LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a "wife"

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .This quote from the article articulates the insult to the Jewish people, “Michel suggested that posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims play into the hands of Holocaust deniers.”

To this you responded by saying this is “the dumbest argument” you’ve seen so far.

So, when the Jewish people express the extreme offense the Mormon church perpetrated upon the memory of Jews who died in the Holocaust; you spit in their faces, by calling their arguments “the dumbest” you’ve ever seen? You dare to tell the Jews how to feel? You dare to tell them what should and should not offend them?

You dare to tell us all what should and should not offend us?

You dare to say to me, “Your ancestors are NOT your property,” while the Mormon church treats our ancestors as if they are there for the Mormon church to use as they see fit?

Your arrogance is really quite astounding. I am done with you.

Dianaiad:

I was really upset last night; and I am sorry that I let my emotions get the better of me in the post above. I am sorry I spoke to you in anger.

We all speak from our own experiences. I had a very traumatic experience with the Mormon Church. I felt deceived and betrayed by my Mormon friends. It’s a long story.

Anyway, let us start again.

Anna

I called that the dumbest argument I’ve seen so far, because it is based upon a truely ignorant view of what happens. That it came from someone who is supposed to be in conversations with the church is truly astounding.

Tell me; is the holocaust the holocaust only because JEWS died in it? The fact that six million Jews were murdered in it is beyond horrific. However, were you aware that five million NON-JEWS also were murdered in the Holocaust, as well? Are their deaths to be dismissed because they were NOT Jewish?

**For the argument to be made that a Holocaust victim MUST BE JEWISH (and that’s what Michel’s argument amounts to) or it would 'play into the hands of Holocaust deniers" should be offensive to everybody. Jews were the hardest hit. I do not in any way downplay the effect of the Shoah upon Jewish culture, religion, families…everything.
**
but they did not die alone. Mind you, I’m taking my life in my hands even hinting this; somehow admitting that nearly as many non-Jews were murdered as Jews is a very politically incorrect thing to mention, even though doing so does not take away from the tragedy of the horrific loss of life the Jews suffered. (there really are no adjectives that suffice for this.)

So we have two problems with this argument. First…he is supposing that the records will say what they never WOULD say, and second, he is utterly dismissing the suffering of everybody in the Holocaust who was NOT Jewish, by assuming that the Holocaust only happened to Jews.

I am one who thinks that the truth about the Holocaust is horrific. It shouldn’t be downplayed. It shouldn’t be changed. It should not be denied. **But we also must NOT change the truth of what happened for political correctness, and that means we do not assent to lies in the service of Jewish indignation.
**
Eleven million people were murdered in the Holocaust. Six million of them were Jews. Nothing we can do would change that truth. We would never attempt to do anything to change that truth, and all our records would always reflect that truth. However, there is something being forgotten here. Even now, the five million non-Jews who were murdered are being referred to as 'the others," and “the forgotten ones.”

…and here this Michel is outright saying that if you weren’t a Jew, or if there is any perception that you were not a Jew, then the Holocaust didn’t happen to you; that the Holocaust was only the Holcuast to Jews. Now I find THAT offensive.Indeed, when I called that the “dumbest argument I’ve seen so far,” I was being kind.

You be offended by whatever you want to be offended by. However, in this case you have no reason to be offended. The records will not change. Nobody is going to percieve any Jewish Holocaust victim as a “Mormon holocaust victim,” because the records are too clear about dates…and Michal’s statement is offensive to every Holocaust survivor (and relative of those who did not survive) who didn’t happen to be Jewish.

…unless you, too, think that the Holocaust belongs only to the Jews, and the other five million really should be ‘the forgotten ones?’ Because that IS the argument Michal is making here; that if somehow it was percieved that MORMONS were murdered, instead of Jews, that the Holocaust deniers would see that as proof that the Holocaust did not happen–as if the deaths of the other five million victims don’t count with anybody at all, and as if the Holocaust was only ‘real’ because Jews died in it.

Yes. I dare. However, as angry as I am right now, I will also say this: Only if they are our ancestors, too. I’m not a fan of people who submit names of those to whom they are not related. That’s simply wrong.

dianaiad:

Stop and think about what you are saying.

Somehow, you have turned the Jewish plea to the Mormon Church to honor the agreement to cease by-proxy baptisms of holocaust victims into, “he is utterly dismissing the suffering of everybody in the Holocaust who was NOT Jewish, by assuming that the Holocaust only happened to Jews.”

Dianaiad,

You are way off on a tangent and distorting the truth. Please—I beg of you, think about what you are saying.

Anna

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If a really bad person gets baptized by the Mormons after death, would he be still cast into Outer Darkness?

 

[kimmielittle]

Since baptism for the dead is in the new testament, they have very little choice in the matter. Now others may not agree with their interpretation of that particular bible verse but still that is why they do it. The problem is not with the lds but with Paul who was not clear about what he meant when he said something about baptism for the dead as found in I Cor.

That is part of my problem with some of their lDS ] teachings.

I can utilize a small section of the Bible to the neglect of the whole, to make almost any transgression, I commit, to look holy. If that doesn’t work…hmmmm write my own interpretation???. { just for reference: Gen. 48: 5-11 Joseph’s seed will be the leaders in the gathering of Israel in the latter days. (compare Genesis 48: 5-6)
Gen. 50: 24-38 Moses, Aaron, and Joseph Smith were all named in this prophecy of Joseph in Egypt. Also, Joseph prophesied that the Book of Mormon would become a companion to the record of Judah. (compare Genesis 50: 24-26; see also 2 Nephi 3)

My acceptance of the Bible is as the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God.

I hope this helps

 

[kimmielittle]

Can you furnish an example of Paul physically baptizing the dead?

I believe, Paul was teaching to the Christians in Corinth, against those who do not believe in the bodily resurrection… using based on his language ] metaphorical analogies.

i hope this helps

 

[dianaiad]

Hey thank you,

But I’ll hold off of educational, life advice.
You see, I choose my Mentors very carefully.

I see. I suggest that you float your reaction to my request for a reference by one of those carefully chosen academic mentors.

…and ask one of them if the world would end completely if you admitted that you were actually wrong about something.

 

[kimmielittle]

I see. I suggest that you float your reaction to my request for a reference by one of those carefully chosen academic mentors.

…and ask one of them if the world would end completely if you admitted that you were actually wrong about something.

I might ask the same of you…your history shows you can not.

That and your regard for others…

n’ough said.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad:

I was really upset last night; and I am sorry that I let my emotions get the better of me in the post above. I am sorry I spoke to you in anger.

We all speak from our own experiences. I had a very traumatic experience with the Mormon Church. I felt deceived and betrayed by my Mormon friends. It’s a long story.

I am very sorry that you had such an experience. I wish Mormons were perfect. We aren’t, and we can pull some truly nasty stuff…people, unfortunately, all can do that.

Anyway, let us start again.

OK…

Stop and think about what you are saying.

I spent a great deal of time thinking about what I said, Anna.

Somehow, you have turned the Jewish plea to the Mormon Church to honor the agreement to cease by-proxy baptisms of holocaust victims into, “he is utterly dismissing the suffering of everybody in the Holocaust who was NOT Jewish, by assuming that the Holocaust only happened to Jews.”

Dianaiad,

You are way off on a tangent and distorting the truth. Please—I beg of you, think about what you are saying.

Anna

No, actually, I’m not. In fact, I am protesting a form of ‘holocaust denying’ that Michal was guilty of.

I repeat. I did think about what I said. Your reaction of…“How DARE I tell you what to be offended by…” simply confirmed what I read in Michal’s position. I quoted what he said; I’ll do it again and parse the thing as I saw it. The context of the quote comes from a news report about a Jewish group discussing the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims with the church, and deciding to simply cut it off and stop all further contact with the church on the matter–and going to the ‘court of public opinion.’

(the problem the church has with this is more complicated than the Jews seem to think; we are NOT a monolithic dictatorship. It isn’t that we aren’t willing to stop, at the highest levels, or that we haven’t been requested to stop…but the members are quite free to submit any names they want to submit, and it’s just not that easy to catch everything. we CANT do what you want us to do without becoming precisely the sort of dictatorial theocracy everybody claims we are—and are not.)

continued on next post…

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

Anyway, here is the quote again:

"Michel suggested that posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims play into the hands of Holocaust deniers. * my first reaction, without seeing the following paragraph, was…say…what? How in the world could proxy baptisms do THAT?*

“They tell me, that my parents’ Jewishness has not been altered* And indeed, what they tell him is true. After all, the only way what we do could possibly alter that is if it did something WE claim it cannot do…in other words, believing that it is more effective than we claim it is. As well, there is this thing about the records; if his mother were to have her ‘work done,’ her records would show, very clearly,, that she was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew, and that an OFFER was made to her well after her death date–an offer that only becomes effective if his mother knows about it and agrees to it. The records do not, and CAN not, 'change [his] parent’s Jewishness.” No matter what sort of trouble he is borrowing. * **but … 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?" Michel said Monday." ** *…and this is the one that got me. Remember, he is assuming that A; in a hundred years people will be too stupid to check the dates, and too incredibly dumb to understand how to add and subtract–and thus identify Jewish victims of the Holocaust as MORMON victims of the Holocaust—and that this mistake would 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers."

Now, the ONLY way that this could do that is if by taking the Jewishness of the victims out of the Holocaust makes the Holocaust disappear. That is, after all, what the Holocaust deniers are trying to do; make the Holocaust disappear; to claim that it never happened–that people did not die in concentration camps, and were not murdered by the Nazi regime. Eleven million people would still be DEAD…but somehow it would be ‘not the Holocaust,’ because JEWS wouldn’t have died in it. *

In other words, Anna, Michal was saying that the Holocaust was the Holocaust only because Jews died in it. That is the ONLY way that changing the records (or removing the 'Jewishness" of his parents) could be seen to 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers; as if he agreed with them; that without the Jews, the Holocaust didn’t happen and nobody, really, actually DIED.

Let me put this more graphically. There is a gas chamber. Eleven people stand in it, naked, shivering, thinking that they are about to be humilated with a shower and a vermin treatment. They are about to die. Of those eleven people, six are Jews. The rest…are not.

Now somehow, somebody waves an arm and the six Jews become like the other five; not Jews.

They still die. They still die because of who they are, or what they believe, or what their politics are, or because they have some physical or mental infirmity, or because of their sexual orientation. Having six of them suddenly become 'not-Jew" did not miraculously transport all eleven out of the chamber; they still, all, die.

The ONLY way that such a perception (of Jews suddenly being percieved as 'not Jews") could 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers," is if the Holocaust is ONLY about Jews…and if someone can show that the victims were not, after all, Jews—then somehow that proves that there were no victims of the Holocaust, at all.

And that says a great deal more about Michal and people who think as he does than about Holocaust deniers a hundred years from now.

For one thing, if there are Holocaust deniers a hundred years from now, they will be regarded as seriously as people who wear aluminum foil hats to "foil’ alien death rays.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am very sorry that you had such an experience. I wish Mormons were perfect. We aren’t, and we can pull some truly nasty stuff…people, unfortunately, all can do that. . . . No, actually, I’m not. In fact, I am protesting a form of ‘holocaust denying’ that Michal was guilty of.

I repeat. I did think about what I said. Your reaction of…“How DARE I tell you what to be offended by…” simply confirmed what I read in Michal’s position. I quoted what he said; I’ll do it again and parse the thing as I saw it. The context of the quote comes from a news report about a Jewish group discussing the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims with the church, and deciding to simply cut it off and stop all further contact with the church on the matter–and going to the ‘court of public opinion.’

(the problem the church has with this is more complicated than the Jews seem to think; we are NOT a monolithic dictatorship. It isn’t that we aren’t willing to stop, at the highest levels, or that we haven’t been requested to stop…but the members are quite free to submit any names they want to submit, and it’s just not that easy to catch everything. we CANT do what you want us to do without becoming precisely the sort of dictatorial theocracy everybody claims we are—and are not.)

continued on next post…

. . . . "Michel suggested that posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims play into the hands of Holocaust deniers. * my first reaction, without seeing the following paragraph, was…say…what? How in the world could proxy baptisms do THAT?*

“They tell me, that my parents’ Jewishness has not been altered* And indeed, what they tell him is true. After all, the only way what we do could possibly alter that is if it did something WE claim it cannot do…in other words, believing that it is more effective than we* claim it is. As well, there is this thing about the records; if his mother were to have her ‘work done,’ her records would show, very clearly,, that she was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew, and that an OFFER was made to her well after her death date–an offer that only becomes effective if his mother knows about it and agrees to it. The records do not, and CAN not, 'change [his] parent’s Jewishness.” No matter what sort of trouble he is borrowing. **but … 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?" Michel said Monday." ** *…and this is the one that got me. Remember, he is assuming that A; in a hundred years people will be too stupid to check the dates, and too incredibly dumb to understand how to add and subtract–and thus identify Jewish victims of the Holocaust as MORMON victims of the Holocaust—and that this mistake would 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers."

Now, the ONLY way that this could do that is if by taking the Jewishness of the victims out of the Holocaust makes the Holocaust disappear. That is, after all, what the Holocaust deniers are trying to do; make the Holocaust disappear; to claim that it never happened–that people did not die in concentration camps, and were not murdered by the Nazi regime. Eleven million people would still be DEAD…but somehow it would be ‘not the Holocaust,’ because JEWS wouldn’t have died in it. *

In other words, Anna, Michal was saying that the Holocaust was the Holocaust only because Jews died in it. That is the ONLY way that changing the records (or removing the 'Jewishness" of his parents) could be seen to 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers; as if he agreed with them; that without the Jews, the Holocaust didn’t happen and nobody, really, actually DIED.

Let me put this more graphically. There is a gas chamber. Eleven people stand in it, naked, shivering, thinking that they are about to be humilated with a shower and a vermin treatment. They are about to die. Of those eleven people, six are Jews. The rest…are not.

Now somehow, somebody waves an arm and the six Jews become like the other five; not Jews.

They still die. They still die because of who they are, or what they believe, or what their politics are, or because they have some physical or mental infirmity, or because of their sexual orientation. Having six of them suddenly become 'not-Jew" did not miraculously transport all eleven out of the chamber; they still, all, die.

The ONLY way that such a perception (of Jews suddenly being percieved as 'not Jews") could 'play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers," is if the Holocaust is ONLY about Jews…and if someone can show that the victims were not, after all, Jews—then somehow that proves that there were no victims of the Holocaust, at all.

And that says a great deal more about Michal and people who think as he does than about Holocaust deniers a hundred years from now.

For one thing, if there are Holocaust deniers a hundred years from now, they will be regarded as seriously as people who wear aluminum foil hats to "foil’ alien death rays.

dianaiad:

I think you are reading something into the article that isn’t there. The article is in no way claiming that only Jews were persecuted or killed during the Holocaust.

The Jews are just asking the Mormon Church to cease the by-proxy baptisms of Jews, as the Mormon Church agreed to do.

Why are you defending the breaking of this agreement?

When the Mormon church continues to do something they specifically agreed not to do, it tarnishes the image of Mormonism. It causes people to believe the Mormon church cannot be trusted. Do you not see that?

Anna

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

I think you are reading something into the article that isn’t there. The article is in no way claiming that only Jews were persecuted or killed during the Holocaust.

You mean…the way Michal is reading into the genealogical records of the church something that is not, and never will be, there? That’s a bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

The Jews are just asking the Mormon Church to cease the by-proxy baptisms of Jews, as the Mormon Church agreed to do.

Why are you defending the breaking of this agreement?

I’m not. I explained a little bit of the difficulties in KEEPING that agreement, and I came right out and SAID that the practice of submitting the names of non-relatives for proxy work is wrong. I actually, y’know, WROTE that.

What I wrote here was that Michal’s argument against doing the work is the dumbest one I’ve come across yet. It is. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the agreement should be upheld as much as we can. The problem is…we CAN’T, not completely. It’s not that the church doesn’t want to…it CAN’T. Too many people are involved in submitting names. the process of vetting those names is too cumbersome, expensive and technically difficult when you are dealing with literally millions of people SUBMITTING them.

So yes, there are going to be some pretty wild mistakes, and in spite of the fact that we have all been asked not to do this, some names ARE going to go through in spite of everything. Perhaps many will.

It would be a bigger problem if such proxy work, done in error, actually stuck–but like any proxy work done here on earth, the work has to be correctly done–for the right people and completely accepted by them–in order to be of effect. That’s what WE believe, and we’re the ones doing it!

Those who don’t believe that what we do affects their ancestors have even less to be concerned about. If they (and you) are correct, those who have passed on won’t even know anybody did anything down here; it’s a moot point. You COULD even just consider the notice of proxy work a ‘credit,’ of sorts…thanks to the Mormons, we know who they were–and without the Mormons, we probably wouldn’t have.

However, the argument Michel used? Balderdash. If you are going to argue against something, at least use something that makes sense.

When the Mormon church continues to do something they specifically agreed not to do, it tarnishes the image of Mormonism. It causes people to believe the Mormon church cannot be trusted. Do you not see that?

Anna

I just told you; it’s not that easy. the church, in spite of the way the anti’s like to paint us, is NOT an iron handed monolith that has complete control of every breath its members take. Most of the members who work on their genealogy do so quietly in their homes, on their computers, in the libraries…it’s not a group effort. The names are submitted by the millions, and the weeding out process just isn’t THAT good. We are ATTEMPTING to keep that agreement, but Anna, you guys are asking perfection and nobody can DO that.

Finally, don’t get the two things confused. It is QUITE possible for me to think that we should keep that agreement (as I do) and still proclaim Michel’s argument against doin gproxy work for Holocaust victims the dumbest one I’ve seen yet.

AND to note that his argument denies the horror of the holocaust to all but Jews, because it does. There is no other way that ‘removing the Jewishness’ of Holocaust victims would 'play into the hands of Holocaust deniers," y’know.

On the other hand, perhaps he has a point. Nobody seems too excercised about the 20 million people Stalin killed (some estimates go up to as many as 60 or more million, but nobody argues with the ‘at least 20 million’ number). I don’t see Centers that commemorate the deaths of the 49 to 78 million people Mao Tse Dung was responsible for killing. Compared to them, Hitler was third rate.

 

[kalt]

You mean…the way Michal is reading into the genealogical records of the church something that is not, and never will be, there? That’s a bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

I’m not. I explained a little bit of the difficulties in KEEPING that agreement, and I came right out and SAID that the practice of submitting the names of non-relatives for proxy work is wrong. I actually, y’know, WROTE that.

What I wrote here was that Michal’s argument against doing the work is the dumbest one I’ve come across yet. It is. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the agreement should be upheld as much as we can. The problem is…we CAN’T, not completely. It’s not that the church doesn’t want to…it CAN’T. Too many people are involved in submitting names. the process of vetting those names is too cumbersome, expensive and technically difficult when you are dealing with literally millions of people SUBMITTING them.

So yes, there are going to be some pretty wild mistakes, and in spite of the fact that we have all been asked not to do this, some names ARE going to go through in spite of everything. Perhaps many will.

It would be a bigger problem if such proxy work, done in error, actually stuck–but like any proxy work done here on earth, the work has to be correctly done–for the right people and completely accepted by them–in order to be of effect. That’s what WE believe, and we’re the ones doing it!

Those who don’t believe that what we do affects their ancestors have even less to be concerned about. If they (and you) are correct, those who have passed on won’t even know anybody did anything down here; it’s a moot point. You COULD even just consider the notice of proxy work a ‘credit,’ of sorts…thanks to the Mormons, we know who they were–and without the Mormons, we probably wouldn’t have.

However, the argument Michel used? Balderdash. If you are going to argue against something, at least use something that makes sense.

I just told you; it’s not that easy. the church, in spite of the way the anti’s like to paint us, is NOT an iron handed monolith that has complete control of every breath its members take. Most of the members who work on their genealogy do so quietly in their homes, on their computers, in the libraries…it’s not a group effort. The names are submitted by the millions, and the weeding out process just isn’t THAT good. We are ATTEMPTING to keep that agreement, but Anna, you guys are asking perfection and nobody can DO that.

Finally, don’t get the two things confused. It is QUITE possible for me to think that we should keep that agreement (as I do) and still proclaim Michel’s argument against doin gproxy work for Holocaust victims the dumbest one I’ve seen yet.

AND to note that his argument denies the horror of the holocaust to all but Jews, because it does. There is no other way that ‘removing the Jewishness’ of Holocaust victims would 'play into the hands of Holocaust deniers," y’know.

On the other hand, perhaps he has a point. Nobody seems too excercised about the 20 million people Stalin killed (some estimates go up to as many as 60 or more million, but nobody argues with the ‘at least 20 million’ number). I don’t see Centers that commemorate the deaths of the 49 to 78 million people Mao Tse Dung was responsible for killing. Compared to them, Hitler was third rate.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of respect. No one has the right to change someone’s religion, even if it’s only on paper–not even a relative. The fact that a relative is disrespecting the living choice of his relative is license, you think, to join him? Two wrongs…

 

[amontoya]

Where do you get all that?

I entered her name and birth date into the family search website, and what came up was a listing from the International Genealogical Index. When I clicked on her link it took me to a site listing information for her microfilm, which was titled, “Baptisms for the Dead, Salt Lake Temple.”

From what I’ve learned on this thread, that means there’s a really good chance that temple work has been done for her.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

:: Snerk-snerk-snerk:: I can’t find the link, but this reminds of an absurd thread back in December, in which a non-Christian posted about some well-intentioned Catholic friend of his baptizing him (the non-Christian) while he was asleep! I’m calling it a mere case of “those wacky Mormons”.

 

[amontoya]

:: Snerk-snerk-snerk:: I can’t find the link, but this reminds of an absurd thread back in December, in which a non-Christian posted about some well-intentioned Catholic friend of his baptizing him (the non-Christian) while he was asleep! I’m calling it a mere case of “those wacky Mormons”.

I went to familysearch.org and entered Elizabeth Ann Seton, selected birth for the event, 1774 for the year, and United States for the country. One listing comes up. After clicking on it, I scrolled down to “source information” and clicked on the “film number” link. Clicking that link brings up this: “Baptisms for the Dead (Salt Lake Temple), 1893-1943; heir indexes,1893-1960.” I clicked on that, and on the next screen under notes, I read, “HEIR INDEXES list a family representative at whose instance the baptisms were performed.”

 

[kimmielittle]

Much has been said here as to how hard it is, with millions of names being submitted, in catching these names.

On baptismal day; There is a proxy?

The proxy is standing in for the dead person at the request in question ] of a relative?

Require the relative to contact the proxy - require the proxy to do the genealogy look-up.

Since it’s the proxies intent to serve as the deceased stand-in - doesn’t it make it even more meaningful?

I’m sure a 12 -19 could figure-out that if a Catholic…etc etc… that person has already heard AND answered…SO there is no need to re-baptize…

If the relative doesn’t take active part in life of these 'ordinances '…who wants to be 'bound" to them?

Now on baptismal day…you don’t have millions…you have a 100 or so…informed, respectful proxies.

No congestion.
Less chance of questionable (name removed by moderator)ut.
Young proxies can actually learn about the person they stand in for - AND take an active part in problem solving.

If you actually see this as a service, become part of the solution. Don’t just try to defend it’s flaws.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[dianaiad]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of respect. No one has the right to change someone’s religion, even if it’s only on paper–not even a relative. The fact that a relative is disrespecting the living choice of his relative is license, you think, to join him? Two wrongs…

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept that we are NOT 'chang[ing] someone’s religion, even if it’s only on paper." WE can’t do that! WE don’t think that those people we do proxy work for are Mormons, unless the people for whom the work is done actively accept and want to BE Mormons.

In that case, which one of us is being disrespectful; we, who are simply offering a choice to the person concerned, or you–who have taken it upon yourself to determine what someone else must think and believe?

You also seem to be conflating the arguments. “The dumbest argument I’ve ever heard” was specifically this claim that in a hundred years people will be too stupid to read the actual records…and that this stupidity would ‘take the Jewishness’ away from Holocaust victims…and that this would 'play into the hands of Holocaust deniers."

the agreement was that we wouldn’t do work for Holocaust victims who were not directly related to those Mormons submitting their names. I’m all for that agreement. I think it should be kept.

…but not because some hysterical idiot decides that what we do means that nobody was murdered during the Holocaust.

 

[kimmielittle]

:: Snerk-snerk-snerk:: I can’t find the link, but this reminds of an absurd thread back in December, in which a non-Christian posted about some well-intentioned Catholic friend of his baptizing him (the non-Christian) while he was asleep! I’m calling it a mere case of “those wacky Mormons”.

Hiyas Matrix

Actually, I don’t believe it should be dismissed as some innocuous action on the part of LDS. I see a real danger, to the people of faith, in just dismissing. IMHO, it plays to integrity.

I see it as a wake-up call.

I hope this helps

 

[why_me]

Hiyas Matrix

Actually, I don’t believe it should be dismissed as some innocuous action on the part of LDS. I see a real danger, to the people of faith, in just dismissing. IMHO, it plays to integrity.

I see it as a wake-up call.

I hope this helps

Did you see my follow up thread? The mormontimes newspaper puts the story for all to understand.

mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=11233

…I am truly disappointed if LDS Church members who are not relatives to Father Damien did this. If relatives did this, then they followed the rules. Latter-day Saints have a connection to Father Damien. Because of the LDS membership in Hawaii, Latter-day Saints benefited from Father Damien’s service. In fact, an 84-year-old leprosy survivor who is Mormon attended the canonization service. Mormons should revere Father Damien, but not this way if there was no familial connection.

When newspapers run stories critical of someone or something they usually rely on more than one source.

Yet in Radkey’s case, it’s open-mic night at the Trib.

Another issue that ought to worry readers is just how Utah’s Independent Voice is independent from Radkey’s manipulation. Who knows if Radkey has hoarded a long list of perceived LDS offenses and is simply waiting to dribble them out each slowly to the Tribune for maximum self-serving effect.

Furthermore, in the most recent article about Father Damien, several key questions appeared unasked. Is it possible that Father Damien did have relatives that did submit his name for temple work? The Tribune never explains what a task it might be to police the LDS Church’s honor system. How often does the system fail? How many names are submitted a year? How many names are there in the system? Have violators been disciplined? What has the church done to improve the system? The church may not answer many of these questions, but there should be some evidence that the Tribune asked them. Let’s hope the award-winning religion reporters at the Tribune do a better job next time.

A draft of this column was provided to the Salt Lake Tribune for comment. The following a response from Terry Orme, Tribune managing editor for news and business:

"Our decisions on whether or not to report on LDS Church proxy baptisms are handled the same way we handle all news decisions. We ask: Is this news? And: Is this something our readers should know?

"You answer the first question when you say the story makes its way around the world. And as a prominent source of LDS Church news, it is safe to say a proxy baptism and sealing of a Catholic saint to a wife is a story Salt Lake Tribune readers would want to read. If we were to choose to not report it, I would have to ask: Are we fulfilling our commitment to readers?

“We always verify Helen Radkey’s information and of course the LDS Church was contacted for the story. We have run numerous questions past the church on this subject, but they rarely go beyond a statement. Any context they provide would be most valuable and welcome.”

About using Radkey as a source for stories: “We clearly identified her as a critic of the LDS Church, and pointed out that she hits on this issue a lot. Sen. Orrin Hatch is a critic of the Obama administration. Should we stop quoting him?”

About the story needing more context and voices: "We attempted to contact Roman Catholic leaders, but were unsuccessful. I, too, feel the need for more context on many stories. That is a reality of daily journalism. But in this case it wasn’t for lack of trying.

"The bottom line is that many people of many faiths take offense at the practice of proxy baptisms. And what made this even more troubling to many of them is the sealing of a canonized Catholic priest to a wife.

“You say The Salt Lake Tribune has been recognized nationally for our religion coverage. What you don’t say is that The Tribune’s coverage of the LDS Church is singled out when our coverage is called the best in the nation.”

---

 

[kimmielittle]

I firmly believe deep within my breast ], that members of FAIR, want people of faith to believe this is some innocuous action on the part of LDS.

I also believe that these practices are instigated, on the part of LDS, to ‘gather’ and ‘bind’ in death…that which their LDS’ ] Missionaries can’t ‘gather’ and ‘bind’ in life. This being done to ‘gather’ the 12 Tribes.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[why_me]

I firmly believe deep within my breast ], that members of FAIR, want people of faith to believe this is some innocuous action on the part of LDS.

I also believe that these practices are instigated, on the part of LDS, to ‘gather’ and ‘bind’ in death…that which their LDS’ ] Missionaries can’t ‘gather’ and ‘bind’ in life. This being done to ‘gather’ the 12 Tribes.

As always, just my thoughts

I don’t think so. As the newspaper article stated above, it is sad that zealots did this. But it does not necessiarily have the suppport of the lds church. Mistakes will happen. However, the person from the salt lake tribune who brought this up is known for being a mormon baiter. And that says a lot about the article that appeared in the salt lake tribune. However, the mormontimes article addresses the issue.