Mormons Baptism of Holocaust Victims

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:32 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/baptiz ... index.html

Thoughts? Opinions? Is this religous expression or does it threaten the faith of Jewish families of those that lost loved ones during the Holocaust?

secretcode · Post by **secretcode** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:53 pm

I may be biased on this one, but I say it's just Religious expression. The least we should do is ask the families if the names are submitted for work in case they disagree/refuse to allow it and then just drop the names right there. The holocaust was always a grey area for the church, and the article more or less summed it up as being a difficult situation to judge and finalize decisions as each case of various families may be different.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:36 pm

Patronising but ultimately meaningless either way... anyone who lets it affect their faith doesn't have much to begin with.

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:55 pm

Denyer wrote:Patronising but ultimately meaningless either way... anyone who lets it affect their faith doesn't have much to begin with.

Would you consider it a faith issue or one of respect?

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:02 pm

I'd say respect. I know I'd be pissed if some relative down the line had me posthumously baptized, but then, my carbon will be spread all over the place by that point and my mind will have stopped working. Meaningless, but still disrespectful and uppity.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:27 pm

Sir Auros wrote:I'd say respect. I know I'd be pissed if some relative down the line had me posthumously baptized, but then, my carbon will be spread all over the place by that point and my mind will have stopped working. Meaningless, but still disrespectful and uppity.

Pretty much my view. It's also worth remembering these people died as part of a scheme to completely destroy their religion. Attempting to change their religion in death can only be seen as a extremely bad taste attempt to finish the Nazi's work for them. It's no wonder the Jewish community is pissed at this.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:28 pm

I suspose it's the Mormon retards own little innocent way of showing respect or helping out or something. It can't mean anything to the dead, it's not disrespecting their dead bones or anything like that either. I can't see exactly how it's baptising, it's called baptising but it certainly isn't.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:34 pm

Galvatron91 wrote:Would you consider it a faith issue or one of respect?

Respect. And religious groups tend to have very little of that for other religious groups, so it's not particularly surprising.

Random link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 718587.stm

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:33 pm

Denyer wrote:Respect. And religious groups tend to have very little of that for other religious groups, so it's not particularly surprising.

I'd say that's for any group people have strong feelings about. As much as people in these groups are also incredibly tolerant and open with different groups. It's generally not good to generalise a whole group or organisation.

Post by **Clay** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:35 pm

Jetfire wrote:I suspose it's the Mormon retards own little innocent way of showing respect or helping out or something. It can't mean anything to the dead, it's not disrespecting their dead bones or anything like that either. I can't see exactly how it's baptising, it's called baptising but it certainly isn't.

On behalf of a Mormon poster that PM'ed me, choose your words more carefully in the future, please.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:56 pm

It's generally not good to generalise a whole group or organisation.

Which is why I was generalising groups rather than any specific one. I think the stats are on my side in this particular instance -- especially if examined over the course of human history.

And yeah, if we're going to dissect the theology of a given cult, large or small, can people start a fresh thread and leave the dogma to speak for itself without need for name-calling...

rattrap23 · Post by **rattrap23** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:39 am

The original point of baptism is that people do it on their own free will, so I don’t understand how somebody can do that to you.

Especially after your already dead.

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:13 am

I've heard of praying for the dead, but this takes it a bit far.

Harmless in and of itself (and with the best intentions in mind), but I can see how folks might take offense if you started declaring that their late relatives were now part of your religion as opposed to the one that they professed and were martyred for.

Like rattrap said there's the issue consent and being alive for it to be an actual baptism.

wyze2099 · Post by **wyze2099** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:01 am

rattrap23 wrote:The original point of baptism is that people do it on their own free will, so I don’t understand how somebody can do that to you.

Especially after your already dead.

Babies are baptized routinely, long before they're remotely aware of what's going on at the ceremony. That was certainly the case for me: the only way I even know I'd been baptized was because I'd been told about it and shown pictures of it years later. I'm agnostic at present, so the process clearly didn't take.

But regarding the baptism of Jewish ashes ... it seems like they were attempting to show respect using their own religion's practices because they didn't know how else to do it. I can understand that, though simply praying for the dead probably would have sufficed. Baptism is an attempt to actively convert someone from one religion to another; how would these people like the idea of their relatives' remains being converted to Judaism or Islam?

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:23 pm

You're right about infant baptism. How could I forget that? In that case it's the parents' consent that is needed, and confirmation is the sacrament at which the child confirms that consent.

It used to be that you had to be an adult in order to be baptised, but they instituted infant baptism during a time when the infant mortality rate was extremely high. I want to say it was during the black plague, but I'm not sure . . . *looks it up* hmmm . . . historians don't seem sure of when it was first instituted either. Some say it was done from the onset of the Church. Others say there's no evidence of it until the third century AD.

secretcode · Post by **secretcode** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:19 pm

The baptism of holocaust victims, as I said, is a gray area for the church. I think I have one of the guidebooks around somewhere. Not technically supposed to share the info as our branch's financial and membership clerk, but meh. Internet Anonymity for the win.

EDIT: Here we go: "Please remember that The Church urges members to submit only the names of their own ancestors for baptismes and other ordinances, and not for celebrities or Holocaust victims. If the names are not submitted by a direct descendant then a surviving family member's permission should be obtained for baptisms performed for people who have passed on."

Well, there you go. That's all I can really find on the subject, but if they go through to start the work I would have thought they would at least screen names for being Holocaust victims. Of course with the membership totals we have (And increasing, now that we recently got access to India) it's impossible to screen something that is freqently updated.

If you guys have any other questions, I can try to answer to the best of my ability... which isn't much.

rattrap23 · Post by **rattrap23** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:12 pm

wyze2099 wrote:Babies are baptized routinely, long before they're remotely aware of what's going on at the ceremony. That was certainly the case for me: the only way I even know I'd been baptized was because I'd been told about it and shown pictures of it years later. I'm agnostic at present, so the process clearly didn't take.

That’s a vary good point.

Like I said, the original point was that you did it when you where old enough to understand what you where doing.
The Catholic Church started doing it to babies because of infant mortality. They wanted to make sure that infants that died went to haven, instead of limbo.

Clogs · Post by **Clogs** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:09 pm

Yeah, I got dipped at a young age and did not, as I should have, cry. This means, if you believe it, that the devil was never driven out of me *shrugs* how can anyone tell? Haven't dipped my two Scraplets on account of not wanting to provide an expensive family knees-up each time.

Personally, I cannot see any point to any church deciding to 'baptise' the dead of another religion. Granted, Jesus did baptise many during his lifetime (according to the Book), but that was not specifically to convert them to 'Christianity' since no one invented that until years after the Romans had nailed the guy to a lump of wood. I guess it doesn't do any harm, but what good does it do except raise arguments?

Notabot · Post by **Notabot** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:21 pm

Clogs wrote:Granted, Jesus did baptise many during his lifetime (according to the Book),

Hmmm, I wonder which book you refer to since there's no mention of Jesus baptizing anyone in the Bible.

rattrap23 · Post by **rattrap23** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:27 pm

John the Baptist, baptised people.

I don’t think there is any reference to Jesus baptising people.

TFARCHIVE FORUMS

Mormons Baptism of Holocaust Victims

Mormons Baptism of Holocaust Victims

playing the part of devil's advocate will be G91...