She also cites "Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor," as calling “the whole process very strange.” "There is nothing positive in what they are doing," she reports Wiesel as saying. "It’s an insult. You cannot ask the dead their opinion. Poor Anne Frank. As if she didn’t suffer enough.”
I would really like to hear Ms. Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times explain how vicarious baptisms on behalf of the dead "coerce" anyone.
And I would love to hear Elie Wiesel elaborate on exactly how a vicarious baptism on behalf of Anne Frank has caused Ms. Frank any additional suffering.
Some opposition may stem from not understanding Mormonism. I think we might find ourselves in a similar position if we learned that Veganites had been accumulating our ancestors birth records, in order to consecrate them into the Order of Zaitan, so that they might spend eternity wandering in the Gardens of Amber.
I’m having a hard time understanding how a PhD in Middle Eastern studies can’t grasp the idea that Jews who live in a post Holocaust world might be just a tad bit sensitive about their sense of spiritual identity.
MrStakhanovite wrote:I’m having a hard time understanding how a PhD in Middle Eastern studies can’t grasp the idea that Jews who live in a post Holocaust world might be just a tad bit sensitive about their sense of spiritual identity.
Plug "apologetics" variable into the equation and suddenly the willful ignorance makes sense.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
She also cites "Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor," as calling “the whole process very strange.” "There is nothing positive in what they are doing," she reports Wiesel as saying. "It’s an insult. You cannot ask the dead their opinion. Poor Anne Frank. As if she didn’t suffer enough.”
I would really like to hear Ms. Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times explain how vicarious baptisms on behalf of the dead "coerce" anyone.
And I would love to hear Elie Wiesel elaborate on exactly how a vicarious baptism on behalf of Anne Frank has caused Ms. Frank any additional suffering.
I wouldn't particularly call it coersion either, however..
Proxy baptism (and endowment) is a sickening act that tears at the familial heartstrings of those that reverence and honor the legacy of their ancestors - particularly when their history includes martredom for their religeous/cultural convictions. Whatever else it might be, this act is nothing less than grave desecration - kicking over headstones and defecating on hallowed ground. Can't you Mormons see why this could be annoying to those outside your little band?
Think about it. The so-called "millenium" is purported to be a time when the veil between the living and dead will be thin enough to verify the deads' religious convictions. No doubt, there will be plenty of time to baptise the handful of ancestors that are dumb enough to buy into this insignificant and mostly unknown cult. Why don't you wair out your days applying balm to those yet living? What a waste of your lives when you have the potential for so much good.
One of the requests upon my death is that my name will never be submitted for proxy baptism - ever.
Many people are not very familiar concerning baptism for the dead; it's purpose as well as it's history. It's purpose is to make possible for all who died to have the chance to be "born of the water and the spirit," so that they may have the choice to accept or reject being "born again" even if they died not ever hearing the name of Jesus Christ. This is also closely related to the gospel being preached to the dead so that they can have the opportunity for salvation just as men in the flesh, or those who are still mortal.
This ordinance was done in the primitive church. According to "The Interpreters Bible," the world wide respected Biblical encyclopedia (non-Mormon) in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:29, it states:
"Baptism for the dead, that rapture of the cosmos, Paul turns to an interesting item of church practice in Corinth, and probably elsewhere too, and uses it to reinforce his main point..."
In fact, baptism for the dead was practiced long after that time by many Christians which led to the council of Carthage to forbid any further practice as per it's 6th canon in 397 AD. Of course, it has been restored again as part of the restitution of all things!
gdemetz wrote:Many people are not very familiar concerning baptism for the dead; it's purpose as well as it's history. It's purpose is to make possible for all who died to have the chance to be "born of the water and the spirit," so that they may have the choice to accept or reject being "born again" even if they died not ever hearing the name of Jesus Christ. This is also closely related to the gospel being preached to the dead so that they can have the opportunity for salvation just as men in the flesh, or those who are still mortal.
Except famous dead Jews and Celebrities. They won't be getting the chance anymore...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
gdemetz wrote:This ordinance was done in the primitive church.
Right, one oddball verse in the new testament to justify billions on great and spacious buildings.
gdemetz,
Wait till the millenium, the seven dead mentally challenged people that want to join your unknown little church will let you know. Nobody else is even interested except that you're mocking their family/cultural legacys.
Besides what else are you going to do with the 999 years, 364 days, 24 hours and 33 minutes before Satan is once again unbound? Why don't you go sell a few bricks from the new mall and save a few forsaken children in Portoprince? Or shall we just wait till they're cold so you won't hear their voices when they're dunked by proxy?
I think that Jews are right to suspect that they are being disrespected. There has been a long and observable pattern of rather gross disrespect for Jewish customs on the part of Dr. Peterson. Whether it's him being a dumb and obnoxious kid and mocking the Jewish wedding ceremony, or callously telling them that they must accept proxy baptisms because "Jews have precious few friends in the world," or the fact that he's friends with someone like Bill Hamblin, who will sling around the "k-word" just for the sake of polemics--the fact is that there is a long history of him doing this sort of thing. It's enormously disrespectful, and it ought to stop.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
gdemetz wrote:Many people are not very familiar concerning baptism for the dead; it's purpose as well as it's history. It's purpose is to make possible for all who died to have the chance to be "born of the water and the spirit," so that they may have the choice to accept or reject being "born again" even if they died not ever hearing the name of Jesus Christ. This is also closely related to the gospel being preached to the dead so that they can have the opportunity for salvation just as men in the flesh, or those who are still mortal.
This ordinance was done in the primitive church. According to "The Interpreters Bible," the world wide respected Biblical encyclopedia (non-Mormon) in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:29, it states:
"Baptism for the dead, that rapture of the cosmos, Paul turns to an interesting item of church practice in Corinth, and probably elsewhere too, and uses it to reinforce his main point..."
In fact, baptism for the dead was practiced long after that time by many Christians which led to the council of Carthage to forbid any further practice as per it's 6th canon in 397 AD. Of course, it has been restored again as part of the restitution of all things!
I am a member of the Church, and also see Baptism for the Dead as a beautiful thing because I understand the background. However, I think that baptism for the dead should be confined to our own ancestors. We should not be randomly baptising records of famous people, or specifically looking for Holocaust victims, etc. It is understandable for us, as LDS, to want our ancestors to have the opportunity to accept our faith in the hereafter. That is what the practice is designed for. That is what it should be resigned to.
Doctor Scratch wrote:I think that Jews are right to suspect that they are being disrespected. There has been a long and observable pattern of rather gross disrespect for Jewish customs on the part of Dr. Peterson. Whether it's him being a dumb and obnoxious kid and mocking the Jewish wedding ceremony, or callously telling them that they must accept proxy baptisms because "Jews have precious few friends in the world," or the fact that he's friends with someone like Bill Hamblin, who will sling around the "k-word" just for the sake of polemics--the fact is that there is a long history of him doing this sort of thing. It's enormously disrespectful, and it ought to stop.
Scratch, could you elaborate on the incident regarding Dan mocking the Jewish wedding ceremony as a child? Where is this cited?