# Mormons baptized Simon Wiesenthal...so what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822 "2012-02-14T17:20:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/221 "2012-02-17T06:25:08Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This disappoints me, though. The church should stand by its beliefs, or else I can’t see what justification it can make for its own existence. > > Of course churches sometimes _change_ their beliefs. But this seems to be a case of simply being inconsistent with one’s beliefs. It’s always disappointing to see this. In religion, it goes with the territory. They all get the true word from God - until it changes based on public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/222 "2012-02-17T08:08:03Z")
> [@dorsk188](#): > > There’s not much that sets Mormonism apart as particularly more dangerous than mainline Protestantism, but I think it’s arguably less rational. To be honest, there’s a lot of common religions (you mentioned them plus more) that I would like to see become too far out for people to grant respectability to, but Mormonism is already there so I think it should stay there (unless it proves itself somehow less dangerous than alternatives). So then you’re saying you feel that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism shouldn’t be respectable religions. Why? ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/223 "2012-02-17T09:08:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then you’re saying you feel that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism shouldn’t be respectable religions. > > Why? Because “respectable religion” is an oxymoron. At their best, religions coopt natural drives like compassion and empathy, motivating people to do the right thing, while deluding them about _why_ they should do the right thing. At their worst, religions subvert those benevolent drives and empower the more destructive elements of humanity while shielding those actions from criticism with claims to divine authority. At all times, religions disrupt the ability of a person to seek reason and evidence for their beliefs. (Broad generalizations, I know. But I think I can back it up.) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/224 "2012-02-17T11:10:31Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > I don’t think this is anywhere near the assholery of the WBC. The WBC gets in people’s faces. They are very public and intentionally disruptive. LDS baptize by proxy. If they didn’t tell you they did it, you wouldn’t know. They don’t desecrate anyone’s grave. The Phelpses don’t desecrate anyone’s grave, either. And if you’re not around the protest, you wouldn’t know. But man, people get so pissed about them protesting military funerals that they come from miles around to protect these people having the funeral from them. The Phelpses are more directly offensive. But it’s the same sort of lack of consideration of others, it’s a difference of degree rather than of kind. At least, that’s how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/225 "2012-02-17T13:51:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The whole kerfuffle seems based on a misunderstanding that posthumous baptism entails posthumous conversion. It doesn’t. Mormon doctrine is explicit that posthumous conversion depends entirely on the free will of the convert. The baptism only makes it possible for that conversion to lead to salvation. The baptism is not supposed to have any effect leading to conversion. > > So I don’t see the problem, even if I take the symbolism seriously. As has been explained many, many times, that isn’t the problem. The theological content of the ceremony is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/226 "2012-02-17T13:57:59Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > As has been explained many, many times, that isn’t the problem. The theological content of the ceremony is irrelevant. The theological content of the ceremony is all there is! I really don’t get this. I just wrote Wiesenthal’s name on a piece of paper and placed it ceremoniously under my textbook. It doesn’t _mean_ anything. It’s just a ceremony with no content. Should anyone be offended by that? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/227 "2012-02-17T14:05:05Z")
> [@dorsk188](#): > > Because “respectable religion” is an oxymoron. > > . . . > > (Broad generalizations, I know. But I think I can back it up.) Please do. I’d love to see such a broad generalization backed up. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/228 "2012-02-17T14:05:52Z")
Are you talking about this? > [@Miller](#): > > The theology isn’t the problem here. All that nonsense about, “Well, if the Mormons are right, but the Jews are wrong…” isn’t the issue. The issue is that there’s a pretty long, and very unpleasant, history of powerful Christian organizations forcing religious conversions on unwilling Jews. But there’s no forcing of a conversion on an unwilling Jew happening in this case. So there should be no problem. (How do I know there’s no forcing of a conversion on an unwilling Jew? Because I know the theological content of the ceremony. So the theological content of it _is_ relevant, because it determines what is supposed to be happening as a result of the ceremony.) But is Miller’s comment not the argument you mean when you say it’s been explained that the theological content is irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/229 "2012-02-17T14:11:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To use another analogy: a spiritualist is in the habit of planting little flags with swastikas on them over Jewish graves. No-one is physically affected by this. He’s told to stop doing it because swastikas are offensive to Jews, because of the whole Nazi thing. He replies “well, in my spiritualist religion, based on ancient native American and Indian sources, the swastika is an ancient holy symbol of good. It has nothing to do with Nazis. I’m doing this as a sign of respect to these great Jews”. The analogy is a little off but can be fixed. It’s off because in your scenario, the spiritualist is trying to use symbols as he understands them in order to show respect–but his symbols don’t mean the same thing to other people. But this isn’t what the mormons are doing. They don’t think they are using symbols to show respect. They think they are really, actually making it possible for a person to go to heaven if they decide to convert. They aren’t trying to be symbolic, they’re trying to do something actual and concrete. So to fix the analogy, we’d need the spiritualist to be a true believer in the power of the swastika. He thinks that putting a swastika near someone after they have died is the only way it’s possible for them to go to heaven. They don’t have to go if they don’t want, but should they choose to, they have to have that swastika near their grave. In that case, I actually don’t think anyone should be offended (though I understand why they are… it can be hard to ignore history when trying to understand people’s current actions even when one knows the current actions aren’t actually connected to that history) and, even if they are offended, I don’t think ths spiritualist can be reasonably expected to stop short of some kind of religious conversion on his own part. He thinks he’s literally helping souls go to heaven. It’s not about respect or disrespect, it’s about doing good for people. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/230 "2012-02-17T14:44:32Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > But there’s no forcing of a conversion on an unwilling Jew happening in this case. So there should be no problem. That’s not the way most Jews would see it. It smells of conversion against one’s will, and even if you point to the fact that supposedly the person in the afterlife gets to choose, it still smells of conversion against one’s will. So much that the LDS church promised not to do this anymore, even they recognized that regardless of intention, it is not perceived the way they want it to be perceived. When caught doing it they apologized again and promised not to do it. And yet it persists. It would be like putting a Jewish child’s name on the rolls for first communion. It doesn’t bind the kid to do anything, and it has no affect on the child or his family, but if he wants to take it up it’s there for him. Don’t you think Jewish parents would be justifiably upset by that? It’s a slap in the face to their beliefs, regardless of if they put any religious significance to the act. And I think that’s the crux of the issue - it isn’t about religious doctrine, it’s about respecting someone’s religious choice. By doing the baptism by proxy the LDS is saying to the Jews “we don’t respect your choices about religion, and since we know better we’ll take care of you just in case you change your mind.” It’s paternalistic and offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/231 "2012-02-17T15:18:10Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The theological content of the ceremony is all there is! > > I really don’t get this. > > I just wrote Wiesenthal’s name on a piece of paper and placed it ceremoniously under my textbook. It doesn’t _mean_ anything. It’s just a ceremony with no content. > > Should anyone be offended by that? If so, why? Because the ceremony has different implications for Jews than it does for Mormons. To Mormons, it is all about offering the dead guy a choice - to choose Mormonism. To Jews, it is all about the symbolism of baptizing Jews. For reasons Mormons have no particular reason to understand, but are well-known to many Jews, Jews highly dislike being baptised without their say - since involuntary baptism was a central feature of pogroms against them throughout their unhappy history with Christians. Involuntary baptisms _never_ actually made Jews into Christians, as far as Jews were concerned. That wasn’t even the point on the part of those conducting them. The point was to ritually humiliate and distrespect Jews. So, Jews are not somehow frightened that the ceremony undertaken by Mormons will make their dead ancestors into Mormons (no Jew thinks it would have that effect, even if Mormons thought it did, which they don’t). Jews, or at least many Jews, are pissed that Mormons are undertaking a ritual that, throughout at least a thousand years of Jewish history, was associated very strongly with persecution of Jews. They are particularly unhappy with Mormons conducting this ritual with Jews who died as a result of (or who survived in spite of) the greatest pogrom in history, the Holocaust. These people were harried, some to their deaths, for being Jews, and now (some) Mormons won’t even have the decency not to annoy their relations further with their postheletizing? Can’t you see why this would be sorta annoying? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/232 "2012-02-17T15:26:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The analogy is a little off but can be fixed. It’s off because in your scenario, the spiritualist is trying to use symbols as he understands them in order to show respect–but his symbols don’t mean the same thing to other people. But this isn’t what the mormons are doing. They don’t think they are using symbols to show respect. They think they are really, actually making it possible for a person to go to heaven if they decide to convert. They aren’t trying to be symbolic, they’re trying to do something actual and concrete. > > So to fix the analogy, we’d need the spiritualist to be a true believer in the power of the swastika. He thinks that putting a swastika near someone after they have died is the only way it’s possible for them to go to heaven. They don’t have to go if they don’t want, but should they choose to, they have to have that swastika near their grave. > > In that case, I actually don’t think anyone should be offended (though I understand why they are… it can be hard to ignore history when trying to understand people’s current actions even when one knows the current actions aren’t actually connected to that history) and, even if they are offended, I don’t think ths spiritualist can be reasonably expected to stop short of some kind of religious conversion on his own part. He thinks he’s literally helping souls go to heaven. It’s not about respect or disrespect, it’s about doing good for people. And when he’s told that swatikas are offensive, and promises to stop doing it … but keeps doing it anyway? Then he’s not “helping”, he’s being a jerk. Because the people whose graves those are, and more to the point their decendents who tend them, don’t want them decorated with swastikas! The very same reasoning (“it’s for _your_ good, so _you_ go to heaven”) could well justify forced conversions. After all, if a Jew will according to someone’s theology, go to hell if he doesn’t convert, surely it is better that he suffer the temporary pain of a branding iron or two now to get to heaven later - if you really, truly believe heaven and hell work that way? Jews have had lots of experience with this “logic” over the centuries. Look, what (some) Jews are saying is just cut out this nonsense. Do good to other people, people who want your good works. Leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. Is that so very hard to do? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/233 "2012-02-17T15:42:09Z")
Okay, some people are offended by posthumous baptisms. That’s okay, this is a free country, people are allowed to be offended and complain about it. On the other hand, this is a free country, people are allow to offend and ignore others. Unless there’s some actual harm being done, that’s the end of the story–people are going to do things we don’t like. You can ask them to stop, but they don’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/234 "2012-02-17T15:48:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Okay, some people are offended by posthumous baptisms. That’s okay, this is a free country, people are allowed to be offended and complain about it. On the other hand, this is a free country, people are allow to offend and ignore others. Unless there’s some actual harm being done, that’s the end of the story–people are going to do things we don’t like. You can ask them to stop, but they don’t have to. Certainly. No-one is saying that there should be some sort of legal action to stop them, are they? The argument has been enirely framed as “so what?”. We are describing the “what”. If people freely choose to act like jerks after having it carefully explained to them why what they are doing is jerkish (and lacking any good rebuttal), they are of course free to do so … thus identifying for all to see that they are jerks. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/235 "2012-02-17T16:10:09Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Certainly. No-one is saying that there should be some sort of legal action to stop them, are they? > > The argument has been enirely framed as “so what?”. We are describing the “what”. If people freely choose to act like jerks after having it carefully explained to them why what they are doing is jerkish (and lacking any good rebuttal), they are of course free to do so … thus identifying for all to see that they are jerks. Eh. Lots of people get offended by lots of things. Why should anyone else care? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/236 "2012-02-17T16:24:22Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > It would be like putting a Jewish child’s name on the rolls for first communion. It doesn’t bind the kid to do anything, and it has no affect on the child or his family, but if he wants to take it up it’s there for him. Don’t you think Jewish parents would be justifiably upset by that? It’s a slap in the face to their beliefs, regardless of if they put any religious significance to the act. And I think that’s the crux of the issue - it isn’t about religious doctrine, it’s about respecting someone’s religious choice. By doing the baptism by proxy the LDS is saying to the Jews “we don’t respect your choices about religion, and since we know better we’ll take care of you just in case you change your mind.” It’s paternalistic and offensive. I’m honestly completely unable to comprehend this way of thinking. It doesn’t _mean_ anything. Let them put whatever name they want. I can’t understand why anyone would care. I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/237 "2012-02-17T16:28:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > And when he’s told that swatikas are offensive, and promises to stop doing it … but keeps doing it anyway? That’s downright dishonest, of course. I was just addressing the question of whether anyone should have been upset about the baptisms (and whether the mormons should have thought they ought to stop them) in the first place. But to be clear, if they _said_ they would stop, they ought to stop. (I just don’t understand why they said they would stop–except by ascribing to them some fairly underhanded and dishonest ideas about either continuing in secret or figuring people will forget about it eventually and then they’ll be able to get back around to baptising the jews…) > [@](#): > > The very same reasoning (“it’s for _your_ good, so _you_ go to heaven”) could well justify forced conversions. This’ll get me skewered here, but I do think that certain religious beliefs do entail that the believer ought to be forcing others to convert. To be clear, I’m not endorsing forced conversions: I believe such religions should be (or, I guess, should have been), shall we say, “short lived.” Mormonism is not accurately described as such a religion, however. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/238 "2012-02-17T16:30:02Z")
I guess I can understand this way of thinking if it’s coming from someone who thinks that everyone thinks of their own religion simply as a way to express attitudes or something. But for many religious believers, what’s at stake isn’t expression of one’s own attitudes or worldview or whatever–rather, what’s at stake is actual consequences, heaven and hell, etc. They don’t think they’re just engaging in symbolic communication. They think they’re pushing God’s buttons. They think this has actual effects in the actual world. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/239 "2012-02-17T16:36:32Z")
I think they took too much LDS. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/240 "2012-02-17T16:44:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’m honestly completely unable to comprehend this way of thinking. > > It doesn’t _mean_ anything. Let them put whatever name they want. I can’t understand why anyone would care. Look into Jewish history and see that these actions have an uncanny resemblance to pogroms, forced conversions, and killings of Jews for centuries. It’s a action that is offensive, aggressive, and insulting. For Holocaust survivors and their descendants it is like rubbing salt in an open wound. That is what it means. We live in a diverse culture and if groups like the LDS Church wants to be treated with respect then they have to treat others with respect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822.md?page=13)