trying to save people's souls, what they are actually doing is interfering with people's religious beliefs and just because those people happen to be dead doesn't make it any less wrong.

Personally, if it happened to me, my reaction would be to shrug it off, but that is because I'm not religious, so it doesn't mean anything to me. However, being religious means something (often a great deal) to other people, and they would be (and have every right to be) very offended and hurt if this happened to them or their religious relatives. For them, according to their beliefs, it would directly affect and hurt them.

As for Mitt Romney, I don't see why he shouldn't at least be asked the question. Just because this practise is not condoned by the LDS as a Church obviously doesn't mean that it is not still happening and since politicians are meant to be representing the people, they should be able to be asked questions about things that happen in their country. As religion appears to be quite a political thing in the US, then yes, he should be asked his opinion on it. (Although I've no doubt that he'd probably give a stock answer of the fact that it isn't condoned by the LDS as a whole.)

(Also, like Cerin, I'm curious as to how, logistically, such a baptism would take place. As I understood it, doesn't a living relative of the deceased have to be present to be proxy for the baptism?)

I'm going to add for clarification that I'm against infant baptisms also, for the same reasons: the infant isn't consenting to the baptism and can't repent of whatever sins it could possibly have committed anyway. I believe that there is a movement here in the UK to delay baptism until such a time as the child is able to understand what is happening and what it is agreeing to.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:48 am

Cerin wrote:I don't quite get how this is done. Do you need a blood relative of the person you are posthumously 'baptizing'?

But as people have pointed out, the notion is absurd on so many levels. If someone claimed to have somehow figuratively inducted me into the Muslim faith (for example), it wouldn't actually affect me one iota. It's all in their own mind, just as it is all in these Mormons' minds that something they did has altered the eternal disposition of Anne Frank's soul.


They believe they are giving her another shot at salvation. She missed it, while she was alive: she was Jew and had not accepted Christ as her saviour.

I think one reason this is so offensive to many Jews is that the "focus" of Judaism is not Salvation.

Baptizing the dead is idiotic and, of course, cannot really affect any dead person. But it does affect the living, who object to the idea that having lived and died as a Jew isn't sufficient, that Mormons "know better".

If God really thought that, I'm pretty sure it could be attended to "up there".
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:07 am

It's a really tasteless thing to do. Saying that it follows logically from the baptizer's deeply-held beliefs is an explanation, but not an excuse. That sort defense didn't work for Anne's killers, and it doesn't work for those who would dishonor her after her death either.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:53 am

A quick Google search suggest that the controversy is fueled by a report, unverified, that Anne Frank was baptized in a Mormon temple in the Dominican Republic.

Helen Radkey, a former Mormon who turned whistle blower on some church practices, claims that she found Anne Frank's name in the proxy baptism records from the Mormon temple in Santo Domingo, dated Feb 18th.

The president of said temple said that he was unaware of the happening, had looked into the records but did not find anything of the sort, and that it was a mistake if it did happen. The church has an official policy not to baptize Holocaust victims.

That's what I could turn up through Google.

Helen Radkey is a bit of a thorn in the LDS church's side, as far as I could gather.

Earlier in February, she sent an email to a Rabbi about some Holocaust dirt she found:

“FYI, discovered today: Posthumous baptisms for the parents of Simon Wiesen­thal,” Radkey wrote. “I am collecting evidence, which will be e-mailed to you, if requested, as long as there is a public stink.”


From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-mormon-files-researcher-helen-radkey-seeks-to-cause-a-headache-for-romney/2012/02/16/gIQAhL3gIR_story.html

The same article mentions that she's preparing some material on Mitt Romney's polygamous ancestors, which will no doubt be sprinkled in his direction by anybody who will provide the public stink to go with it.

All that for a bit more depth to this matter.

Myself? I think the practice is weird and potentially insulting to targets. But I also recognize that one of the freedoms the United States grant is freedom from persecution based on your religion. Additionally, I recognize that the separation of church and state is official policy, so while Mitt Romney may want to address the matter in his private capacity, he does not need to explain it in the context of his running for Republican presidential nominee. To my understanding, that's the rules as they currently stand, and I would say the same thing if, say, a Muslim or a Christian was the nominee and some news broke about isolated members of their faith doing something that I personally found questionable, but which didn't cause any physical harm or break any laws, and their faith officially did not condone. ( Speaking here of the fact that the LDS church has an official policy to not baptize Holocaust victims. Obviously they do officially condone posthumous baptism. )

Sometimes freedoms and protections breaks your way and sometimes they don't. When they don't, I try to accept is as stoically as I may gleefully accept the times when they do. :P
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:15 am

Freedom of religion ought to ensure that one religion doesn't interfere with another. Jews do not go about the world trying to convert people, nor do they attempt to interfere with the dead.

Freedom of religion is a fine concept and one I heartily agree with. But there has to be a limit - and I admit I have no clue how that limit can be decided and enforced. There are members of the Mormon church who persist in posthumous baptism despite the official stance.

It is not only Ms. Radkey who is speaking out about this. In fact, there have been several meetings between officials of the Mormon church and various Jewish congresses and groups in attempts to put a stop to it.

Ms. Radkey might be out to embarrass Mr. Romney, which has little or nothing to do with the issue. He seems pretty able to embarrass himself, anyway. (I am amused to see Ms. Radkey described as "excommunicated". I suppose they did that after she left the church - which she did 36 years ago.)

That Jews have gone so far as to provide lists of Holocaust victims is astonishing. But those lists are not complete - how could they be?

Why the hell can't the current "prophet" say he's had a message from on high and forbid this silliness completely? These convenient revelations have been fairly frequent in the Mormon church and it's probably time they had another.

Posthumous baptism is, in fact, quite common. A Mormon friend of my mother shared the information that she had "baptized" her parents and other ancestors. I remember her father very well indeed, he was a savagely lapsed Catholic who, if people could spin in their graves, would be spinning at about 5 million RPM. But this woman was always a ninny and age hasn't improved her.

It's hard to discuss this calmly, actually. Very hard. It's laughable and appalling and stupid all at once. I am always amazed at the things done and said in the name of religion but this is just . . . beyond the pale. :( :( I know perfectly well that my "tone of voice" is not pleasant and sweet here, but for the luvva pete. :( :(

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Daniel Pearl has been posthumously baptized.
Last edited by vison on Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby rwhen » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:16 am

I can't answer all the questions on this thread, but I may be the only person posting currently who at least has some experience in this. I was raised and baptized LDS. When I was 14 I took a trip to Provo Utah and was baptized IIRC around 10 times for "the dead". Basically you stand about waste deep in a very ornate vessle of water, a name is read and you get dunked. Another name is read and you get dunked....only takes a few minutes.

The idea of it as has been mentioned here, is to give those who weren't baptized while living the chance at salvation. At the time it seemed harmless to me...the people are dead after all.

I left the church before I was 18 and turned to Eastern philosophies. That is when it first hit me that this sort of thing was pretty creepy really. Nothing I could do to change the past, but I had to square it in my head that it was something that a stupid young girl did following the beliefs of her church at the time.

AFAIK, there were no Jewish people that were baptized. I can see where survivors of those who would be baptized after they pass could take issue with the practice. These people weren't asked while living, "hey, if you don't take the big plunge, we will do it for you after, okay?". So that makes it "not okay". It is like taking the organs of someone that didn't want to donate after they pass.

To me this brings a larger picture into focus. And it is my major beef with organized religion (not all people in all religions). Spirituality is a personal choice and no one should ever be judged for thier choice, but neither should those choosing be judgemental of those who make a different one. To me the Mormons are saying, your religion choosing not to baptize makes you inferior, we need to get you saved, so we are doing you a favor to baptize you after you are dead. Just typing this out it seems so weird. Who the hell thought of this practice any way?

For Mr. Romney. While he may not be compelled to answer the question, protecting his own right to practice as he chooses, he should still answer the question as a position of integrity if it is posed to him. If he is a practicing Mormon and happy to be so, then why try to evade the issue? I would respect him more for being up front than doing the politician two step.
Love is as big or as little as a hug!!

vison! Alex!Rowanberry!OldToby

I will always treasure and remember your appreciation. Thank you. -2007 WCA's
Overwhelmed by your support and appreciation. Thank you. - 2008 WCA's

The Expected Party!! is now on the road to Gondor to celebrate. Join us.

And getting into trouble with Rally The Eldar.

Time out of Mind, forever bound to my Knight Ayslhyn

Vanadarlin', my SSOTH - 143 forever :hug:
User avatar
rwhen
Gettin' Older!!

 
Posts: 31717
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:44 pm
Location: Daytrippin'
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:22 am

Thank you for posting, rwhen.

As I added to my post above, Daniel Pearl has been added to the list of people baptized posthumously.

"I am a Holocaust survivor. It is so offensive in the sense that Holocaust victims were killed solely because they were Jews. And here comes the Mormon church taking away their Jewishness," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "It's like killing them twice."


Now, I don't for one nanosecond believe that this nonsense takes away anyone's Jewishness. Like many religious practices it just makes me shake my head in disbelief. But as I said before, it's not my issue, it's the issue of those people who are offended - even though they don't believe for a nanosecond, either, that this monstrous stupidity can affect their dead.
Last edited by vison on Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Storyteller » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:24 am

Silverberry_Spritely wrote:I think calling the Mormon practice of baptizing anything that breathes (or once did) anti-Semitism is blowing this majorly out of proportion.

I'd say that, being a form of forced conversion, it comes dangerously close, and summons up the spectre of very nasty historical precedents.

No one is saying that the Jewish faith is any less valid. This is done as a private religious ceremony inside a LDS temple. Who are you to say someone's private religious practices are "stupid?"

When it comes to the members of my community getting involved without their consent in said private religious ceremony, it ceases to be private, and I am entitled to comment on said ceremony in any way I see fit.

Before you jump all over Mormons, at least realize no physical harm is even potentially committed. Yes, someone got hurt feelings. What do you want done? Is that worth restricting practice of religion or freedom of speech?

Their freedom of religion ends where mine begins, and when they cross the fence of another community's graveyard-metaphorically or otherwise- they overreach.

In a world where so much is screwed up, why focus on this kind of trifling thing?

In a screwed up world, you fix what you can.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:30 am

So are Greek Orthodox "prayers for the dead" anti-Semitic too?

Freedom of religion is awkward. And those of us who want nothing to do with Abrahamic religion have our right to be free from religion trampled on all the time. Nothing new here.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Storyteller » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:34 am

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:So are Greek Orthodox "prayers for the dead" anti-Semitic too?

Which dead are they praying for? Because I don't recall any Greek Orthodox customs that would be relevant to the current discussion.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby portia » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:52 am

Baptism, except of infants, is something a person chooses to do. Its an act of accepting certain beliefs. It is--emphatically--not something someone "does to you." *

So, how can baptizing a dead person, who didn't choose to participate, have any meaning, at all?

* I do not agree with infant baptism, but I do not want to get into that--forget I said it.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:56 am

Everybody's posted before I have! rwhen's post was a good read.

vison wrote:Freedom of religion ought to ensure that one religion doesn't interfere with another. Jews do not go about the world trying to convert people, nor do they attempt to interfere with the dead.

Freedom of religion is a fine concept and one I heartily agree with. But there has to be a limit - and I admit I have no clue how that limit can be enforced. There are members of the Mormon church who persist in posthumous baptism despite the official stance.

I don't disagree. Personal freedom also ought to ensure that one guy's personal freedom doesn't interfere with mine, and yet there I am, gnashing my teeth every time my neighbor's pit bull goes into a barking frenzy when I dare go into the half of the yard that is on his side.

The trouble is finding and enforcing that limit. That's hard, and may not be possible. So perhaps the next best thing is to accept that this world has its thorns and rough spots and that you can't have everything always break your way. Oh, and of course also making sure there's a clear message that that kind of thing is unacceptable - the best to hope for is voluntary change. People can get awful stubborn if they feel they're being forced to do something, but they do sometimes cave if there's constant static when they do something.

Why the hell can't the current "prophet" say he's had a message from on high and forbid this silliness completely? These convenient revelations have been fairly frequent in the Mormon church and it's probably time they had another.

It may well happen. As you say, there's been other things changed over the history of the Mormon church. Like I said above, the best kind of change comes from within, as opposed to being forced from the outside. So I see less value in attempting to forcibly restrain the church from this practice than in keeping up with the protest and seeing if they will drop the practice from within, through the channels they find acceptable. It's happened before with other practices that became socially unacceptable.

I know posthumous baptism is common. I think I read somewhere that's what the girls do while the boys pair up for their missionary work. ( I once ran into a couple of them in my apartment complex. That was right after I landed here, before I knew that a couple of male youngsters dressed in black pants, with white shirts ( and ties? I forget if there's ties ) means I'm likely talking to Mormons. ) There's an LDS church in our neighborhood that I drive by to go to work ( there's some 6:30AM activity there every morning now, involving teenaged kids. Have no idea what, but I have to dodge traffic every morning! ). Our neighbors are Mormon, and I work with a Mormon guy, so I know some people of that faith.

We each have stuff that we can hardly discuss calmly. For instance, it doesn't take much to spike my blood pressure on environmental issues. So I understand how hard it can be to discuss stuff calmly. But something like this posthumous baptism, while it seems weird and even stupid to me, just doesn't raise my blood pressure as much because it doesn't affect the physical world - there's time to wait for it to die out naturally, where naturally means, with secular push-back, this practice will hopefully be dropped. I don't have an inclination to defend any faith, including my own, more than any other, so it being targeted, in this case, against Jews doesn't get me wound up any more than it would have if it were Muslims or Hindu's or ZCC members being targeted instead: many faiths have practices that considers or cements people into that faith without consent. Jewish circumcision of infants was mentioned. Many Christian denominations baptize infants. I think the Muslim faith considers everybody to be born Muslim, so that a convert can be considered to revert back to their "real" faith. All these faiths have a mechanism for considering people to be of that faith without their consent.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests