Not for the Holocaust victims it isn't or their living Jewish relatives.
So, hell no.
It is one of the greatest affronts to the Jewish faith since time immemorial.
That's already been settled between Mormons and the Jews when the Mormons 'promised' to cease and desist baptizing them since 1995. Only they lied and still do it on the sly.
Not good. Not good at all.
For the one Jewish commentator who blogged about it, there are a thousand more adamantly opposed to the practice.
Elie Wiesel was outraged after learning that his deceased parents were scheduled for baptism, and he too right alongside them while he was still living. To him it was an abomination, rightfully so.
It's a sick ritual at best that is fundamentally wrong at its core.
If heaven were really a "Mormon" heaven which it isn't there would be no need to convert anyone to Mormonism on this side of the veil, or in the afterlife. If God were truly a Mormon, so would his kingdom already be.
But he isn't. He is a god of diversity like the world he created with all its inhabitants.
A church needs to be able to run its programs and rituals without depending on non-believers as fodder.
By rights, mormons should only be dead dunking those who have requested it and should never dunk a person who has openly said they object.
I don't feel much better about relatives submitting or approving names because my TBM relatives will do it to me out of spite, knowing full well that I'd object if I were alive and had a voice.
I think dead dunking besmirches the memories of people who only wanted their last fading image to be whatever they did in life.
I truly believe were someone to bring a class action lawsuit against TSCC to get it to cease and desist this one horrid practice, that it would succeed if it were to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
How could it not?
Everytime TSCC baptizes a deceased person against their wishes, it violates their civil rights and their legacy.
We are the ones with the legal standing to bring such a lawsuit today. Because we are the future proxy baptisms of tomorrow.
Would erecting crosses on Mormon graves be free exercise of religion?
Some Christians just wanting to make sure all the Mormons' bases are covered.
Why should they be offended by that, since they can reject the "death" of Jesus in the afterlife?
Claiming that it shouldn't matter is a rejection of the symbolism humans use to signify belonging to a certain way of life, choices that were made in life. It's disrepecting the wishes of the dead.
And were there no record of it, how would Jewish people be able to assert that it is occurring? Of course there are records, and in 50 or 100 years, might those records create a false picture of that person's choices?
I find it offensive that my ancestors' names are on their for-profit geneology sites, and some distant-relative scmuck might not know that they are funding LDS, much less that the ancestors may have been dead dunked, and now, LDS has the schmuck's contact information in their overlord database, just waiting to be dunked, too.
Baptism of Holocaust victims is just another form of forced conversion of the Jews.
They didn't want to join a Christian church or cult in life. And they sure as hell aren't going to in death.
They've been murdered for not being Christian if they didn't agree to convert during pogroms and genocides down through the ages. And then came the Holocaust, the mother of all genocides inflicted on them for nothing other than their being Jewish.
Mormon post-humous baptising IS forced conversion of their memory and their wishes. It is as insensitive and as grave a violation as forced conversion in life.
It doesn't matter that the Mormons say the choice is theirs in the afterlife. They didn't ask for it in the first place.
If the Mormon religion wishes to be respected it needs to respect others religious beliefs as just as sacred as their own. That will be a cold day in hell were that to ever happen.
koriwhore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the same could be said of ISIS throwing gays > off of the tops of buildings?
Sure, because when mormons dunk each other by proxy for somebody already dead, they cause serious physical injury or death to people just like ISIS does.
Oh, wait, no they don't. Never mind.
Look, the practice is ridiculous. It's offensive to some. But to call it "...one of the greatest affronts to the Jewish faith since time immemorial" is equally ridiculous. It's a stupid meaningless ritual they do in secret that harms NOBODY. It doesn't make the dead person a mormon. It doesn't do ANYTHING.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > koriwhore Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So the same could be said of ISIS throwing gays > > off of the tops of buildings? > > Sure, because when mormons dunk each other by > proxy for somebody already dead, they cause > serious physical injury or death to people just > like ISIS does. > > Oh, wait, no they don't. Never mind. > > Look, the practice is ridiculous. It's offensive > to some. But to call it "...one of the greatest > affronts to the Jewish faith since time > immemorial" is equally ridiculous. It's a stupid > meaningless ritual they do in secret that harms > NOBODY. It doesn't make the dead person a mormon. > It doesn't do ANYTHING.
Except preying upon Living and Dead Holocaust victims and "baptizing" them against their will? How would you like it if were Ellie Wisal and you were baptised against your will into their doomsday sex cult?,
Amyjo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because it doesn't mean anything to kolob, he > figures it can't possibly mean anything to Jews, > or Elie Wiesel. > > That's where he's coming from.
You can stop pretending to know where I'm coming from. 'Cause you don't.
> Only it does. And that's where he's wrong. > > Dead wrong.
As I wrote above (and you ignored), it does indeed offend some people. But ultimately their silly ritual doesn't make anybody a mormon, so it IS meaningless. The offense felt is real, and for those who feel it, valid. The ritual itself is neither real nor valid. It's meaningless nonsense.
Not one of the dead-dunked House of Judah individuals has returned to complain. I'm not even aware of any spiritual messages sent back by one or another of the Jewish mormons now living in proxy-wetted bliss.
I think it likely that some opposed to the practice are just as offended by the chutzpah shown by the mormons as they are the deed itself.
Based on 'reading' a lot more 'stories' than you I admit you are 'correct'!!
It is somewhat interesting to many religious people that people/spirits in the after life normally are not concerned with what religious beliefs people have. We are not getting very much 'join XXX' or don't join XXX. Or believe XXX, etc.
It seems the important thing to them is to relate that life goes on and they and relatives that have passed are ok. I think that is because many 'claim' to believe in the after life but that 'belief' is pretty weak without an 'experience'.
One of the aspects of what you've written that a cynic (who, me?) would latch onto is that the people reporting the types of contact you mention are free to continue living their lives as they've been doing. They never get messages that advocate serious life-style change.
Yes, I am saying that no millionaire is ever likely to report a visit from a denizen of the 'other side' during which he was told that in order to attain salvation, he or she must give away all worldly goods and become as ascetic. Report of such a message, followed by conformity to it, would be impressive, and give a bit more credence to 'the visit' than what we see reported here.
elderolddog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> > Yes, I am saying that no millionaire is ever > likely to report a visit from a denizen of the > 'other side' during which he was told that in > order to attain salvation, he or she must give > away all worldly goods and become as ascetic. > Report of such a message, followed by conformity > to it, would be impressive, and give a bit more > credence to 'the visit' than what we see reported > here. _________________________________________________________
You sound like a 'religious' person or at least one convinced of 'religious methods'! You threaten a poor mortal with 'no salvation' to get them to do 'Gods' desires!
People that 'believe in the truth' are truth seekers and 'spiritual' not 'religious'. We should see what we 'need' to do and do it on our own free will not under any threat.
Most church people respond only to threats guess what kind of progress they make.
Of course, your scenario is totally non 'spiritual' as we are eternal beings, there is no hell, 'salvation' is not an issue but individual 'growth' is.
Please note that I was speaking as a cynic, which should allow me some latitude to stray from the probity you bring to the conversation.
You supported my (crass) assumption that no one has reported receiving a message from 'beyond', asking for notice to be given to los mormones to knock off the dead dunking. Given your support, I then simply (and cynically) guessed that no spirit message recipient ever announces having received orders to make a major (read money) change in his or her life. How my cynicism turned into 'religious methodism' is an example of how communication often goes astray. I'm trying to support one point of view and you'd like to turn my words in favor of your point of view.
Happens all the time. What you think I think does not impact me, given the 'distance' of our relationship. Nor do I expect to have any impact on you, which I deem to be right and proper.
Koriwhore is right that in absolute terms the church baptising for the dead is fully they're peace in meetings with freedom of religion and in which the dead have few if any rights.
But as with many rights, the exercise of which rights has ramifications the exercisor may not like. The church is all about PR and image. So they are willing to play the game in public of not baptizing Holocaust and others famous people knowingly. That their system for knowing is mostly a sham is because they don't really care. The recurring discussion is not that intolerable compared to enforcing strict policy on a membership who stays active and paying by doing Temple baptisms.
Do they give themselves any credit for 'sticking to their guns', and for caring so fervently for those who have passed on without having the opportunity to hear the 'Truth'?
dogblogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Koriwhore is right that in absolute terms the > church baptising for the dead is fully they're > peace in meetings with freedom of religion and in > which the dead have few if any rights. >
Just to clarify, this is the authors opinion, not mine. Im just reporting the news.
Yes, dead dunking Holocaust victims is freedom of religion. There is nothing illegal about it, nor should there be.
However, the morally correct thing to do is NOT baptism them.
According to what I was always taught, after Jesus comes back and the whole heaven on earth Millennium, everyone who has ever existed will have had the "saving ordinance" of baptism performed for them. Why worry about dead dunking these people now?
It is truly offensive and downright wrong to do it. These are people who literally died for their beliefs. It's basically telling them that they were wrong.
arinae Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, dead dunking Holocaust victims is freedom of > religion. There is nothing illegal about it, nor > should there be. > Whose freedom? Yours or mine? As a Jew and relative of Holocaust victims and survivors, there is no freedom in this for them. It's a carry over of the days of the Christian Crusades when Jews were slaughtered if they didn't convert to Christianity. Only here they're doing it after they're dead to the voiceless and lifeless disembodied. It's a desecration to the living and the dead. If you defile a body at the funeral home it is a felony. This should be made illegal too because it isn't 'freedom of religion' when boundaries are crossed and other people's rights are being violated.
> However, the morally correct thing to do is NOT > baptism them.
Always was. What are laws written for other than the difference between what is moral v. immoral?
> > According to what I was always taught, after Jesus > comes back and the whole heaven on earth > Millennium, everyone who has ever existed will > have had the "saving ordinance" of baptism > performed for them. Why worry about dead dunking > these people now?
If God is a Mormon god there will be no need to baptize anyone into 'his' religion. We'd be born that way. Only we aren't, and neither is he. Mormons are in no position to pass judgment or give options to those crossed over to the other side - even the suggestion of it is offensive to others integral beliefs regarding their personal salvation. > > It is truly offensive and downright wrong to do > it. These are people who literally died for their > beliefs. It's basically telling them that they > were wrong.
Absolutely right about that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2018 11:11AM by Amyjo.
I was listening to Doug Wright on KSL as I was driving to take my dogs for a walk. Believe me. I didn't listen long. Doug Wright was talking to a man who is obviously a convert as his father was Catholic. This man stated that Monson spoke at his father's Catholic funeral. He said that after the service, Monson stopped him and said, "Now, I'll take care of things on my end and you take care of things on your's." The man then stated that a year later he did the temple work for his parents after Monson had taken care of getting it approved.
I have always felt, even when I was a believer, that this should not be done. I remember reading a Kirby column about it back in the early 1990s.
I'm fairly certain that my daughter will have me re-baptized or whatever when I die, and that is very offensive to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2018 02:53PM by cl2.
From a Trib reader on the subject of dead dunking:
"...As for myself and my ancestors, we did not/do not endorse Mormonism: why would we wish our good names to be exploited by the LDS 'church' for any reason whatever?"