Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elie Wiesel calls for Romney’s help to end Mormons’ proxy baptisms of Jews
Washington Post ^ | Feb. 14, 2012 | Peter Wallsten and Jason Horowitz

Posted on 02/15/2012 6:11:13 AM PST by Colofornian

Nobel-laureate Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and a top official from the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should use his stature in the Mormon church to block its members from posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims.

Their comments followed reports that Mormons had baptized the deceased parents of Wiesenthal, the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter.

A spokeswoman for Romney said his campaign would not comment, directing all inquiries to church officials.

Posthumous baptisms of non-Mormons are a regular practice of the Mormon religion. Church members believe the ritual creates the possibility for the deceased to enter their conception of Heaven.

Individual members can submit names, usually of deceased relatives, for proxy baptisms. The church has tried to improve its technology to block the process from including Jewish Holocaust victims. In this case, officials blamed an unidentified individual.

“We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names,” spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement...

The practice of baptizing Holocaust victims has long been offensive to Jews. After years of negotiations, Mormon officials have prohibited posthumous baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims.

There is no indication that Romney has ever been involved in the proxy baptism of a Holocaust victim. Asked if he had ever participated in posthumous baptisms, Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”

The controversy could put Romney in the uncomfortable position of having to directly address Mormon theology, a topic he has so far avoided in his current campaign. Many evangelical voters have expressed skepticism about Mormonism, and Romney, a former lay leader in the church, has rarely discussed his experiences in the church.

SNIP

(Excerpt) Read more at bangordailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Judaism; Other non-Christian
KEYWORDS: baptismofdead; inman; lds; mittromney; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
From the article: Nobel-laureate Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and a top official from the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should use his stature in the Mormon church to block its members from posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims...Asked if he had ever participated in posthumous baptisms, Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”...The controversy could put Romney in the uncomfortable position of having to directly address Mormon theology, a topic he has so far avoided in his current campaign. Many evangelical voters have expressed skepticism about Mormonism, and Romney, a former lay leader in the church, has rarely discussed his experiences in the church.

(Yeah, that's who we want in the White House...somebody into baptizing dead people... /sarc)

1 posted on 02/15/2012 6:11:21 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
For background on this issue, see:
* Anne Frank, a Mormon?
* Are Mormon people LITERAL saviors of dead Jews, others? (The OTHER World Series: Vanity)
2 posted on 02/15/2012 6:12:05 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“Asked if he had ever participated in posthumous baptisms, Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that, ‘I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.’”

What is ‘recently’? Yesterday. Day before? An hour ago? The fact that he did it at all is despicable.


3 posted on 02/15/2012 6:17:14 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
As a Catholic, I too am offended at these proxy baptisms. When I brought this to the attention of a Mormon 'bishop', his response was: "You have the right to complete a formal request for yourself not to have a proxy baptism and we will keep it on file in our database".

Good luck to Elie Wiesel! I don't imagine he will get very far with this.

4 posted on 02/15/2012 6:20:04 AM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

That raises a sticky question for all Christians, particularly Catholics. Can you be saved by the act of a third party (other than Christ)?

Words mean things, and among those words are “whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life”*. An individual being baptized as an infant, or another being baptized after death has not believed, so is not promised life. The Catholic liturgy includes professing belief in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, yet Christ was baptized even though he was sinless.

Since Adolf Hitler was baptized, does that mean we’ll be seeing him in Heaven? Provided, that is, that we have accepted Christ’s sacrifice and are saved, or have been baptized as well?

In short, baptizing someone who is already dead, while a loving gesture, is of no effect.

*From memory, and the words may vary by version.


5 posted on 02/15/2012 6:34:24 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
As a Catholic, I too am offended at these proxy baptisms

Why? I'm Baptist, and it doesn't offend me. Nothing they do will affect my relationship with God. If the Wiccans want to confirm me as a High Priest, or whatever, of their coven, so what? I won't be doing thier rituals or worshiping the Mother, Maid, or Crone.

So what is the big deal?

6 posted on 02/15/2012 6:56:28 AM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I am not a Mormon, and I am not a Jew. There are plenty of things that one can criticize Romney for, but, to jump on a religious procedure which causes no physical harm to anyone is a diversion in this year with all the other things that are going on.

Israel is under dire threat from the Majik Moolas, and Wiesel is focused on Romney's religious differences. Romney, for whatever else you can say about him, is a steadfast supporter of Israel. And Wiesel should look at the glass as half full, not half empty.

I have Mormon convert cousins who have baptized in absentia my grandfather and grandmother, devout Lutherans. I see no problem. The afterlife is the afterlife, and in the hands of God. And this life is for the living and doing what is right. The horror of the Holocaust, with 6 million plus victims, cannot be denied. But let`s not to get diverted by something like this.
7 posted on 02/15/2012 6:58:08 AM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Your reaction is the same as mine. If their ritual means nothing to the subject, how does it affect him?


8 posted on 02/15/2012 7:00:07 AM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

If the complainers don’t believe in baptism for the dead,why would they care that the Mormons are doing it? If the Mormons baptized my ancestors, I would jut wonder why they are doing the ineffective.

Anyway, there is freedom to practice one’s religion in the Constitution. They may be irrational, but they are not harming anyone.


9 posted on 02/15/2012 7:05:03 AM PST by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Finally a sensible response.


10 posted on 02/15/2012 7:15:45 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Words mean things, and among those words are “whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life”*. An individual being baptized as an infant, or another being baptized after death has not believed, so is not promised life. The Catholic liturgy includes professing belief in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”...

(Not Catholic)...but The Catholic liturgy derives this DIRECT from the New Testament (Acts 2): 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

...among those words are “whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life”*. An individual being baptized as an infant, or another being baptized after death has not believed, so is not promised life.

Well you cited Mark 16:16 -- but only half of it: 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Note that Mark 16:16 DOES NOT say: "Whoever does not believe AND IS NOT BAPTIZED will be condemned."

So, obviously lack of baptism itself doesn't necessarily condemn. Still...you said, an individual baptized as an infant doesn't believe [I assume you meant doesn't necessarily believe]

Have you ever thought about when Jewish babies were considered part of the covenant people of God? Answer? At 8 days when they were circumcized.

Per "the Bible, baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies--see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins--even the sins of infants--without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.” (Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2330620/posts?q=1&;page=51 [post #38])

Colossians 2:11-12: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

No corpse can bury itself. That is a 100% passive posture. Likewise, baptism in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit isn't an act of man, it's an act of God exercised thru man.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have the passages we do on baptism (Acts 2:38-39; Col. 2:11-12; romans 6:1-4; the passage by Peter...)

11 posted on 02/15/2012 7:22:06 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: amihow

Well reasoned.

By that logic, we should not complain when Westboro Baptist Church protests soldiers’ funerals, because they are not harming either the dead or the mourners. They’re just offending the living, who don’t matter, right?


12 posted on 02/15/2012 7:33:21 AM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Love your response. What mumjo jumbo is done by mumjojumboists doesn’t make a hill o’ beans worth of difference to anyone who realizes it is all meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Now you didn’t happen to read/watch “Game of Thrones” now did you?

Mother Maid and Crone?

How about Father, Warrior and Builder?

And the Stranger?

;)


13 posted on 02/15/2012 7:42:37 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Can you be saved by the act of a third party (other than Christ)?

No. This seems to be a fight between Wiesel, who’s offended by something that just doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect his parents in the least, and the Mormons, whose presumptuous third-party baptisms are spiritual arrogance.


14 posted on 02/15/2012 7:42:58 AM PST by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB; amihow; chesley; Balding_Eagle; jagusafr; Bigg Red; Cyber Liberty
...there is freedom to practice one’s religion in the Constitution. They may be irrational, but they are not harming anyone. [Amihow, post #9]

So what if there's freedom in the constitution to practice religion; 'tis also freedom in the constitution to critique it...now why did I have to say something so simple? ('Cause you resorted to something so simple)

As for the "harming anyone" question -- something brought up by BigEdLB ... keep reading below:

There are plenty of things that one can criticize Romney for, but, to jump on a religious procedure which causes no physical harm to anyone is a diversion in this year with all the other things that are going on. [BigEdLB]

Millions of Mormon man-hours -- Genealogy -- is rooted in baptizing dead people. Now, genealogy for "roots-searching" is fine, but when "genealogy as ultra time consuming religious obsession" takes over, wouldn't you say it might be good to consider what the apostle Paul has to say about this?

Or do you all just ignore the New Testament?

...stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES. THESE PROMOTE CONTROVERSIES RATHER THAN GOD'S WORK—which is by faith." (1 Timothy 1:3-4)

But AVOID FOOLISH CONTROVERSIES AND GENEALOGIES...because these are unprofitable and useless. (Titus 3:9)

(Paul says it's useless, provokes controversy, and is not faith-promoting. So even the controversy ignited by protagonist Mormons is distracting)

As for the question, "Does this 'hurt' anyone?" yes it does -- in two prominent ways covered below.

ONE It hurts the living because over-focusing on the dead distracts what we can do in relating to & in caring for the living!.

We can all agree that Jesus talked much about serving the living -- the poor, the widow, the orphan, the lost sheep, right?

So what would happen in the world if all religions obsessed with the dead as much as Mormons do? Obviously, we're not going to "end poverty in our lifetime" (Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you")...but since countless LDS leaders have called the Mormon people self-saviors and saviors of the dead, it's not only a distraction from the poor but delusional.

And that leads to...

CONSIDERATION # TWO

We already have a "Savior of the world" -- we don't need millions more trying to bump Jesus out of that limelight:
* And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be THE Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)
* They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is THE Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

Last time I looked in the Bible, Christians were supposed to object to idolatry in their culture. And if you don't think that Mormons make baptizers of the dead "saviors" who rival Jesus Christ, you haven't read their leaders' comments on baptism of the dead. For those citations, see: Are Mormon people LITERAL saviors of dead Jews, others? (The OTHER World Series: Vanity)

If you're a Christian or Jew and you conclude "this doesn't harm anyone," you're catering to idolatry -- substitute "saviors" pretending to act in his name.

15 posted on 02/15/2012 7:59:57 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
It appears that the LdS church's persistent refusal to cease "baptizing" the dead, puts them at odds with one of their creeds...

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So someone who objects to the pagan rituals being performed in a family members name, who is claiming their privilege to worship how, where or what they may is being "denied" this privilege by the LdS church.

Unless of course, SLC has retracted the "allow" part of that creed.

No respect.

16 posted on 02/15/2012 8:01:59 AM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

This seems, at first blush, like a lot of pearl-clutching over nothing.

On reflection it seems that Wiesel, activist that he is, is grasping at straws in an effort to insert himself into the Republican presidential nominee selection process. And he clearly is not a Republican.

I am not only not in favor of Romney, I actively oppose him.

But I really resent this poo-slinging by Wiesel. FU Elie!


17 posted on 02/15/2012 8:05:04 AM PST by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surely_you_jest; All
This seems, at first blush, like a lot of pearl-clutching over nothing.

Well, it seems like many of you aren't looking @ this from either a Jewish or even New Testament angle.

From a Jewish holocaust perspective, they see Jewish identity as the core target of why so many Jews became readily "expendable." So...as it was in life, they see Jewish identity targeted even in death...where they see Mormons saying to them, "No. We can't let you be with a Jewish identity; we will hang a Mormon tag on them instead."

From a New Testament angle, I covered this in post #15...The apostle Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:3-4 & Titus 3:9 that genealogy promoting to the degree it was practiced was useless, provoked controversy, and wasn't faith-promoting.

I would act that since Mormons see themselves as "saviors" via this process, it's also idolatry -- substituting themselves as "saviors" in diluding what Jesus did on the cross.

18 posted on 02/15/2012 8:22:28 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I did watch “Game of Thrones”. I’ve also read a LOT about paganism, neo-paganism, voodoo, and Hinduism. Because it’s interesting. Wrong, but interesting.


19 posted on 02/15/2012 8:40:04 AM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I had just read the posting you have posted and if my memory is correct, my church, the Roman Catholic Church put out a rule from the Vatican a couple of years ago to parishes that when it comes to baptism certificates, not to give them out in bulk numbers because they were asked for by Mormons who would used them to baptized their dead Catholic ancestors.


20 posted on 02/15/2012 8:49:11 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

OK - You have your beliefs, and I have mine...


21 posted on 02/15/2012 8:51:31 AM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
So what if there's freedom in the constitution to practice religion; 'tis also also freedom in the constitution to critique it...now why did I have to say something so simple? ('Cause you resorted to something so simple)

Nobody, at least not me, objects to their right to criticize. My problem is that I don't see the problem at all.

My second problem is that while I'm not particularly offended, I get annoyed at people who let their ethnic, religious, or political sensitivities rule their responses. But certainly they have the right to do so.

As for your other objections, well "harm" covers a lot of ground. There are opportunity costs to everything. So what? This is their cost, just like when I choose to go see a movie instead of doing yard workk,improving my mind,or going fishing.

As for Mormonism being a false religion, I think we can agree on that. But even God permits people to worship idols in this world. Not that they won't pay for it later.

The point is that the Mormons have the right to do what they do. It's not as if they are worshipping Baal and sacrificing children. The Jews that object have a perfect right to do so. I just find it whiny, and evidence of a victim mentality. If you have confidence in your views, you don't really care what others think of them.

22 posted on 02/15/2012 8:59:13 AM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Maybe Romney also needs to questioned on how many he has “FELT UP” (so to speak) in his church. Interesting.


23 posted on 02/15/2012 9:20:01 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

great comeback, PERFECT.


24 posted on 02/15/2012 9:23:24 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; All

NO ONE can change the outcome of a dead’s person’s eternal destination. Each person lived their own life and will answerable for it. You can’t change the outcome by “praying them” to Heaven or being baptized for them. It is pointless to try or to be offended. It is a non-issue.


25 posted on 02/15/2012 9:47:59 AM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic
NO ONE can change the outcome of a dead’s person’s eternal destination. Each person lived their own life and will answerable for it. You can’t change the outcome by “praying them” to Heaven or being baptized for them.

Yes. Even the Mormon Book of Mormon teaches that...(And Mormons claim they also pay attention to the Bible...where the writer of Hebrews draws the line: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Heb. 9:27) [Judgment follows death]

Book of Mormon: Alma 42:16 says that eternal punishment is as eternal as the life of the soul. [It's not temporary]
Alma 34:32-35 says there's no second chance: For behold THIS LIFE is the time for men to prepare to meet God...do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life...then cometh the night of darkness wherein THERE CAN BE NO LABOR PERFORMED. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will reprent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. (I cited parts of vv. 32-34)

Both Mosiah 16:11 & 1 Nephi 15:35 says there's only TWO destinations post-death (not a third called "spirit prison"). And the BoM knows only heaven & hell -- no temporary spirit prison (Mormn 9:23; Ether 4:18; Hel. 14:18-19; Alma 3:26; Alma 40:26; 2 Nephi 2:28-29; 2 Nephi 9:16; Alma 41:4; 3 Nephi 27:11,17; 2 Nephi 28:21-22).

If Mormons would only study their own Book of Mormon on post-life...(Smith took much of his early belief system from the Bible before it got twisted)...then they'd see how off-kilter this later-developed baptism of the dead idea was...

It is pointless to try or to be offended. It is a non-issue.

Sorry...but as indicated in earlier posts...it (excessive weight devoted to genealogy) was an issue in the early Christian church (1 Tim. 1:3-4; Titus 3:9). Although the apostle Paul in part made the same point -- that such genealogy was "useless..." he also said it didn't promote faith and sparked controversy.

That was enough for him not to ignore it.

And yes, idolatry -- Mormons making themselves out to be "saviors"...is offensive.

26 posted on 02/15/2012 10:05:44 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Good bring attention to the fact that Willard Mitt Romney is a Mormon high priest and bishop...

Romney himself did proxy dead dunking of other peoples ancestors...

Maybe some were Jews...

But none of them would have wanted to be Mormons...


27 posted on 02/15/2012 10:06:21 AM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

“”Vatican issues an order to Bishops to not allow Parish records to be given to genealogical societies of the Mormon Church.

WASHINGTON (CNS) - In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons’ Genealogical Society of Utah.

An April 5 letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, obtained by Catholic News Service in late April, asks episcopal conferences to direct all bishops to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in those registers.

The order came in light of “grave reservations” expressed in a Jan. 29 letter from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the clergy congregation’s letter said.

Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records — such as baptismal documentation — to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members. “”
(snip)
Mormons have been criticized by several other faiths — perhaps most passionately by the Jews — for the church’s practice of posthumous baptism
Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead, especially Holocaust victims.


28 posted on 02/15/2012 10:40:05 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Well, they are more than offending, they are interfering. And they have a perfect right to protest. But the right to protest does not include the right to interfere, but DOES include the right to offend.

So they should do their damn protest elsewhere.


29 posted on 02/15/2012 10:54:45 AM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; BigEdLB; amihow; chesley; Balding_Eagle; jagusafr; Bigg Red; Cyber Liberty

You have every right to be offended, it’s one of the freedoms we enjoy, and a lot of people spend their lives looking for ways to be offended.

It would give me a good laugh to find out that I was the subject of a curse, the target of some voodoo ritual, or somehow a family member was the object of a false baptism.

I laugh at it, you are free to get offended.

Neither one matters.


30 posted on 02/15/2012 12:04:37 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: chesley

And Wiesal is right to be offended by the LDS practice. They should knock it off. The two things are both offensive was my point.


31 posted on 02/15/2012 12:25:48 PM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I think it’s offensive. Its satanic in nature to claim to baptize the dead.

Secondly, when a person who has dedicated their entire life to a certain faith, and it was a part of their identity, its extremely offensive for another faith to come in and say they were wrong in life so we will fix that in death.

And third, it’s upsetting to those who are left behind. What if devil worshipers were to do something like that or muslims, would we still give that a pass?


32 posted on 02/15/2012 12:30:09 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Neither one matters.

Idolatry matters.

A cult taking people for a deceptive ride by wasting X% of their life-TIME & 10% of their lifetime income matters.

Whether you care or not; whether you are apathetic or not to such lives lived...hey, that's another question.

But so as to not come across harshly on that point, we ALL ignore some groups of people in either spiritual, physical or emotional need. (There's no way we can attend to all the needs)

The key here is that when I do find somebody who's sensitized to some given need -- and are attempting with some (truly) God-given aid to address it -- I don't break in to announce to them that the lives they are focusing in on aren't "worth" it.

33 posted on 02/15/2012 12:35:10 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
I disagree. Wiesal has the right to be offended. I don't dispute that. But the Mormon church has the right to offend.

The Mormons may come off as 'insensitive', but Wiesal comes off as a whiny victim. I'd rather be the former myself, and I have more sympathy with the former. You have the right to feel differently.

In the final analysis, if I let myself, I could be offended all the time. Life is too short, waaaay too short. THe only way I could not be offended, if I let myself, is by telling everybody else what to do. Which is what Wiesal is doing. Screw 'im.

Unless someone is being physically hurt, there is no need to get all upset. Pperhaps intense personal humiliation would justify some response. But the best thing is to ignore jerks.

Understand, none of this is a defense of Mormon theology or practice.

34 posted on 02/15/2012 12:52:25 PM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar
And third, it’s upsetting to those who are left behind. What if devil worshipers were to do something like that or muslims, would we still give that a pass?

I certainly would. I laugh at both of them. I'm a Christian, I will remain a Christian, and if the muzies are right, I'll go to muzzie hell with a song on my lips.

35 posted on 02/15/2012 12:56:47 PM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Then leave WBC alone if they want to protest soldiers’ funerals. My point is not one bit more complex than that. Bye.


36 posted on 02/15/2012 1:02:56 PM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ditto to your sentiments.


37 posted on 02/15/2012 1:32:24 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar; Colofornian

The two of you sound like you want to control how others worship.

These’s a political party that’s very into that.

They don’t post here, and are zotted when they do.


38 posted on 02/15/2012 3:43:35 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
The two of you sound like you want to control how others worship.

So, we are to roll over when someone takes on the name of our relatives for their religious practice? We have no rights and should just not be offended in order to allow another religion to trample on the very names of our loved ones?

These’s a political party that’s very into that.

Sounds like you'd appease Islam too.

They don’t post here, and are zotted when they do.

A very wise practice.

39 posted on 02/15/2012 3:50:56 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: chesley
I'll go to muzzie hell with a song on my lips.

Its not that you just going to hell but that you want to drag the rest of us with you singing songs of appeasement to the wicked.

And if you say you are a "christian", then please point to me where Jesus encourages baptism of the dead?

40 posted on 02/15/2012 4:00:57 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I'm going to put my foot into this for the zillionth time, and say the exact same thing I've said since the beginning:

Mormons believe that they are required to "proxy baptize" the dead so they can "go to heaven." This belief is mistaken, but the practice harms absolutely no one, does not yank Jewish souls out of Gan `Eden and make "mormons" of them, and at the same time eases the consciences of mormons who sincerely believe they must do this.

When the nations of the world are told to discard their false religions, beliefs, and practices in the name of Objective Religious Truth I will be all for it. However, mormons are not being asked to cease this practice in the name of Objective Religious Truth but rather in the name of "tolerance," pluralism, and multiculturalism. This is utter and absolute nonsense. Not only mormon proxy baptism, but chrstian proselytization aimed at Jews, is attacked not in the name of G-d but in the name of Adolf Hitler (mach shemo!). Mormons and chrstians are told to stop practices they sincerely (if mistakenly) believe are required of them not because it is wrong but because it contradicts the "lessons we learned at Auschwitz." What exactly did we learn at Auschwitz that we did not already know at Mt. Sinai anyway???

This particular demand was made, not by a genuine Orthodox rabbinic authority, but by Elie Wiesel, a celebrity-Holocaust survivor whose reason for being Jewish is apparently reduced to Churban 'Europa' and who may not even believe HaShem even exists.

Now before you mormon-bashers jump all over me for "defending mormonism," I am not defending mormonism at all per se; I take the same position with regard to all those demands made of you to stop "witnessing." Too many Jews are Jewish today because of Adolf Hitler (mach shemo!) and not because of HaShem and Torah. It's time this postmodern purely ethno-political Judaism (based on nineteenth century ethnic nationalism) be buried for good and all and replaced with Torah and Mitzvot.

Just my two cents' worth.

41 posted on 02/15/2012 4:03:03 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

Interesting that you don’t deny that you want to control the religious practices of others.

Under what part of the Constitution do you think such authority should be given to you or anyone else?

The Founding Fathers had a lot of experience with nosey, overbearing, folks like you meddling in the religious affairs of others, and they wrote the Constitution with that in mind. You won’t find any such authority. In fact, you’ll find they’ve denied you and anyone else such power.

As far as the Islam accusation, most posters here will easily recognize that both as projection, and tacit admission that your arguments have lost.


42 posted on 02/15/2012 5:43:10 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Interesting that you don’t deny that you want to control the religious practices of others.

Its interesting that you would allow others to roll over family's wishes for their loved ones to rest in peace. No other religion desecrate a family in such way.

Under what part of the Constitution do you think such authority should be given to you or anyone else?

And you?

The Founding Fathers had a lot of experience with nosey, overbearing, folks like you meddling in the religious affairs of others

I'm sure they had their share of sociopaths such as yourself. Uncaring for the personal well being of a family's right to have a family member rest in peace.

and they wrote the Constitution with that in mind.

And Nostradamus wrote many quatrains about people like you.

As far as the Islam accusation, most posters here will easily recognize that both as projection, and tacit admission that your arguments have lost.

This isn't about foot baths, this is about families having the right to have their loved ones rest in peace. Your silly argument reveals what a gruesome individual you really are.

43 posted on 02/15/2012 6:24:39 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

I thank God daily for the wisdom the Founding Fathers showed when they placed unbreakable shackles on your kind.

I laugh at your frustration as you try to break them. It gives me a safe and pleasant feeling knowing you are stopped dead in your tracks, reduced to screaming and shouting.


44 posted on 02/15/2012 6:41:42 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar
Its interesting that you would allow others to roll over family's wishes for their loved ones to rest in peace. No other religion desecrate a family in such way.

Um . . . you do realize that mormon proxy baptisms don't actually affect the deceased in any way, don't you?

45 posted on 02/15/2012 8:34:42 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle; dragonblustar
The two of you sound like you want to control how others worship. These’s a political party that’s very into that. They don’t post here, and are zotted when they do.

(Well, let's apply your definition thru the use of parallels...and see how it feels, shall we? If by "control" you mean "object," then we can readily see that you "object"...or, to apply your definition, want to "control" our exhibition of free religious speech on this forum...So, by extension of this parallel, you sound like you want to control how others express themselves religiously. There's a political party that's very into that. They don't post here, and are zotted when they do.)

46 posted on 02/16/2012 12:34:14 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; All
I notice you -- & most of the others indirectly siding with the Mormons -- failed to address one key component of this discussion:

The Mormon leadership has promised now for 16 years to stop doing this.

I posted another thread yesterday...see Mormons apologize for posthumous baptism of parents of Jewish rights advocate Wiesenthal

Very early in that thread I said the following: Well, this all gives lie to this Mormon belief. If the Mormons truly thought that baptizing Jews by proxy was the ONLY way to "save" them, then they'd continue to do it hell or high water. Yet they cave on doing "the work of the Mormon lord." Why? Because it's "controversial" and "offensive." Wow! If that was the watershed criteria for whether to continue something, where would Christianity be? No, this shows Mormonism to be the wishy-washy cult it's always been!

IOW, I was actually encouraging the Mormon church – if it had the actual absolute gumption to keep claiming that it was of the “Mormon lord” … to stick to its convictions and tell multi-culturalism where it could go. But alas, the Mormon church has shown even they don't believe that baptizing the dead is a salvific absolute! They backed down 16 years ago...and once they made this vow to honor multi-culturalism, it cannot go back.

So now it's a matter about a promise made...and honoring that promise...which Mormons aren't doing, either!

So, first they cave on their doctrine & convictions...showing the lie of their faith...and then they cave on their promise, showing the lie of their integrity!

47 posted on 02/16/2012 12:46:13 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

You think like a liberal.

Nowhere does Jesus susggest baptism of the dead. I am totally not supporting that, and find in anything that I wrote that I do.

My point is that this is their religion. It is not physically harming anyone; it is not coercing anyone to believe or act as they do.

Where does Jesus say that we are responsible for what the pagans do, or need to be concerned about their beliefs? Our command is to teach the truth to them, and what they do with it is up to them.

My WHOLE objection is with misplaced oversensitivity by certain Jewish groups who ARE trying to coerce the Mormons. Screw ‘em.

But theologically, I will agree, the Mormon could probably be more wrong, but it would be hard. I would refer you to 1 Corinthians 15:28-30


48 posted on 02/16/2012 7:42:31 AM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; wideawake
I notice you -- & most of the others indirectly siding with the Mormons -- failed to address one key component of this discussion:

Believe it or not, it was not my intention to "side indirectly with the mormons." It was my intention to stand up for people doing something they honestly (however mistakenly) believe G-d wants them to do when faced with political intimidation. How do you like it when secular Jewish leaders, whose Jewishness is based on nothing but Adolf Hitler (yimach shemo vezikhro!) demand people like you to stop "witnessing" to Jews or they'll call you a Nazi? Do you enjoy that?

Now it just so happens that I am against Jews converting to chrstianity in any form (including mormonims) and to any other religion other than authentic Judaism. If a great Sage wants to address the world and demand, in the name of HaShem and the Holy Torah, that chrstians cease all their efforts, well and good. But that isn't what happens. A bunch of nihilists, whose belief in anything has been permanently destroyed by Churban 'Europa', demand that the entire world join them in meditating on the meaninglessness of everything as they stare into the abyss of Auschwitz. This is what the meaning of Jewish existence has been twisted into: the utter meaninglessness of everything. From being the people whose existence testified of G-d they've been reinterpreted as the people whose existence testifies against Him!

That's what this is about. You and I are both grinding very different axes here. Personally, I think anyone who seriously thinks the United States is in any danger of becoming a mormon "theocracy" is nuts (just as I think the Seventh Day Adventists are nuts to worry about their "national sunday law"), but if that floats your boat, go ahead.

The Mormon leadership has promised now for 16 years to stop doing this.

No, I hadn't heard this, and it's a completely separate issue anyway. When Southern Baptists promise to stop witnessing to Jews, do you think that's a good thing?

I don't believe in abstract religious freedom at all. The only religious freedom is the freedom to do what G-d wants. But I realize that until the True Religion triumphs in history there will always be false religions whose followers feel compelled to follow the tenets of those religions. I don't agree with their false religions but I sympathize with anyone being bullied to give up their religious beliefs/practices because of political correctness.

Do you really believe a mormon proxy baptism does anything? Maybe as an ex-mormon you do. But I do not.

49 posted on 02/16/2012 7:44:50 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I meant control, not object. Seems I hit that pretty square with DB.


50 posted on 02/16/2012 7:46:48 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson