Actually, it’s a brilliant analogy now.
Jew: My uncle just died, and I’m really sad about it.
Mormon: Later, I’m going to dress up as your uncle and everyone in my church is going to piss on me, pretending to piss on your uncle, because it’s a great honor to us. It’s just a shame he didn’t let us piss on him while he was alive. God Bless!
Well, which is it that you actually object to? “Jews”, as you stated, or “the Wiesenthal Center”? You do realize they’re not fungible, right?
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.
Maybe I just can’t get worked up about this because of my non beliefs. My advice to other non-LDS is to laugh at this. Mock them, roll your eyes. “Those silly Mormons!” When people get worked up about it, it just convinces the LDS of their righteousness.
To be clear, are you saying that Jews are a thin-skinned special interest group that needs to “toughen up” and stop getting so easily offended?
Thanks
Well that is not the way the LDS see it. Baptism by proxy does not automatically join someone to the church. It doesn’t force the dead into anything they don’t want, it instead is supposed to allow the dead to make a choice.
It supposedly goes something like this. Baptism into the (true) church of Christ (you can guess which one that is) is a necessary requirement to get into the better parts of heaven. And it is (according to LDS theology) something that can only be done during life. Once you are dead and you realize, “wow those crazy Mormons were right,” it would be too late for you. You will have missed your chance to be really be super duper happy in the afterlife. And it may be through no fault of your own. You may have never really heard what the whole Mormon thing was really about. Fortunately God allows postmortem conversion (again according to LDS theology). In fact there are (supposedly) Mormon missionaries running around the afterlife. And there you really can’t avoid them. So everyone will get a proper chance to accept or reject the church. And God is soooo cool he allows other people to be your stand in for all the little rituals and such that need to be done in a physical body (baptism is only one of these). So your being dead really isn’t a hindrance to the whole process.
Unfortunately the living don’t know who wants to have a baptism done for them. The prophets and apostles who talk to God are all to busy chatting about other things apparently. So the solution God set up is, the church members are to do it for everyone. Then the folks want to accept the baptism, have a baptism. And if the other folks don’t want it, they don’t have to accept it. For them it won’t count. And the LDS church members have no idea who is who. But that doesn’t matter because they have a commandment from God and a moral obligation (as they see it) to do the work for everyone.
It doesn’t convert anyone (forcibly or not). It instead allows people who convert after death to meet the (evidently vital) pro forma requirements of that conversion.
They have been busted doing this at least 4 times in my life time.
They always apologize promise to never do it again
They wait for everyone to look away and start up again.
Hitler was baptized and sealed to Eva Braun in the 90’s and I think they pulled 100’s of thousands of Holocaust victims off the rolls back then.
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…
Looking at this from the perspective of historical forced conversions is interesting – hadn’t thought about it like that before – but I’m still having a very hard time seeing this as anything worse than “tacky.”
And I wouldn’t even say that about the baptisms themselves; those just seem like acts of common sense decency if you’re operating from the apparent Mormon premises. What’s tacky is making the baptisms public. There’s no benefit to telling everyone about it, and the only actual downside to the practice (i.e. causing offense) completely ceases to be an issue if you just do the baptisms and keep your mouth shut. It’s like ostentatiously giving to charity … hence, tacky.
Damned supportive.
What’s “tacky” is saying you’re going to stop the practice of baptizing the dead of other faiths, then breaking your word over and over again and needlessly giving offense to the living. (a reminder that forced baptism, even the ludicrous Mormon version seen here, has a special negative resonance for Jews).
I’d agree, it doesn’t rise to the level of serious concern - what it is, is boorish and offensive.
Not doing the ceremony itself mind you, but doing it after you know other people find it upsetting and offensive. It’s basically a public middle finger extended to them, concerning their dead relations. So, not cool.
What you are not getting is that the actual theological content of the ceremony in question is irrelevant. No-one questions that the original intentions of those who conduct these ceremonies were good and not bad. The “outrage” comes from the fact that they know damn well it offends people to conduct such ceremonies (and indeed the Church has a policy not to do so), yet these folks are doing it anyway.
Perhaps what you do not understand is that many Jews, for historical reasons having nothing to do with Mormons, find other religions conducting “baptisms” or whatever ceremonies concerning them (however defined) unpleasant. Perhaps the analogy I made upthread would help.
Assume some Indian mystic, wishing nothing but good, was to plant little paper flags with his holy symbol of good on it, in the little space over graves where people leave flowers and stuff. It just so happens that his holy symbol is a swastika. It isn’t the Indian’s fault that Jews, for historical reasons having nothing to do with that Indian or his religion, dislike swastikas. He’s told not to do it and particularly not to do it on graves of holocaust victims. So far, no harm and no foul. The Indian has done nothing wrong, right? It’s not his fault Jews have a hang-up about swastikas. In India, the swastika was a symbol of good long before the Nazis ever existed.
Now suppose that, after knowing that Jews find the swastika offensive and being told not to plant his swastika flags on Jewish graves, and specifically promising not to do so, he goes right back to doing it again! At that point, he’s acting like a jerk. It’s quite irrelevant that, to him, he’s doing good. He’s not acting good.
That’s what these Mormons are doing - acting like jerks.
The implicit, and offensive, statement here is that Mormons are wrong about their religion, and their rituals are nothing but silly plays that don’t mean anything. If you sincerely believe as the Mormons do, then not baptizing everyone you can find would be a horrible and unconscionable thing. So what is it? Do you want respect for religion or don’t you?
If you do, then you also must respect the Mormon religion, and recognize the duty for them to conduct these baptisms. If you don’t, then you don’t have reason to be offended or complaint. The only way to be offended is to take the third path, I want respect for my religion, or at least the mainstream ones, but I do not wish to give that same respect to others. Obviously, that is a bullshit stance.
This is the same as your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.
You can practice your religion all you want. Don’t practice it on me.
There is no evidence at all that Mormons actually believe that it would be a “horrible and unconscionable thing” to not conduct these ceremonies. On the contrary, the official policy of the Mormon church is not to conduct such ceremonies. Wouldn’t respect for the Mormon religion include, you know, actually following the official dictates of the Mormon church on the subject? Or are you accusing the Mormon church of hypocrisy concerning the obligations of their own faith?
I suppose you could read my response that said that the analogy fails because pissing on someone is generally considered offensive while baptizing someone is generally not considered offensive.
Hey, I won’t take away anyone’s right to be offended by something – go for it. I was just saying that the specific analogy of pissing on someone’s grave as analogous to baptizing someone is a poor one.
Some of them are not silly.
I guess what is missing here is the historical context. For many Jews, involuntary baptism by Christians has a very bad rep. Among them, it is generally considered a sign of disrespect, for historical reasons. That’s what is fueling this thing.
That’s why Jews find this process more of an irritant than non-Jews who are also affected.
What you seem to be saying is that you find pissing disrespectful, and baptism not disrespectful.
There is one major point that needs to be discussed. According to Mormon doctrine, the person who was baptized is given a choice to accept or reject the baptism. So without the consent of the deceased, there is no baptism. (no need to comment on death=dead, I get it.)
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.
I assume they aren’t doing all these baptisms for the hell of it. And never underestimate the power of rationalization. The controversy from this will hurt our recruiting and therefore fewer people will be saved!