Jewish group wants Mormons to stop proxy baptisms

[Apex]

Its not that simple. none of us can be positive what the future holds for such lists.

So because you are paranoid that some unforeseen event may occur with these lists, you want us to change our core doctrines? Ya, I am sure that will go over really well... not.

 

[Katzpur]

Its not that simple. none of us can be positive what the future holds for such lists.

Okay, you just lost me. You obviously have something in mind. What is it you think could potentially happen with regards to "such lists"? I guess I'm just not understanding your concern. The fact that you don't believe that these lists hold any supernatural or otherwordly power makes me wonder how you feel their existence is a threat to anyone here and now.

 

[DeepShadow]

But many Mormons ARE pushing their believes in a way that effects me arent they?

I can't see how. Where is the effect in your life, personally? The basis of civil rights is that your right to throw a punch stops at my nose, but in this case, there's no impact that I can see. We keep a database of everyone who has had a proxy baptism. That does not harm you in the slightest.

 

[DeepShadow]

I have many family lost in WWII, the concept of dying for the sanctification of God's Name is important to me as a Jew, even if I'm an atheist, there shouldn't be any added content to it, no proxy baptism or any other thing.

We respect that, which is why we entered into AND KEPT the agreement not to perform proxy baptisms for holocaust victims.

Do you have any evidence that the agreement is not being maintained in good faith?

 

[Watchmen]

I watched some proxy baptisms today. Great day.

 

[madhatter85]

Ok, but surely you can understand their point of view too?

Just imagine if the Church of England started baptising Mormons killed in WWII, and the records were kept private in St. Paul's cathedral. Do you think the relatives of those dead might feel somewhat resentful about that?

no, i would not care because i believe those baptisms they perform to be invalid.

 

[madhatter85]

Let's be honest. the Absolute reason we do it is to see the entire human race sealed together through time and all eternity.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

Seeing as we believe the priesthood to be restored in its fulness in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times, there are many souls who did not enjoy the privilege of accepting the fulness of Jesus Christ's Gospel all over the world throughout history.

Any type of religion, including christianity cannot sustain itself as "the only true gospel" unless there was a plan of salvation for the dead. otherwise, they would worship a cruel god for condemning those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message and either accept or reject it.

How can we be considered Christian if we did not want all who have gone on before us to have access to the same blessings we now have available to us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jewish groups have been after the LDS Chruch on this for years :yawn:. Some of them want us to stop doing Jewish baptisms EVEN IF our direct ancestor/family member is related to a member of the Chruch. Time for some people to refocus methinks. The LDS Church is trying to hold up its end of the agreement. How do you babysit 13 million members on a mission to save those in the afterlife? You don't. You have to trust that someone, somewhere is obeying policy and rules.

Hypothetical situation: say you want to be baptized by proxy for a deceased family member. What happens next?

Judging from the discussion so far, it seems to me that it has to happen in a temple, correct? If that's the case, wouldn't stopping unwanted proxy baptism not be so much a matter of policing 13 million members, but instead having only 120-odd temples add a couple of questions along the line of "who are you being baptized for?" and "do you think they'd want this?" to whatever screening process occurs when someone makes the arrangements with the temple to conduct a proxy baptism?

 

[Watchmen]

Grow a pair of kahunas will ya.

Speak for yourself. You're the one *****in' about some hypothetical situation where people of the future will look back and mistake LDS proxy lists for something they are not.

 

[Watchmen]

Hypothetical situation: say you want to be baptized by proxy for a deceased family member. What happens next?

Judging from the discussion so far, it seems to me that it has to happen in a temple, correct? If that's the case, wouldn't stopping unwanted proxy baptism not be so much a matter of policing 13 million members, but instead having only 120-odd temples add a couple of questions along the line of "who are you being baptized for?" and "do you think they'd want this?" to whatever screening process occurs when someone makes the arrangements with the temple to conduct a proxy baptism?

"do you think they'd want this?"

How do you answer that for some ancestor living in England and reading Chaucer back in the day? The point is that temple work is only making acceptance of the gospel and its ordinances available for them in the Spirit World. It's not some automatic conversion. They are not "Mormon" now. All that's happened is the ordinances have been performed and wherever they are in the Spirit World they now have the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinance.

 

[Watchmen]

Hypothetical situation: say you want to be baptized by proxy for a deceased family member. What happens next?

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me should answer, but this is my understanding.

1. The person must be deceased for at least one year.

2. The Mormon submits the person's name to the temple. In addition to the name, other information is submitted such as birth date and location, date of death and location, parents' names and their birth and death information, etc.

3. The Recording Department of the temple meticulously checks the information to make sure it's accurate and to make sure the work has not already been done. I expect this is also the time the department checks to make sure the name submitted is not of a holocaust victim.

4. Once everything checks out, the person's name is available for temple work. The Mormon can elect to reserve the name so he can do the work of the deceased member himself or the Mormon can elect to release the name, allowing any Mormon to perform the work.

5. The work is performed.

6. In the Spirit World, the deceased member will decide whether they accept the work or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"do you think they'd want this?"

How do you answer that for some ancestor living in England and reading Chaucer back in the day?

I have absolutely no idea. I don't think that makes it an irrelevant question, though.

The point is that temple work is only making acceptance of the gospel and its ordinances available for them in the Spirit World. It's not some automatic conversion. They are not "Mormon" now. All that's happened is the ordinances have been performed and wherever they are in the Spirit World they now have the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinance.

I think that the LDS Church's instruction to not baptize holocaust victims by proxy is a nod to the idea that this process can be considered offensive and inappropriate by some people. If that's true in this one specific case, shouldn't the Church also acknowledge that it might be true in others?

The LDS Church has deemed that Jews who died for being Jewish should be off-limits for proxy baptism. Why not also Huguenots who died for being Huguenots, Baha'is who died for being Baha'i, Catholics for being Catholic, Kurds for being Kurds, Native Americans for being Native Americans, or any of the other groups throughout history that were persecuted because of their culture or beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me should answer, but this is my understanding.

Thanks. This bit is the part I wonder about:

3. The Recording Department of the temple meticulously checks the information to make sure it's accurate and to make sure the work has not already been done. I expect this is also the time the department checks to make sure the name submitted is not of a holocaust victim.

4. Once everything checks out, the person's name is available for temple work. The Mormon can elect to reserve the name so he can do the work of the deceased member himself or the Mormon can elect to release the name, allowing any Mormon to perform the work.

So, as I understand it, despite the Church's teaching that every single person who will have ever lived should be baptized either in person or by proxy, the Church has decided that some people should be excluded from the process.

In my mind, this doesn't make it so much an issue of allowing the Church to fulfil its mission or not (since it already seems agreable to bending the parameters of its mission), but a question of how large the "do not baptize" list should be and who should be on it, keeping in mind that it's a given that the list does exist and a significant number of people are already on it.

 

[Watchmen]

I have absolutely no idea. I don't think that makes it an irrelevant question, though.


I think that the LDS Church's instruction to not baptize holocaust victims by proxy is a nod to the idea that this process can be considered offensive and inappropriate by some people. If that's true in this one specific case, shouldn't the Church also acknowledge that it might be true in others?

The LDS Church has deemed that Jews who died for being Jewish should be off-limits for proxy baptism. Why not also Huguenots who died for being Huguenots, Baha'is who died for being Baha'i, Catholics for being Catholic, Kurds for being Kurds, Native Americans for being Native Americans, or any of the other groups throughout history that were persecuted because of their culture or beliefs?

Certainly that's a good argument. I believe the difference is we got something in return for the agreement: The Jerusalem Center - a branch of BYU. I might be wrong - someone else can correct me. So, this very much was a contract. Perhaps we'd be willing to add more groups should they have something to offer.

Bottom-line, and this will probably be offensive, we have the agreement now, but during the Millenium, I expect the work for EVERYONE to be completed - including the holocaust victims. For now we're just restraining ourselves.

 

[Watchmen]

Thanks. This bit is the part I wonder about:


So, as I understand it, despite the Church's teaching that every single person who will have ever lived should be baptized either in person or by proxy, the Church has decided that some people should be excluded from the process.

In my mind, this doesn't make it so much an issue of allowing the Church to fulfil its mission or not (since it already seems agreable to bending the parameters of its mission), but a question of how large the "do not baptize" list should be and who should be on it, keeping in mind that it's a given that the list does exist and a significant number of people are already on it.

I just wrote my previous post before reading this one, so my answer will be redundent.

The Church will perform the work of EVERYONE. It is only a matter of timing. Just because certain Jews are on the list now does not mean they will be on the list during the Millenium. We believe that to be 1,000 years when Christ will reign on the earth and communication between this world and the Spirit World will take place, performing the work for ALL who have not yet had that opportunity, including Holocaust victims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly that's a good argument. I believe the difference is we got something in return for the agreement: The Jerusalem Center - a branch of BYU. I might be wrong - someone else can correct me. So, this very much was a contract. Perhaps we'd be willing to add more groups should they have something to offer.

Ah. So because the Huguenots were eradicated and therefore have nobody left to donate a wing or building to a Mormon school, they're just out of luck, eh?

I just wrote my previous post before reading this one, so my answer will be redundent.

The Church will perform the work of EVERYONE. It is only a matter of timing. Just because certain Jews are on the list now does not mean they will be on the list during the Millenium. We believe that to be 1,000 years when Christ will reign on the earth and communication between this world and the Spirit World will take place, performing the work for ALL who have not yet had that opportunity, including Holocaust victims.

Okay... so, then, putting anyone on the "do not baptize" list, at least until the Millenium, doesn't interfere with the Church's mission or God's command, does it? In that case, why not hold off on baptizing everyone who you aren't absolutely sure would want it until Christ returns?

 

[Watchmen]

Ah. So because the Huguenots were eradicated and therefore have nobody left to donate a wing or building to a Mormon school, they're just out of luck, eh?

Tell you what. Why don't you go find some Huguenots on an LDS proxy list or somewhere like ancestry.com. I bet you can't find any. Thus, their work will be completed during the Millenium.

Okay... so, then, putting anyone on the "do not baptize" list, at least until the Millenium, doesn't interfere with the Church's mission or God's command, does it? In that case, why not hold off on baptizing everyone who you aren't absolutely sure would want it until Christ returns?

Because there are people ready NOW to receive the gospel and its ordinances - why should we halt their progression? Putting everyone on hold would interfere with the Church's mission. Putting a very small group on a temporary hold does not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tell you what. Why don't you go find some Huguenots on an LDS proxy list or somewhere like ancestry.com. I bet you can't find any. Thus, their work will be completed during the Millenium.

Ancestry.com doesn't seem to allow searches by religious affiliation, but just to see, I punched in a death date of 17 September 1572 and a death location of Paris, matching up with the date and place of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre; I got more than 300 hits. None were strong matches, but the odds are that at least some Huguenots are in the database.

Because there are people ready NOW to receive the gospel and its ordinances - why should we halt their progression? Putting everyone on hold would interfere with the Church's mission. Putting a very small group on a temporary hold does not.

It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing matter. For example, I think it'd be fair to say that almost all non-Mormons since, say, 1900 heard about the LDS Church and chose not to accept it. Why not use that date as a cutoff? You could restrict your proxy baptism activities to people who died before that date and be busy for a long time to come, while respecting the apparent wishes of the people who knowingly decided not to be baptized into the LDS Church while alive.

 

[Watchmen]

Ancestry.com doesn't seem to allow searches by religious affiliation, but just to see, I punched in a death date of 17 September 1572 and a death location of Paris, matching up with the date and place of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre; I got more than 300 hits. None were strong matches, but the odds are that at least some Huguenots are in the database.

I'm impressed.

It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing matter. For example, I think it'd be fair to say that almost all non-Mormons since, say, 1900 heard about the LDS Church and chose not to accept it. Why not use that date as a cutoff? You could restrict your proxy baptism activities to people who died before that date and be busy for a long time to come, while respecting the apparent wishes of the people who knowingly decided not to be baptized into the LDS Church while alive.

You assume too much. You think everyone in the world since 1900 has head about the LDS Church? Also, it's not enough to have heard of the Church anyway.

 

[Katzpur]

I have absolutely no idea. I don't think that makes it an irrelevant question, though.

Of course you would have no idea. Neither do we. That's probably why the question is not asked of us. Instead, it's only asked of the person in the Spirit World. He is the only one qualified to answer.

I think that the LDS Church's instruction to not baptize holocaust victims by proxy is a nod to the idea that this process can be considered offensive and inappropriate by some people. If that's true in this one specific case, shouldn't the Church also acknowledge that it might be true in others?

The LDS Church has deemed that Jews who died for being Jewish should be off-limits for proxy baptism. Why not also Huguenots who died for being Huguenots, Baha'is who died for being Baha'i, Catholics for being Catholic, Kurds for being Kurds, Native Americans for being Native Americans, or any of the other groups throughout history that were persecuted because of their culture or beliefs?

Our reason for not performing proxy baptisms on behalf of those who died in the Holocaust doesn't really have anything at all to do with the fact that they were persecuted.