S
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’ve never quite seen the big deal. The two religions quite openly believe the other to be wrong - since this is mutual neither should be offended by the contention. Additionally the Mormon Baptism is only a ceremony which has meaning if you believe it does. It would be like if Jews started circumsizing for the dead (bad example I know, you can only be circumsized once), what this actually would do, according to anyone elses belief, is nothing.
K
kamaan
Guest
It’s still offensive. I wouldn’t want the name of one of my family members involved in this “baptism”.
As for “circumcision of the dead”… now that would be interesting!
R
runningdude
Guest
I read about this controversy before. The problem isn’t so much that the baptism occurred in the privacy of the Latter-Day Saint Temple, but that they published the names of the post mortem “batizees” in their genealogy directories, sometimes posting these records online.
The Jewish authorities wish that the Holocaust victims not be listed among these genealogical records without the victim’s immediate families’ consent. They fear that it might misrepresent the faith of the victims and the nature of the genocide to future generations.
The Jewish authorities wish that the Holocaust victims not be listed among these genealogical records without the victim’s immediate families’ consent. They fear that it might misrepresent the faith of the victims and the nature of the genocide to future generations.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I suppose I can see the logic there. They don’t want the claim somewhere down the line that the Nazi’s killed millions of Mormons. That makes sense to me.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Given this view, what is your stand concerning the actions of Pius IX toward Edgardo Mortara and his family?
R
Robbinson
Guest
It was a terrible travesty and mistake (IMO). One should never be baptized against his will, and a child shouldn’t be baptized against the will of his parents. The rest of the story is equally offensive.
For someone who is not baptized but desired it, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church.
Sadly, people, even Popes, within the Church make mistakes - The doctrine of infallibility is limited to formal teachings by the Pope or Pope and bishops on issues of faith and morals.
Blessings,
Brian
L
lax16
Guest
In 1912, in his written statement in favor of the beatification of Pius IX, Edgardo Mortara recalled his own feelings about the abduction: “Eight days later, my parents presented themselves to the Institute of Neophytes to initiate the complex procedures to get me back in the family. As they had complete freedom to see me and talk with me, they remained in Rome for a month, coming every day to visit me. Needless to say, they tried every means to get me back — caresses, tears, pleas and promises. Despite all this, I never showed the slightest desire to return to my family, a fact which I do not understand myself, except by looking at the power of supernatural grace.”[15]
I agree that this is a strange case and no child should be forced/or taken away from his family and forcibly baptized.
I posted this because I have a question - why after only eight days was the boy not interested in returning to his family? Is there more info on this?
C
chosen_people
Guest
I have read that Mortara also described being sick and being baptized though these events (if they took place) happened when Mortara was a year and a half old and could not possibly be remembered by him.
The main book on the subject is the “The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara” by Professor David I. Kertzer in which, among other things, the Mortara family’s efforts to be reunited with Edgardo are also detailed in full.
L
lax16
Guest
Thank you for the reference.
It seems odd, since Pope John Paul II loved the Jewish people so much, that he would canonize the pope involved in this situation.
Can there be more to the story? Is there commentary from him about the canonization?
(I am not insensitive to this, please know)
K
kamaan
Guest
Just a little correction, Blessed Pope Pius IX has not been canonized yet, only beatified.
L
lax16
Guest
Thank you for the correction - you are absolutely right.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That that is something completely different and a non-sequitur. If you legitimately want my opinion on that, start another thread.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Seeing how this thread has been completely hijacked I guess I’ll give my opinion.
The law which had the state take the child from his parents because a nanny baptized him was an unjust law, and the affair is only outrageous because he was taken from his parents under the directions of the law, and not because he was baptized. As I said it is completely different than baptizing someone in the name of someone else.
The law which had the state take the child from his parents because a nanny baptized him was an unjust law, and the affair is only outrageous because he was taken from his parents under the directions of the law, and not because he was baptized. As I said it is completely different than baptizing someone in the name of someone else.
K
kamaan
Guest
Yes, please do
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Well they’ve said before they would stop this practice, we’ll see if it improves. It seems if they can regulate members access to the temple so they should have no problem regulating this, and we should not hear about Holocaust victims being vicariously baptized from now on. IMO if member identification numbers are associated with submissions and discipline is applied to those who violate the agreement it should be a piece of cake from a software stance. But if discipline is not applied to members for ignoring the rules we’ll just see more of the same, so like I said we’ll see.
I do not mean to comment about the LDS practice of baptism for the dead(that has been discussed) only their history in living up to previous agreements, which is not good.
I do not mean to comment about the LDS practice of baptism for the dead(that has been discussed) only their history in living up to previous agreements, which is not good.
- Status