It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mormons baptizing Jews, posthumously

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
so....if I go into your family cemetery and sacrifice a goat on your great grandmother's grave, leave satanic symbols, etc. then, that's OK, right? I mean she's dead so, it doesn't matter, right?




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
so....if I go into your family cemetery and sacrifice a goat on your great grandmother's grave, leave satanic symbols, etc. then, that's OK, right? I mean she's dead so, it doesn't matter, right?


I didn't say I'd be happy about it, nor would I hold protests and call the paper. I said it wouldn't pull that person away from God. My grandmother (the one who is dead) isn't in the ground. The remains of a shell she once had is, but she is not. That's why I never really understood viewings. The person isn't there, just the shell. I've heard people say "I need closure!" but that doesn't make any sense to me personally unless you're in the Mafia and you have to make certain they're marked off the list. Perhaps I have more to learn about how others feel regarding death...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Saint4God:

I wasn't going after you and obviously that was a tongue-in-cheek-to-make-a-point remark. Actually, I feel more like you than you might think about death and dead bodies (I agree completely with the "empty shell" idea.) But, that's just me...not typically Jewish.

The point was that many people who say that this Mormon sacrilege is harmless would NOT feel that way if I did to them what I described - they would be incensed and want string me up by my family jewels! You know I'm right about that.

Still, what Jews do revere (and most other cultures) is the memory of the deceased and that memory is frequently represented by their name. So, to add the name and, by extension, the memory of a Jew to a christian "roll-call" is indeed sacrilege, offensive in the extreme, and in no way "merely harmless - let it go". I'm not sure that a truly devout Christian will ever be able to understand how deeply a truly devout Jew feels about the fact that your Christ is not recognized as our Messiah and most certainly not the Son of God.

I generally think religion is personal and each person should find their own. I attack the RCC as an organization (because they've so richly earned it) but, NEVER would I attack a good Christian person.

Saint - I may not agree with you or share your faith, but I do respect you and the way you post.

BTW - I was raised Southern Baptist.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
I wasn't going after you and obviously that was a tongue-in-cheek-to-make-a-point remark.


I was thinking that may be the case (since Satanists usually don't ask first, they just do it) but was really hoping to explain further.



Originally posted by Al Davison
Actually, I feel more like you than you might think about death and dead bodies (I agree completely with the "empty shell" idea.) But, that's just me...not typically Jewish.


Maybe someone can explain to me in the Old Testament that makes them feel this way. I thought I was pretty well studied on it but I guess I'm missing a verse or something.


Originally posted by Al Davison
The point was that many people who say that this Mormon sacrilege is harmless would NOT feel that way if I did to them what I described - they would be incensed and want string me up by my family jewels! You know I'm right about that.


Which is why I'm glad I'm behind a computer in an undisclosed location else they probably would've already done so to me.



Originally posted by Al Davison
Still, what Jews do revere (and most other cultures) is the memory of the deceased and that memory is frequently represented by their name. So, to add the name and, by extension, the memory of a Jew to a christian "roll-call" is indeed sacrilege, offensive in the extreme, and in no way "merely harmless - let it go". I'm not sure that a truly devout Christian will ever be able to understand how deeply a truly devout Jew feels about the fact that your Christ is not recognized as our Messiah and most certainly not the Son of God.


I'd like to try though. Also, is the "shell" thinking associated with Jesus somehow?


Originally posted by Al Davison
I generally think religion is personal and each person should find their own. I attack the RCC as an organization (because they've so richly earned it) but, NEVER would I attack a good Christian person.


Hehe, sometimes I'm deserving of attack. I do appreciate the love though.


Originally posted by Al Davison
Saint - I may not agree with you or share your faith, but I do respect you and the way you post.

BTW - I was raised Southern Baptist.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Al Davison]


Thank you thank you!
Compliments are so hard to come by these days. Much appreciated *bows*



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Dear all,

As an athiestic empiricist, I must say that I find this a strange thread.

However, as someone who has many family members who are of one faith or another I do feel disgusted that any cult would try to do this to dead members of another faith.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
To quote my dear departed parents, "We brought you into this world and we can take you out!"

Maybe that's what bothers me about "Baptism for the Dead": If one can get baptised after death, can one also get excommuicated?

This snatches the promise of Eternal Life out of God's OR Jesus's hands and gives it to the local bishops. No thank you.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
What bothers me about it, is that it's invasive. Believe what you want, but dont' force it on me. I don't care if you think you're saving me or mine. That someone would do this to someone who isn't even around to protest it, is offensive to me.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

If one can get baptised after death, can one also get excommuicated?


No, there are no excommunications of dead people.

As a Mormon, I don't see what the fuss is about here, but then, I'm obviously biased. Baptisms for the dead take place in Mormon temples, in the presence of Mormons and nobody else. The deceased's body is not even present, so I don't see how it's a 'desecration' like drbryan suggested. I don't see how it bothers anyone.

If any Jews want to hold a proxy bar mitzvah after I die, go right ahead
(And if you can find some brave soul who will be circumcized for me, too, that's also fine
) Baptism for the dead is seen as a service to those who have passed on, it is done with the greatest of respect.

Baptism for the dead may seem a really odd practice to a non-Mormon, but the intentions are good. Baptism alone isn't going to save anybody, but Mormons believe it is necessary (but not sufficient) to go to heaven.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by DragonsDemesne]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Mormons might have the best intentions with their free service of saving our souls etc, but I wonder how mormons would react if some satanic cult decided to start some book of mormons and poshumously sell mormon souls back to the devil or something....



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
As a Mormon, I don't see what the fuss is about here, but then, I'm obviously biased. Baptisms for the dead take place in Mormon temples, in the presence of Mormons and nobody else. The deceased's body is not even present, so I don't see how it's a 'desecration' like drbryan suggested. I don't see how it bothers anyone.

If any Jews want to hold a proxy bar mitzvah after I die, go right ahead
(And if you can find some brave soul who will be circumcized for me, too, that's also fine
) Baptism for the dead is seen as a service to those who have passed on, it is done with the greatest of respect.


DD - you are probably a minority. Most Utah mormons (and yes, there is a difference) are strict adherents to faith and dogma. The contempt for other religious beliefs (or even perceived beliefs) is quite strong and apparent. When my mom and dad were married - she was told that she could not have candles in her centerpieces at the reception (too catholic she was told). I also remember a neighbor lady who was in the hospital and was visited by the hospital priest. He asked if he could bless her and she lodged a complaint. All harmless little acts (like proxybaptism) that were perceived as offensive.

But this takes us away from the point of the matter itself. The First Presidency promised Jewish leaders that they wouldn't do this anymore. IMO the proxy practice should be limited to names submitted by direct descendants if for no other reason than to foster better relationships within the religious community.

It's weird - having no religious faith as I do - I could care less who prays for me. For me it's an expression of good will so to speak and who couldnt use that.

B.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
DD - you are probably a minority. Most Utah mormons (and yes, there is a difference) are strict adherents to faith and dogma. The contempt for other religious beliefs (or even perceived beliefs) is quite strong and apparent.


Yeah, it's different in Utah, that's for sure. I live in Alberta, where Mormons have a large enough presence that we have a good community going, but still small enough we are in the minority (I think I posted in another Mormon thread that I had found Alberta is 2% Mormons) I'm also a bit of an oddball amongst Mormons; I am definitely not the stereotypical Mormon.

As for the First Presidency promising Jewish leaders that they wouldn't baptize dead Jews, here is a quote from the source article:


Researchers found the names of Holocaust victims in the church's massive index more than a decade ago. After Jewish leaders protested, the two sides signed an agreement in 1995, and about 380,000 names of Holocaust victims were removed.

The agreement also called for no further proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims, celebrities or people who are not relatives of those seeking the baptism.

But Jewish leaders claim Mormons continue to posthumously baptize Jews and Holocaust victims. They said the meetings Sunday and Monday followed a decade of frustration over what they called broken promises.


So a bunch of names were removed in 1995, and no further baptisms are to take place unless they are "relatives of others seeking the baptism", which (I think) must mean their descendants. Ex: a Jew converts to Mormonism, they can have their ancestors baptised for the dead, but not someone else's.

I'll have to ask my grandma about the baptism of Jews the next time I see her. She is heavily involved in genealogy, and would probably know something about this issue. I'm hoping that any further baptisms of Jews was done as a mistake rather than a blatant disregard for the promise.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The current stink is because it is still happening 10 years later. But from what I've heard locally - the church maintains that "they" are not actively using holocaust records but their members may be either through a belief of relationship or ignorance of the earlier promise. But I know that Jewish leaders were in Salt Lake in meetings with Mormon leaders last week - be interesting to see what comes of it.

Either way it's probably time to make it official policy that only direct descendants names can be submitted. If you're not sure - don't submit it.

Good to see you btw,
B.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I've heard that recently the chruch has been accussed of recycling names in temple ceremonies. In the the church (full disclosure - former member, lived in provo) it's a big honor to be the 'proxy' part of the baptism. Demand easily outstrips supply - which is the reason I think the jewish names were being used also.
Now, I don't want to bad mouth the church too much - as a former member I still feel the church is subject to a lot more criticism than is warranted. Yeah, there's problems here and there, but all in all the members are good people. Provo is probably the nicest place I have ever lived. I was there even after my falling away from the church, and the prejudice against non-members isn't near as rampant as some make it seem.

P.S. Just wanted to point out a flaw in the comparision to the satanic desecration. The proxy baptisms don't involve property damage to a memorial of said person, which is why I would suspect most people would be angered by the satanist. Not looking to pick a fight - that was just eating at me.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Mormonism: A Mixture Of Good And Bad, Like Everything Else


Originally posted by BillyD
Now, I don't want to bad mouth the church too much - as a former member I still feel the church is subject to a lot more criticism than is warranted. Yeah, there's problems here and there, but all in all the members are good people.

Speaking as a former resident of Utah myself (Ogden), and as one who has always been skeptical of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the various texts and tracts thereof and Mormonism in general (I think it's all a bunch of hooey), I just wanted to chime in again and agree 100% that anyone bagging on Mormons themselves would do well to get to know them better.

Mormons are human beings and imperfect like everyone else, and like I said, I think the religion is a bunch of hooey. But as individuals, Mormons are some of the finest people I've ever had the privilege to call my neighbors, and I've been around the block a few times.

Knock Mormonism all you want (I most certainly do), but Mormons build strong communities and promote sensible values, and a kid could do far, far worse than to be raised a Mormon.

As for the posthumous baptisms, I'm pretty sure the dead don't care one way or another. Mormons aren't desecrating graves, just holding private ceremonies in their own temples, and last I checked, that's legal in this country.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well let them do their baptisim, its not the same as the one in the Bible anyways. I mean I dont want them to do it, but on the same not, If someone said "don't" pray for me I'm not exactly about to listen to them.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


What hinders? Only not believing in thine heart. Dead can do that, nor can a baby thus a dead person or a baby would be hinderd from being baptized. Bottom line.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by phalcon]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
if you read the article, you would understand other people of differing faiths in opposition to proxy babtizum would have a problem with this.

To them it could be like digging up a persons grave and making them convert to a differant religion.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Re: To Jehosephat

Well I am quite aware of what the article presents.

But heres how I see it. According to the Bible my eternal reward/punishment is determened by what -I- do before I die. Because of that there is nothing that someone else can do to change what happens after I die. As for this mormon ritual, I see that there is no justification for it based on the Bible, and so I disagree with it compleatly. I would tell them now "do not do this for me". But so what if they do? Does it change a thing for me? Not at all.

If a mormon did this for say a Christian friend of mine, I would tell them that they are wrong to do it, and that they shouldn't. But would I get worked up about it? Not at all. His desteny lies with his own actions, and not those of others.

Perhaps the bigger question one should ask is are people who get worked up about this actualy secure in their own faith? The botom line is nothing that you or another says will ever stop another person from doing that ritual if they want to.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Mormons have way too much time on their hands and not enough brains in their heads.
Good thing they aren't polygamous anymore, we don't need that kind breeding around here!



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Legalizer: It my understanding that some sects within morminisim still are. Wether or not they are True "mormons" is another debate.

But polygemy is still alive and well here in British Columbia in a town called bountiful.

Since homosexual marrage is now almost leagle in Canada I suspect the next part of of the defnination to be change is "Between two people".



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Does anyone know anything about Baptism by Proxy? The way some of you people talk it seems like you have a belief that actual corpses are being used (I say this in the most joking manner possible, but seriously). From what I understand, the dead that are the reason for the Baptism by Proxy have a CHOICE. If they choose not to be baptized (wherever they may be), then it's null and void. Or, they can accept it. Maybe you'll have a choice to make this decision in the next life, and if the LDS religion is true, then I hope that you do get that chance. If not, then what's hurt?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join