Posted on 02/15/2012 6:11:13 AM PST by Colofornian
Nobel-laureate Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and a top official from the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should use his stature in the Mormon church to block its members from posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims.
Their comments followed reports that Mormons had baptized the deceased parents of Wiesenthal, the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter.
A spokeswoman for Romney said his campaign would not comment, directing all inquiries to church officials.
Posthumous baptisms of non-Mormons are a regular practice of the Mormon religion. Church members believe the ritual creates the possibility for the deceased to enter their conception of Heaven.
Individual members can submit names, usually of deceased relatives, for proxy baptisms. The church has tried to improve its technology to block the process from including Jewish Holocaust victims. In this case, officials blamed an unidentified individual.
“We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names,” spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement...
The practice of baptizing Holocaust victims has long been offensive to Jews. After years of negotiations, Mormon officials have prohibited posthumous baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims.
There is no indication that Romney has ever been involved in the proxy baptism of a Holocaust victim. Asked if he had ever participated in posthumous baptisms, Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”
The controversy could put Romney in the uncomfortable position of having to directly address Mormon theology, a topic he has so far avoided in his current campaign. Many evangelical voters have expressed skepticism about Mormonism, and Romney, a former lay leader in the church, has rarely discussed his experiences in the church.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at bangordailynews.com ...
Mormons believe that they are required to "proxy baptize" the dead so they can "go to heaven." This belief is mistaken, but the practice harms absolutely no one, does not yank Jewish souls out of Gan `Eden and make "mormons" of them, and at the same time eases the consciences of mormons who sincerely believe they must do this.
When the nations of the world are told to discard their false religions, beliefs, and practices in the name of Objective Religious Truth I will be all for it. However, mormons are not being asked to cease this practice in the name of Objective Religious Truth but rather in the name of "tolerance," pluralism, and multiculturalism. This is utter and absolute nonsense. Not only mormon proxy baptism, but chrstian proselytization aimed at Jews, is attacked not in the name of G-d but in the name of Adolf Hitler (mach shemo!). Mormons and chrstians are told to stop practices they sincerely (if mistakenly) believe are required of them not because it is wrong but because it contradicts the "lessons we learned at Auschwitz." What exactly did we learn at Auschwitz that we did not already know at Mt. Sinai anyway???
This particular demand was made, not by a genuine Orthodox rabbinic authority, but by Elie Wiesel, a celebrity-Holocaust survivor whose reason for being Jewish is apparently reduced to Churban 'Europa' and who may not even believe HaShem even exists.
Now before you mormon-bashers jump all over me for "defending mormonism," I am not defending mormonism at all per se; I take the same position with regard to all those demands made of you to stop "witnessing." Too many Jews are Jewish today because of Adolf Hitler (mach shemo!) and not because of HaShem and Torah. It's time this postmodern purely ethno-political Judaism (based on nineteenth century ethnic nationalism) be buried for good and all and replaced with Torah and Mitzvot.
Just my two cents' worth.
Interesting that you don’t deny that you want to control the religious practices of others.
Under what part of the Constitution do you think such authority should be given to you or anyone else?
The Founding Fathers had a lot of experience with nosey, overbearing, folks like you meddling in the religious affairs of others, and they wrote the Constitution with that in mind. You won’t find any such authority. In fact, you’ll find they’ve denied you and anyone else such power.
As far as the Islam accusation, most posters here will easily recognize that both as projection, and tacit admission that your arguments have lost.
Its interesting that you would allow others to roll over family's wishes for their loved ones to rest in peace. No other religion desecrate a family in such way.
Under what part of the Constitution do you think such authority should be given to you or anyone else?
And you?
The Founding Fathers had a lot of experience with nosey, overbearing, folks like you meddling in the religious affairs of others
I'm sure they had their share of sociopaths such as yourself. Uncaring for the personal well being of a family's right to have a family member rest in peace.
and they wrote the Constitution with that in mind.
And Nostradamus wrote many quatrains about people like you.
As far as the Islam accusation, most posters here will easily recognize that both as projection, and tacit admission that your arguments have lost.
This isn't about foot baths, this is about families having the right to have their loved ones rest in peace. Your silly argument reveals what a gruesome individual you really are.
I thank God daily for the wisdom the Founding Fathers showed when they placed unbreakable shackles on your kind.
I laugh at your frustration as you try to break them. It gives me a safe and pleasant feeling knowing you are stopped dead in your tracks, reduced to screaming and shouting.
Um . . . you do realize that mormon proxy baptisms don't actually affect the deceased in any way, don't you?
(Well, let's apply your definition thru the use of parallels...and see how it feels, shall we? If by "control" you mean "object," then we can readily see that you "object"...or, to apply your definition, want to "control" our exhibition of free religious speech on this forum...So, by extension of this parallel, you sound like you want to control how others express themselves religiously. There's a political party that's very into that. They don't post here, and are zotted when they do.)
The Mormon leadership has promised now for 16 years to stop doing this.
I posted another thread yesterday...see Mormons apologize for posthumous baptism of parents of Jewish rights advocate Wiesenthal
Very early in that thread I said the following: Well, this all gives lie to this Mormon belief. If the Mormons truly thought that baptizing Jews by proxy was the ONLY way to "save" them, then they'd continue to do it hell or high water. Yet they cave on doing "the work of the Mormon lord." Why? Because it's "controversial" and "offensive." Wow! If that was the watershed criteria for whether to continue something, where would Christianity be? No, this shows Mormonism to be the wishy-washy cult it's always been!
IOW, I was actually encouraging the Mormon church – if it had the actual absolute gumption to keep claiming that it was of the “Mormon lord” … to stick to its convictions and tell multi-culturalism where it could go. But alas, the Mormon church has shown even they don't believe that baptizing the dead is a salvific absolute! They backed down 16 years ago...and once they made this vow to honor multi-culturalism, it cannot go back.
So now it's a matter about a promise made...and honoring that promise...which Mormons aren't doing, either!
So, first they cave on their doctrine & convictions...showing the lie of their faith...and then they cave on their promise, showing the lie of their integrity!
You think like a liberal.
Nowhere does Jesus susggest baptism of the dead. I am totally not supporting that, and find in anything that I wrote that I do.
My point is that this is their religion. It is not physically harming anyone; it is not coercing anyone to believe or act as they do.
Where does Jesus say that we are responsible for what the pagans do, or need to be concerned about their beliefs? Our command is to teach the truth to them, and what they do with it is up to them.
My WHOLE objection is with misplaced oversensitivity by certain Jewish groups who ARE trying to coerce the Mormons. Screw ‘em.
But theologically, I will agree, the Mormon could probably be more wrong, but it would be hard. I would refer you to 1 Corinthians 15:28-30
Believe it or not, it was not my intention to "side indirectly with the mormons." It was my intention to stand up for people doing something they honestly (however mistakenly) believe G-d wants them to do when faced with political intimidation. How do you like it when secular Jewish leaders, whose Jewishness is based on nothing but Adolf Hitler (yimach shemo vezikhro!) demand people like you to stop "witnessing" to Jews or they'll call you a Nazi? Do you enjoy that?
Now it just so happens that I am against Jews converting to chrstianity in any form (including mormonims) and to any other religion other than authentic Judaism. If a great Sage wants to address the world and demand, in the name of HaShem and the Holy Torah, that chrstians cease all their efforts, well and good. But that isn't what happens. A bunch of nihilists, whose belief in anything has been permanently destroyed by Churban 'Europa', demand that the entire world join them in meditating on the meaninglessness of everything as they stare into the abyss of Auschwitz. This is what the meaning of Jewish existence has been twisted into: the utter meaninglessness of everything. From being the people whose existence testified of G-d they've been reinterpreted as the people whose existence testifies against Him!
That's what this is about. You and I are both grinding very different axes here. Personally, I think anyone who seriously thinks the United States is in any danger of becoming a mormon "theocracy" is nuts (just as I think the Seventh Day Adventists are nuts to worry about their "national sunday law"), but if that floats your boat, go ahead.
The Mormon leadership has promised now for 16 years to stop doing this.
No, I hadn't heard this, and it's a completely separate issue anyway. When Southern Baptists promise to stop witnessing to Jews, do you think that's a good thing?
I don't believe in abstract religious freedom at all. The only religious freedom is the freedom to do what G-d wants. But I realize that until the True Religion triumphs in history there will always be false religions whose followers feel compelled to follow the tenets of those religions. I don't agree with their false religions but I sympathize with anyone being bullied to give up their religious beliefs/practices because of political correctness.
Do you really believe a mormon proxy baptism does anything? Maybe as an ex-mormon you do. But I do not.
I meant control, not object. Seems I hit that pretty square with DB.
I have another objection or so to this post which I overlooked in my desire to get to the dentist on time this morning.
How am I dragging others to hell by singing songs of appeasement> Those were songs of defiance. I think you may have overlooked the context.
By the way, I apologize for the personal comment in my previous post. I have been duly admonished by the Religious Moderator. It was unworthy of me. Still, I do think you misread what I wrote.
No one stops them from demonstrating, but just regulates free speech as usual as to reasonable time, place and manner.
These idiots want to STOP the Mormon’s free exercise rights.
Think.
I do not say that what the Mormons are doing is right. What I say is that in society we must tolerate stupid things in order to protect our rights to evangalize when people get their feelings hurt or think we are “idol worshiping”.
Think.
Think harder; and wiser...elsewise, you may fall into the trap of apparently not realizing that "tolerance" is currently used in our culture in at least three ways:
(1) The "Old school" use of tolerance...embracing religious pluralism as a simple fact of earth-life. This includes notions of basic civility.
(2) Politically correct post-modern tolerance...whereby veracity equivalence is given to all worldviews...all beliefs...all religions...they are all magically deemed "equivalently equal" -- and therefore "Thou shalt not not publicly subject these worldviews, beliefs & religions to critiques"...except, of course, Christianity and those convictions which claim uniqueness and exclusivity.
(3) Legal tolerance...rights-based...we embrace a "legal" right for religious freedom for all (short of ritualistic human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, certain drug usage, etc.) & thereby also legally benefit from that religious freedom.
Now, apply the above to how you used that word "tolerate." You applied a...
...#1 sentiment of tolerance...
...& more importantly a #2 treatment of tolerance (a seeming "hands-off" approach to public critique)...
...all as you then moved into a #3 bottom-line component of tolerance -- "rights."
Sorry.
Epic fail to discern.
My exercising a public critique -- a First Amendment right -- in no way infringes upon the third use of tolerance...a legal right to practice it! My criticism of Mormonism's baptism of the dead in no way undermines Mormons' right to practice it. (Otherwise, we'd all have to "shut up" & pack up the First Amendment in some closet when it came to religious critiques)
It's actually the liberals & the multi-culturalists & the post-modernists who tend to make this equivalency error. Which should, in turn, cause you to review your own campus public schooling (whether any of that was done at a secular higher ed or high school campus) & figure out which educators, which environment, which peer group failed to provide proper discernment on your use of that word.
Your right to swing your fist stops short of my nose.
Think.
You make assumptions about me and what I mean which do not contribute to even the tolerance #1 which you cite above.
When I used the word tolerance(and note the object of said tolernace, stupid things), you should have known that I was using it in the sense of#1.
Please in your # 3, distinquish about rights versus power. No one has the right to do wrong. They only have the power to do so.
However, in a pluralistic society, which you and I should both support or we could not be having this argument, we must allow (tolerate)people to choose wrong in many situations. Caveat, there are some wrongs which we cannot tolerate, murder, fraud and so on.
Without going into multiple examples, that is what I was talking about when I used the word
You make assumptions about me and what I mean which do not contribute to even the tolerance #1 which you cite above.
When I used the word tolerance(and note the object of said tolernace, stupid things), you should have known that I was using it in the sense of#1.
Please in your # 3, distinquish about rights versus power. No one has the right to do wrong. They only have the power to do so.
However, in a pluralistic society, which you and I should both support or we could not be having this argument, we must allow (tolerate)people to choose wrong in many situations. Caveat, there are some wrongs which we cannot tolerate, murder, fraud and so on.
Without going into multiple examples, that is what I was talking about when I used the word
Why do I have to "make assumptions" when in post #54 to Cyber Liberty, you said: "These idiots want to STOP the Mormon’s free exercise rights."
#1...Even if you are talking about Jews objecting to Lds baptisms of holocaust victims, you haven't bothered with this statement to define how they want to "stop" Mormons from this...(for example, 'tis a big difference in encouraging someone to honor their promises vs. calling for government to censor a religion...I'm not saying you're accusing the Jews of doing the latter...but what did you mean by "stop?")
If somebody either...
...encourages me to stop something I do as a Christian -- either to engage in self-restraint or to simply point to a promise I made 15 years ago to stop that practice...
...then there's NO infringement of religious rights there!
C'mon, Amihow...we get enough nutty comments from others without your insinuation here borderlining those other comments we get!
However, in a pluralistic society, which you and I should both support or we could not be having this argument, we must allow (tolerate)people to choose wrong in many situations.
Since I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the right for Mormons to conduct proxy baptisms for the dead, it's obvious that our exchange really boils down to one primary issue:
Should the Mormons baptize dead people free of public commentary from non-Mormons (your position, perhaps?); or is such commentary to be tolerated, after all?
You're not intolerant of religious commentary from non-Mormons about the religious practices of Mormons, are you?
And if you say, "No, I'm not"...
...then please explain what your purposes of posts #55 & #54 were to begin with?
How is post #55 suppose to get me to reconsider anything I've said in post #15 to you? (Post #55 was your response to what I said in post #15)
If your emphasis is that we should simply "tolerate" people to do wrong religiously...
...and if you thought any of my earlier religious posts were off-kilter in any degree (like post #15)...
...why didn't your "tolerance" impulse kick in? Why didn't you simply "tolerate" what I said religiously in post #15 minus your commentary or critique?
The fact is you didn't ignore post #15.
The fact is you wanted me to reconsider something I said there (otherwise, why bother commenting since your comment wasn't an "amen" type of comment?)
And all that leads to the conclusion that you weren't 100% "tolerant" of what I said in post #15. Why not? If what I said religiously in post #15 wasn't something you 100% agreed with, with the way you define "tolerance," you should have just ignored me. Right?
You didn't.
Which means you don't even practice what you preach.
(Oh, and all of this also applies to your lack of perceived religious tolerance of Jews who have objected to Mormons re: this practice...If you truly tolerated their religious convictions on this matter, you would ignore what they say via your so-called def of "tolerance"...your comment in post #54 ... calling either them -- or posters here as "idiots" ... shows you lack both class as well as the very "tolerance" you preach that others should embrace! How hypocritical & two-faced of you!)
Suggestion: Start applying your own standards of "tolerance" to your own commentary about the expressed religious convictions of others on this thread!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.