# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/141 "2012-02-16T15:24:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I guess what is missing here is the historical context. For many Jews, involuntary baptism by Christians has a very bad rep. But this isn’t involuntary baptism. ---
**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 16, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/142 "2012-02-16T15:32:47Z")
> [@treis](#): > > But this isn’t involuntary baptism. Most folks would disagree. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/143 "2012-02-16T15:34:10Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Most folks would disagree. Well, most folks would be wrong then. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/144 "2012-02-16T15:36:48Z")
No, they wouldn’t. The proxy stands in for the person being baptized. The person be baptized via proxy then has a choice to accept or reject the spiritual implications of the baptism itself, but there is no choice in the matter of the baptism-by-proxy. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/145 "2012-02-16T15:41:55Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, they wouldn’t. The proxy stands in for the person being baptized. The person be baptized via proxy then has a choice to accept or reject the spiritual implications of the baptism itself, but there is no choice in the matter of the baptism-by-proxy. If the person being baptized by proxy refuses to participate in the ceremony, then they have no participation in the ceremony outside of their refusal. The participation is no different than if a Catholic asked me if I wanted to be baptized while I am living. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/146 "2012-02-16T15:47:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > But this isn’t involuntary baptism. It certainly is. The person who is the target cannot prevent the _ceremony of baptism_ from happening. The spirtual implications of the ceremony are allegedly to offer that dead person a choice to accept or reject in the afterlife, but the ceremony itself is not voluntary on their part - unless, I suppose, they manifested themselves as some sort of ectoplasm to register their disapproval. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/147 "2012-02-16T15:48:02Z")
If the Mormons are right, Wiesenthal gets to choose if he wants to accept baptism or not. If the atheists are right, Wiesenthal doesn’t exist any more. So it is not involuntary either way. What’s happened is that someone you never met, did something meaningless, in a place you’ve never been, to someone who doesn’t exist. If people want to get upset about it, fine, but I wish that were the worst thing I had to worry about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/148 "2012-02-16T15:51:04Z")
I’m always amused by religions that think that God is great and powerful and can do anything! Oh, but if you die without puny humans doing some super secret dance then he can’t save you. Even God can’t cut through the red tape. What a great and powerful being to be so beholden to human bureaucracy. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/149 "2012-02-16T15:54:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the Mormons are right, Wiesenthal gets to choose if he wants to accept baptism or not. If the atheists are right, Wiesenthal doesn’t exist any more. So it is not involuntary either way. > > What’s happened is that someone you never met, did something meaningless, in a place you’ve never been, to someone who doesn’t exist. If people want to get upset about it, fine, but I wish that were the worst thing I had to worry about. > > Regards, > Shodan What this is about, is symbolism and ritual. Symbols and rituals have power even though symbols are just squiggles on paper, stone or cloth, and rituals are just mumbo-jumbo outside of their belief system. Try planting swastikas on the graves of American WW2 servicemen. Just a meaningless symbolic nothing, right? Other Americans - who have never met said servicemen, who don’t even know their names - should feel exactly nothing about it, correct? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/150 "2012-02-16T16:00:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It certainly is. The person who is the target cannot prevent the _ceremony of baptism_ from happening. But if they refuse to participate, they aren’t baptized, and thus no involuntary baptism occurs. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/151 "2012-02-16T16:05:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Do you want respect for religion or don’t you? If respect means withholding mockery that is duly deserved, then no, I don’t. Public shaming is one of the most powerful tools in human social groups. It’s a softer means of shaping behavior than laws and legal enforcement. And it works. I wouldn’t immunize any social ill from shaming unless there is very good reason to. > [@treis](#): > > If you don’t, then you don’t have reason to be offended or complaint. For the record, I am not offended and have not been. I empathize with people who are, and they have some legitimate reasons to be. I think you’ll find my comments have been focused on mocking stupid, disruptive, anti-social, nonsensical fantasy role-playing. Mormons are better served by a chorus of laughter whenever their doctrines are discussed than “tut-tut-tuts”. Baptism can have a very real effect. The action of a social group symbolically washing away the old person so they can emerge brand new is a very old (and pagan) practice that can be emotionally powerful. I don’t deny the psychological effects of something like that. But any claims of supernatural effects deserve mockery. And it is precisely the supernatural aspects at play when sects baptize the nonconsenting or the unaware (like the dead by Mormons, infants by Catholics and others, or Medieval Jews by the Inquisition). In the cases where this does actual harm instead of just waste time (such as the Inquisition or when people sometimes take day-old infants to a river in winter), then it deserves more than mockery, it deserves outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/152 "2012-02-16T16:13:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What this is about, is symbolism and ritual. Symbols and rituals have power even though symbols are just squiggles on paper, stone or cloth, and rituals are just mumbo-jumbo outside of their belief system. Only if you give them that power. > [@Latka Gravis](#): > > We believe that meaningless ritual and mindless superstition, are all that separate us from the animals. > [@](#): > > Try planting swastikas on the graves of American WW2 servicemen. Just a meaningless symbolic nothing, right? Other Americans - who have never met said servicemen, who don’t even know their names - should feel exactly nothing about it, correct? Planting swastikas is not equivalent to baptism by proxy (except, I suppose, for Native Americans for whom the swastika is a sun symbol). There is ambiguity about your intent when you put out a swastika - maybe you are a Nazi, maybe you are a Navaho. There is no ambiguity about proxy baptism - it is motivated by good wishes for the deceased. And we are not talking about planting symbols on a public gravesite. We are talking about a private ceremony, where no one was present except believers. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/153 "2012-02-16T16:23:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > But if they refuse to participate, they aren’t baptized, and thus no involuntary baptism occurs. You are mistaking the ceremony for the alleged spirtitual effect of the ceremony. A dead person cannot “refuse to participate” in the former, because they are dead. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/154 "2012-02-16T16:30:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Only if you give them that power. > > Planting swastikas is not equivalent to baptism by proxy (except, I suppose, for Native Americans for whom the swastika is a sun symbol). There is ambiguity about your intent when you put out a swastika - maybe you are a Nazi, maybe you are a Navaho. There is no ambiguity about proxy baptism - it is motivated by good wishes for the deceased. > > And we are not talking about planting symbols on a public gravesite. We are talking about a private ceremony, where no one was present except believers. > > Regards, > Shodan We are talking about a ceremony made public, by design. You are not present in Arlington Cemetary if I plant a swastika on a grave there, any more than you are present at a Mormon baptism ritual. You would find out about it in exactly the same way - through a report concerning it. The “good wishes” of the person performing the ceremony are not in issue, because they have been told it’s offensive and keep on doing it. A Navaho who continues to plant swastikas on Jewish graves after being told it’s not welcome, will have his bona fides placed in doubt - because he’s acting like a jerk, whatever his original intentions were. The whole “it only offends you if you give it that power” is a silly cop-out. It isn’t an answer to acting intentionally offensive. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/155 "2012-02-16T16:36:02Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You are mistaking the ceremony for the alleged spirtitual effect of the ceremony. A dead person cannot “refuse to participate” in the former, because they are dead. As you note, since they are dead they can’t participate in the ceremony. A proxy is offering to take their role, and if the dead person refuses, then it is just the proxy being dunked. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/156 "2012-02-16T16:48:07Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You are mistaking the ceremony for the alleged spirtitual effect of the ceremony. A dead person cannot “refuse to participate” in the former, because they are dead. Obviously the dead don’t participate in the ceremony. In fact, with respect to the deceased, nothing more personal than their name is present during the ceremony. The doctrine provides that once a deceased person is baptized, they are given the choice to accept or reject the ceremony. It is the first of many ordinances performed for the benefit of those who have passed. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/157 "2012-02-16T17:17:51Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > This is exactly true, but worth repeating since this is 3 pages of people who have no idea what they are talking about, but feel disrespected anyway. Mormons believe that by doing this ceremony, they are giving the dead soul of the person a _choice_. They are free to accept the baptism or reject it. > > Honestly, the way some people in this thread have talked, you’d half expect missionaries to be going from home to home, baptizing people by force… Having Mormon relatives I find it quite offensive that they will “baptize” me into a religion I have refused to join while alive. It is their hubris and lack of respect for others beliefs that is the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/158 "2012-02-16T17:27:45Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Eh, my understanding is that you basically get a pop up in the afterlife saying “Do you want to be Mormon Y/N?”. That hardly seems to be a major time waster in eternity. Certainly a lot less annoying than the proselytising they do while I’m alive. Don’t you think if that’s the case, God would be able to offer them that choice when they die? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/159 "2012-02-16T17:29:35Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > We are talking about a ceremony made public, by design. You are not present in Arlington Cemetary if I plant a swastika on a grave there, any more than you are present at a Mormon baptism ritual. You would find out about it in exactly the same way - through a report concerning it. > > The “good wishes” of the person performing the ceremony are not in issue, because they have been told it’s offensive and keep on doing it. A Navaho who continues to plant swastikas on Jewish graves after being told it’s not welcome, will have his bona fides placed in doubt - because he’s acting like a jerk, whatever his original intentions were. > > The whole “it only offends you if you give it that power” is a silly cop-out. It isn’t an answer to acting intentionally offensive. The names are entered into the baptismal registries, and they are acting in an intentionally offensive way, they have been asked to stop several times, they have promised to stop several times. These are only done at temples, it would be easy for them to check and filter names of those they know would be offended, or limit it to relatives like they claim but they do not. ---
**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 16, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822/160 "2012-02-16T17:35:52Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > These are only done at temples, it would be easy for them to check and filter names of those they know would be offended, or **limit it to relatives like they claim but they do not**. To be honest, even limiting it to “relatives” doesn’t strike me as all that much better, particularly if those are relatives who’d been offered the chance to convert in life and declined. The only reason the conversion of Jews strikes me as more offensive is because of the long history of forced conversions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mormons-baptized-simon-wiesenthal-so-what/612822.md?page=9)