Why should we decide to disrespect the practitioners of either religion?
Why should we treat Mormons, or for that matter practitioners of voodoo than with say practicing Jews or practicing Muslims?
We could leave it at that and let readers decide–but I have to point out, I guess, that you haven’t done any such thing. You’ve listed some definitions, but given no argument that that list of definitions is, in its entirety, expressive of the concept under discussion in this thread.
I don’t know anything about this story so I have no idea.
For a believer, something IS done without their consent. They believe someone is messing with their souls. You may find it silly, but at the very least, it’s disrespectful to one’s beliefs.
As others have pointed out, in the past Jews were troubled by forced conversions, and this is an uncomfortable reminder of that.
And as I said, “well, if it’s just to give them a CHOICE, couldn’t God do that for them?”
And the whole “voo-doo superstitious” bullshit is getting annoying around here.
Ok hypothetical:
Two white males stood next to each other at a bar watching football (any variety). Male 1 makes a comment about there being “too many niggers” in the game.
No disrespect has been shown to male 2 at all. So can male 2 be offended?
I already posted this to GQ w/o any response - perhaps this should have been the thread to post to in the first place.
Anyway…sorry if “asked and answered” before, but is it possible to access the database of names that have been submitted by Mormons for posthumous baptisms?
(I believe the correct terminology is posthumous baptism, and not conversion).
Thanks,
Wallet
Male 2 may believe male 1 does not respect male 2 as he ought for either of the following two reasons:
-
Male 2 may believe using the word “nigger” in this context shows a lack of decorum, where decorum is a mark of respect shown to others in the room
-
Male 2 may believe that his own identity is tied with membership in a culture that values equality between races, and may believe Male 1 also is governed by the norms of that culture, such that by using a word like “nigger,” male 1 shows a lack of proper respect toward that culture, and so by extension a lack of proper respect toward its members–including Male 2.
(And there could surely be other reasons besides, depending on the scenario, but these are two possibilities that spring to mind.)
new.familysearch.org, non-members are not allowed to see who is baptized, a limited number of outside accounts selected by the church do exist.
Thanks so much. I tried to register, and received this: “General public. Look for a future announcement when you will have access to new.familysearch.org.”
I’m assuming this means I can’t check to see if any ancestors were posthumously baptized.
I appreciate the help,
Wallet
Beyond the messing with dead people creep-factor, it is simply a highly disrespectful thing to do. Though not religious myself, I can understand how those that are would be bothered by the practice.
Mr Wiesenthal chose to live his life under a specific set of beliefs as was his right. And whatever those were, they should be respected. End of.
At the very least, if you’re going to baptize me after I die, can’t you stop knocking on my door on Saturday mornings? 
My response to you would be such that it would not be appropriate in this forum.
Okay, I’m a Mormon and here’s what we believe: While the proxy baptism on Simon Wiesenthal’s behalf should never have been performed (per the LDS Church’s agreement with Jewish officials), it’s essentially going to be a meaningless ritual unless Mr. Wiesenthal personally accepted it. His acceptance, of course, would require that he is actually a cognizant entity (i.e. a spirit without a physical body) as he awaits the resurrection and judgment. We believe that he is, and that he could have potentially embraced Christianity after his death. Since Jesus Christ commanded all believers to be repent of their sins, have faith in Him and be baptized, this puts people like Mr. Wiesenthal in a rather unfortunate situation. He could repent of his sins and have faith in Christ, but could not presently be baptized himself (it’s pretty much impossible to immerse a spirit in water ;)). An LDS proxy baptism accomplishes this last requirement. But in order for it to have any meaning at all, Mr. Wiesenthal would have to accept it. If he doesn’t, it will be as if it had never taken place. One way or the other, Mr. Wiesenthal is not on the Church’s official membership records, and never will be, because we have virtually no way of knowing whether he accepted the baptism or not. Only he and God would know. The ritual is in no way an attempt to force a deceased person to convert to Mormonism or, in this particular case, Christianity. It’s an invitation which can be either accepted or rejected.
Please provide an example from family search where, except for date, the record differs from an individual who was baptized and confirmed by choice.
Okay, I think I know where you’re going here, but I’m not sure, so please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Let’s say John Doe was born in 1930, was baptized (LDS baptism) in 1850, and died in 1990. He was clearly – based on the dates – baptized and confirmed by choice. Let’s say Jane Doe was born in 1930, died in 1990, and was baptized (LDS baptism) in 2005. She was clearly – based on the dates – baptized by proxy. It’s obviously pretty easy to tell by looking at the date of the baptism which of the two was baptized during his lifetime and which was baptized by proxy after his death. What I intended to convey was the fact that when the LDS Church claims 14 million members, they are not including individuals who received the ordinance posthumously. I’m sorry if my answer was misleading.
Wow! This forum sure doesn’t give you long to edit your posts, does it? I just noticed a typo and realized I couldn’t correct it, even though my post is just minutes old. Anyway, I just corrected it (see the date in red) for those who may have been justifiably confused by my initial post.
So you are saying that they include the members who joined in life as members when they die?
Explain to me how you justify marring people via proxy and baptizing them by proxy, putting it in the IGI database for people to access for the length of it’s existance.
You claim that this doesn’t matter because they have the choice to be bound by the covenants you just assigned to them, and if they don’t believe it should not be a big deal and they should just ignore it.
Yet somehow if a marriage is recorded in a secular non-religious state database, and does not force anything on the church, all your Mormon marriages will be marginalized if they happen to be the same gender?
Poor Richard Feynman was sealed to TWO ex-wives, so even proxy polygamy is fine.
Individual Ordinances
Baptism Completed
20 November 1991
Oakland California Temple
Endowment Completed
13 December 1991
Oakland California Temple
Sealing to Parents
Completed
5 May 1993
Oakland California Temple
Sealing to Spouse
Completed 23 February 2011
Oakland California Temple
Arline Greenbaum
Completed 29 March 2011
Los Angeles California Temple
Gweneth Margaret Howarth
I’m saying that current membership records include living people who have been baptized.
It’s not up to me to justify anything. I didn’t make the rules. I was merely commenting on the question posed in the OP.
Well, I didn’t put it quite that way, but I suppose that’s pretty much how I feel. Anybody who can read simple English and do simple math can tell whether the ordinance was done by proxy or not. The fact that a baptismal date is given doesn’t mean, “This person is now a Mormon.” It means nothing more than, “A proxy baptism was performed for this individual.”
LOL. I’ve got to say that that’s one of the more creative questions I’ve heard on the subject. We’re actually only supposed to be doing temple work on our own ancestors, so I’m trying to figure out how this could have even happened, but I suppose that if my great-great-great-great grandmother happened be married to another woman back in the 1700s, gotten pregnant, and given birth to my great-great-great grandmother, God will have to figure out what to do about it.
You know, you’re going to have a much harder time than you might think, getting me all worked up about any of this. I wouldn’t put a whole lot of effort into it if I were you. I don’t know how many Mormons you’ve known in your life, but I suspect I’m probably not a whole lot like most of them. For starters, I do not agree with the Church’s position on Prop 8. I’m likely to take a fairly liberal and open-minded position on a great many issues people like to jump all over Mormons about. I simply don’t think that Simon Wiesenthal’s baptism is anything for people to get excited about.
Rabbi Benny Zippel of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, pretty much agrees with me. His comments on the issue were as follows:
“It’s totally meaningless as far as I’m concerned. For someone to go into the water and say some words and be immersed — why does it matter? To me, it doesn’t. I would just let it go. You cannot possibly have a person convert without their knowledge, so to me, when we’re dealing with posthumous conversion, it’s an oxymoron. If it is a conversion, it can’t be posthumous; if it is posthumous, it cannot be conversion. I’m not offended by it because to me, it is meaningless. So why should I care?”
You can ignore that any other person has a right to their beliefs because you feel that you are doing it “for their good” but don’t expect them to respect you in return.
It matters because the church has broken it’s word for two decades.
Forcing poly eternal marriages with ex-wives on a person without their consent is pretty evil also.
I’m still looking through the conferences trying to see where they justify that one.
Am I right in detecting a difference in attitude towards the LDS ceremonies offering baptism to souls posthumously between those who tend to see religion as something which exists primarily to achieve a good which is ideally universal, such as universal salvation, and those who see it as effectively dividing the world into Us and Them? Both viewpoints, of course, exist in most religions, although in many one or other of the viewpoints is fairly dominant.
And both viewpoints have their dark sides. “Universalists” sometimes see other religions as impediments to salvation, keeping much of the world on the road to hell. When extremists of this viewpoint gain power, religious wars of conversion and other atrocities are possible. “Us and Them” extremists, while not usually given to wars of conversion, often aim at setting up religiously chauvinistic states, with some ethnic cleansing on the way, if necessary.
And, of course, both viewpoints have their less evil, or even good, sides.
It seems to me that most of those who are offended at the LDS ceremonies are looking at the issue from an “Us and Them” point of view.* How dare they take one of Us and try to make him one of Them?* “Universalists” at this point get confused:* Isn’t that what religions are all about? Do you want them to stop being Mormons?*
To a non-religious person like me, it is tempting to mumble You are all nuts and stay out of it, but maybe a little mutual understanding might help here…
This is of course, ignoring the breaking of the promise not to perform the ceremonies, which I think is a separate and simpler issue.