Last week, there were more stories about posthumous Mormon baptisms -- this time it was Daniel Pearl. Pearl's parents sent an email to the Boston Globe, in which they responded to the LDS:
We appreciate your good intentions but rest assured that Danny's soul was redeemed through the life that he lived and the values that he upheld. He lived as a proud Jew, died as a proud Jew and is currently facing his creator as a Jew, blessed, accepted and redeemed.
A few days later, Pearl's widow called on Mitt Romney to condemn the practice; Pearl's father asked that the baptism be nullified. The idea that the same people who harvested Hitler's soul would also be keen to baptize iconic Holocaust victims like Anne Frank is more than a little bit creepy and strange -- but I'm not sure what purpose it serves to hold Mitt Romney accountable for it. His church doesn't sanction the practice any longer and if you take your Judaism seriously, you shouldn't believe that it does any harm to the dead themselves. It might be insulting to their memories and to the people who loved them, it's intrusive and presumptuous in the extreme, but it's not as if Anne Frank and Dan Pearl are being compelled to live as Mormons in the after life. If religious Jews are right about God, then Mormon baptism rituals carry no more weight with the Almighty than Baalist sacrifices.
Romney had to deal with this question back in 2007 and it wasn't easy for him then either:
When asked by Newsweek if he has done baptisms for the dead -- in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS spokesperson says, to 'open the door' to the highest heaven -- he looked slightly startled and answered, 'I have in my life, but I haven't recently.'
Given all the trouble Mitt Romney has had just being Mitt Romney it seems almost like piling on. You don't have to dig into Mormonism's bizarreries (and as the author of Isms & Ologies, I know that no religion is without its odder tenets -- I'm not singling anyone out) to find negative things to say about Romney. He's lived in the public eye for a long time; he can stand or fall on his own record.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion presumes that the Jewish secret agenda is encoded in the Talmud; that just being Jewish is enough to implicate you as an evil-doer. A lot of Mormon-bashing seems to be based on a similar set of presuppositions. Romney shouldn't have to answer for the LDS's not-so-distant racist past (its so-called "Curse of Cain" legacy, which banned blacks from the priesthood and hence the highest heaven, wasn't lifted until 1978, when Romney was already 31 years old) or its dominionist aspirations unless they can be shown to be reflected in his politics -- anymore than a moderate Islamic American politician should have to take responsibility for what his fundamentalist co-religionists are doing halfway around the world, a Catholic politician should be presumed to be in the service of the Pope, or a Jewish politician to take his or her marching orders from the government of Israel. This doesn't mean that religion is irrelevant -- simply that it's not dispositive.
I don't like Romney and I don't feel sorry for him, but it's painful to see him squirming in the pincers of his faith. Never mind the secular left, the bigots in the Republican base who see him as a member of an anti-Christian cult will deny him their votes no matter how desperately he panders to them. If most establishment Republicans don't demonize Mormonism, many of them condescend to it. And then his fellow Mormons embarrass him with these baptisms. The man just can't win.
Follow Arthur Goldwag on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ArthurGoldwag
I'm not sure anyone ever knows why God has picked and chooses who receives His priesthood, when. But I'm pretty sure a person has to be an absolute idiot to claim to be Christian, claim God never changes from one era to another, and yet claim their own Christian heritage has NONE of the same issues to resolve – because it's right in black n white print in Numbers 16.
I'd like to think that if the tables were turned, Mormons would be as open and thoughtful as many Jews have been.
Imagine that Jewish children, as an act of love and respect, offered some Jewish rites for deceased Mormons, perhaps reciting: "May she come to her place in peace," to help beloved Mormons on their way to further happiness in the Jewish afterlife.
And, when Jewish people learned that some Mormons were upset they stopped doing the rites, and asked all Jewish people to stop.
And, imagine, some disaffected and errant Jewish people hacked past Jewish computer systems against Jewish teachings and entered names perhaps hoping to increase hatred for Jews and make a "public stink."
I would hope Mormons would be patient.
I'm thankful for those who understand that these ancient rites aren't meant to change anyone's religion or ethnicity, they bury in the primordial sea for new life, it is meant to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, it is intended to make gentiles into Jews, not the other way around.
Baptism for the deceased is an ancient teaching, and many Christians still practice rituals for the deceased. I understand that Jews have also, in times past, and presently offer certain prayers to help people on their way. I hope that Jewish people understand that the Mormons I know would be honored if Jews were to perform rites for them.
Rites for the deceased are intended as acts of love, to seal families; to turn the hearts of the Fathers and Mothers to the children, as Malachi taught.
They are not conversions. They do not change people.
Mormons do not believe that Holocaust victims, Daniel Pearl, etc are suffering in Hell or purgatory and that Baptism, like indulgences for the deceased, helps reduce their suffering. Mormons understand that all will be rewarded according to their works. No kind, good person will ever suffer in the next life, regardless of religious affiliation.
The first group we sponsored, we discovered to all be siblings. They told us that the rest of their family took a different boat to increase chances of making it out/ helping each other. They asked us to sponsor them too, - we did.
When the week the second group arrived, one of the older sisters (the youngest 10?) asked if she could be baptized a Mormon. I told her "No", (because I thought she was asking to show gratitude, - she really didn't know what that meant etc). She understood my "No"- tears formed in her eyes- as she asked "Why?" I explained, through her sister. Her sister translated telling me- in their camp were LDS Vietnamese who taught her the gospel, but could not baptize there. She DID know! -- She still needed the missionaries teach her to pass the standard zone leader interview showing she understood/ agreed. She got baptized.
"He who takes offense when NO offense is intended, is a fool
and he who takes offense when offense IS intended,
is also a fool. "
Let's not be fools. If it means nothing, we are just wasting our time (gas!) then maybe you can figure it is less time for us to be out knocking on doors? ;)
Yet I am also saddened for the misunderstanding that so many have and promote, that proxy baptism "makes one a Mormon" as it does no such thing.
We do not just baptize people willy nilly on earth, they must understand and agree. Baptism is an earthly requirement and can not be done by a spirit, but it can be done FOR the dead-- who STILL we understand, then in heaven must agree, understand and pass an interview with God to accept the work done for them. "God will force no one to heaven"--- LDS believe strongly in all of us having our God given free agency and in doing to others as we would be done by, in having our choices.
---- It does not "make someone Mormon" to do the work for them, so it is ready for them to accept if they want. We are not to judge, as only God knows the hearts of all mankind.
"is insulting arrogant and hateful".
LDS partake of the bread and water in "remembrance" of the body and blood of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us.
Just so, do I believe that any who take the time to really understand that it does not automatically make one a Mormon, would not find proxy baptism which is shown in the Bible as an accepted practice, that Paul used to reinforce the resurrection.
--- anyone can look it up on FAIRlds.
Mormons have a MUCH worse PR problem with LGBT families they have attacked in Hawaii, California, Maine, New York, DC, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota. I was blessed Mormon at birth, my Mother converted to my Father's Lutheran faith when I was 4 yo. I've about 100 LDS members in my extended family in Salt Lake City and Vegas, that love their gay relative, (and it's mutual)...BUT I will NEVER spend a day or dime in Utah again after prop 8.
African Americans, Latinos, and Women have plenty of issues with Mormon faith ...too.
You even mention that your LDS relatives still love you --- I would expect that for sure!
(humm-- some claim LDS shun, but we don't!)
How about you speak for yourself alone? I sure see a lot of LDS African Americans, Latinos and being a lifetime LDS myself, I have no issue except with those who "dis" my faith, especially when they don't look up all the facts.
If you think you can WHITE WASH the Latino hatred in Utah with me, you'd be MISTAKEN. It was no accident names of men, women, and CHILDREN suspected of being undocumented were published in UTAH. My cousin married a beautiful Spanish/Mexican woman, one son was red haired and fair like his Dad, the other was black haired and olive complexioned like his Mom. They were BOTH smart, talented, handsome. One was a popular jock, the other was beaten, spit on, and called SP*C...at the SAME suburban SLC school.
Mormons exclude nonMormons.
The parents of converts are even excluded from their childs ceremony.
Even Mormons who fail to tithe are excluded.
No other church in America violates our ideals so blatantly.
Romneys admission to performing these babtism ceremonies does matter too, as those odder tenants of other religions do not include active participation by those seeking to run our country.
That is a large difference.
but we have GREAT FUN in our receptions-- where everyone is invited! Here are the brides maids, here are the pictures, the cake, the dancing ! but no booze.
There are often lovely refreshments, and maybe even toasts with sparkling cider :)
If either of the couples parents are not members or do not have temple recommends, they can still come through the temple doors to a special room to the side of the foyer, that has lovely pictures, comfortable upholstered chairs etc. and they can have a temple representative come discuss with them, any questions that their kids maybe have not answered. Then the reception!
The truth of the matter is this. A wedding planner will tell you, if you want to blame anyone for a Mormon wedding that non-members and non-tithe payers CAN'T attend, then blame the bride and groom. That's right, Mormon wedding have a "choice". Their wedding can happen at a church or a beach or wherever. If held anywhere other than inside the temple, anyone can attend - period. In fact, many Mormon weddings have two ceremony's in the same day, to accommodate such scenarios. Yep, the happy couple get's marred first with similar "'Til death do we part" vows, then if the couple are devout they hold their "eternal marriage" inside the temple of their choosing after (often the same day, but sometimes not).
Regardless, don't blame the LDS religion for what marred couples do. All churches have their guidelines. If you are a believer, you follow whatever guidelines are set. But one thing that truly is NOT debatable, is Mormon newly weds (and their families) will never (can never) complain they couldn't do both out of "cost". Uniquely, Mormon weddings if held in church-owned facilities (be it one of 13,000 churches or one of 130-some temples worldwide) are absolutely FREE.
Your other comments are, an opinion.
#1. Obviously Emma never gave her consent to phony 'marriages' to other men's wife.
#2. Obviously married women are not virgins when they're 7months pregnant with another man's wife.
#3. Obviously women who are married to other men do not qualify as 'marriage material' in any culture, time period or by any law.
#4. Obviously the 13 women who Joseph 'married' (had sex with) who were married to other men were not given to him by any law known to man.
#5. IOW, if the 'plural wives' do not 'belong to you' AND they actually 'belong to another man' then it's adultery to claim them as your wife, to say nothing of the abuse of power, the abuse of another infinitely less powerful woman and her cuckolded husband.