Tonight on the show, we showed you portions of Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was responding to the news that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is — despite an agreement they would not — still posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims. You can see the rest of our exclusive interview right here.
The church has called this an error that they regret and stated those responsible have been reprimanded.
Mormons believe in the practice of baptizing the dead to give those not of their faith the chance for "progression" in the afterlife. The church says this practice was restored by their founder and prophet, Joseph Smith in The Doctrine and the Covenants of the Church (a separate text from The Book of Mormon also authored by Smith).
Wiesel called on Mitt Romney to respond given his political prominence and because Romney has been such an active member of the Mormon Church throughout his life.
Wiesel told Lawrence, "Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and I respect all religions, including the Mormon religion. How come that he hasn't spoken up after all? It's not, I'm sure he's not involved in that. But nevertheless, the moment he heard about this, he should have spoken up, because he is running for the presidency of the United States, which means it's too serious of an issue for him not to speak up."
This controversy got started this week by a report from The Huffington Post that revealed the Mormon church had posthumously baptized the parents of Simon Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor who had hunted down more than 1,000 Nazi war criminals following World War II, while keeping Wiesel's name in its registry. Read more about that part of the story here.
Leave a Comment:
I am a progressive Christian, and I personally believe "sealing" is an unnecessary ritual. To me, the Morman faith is shrouded in a lot of secrecy. My Anglican faith also has a lot of rituals, founded in traditions, that may seem strange to people of other beliefs. But, that's all beside the point. My vote goes to the most candidate. I won't not vote for Mitt because he's Mormon, nor will I forgo voting for Santorum or Gingrich, because the are Catholic, or Obama because he's Baptist. Leadership, policy, voting records and platform are much more important. It's a secular job, after all.
I would invite anyone interested in trying to understand LDS Church doctrine and practices to visit the website www.exmormon.org. This site, where I've been a regular for ten years now, offers support for LDS members who've come to doubt their faith or wish to leave it altogether. There's a short topics section addressing issues, a members' stories section, and a bulletin board of current events and member postings (anonymity is permitted because of the sensitivity of many subjects). The big rule is "no defenses of the faith are permitted," but it does offer timely and pertinent information for those who are curious as well. One is welcome to form one's own judgments and conclusions but one caveat is recognizing many who've left the faith are incredibly angry at what they believe was a lifetime of misinformation and indoctrination. As a result their posts may reflect those feelings in a no-holds barred fashion. What is important is that a high standard of credibility and honesty is maintained and enforced by the "board norms."
LDS faithful are routinely cautioned against visiting such "anti" sites, and the platitude "Ask a Mormon" is offered with a suggestion to visit mormon.org for "actual" answers. By contrast, I know of no "RFM regulars" who would tell someone to stay away from LDS proselytizing or church sites; there would only be the suggestion to investigate both sides of the story.
The late Christopher Hitchens in an essay commented that he did not know whether the LDS religion was a cult or not, but I believe an accurate assessment is that 19th Century Mormonism certainly was a cult, and a number of practices persist as the church attempts to become a 21st Century religion.
Steven Hassan, perhaps the world's leading expert on "toxic cults," uses a model that I believe explains LDS zealotry regarding "posthumous baptizing" (the church has been "caught" doing this many times in the past with Holocaust survivors, and yet the practice continues essentially unabated). I would also invite people to visit his website, freedomofmind.org. To summarize his "BITE" model, one sees major demands being made on members for rituals and group sessions, a culture of discouraging "outside information" (and the use of deception and lying to maintain that culture), and the outcome is members "are kept too busy to think."
Mormon proxy baptisms are one such element within this culture, and there is an element of fanaticism and a belief one is helping to bring about "God's Plan for the Earth."
Mormons have also been told, since the days of church founder Joseph Smith, that theirs is "the one true church," and extreme obedience is a required necessity.
As a result, among the faithful there are very real cognitive and perceptual structures and filters that effectively function as a form of denial that keeps members operating with a "hive mentality" (witness Utah's symbol of the beehive) and the exercise of personal autonomy and independent thought is stifled. Doubters are suppressed by shaming or warned not to "infect others."
But of course believing members will invariably deny all of these last observations.
No defenses of the faith are permitted, eh? How very telling it is that this rule is the one that should be deemed "the big rule". What you're essentially admitting is that any kind of accusation leveled against the Church is considered fair game - but to take the Church's side in anything is strictly taboo.
So much for fairness. I think this tells us everything we need to know...
The assertion that Steve Hassan is "the world's leading expert on toxic cults" is unwarranted, given that he has never qualified as an expert witness in a court of law as many other cult experts have, nor has he authored any scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals on his model, which is largely the product of his own self-published material. For a challenge to Mr. Hassan's model and assertions regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, do a Google search for Steve Hassan, Anti-Cult Controversies and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
And now ladies and gentleman, we are once again offered a glimpse into the "voodoo intellectualisms" of LDS apologetics. Several of my academic friends with decided heretic tendencies have described the practice as such, and I've named it "The Sacred Burning of the Strawman Ritual."
Briefly, one acquires a set of old clothes (for those in the fold, the D.I. is an excellent resource), a quantity of straw, and a pillow case. One stuffs the clothes in scarecrow fashion, paints a silly face on the pillowcase, fills it for the head with leftover straw, and then douses the entire creation with gasoline or other inflammable.
A math or other flame source is then applied, incinerating the creation, and the practitioner points to the "illuminating event," notes the warmth generated, and loudly proclaims victory for the forces of light versus darkness.
Note that "Flying Solo" (MAYDAY! MAYDAY!) first "overlooks" my use of the word "perhaps" in describing Mr. Hassan as an authority on toxic cults (BTW, I was privileged to spend some time with him a few years ago, and he is a genuinely kind and authentic individual possessed of a remarkable mind as well).
Mr. Hassan's profession is as a licensed mental health health counselor, not a "professional expert witness," and he offers "cult exit" counseling and therapy as one of his services. Solo--or more likely, those he was parroting--appears to have purposely overlooked this nuance. This is the strawman I spoke of.
Moreover, there's that "largely... self-published material"? Per Wiki...
During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIA activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert on the Moon organization...
I'd say consulting with a Congressional investigation is ample evidence of Mr. Hassan's expertise, and my advice to Solo is to wash his mouse off with consecrated oil after that howler.
On the contrary, Mr. Hassan testified as an ex-cult member before that subcommittee before he even had any kind of mental health credentials. The basis for his testimony was his personal experience in the Unification Church, nothing more. That does not make him a legitimate expert. The one time Mr. Hassan did try his hand at being an expert witness in Kendall vs. Kendall, his testimony was rejected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the judge had to state that she did not consider his testimony in making her decision.
Whether he is a nice guy is irrelevant. Some folks agree with you, others, not so much, but it really does not matter. The fact remains that anyone making the kinds of claims he makes about his theories ought to have publications in peer reviewed scholarly journals and Mr. Hassan has none. His material is self-published. Testimony before a Congressional Subcommittee means very little and is no substitute for legitimate scholarship. There are Scientologists who have testified before Congressional Subcommittees.
Yes, Mr. Hassan is a counselor and if he stuck to being a counselor, I would not be taking issue with him, but his claims go far beyond that. When he claims to have a legitimate theoretical model of cults, it is legitimate to note that he has no scholarly peer reviewed publications, nor has he qualified as an expert witness in a court of law. Calling him an "expert" on the basis of his testimony before a Congressional Subcommittee would be like calling Scientologists Kirsty Alley or Kelly Preston experts on psychiatric medication because they testified before a Congressional Subcommittee on that topic.
And PS, you have jumped to a number of unwarranted conclusions about that are incorrect. Your propensity to jump to such conclusions is quite telling.
I wish anyone truly wanting to know what Mormons believe instead or reading half truths, misquotes, and other bias material to check out Mormon.org instead of some anti Mormon website set up by some pissed out ex member with some sort of grudge. Name a faith, a religion, a denomination and I bet if you looked hard enough in all the wrong places you can find a ton of things that you will not agree with especially of they are taken out of context or if you have half of the information. I am a proud Black LDS Member and I'm not a some sort of robot I don't worship the devil. I live a normal life with normal friends doing normal things that people my age do. I have morals that I follow and I don't force them on anyone one. I hang out with people from all walks of life fearless. No one wants to really do their homework just bash my faith because it's not the norm. Lucky for me my faith doesn't require you to believe what I believe. I am not LDS because you want me to be but because I chose to be of my own free will. I will never vote for Mitt Romney or any other republican for that matter but it has nothing to do with their religious background. I will never be ashamed of my faith no one should. I didn't join blindly and I'm not defending it because I am brain washed. I actually took the time out and studied the faith and it's history from countless of sources. No non Mormon or ex Mormon can ever teach me more about my faith that what I can learn for myself but studying it out for myself. No one is asking the baptist why they believe different form the Catholics or why Methodist believe somewhat different from the Lutherans. Christians as a whole can't even get on the same page but then we want to tell me how I am suppose to believe or better yet tell me what I believe as if I don't already know. Time might be better spent looking at the dirt in our own churches then spending time trying to tear down other peoples faiths.
Good for you, Christopher! Well said, brother...
~ Michael
Christopher, I'm afraid "looking in all the wrong places" involves looking just about everywhere except where church authorities point. And even then there are big problems.
As an African-American, perhaps one place you can start is the current church manual on the subject of interracial marriages. They're generally agin' 'em, and honest, in 1979 the LDS half of my family boycotted an interracial marriage between a relative of mine and a Nigerian. And I'm doubtful it was because the groom was Catholic.
Feel free, as well to research (stick with LDS sources; I wouldn't want to "contaminate" your thinking) the subject of Jane Manning James, a 19th Century African-American Mormon who desired to be sealed to her husband she had married in 1841. She had worked in Joseph Smith's household, however, and she was instead "sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity."
As a servant... And the sealings were done "by proxy"; she was not permitted in the Salt Lake Temple.
whatever happened to the simple notion....
"rest in peace"
As a family genealogist - I take great pride in rescuing the souls of my ancestors from the Mormons - and setting them free.
Good for you. Mormon's, hands off our dead relatives!
They've been doing this crazy crap forever. I think it's just to add names to their rolls.
Nobody is putting "hands on" your deceased family members - or on anyone else for that matter. The doctrine of proxy baptism for the dead is based on free will - just as all the Church's doctrines are.
We retain our free agency in the afterlife. Any person there for whom a proxy baptism has been performed is free to either accept it - or to reject it - as he or she sees fit. So no harm, no foul.
Care to better inform yourself on the topic? Or would you prefer to complain in ignorance? For actual information, visit LDS.org or Mormon.org.
Just how does a person in Utah know what my deceased mother has chosen?
And If you can influence the afterworld positively, why not negatively? How does anyone here know that (regardless of your intentions) you are not actually cursing the dead? While free will while alive is demonstrable, that is simply not the case with the afterworld. How do I know that what you are doing really is beneficial? Isn't it my decision, or shouldn't it be mine?
I know that I dont want anyone invoking my spirit in this manner, and I am pretty sure that my late mother would agree.
St. Cabbie, as an enthusiastic convert to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. "Mormon Church") of more than 30 years now, I can state from extensive personal experience that many of the criticisms of the Church you've just expressed, while having some basic germ of truth, are greatly exaggerated, slanted and/or distorted. I know this, because I came into the Church with my eyes wide open. And they're still wide open.
To the extent that the attitudes & behaviors you've referenced actually exist at all, they are mostly rooted in culture - not particularly in doctrine or principle. As a convert, I am not a product of the LDS culture. Personally, I choose to focus upon the doctrine, not the culture. But surely LDS people couldn't be the first demographic group or interest group to ever develop a quirky or eccentric culture over time, could they? Then seriously, why all the verbal abuse and the slander?
As for the reasons why Church members are discouraged from engaging with professed "anti-Mormon" interests, it's simple: The intense degree of contention and often hysterical hatred against the Church and its people that tends to exist there usually precludes even the possibility of having a calm, reasonable, mutually-respectful dialogue. Why would we wish to waste our time and energy with people who want only to scream insults at us?
~ MM
Well, as a critic of the LDS faith for nearly 50 years (I was pretty young when I "apostatized"; I was the only member of a Jack Mormon family who wasn't baptized), I've found there's more than a "germ of truth" in the criticisms. It's been enough to more than fill the trunk of the ol' police interceptor.
It probably started with a lot of confusion in 7th grade Utah History (a year long course in the 1960's). This country has always been noted for its religious tolerance, yet Mormons shrieked about the violent persecution they faced in Missouri and Illinois. I wanted to ask "Why?" and nobody had any answers. The history text also didn't mention the Mountain Meadows Massacre or how Parley P. Pratt died. Of course it was written by an LDS general authority...
And a man I loved and admired dearly, my old elementary school principal--Stanford educated with a doctorate--was ex-communicated from the church for publishing material on the onerous "black priesthood" issue. Roughly a decade later, the "1979 Kimball Revelation" was issued, and yet my friend never returned to the church. I know; I attended his funeral in part just to make certain...
And one individual who spoke at the service--and was unceremoniously shown the door afterwards--had visited Dr. Fitzgerald, and they were under Salt Lake Police department surveillance because the other man was a very visible activist. Had there not been a horrible tragedy involving a firearms accident between the two officers, I'm doubtful the matter would've become public knowledge.
I'm sorry the Temple Square demonstrators scream at you during the General Conference sessions, but the truth is the church would rather have them as enemies than soft-spoken secular sorts like Southerton, Bigley, and Bagley.
And speaking of soft-spoken sorts, there's also Charles Larson who addressed the issue of that "doctrine" you're hyping with a volume about the "Book of Abraham" which Mormons believe Joseph Smith "translated" from some Egyptian papyrus sheets he persuaded his followers to buy along with some mummies.
The church had the misfortune of some of the fragments surviving; Emma Smith had sold them after her husband's death, and translations of them--and comparisons with the "LDS Scripture" Smith produced from them--have consistently shown they were simple funerary documents written more than a millenium after Abraham supposedly lived.
Charles Larson was fired from a public school teaching job in Provo, Utah, because of his authorship of "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus."
And the BOA was the basis of LDS institutionalized racism that persisted for 150 years, where Afro-Americans were denied the priesthood.
I consider myself fortunate that I was never exposed to all the inbred silliness of the Utah subculture during my formative years. I wasn't even baptized into the LDS Church until age 23 - still living in my hometown in Michigan. Our respective experiences are light years apart.
While I can't speak knowledgeably to the endless political machinations you've apparently encountered, I can speak confidently of what I do know: a clear understanding and a firm commitment to true doctrine, made known to me by personal revelation of the Holy Spirit. I can assure you that such a testimony puts all other things in their proper perspective, allowing one to transcend all the strifes and contentions of this world. I hope that you can someday reach that place as well. All the best to you...
~ MM
Thank you for accepting that I am at least, most likely an honest individual.
Faith is a comfort to many; it has been to me as well although my notions of what constitutes a Higher Power have been extensively "modified" over the years. I don't seek to impose those ideas on others, but I share my truths on subjects such as history and science where factual objectivity can at least approach a mythical ideal.
Planet Utah is, indeed, a convoluted place... The late Wallace Stegner (a friend of one of my grandfather's) noted the trouble with writing about Mormonism involves having to stop and explain the nuances to those unfamiliar with them.
Sadly, here behind the "Zion Curtain," the politics and polemics of W. C. Skousen (think Glenn Beck and Utah junior senator Mike Lee) dominate, and one hears mostly the voices and policies of the overwhelming and too-powerful majority.
But on the subject of "inbred," well, my friend Will Bagley always says with a smile, "We're all cousins." He and I keep meaning to track down how we're related but we always get sidetracked by investigating more important elements of Utah History.
Myths and superstitions, alive and well in the 21st century, how sad.
Mystic Michael
You do believe that LDS is the one true faith? right? and that even professed Christians are not 100% right with God? - Only an LDS follower is righteous? - You are taught to believe any questioning or criticism is wrong?!
If I were to show you a passage in the book of Mormon which proves your religion is false, are you open to listening or consideration?
The Nephites looked up toward heaven and saw Jesus Christ dressed in a white robe, descending from heaven. He came and stood among the people. They were afraid to speak because they did not understand what was happening. They thought Jesus was an angel. (See 3 Nephi 11:8.) He stretched forth His hand and said, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world" (3 Nephi 11:10; see also 3 Nephi 11:9).
3 Nephi 11:8 'Behold I am Jesus Christ' - Any Christian who has studied the word and the history of Jesus will know that this is the verse that proves the falsehood of Joseph Smith. Jesus was known as 'Jesus, son of God', 'Jesus of Nazareth', even "Jesus the Christ/Messiah', but never as Jesus Christ.
Once you wrap your head around this verse, you can come to no other conclusion - That Joseph Smith was a fraud, which makes the LDS and Mormon religion a fraud.
Before you despair, know that you can still be a Christian, its very easy - just follow Christ! - NT John 1:1 - In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. Leaving the LDS and following Christ will not lead you into damnation but rather a fuller and meaningful relationship with God.
Please don't try to tell me what it is that I believe. I don't appreciate having someone else's words put in my mouth.
As for this so-called scriptural discrepancy that you believe you've found, I can assure you that my testimony far transcends any alleged semantic aberrations you may be able to cite. By this same token, to reject an entire theology based entirely on a single instance of such an alleged semantic aberration is, it seems to me, simplistic & reactionary in the extreme. It's simply not a serious way in which to properly evaluate ANY religious claim.
If the heart is simply not open, the mind can find any number of ways to invent a justification for it - no matter how spurious or shallow...
~ MM
Wow, just like Romney - you evade and refuse to answer the question - I do not put words in your mouth - I ask a question - a 100% legitimate question. You know what I state is true which is why you evade the question - Is LDS the one true faith and us Christian non-believers somewhat wrong? C'mon lets hear it!
Simplistic and reactionary to the extreme - maybe .... but its the truth Nonetheless. If the book of Mormon were not a fraud, these little discrepancies would not be there. Those who have not studied the bible, those who may not have a relationship with Jesus may be fooled. Those who take the time to do due diligence will not.
Meschuganah on sterioid.
If you'd like to know what the average Mormon thinks about this topic, read this:
This discussion illustrates why post-humous baptism will continue, despite official declarations to the contrary. Mormons know what's best for you. Period.
Well, the censor ate my link.
Google: Mormon Dialogue Discussions and look for a thread entitled "Let's Put An End To This".
This is a Mormon apologetics site with many devout participants and a handful of critics. By and large, the participants on this board do not understand why people are making such a big deal about this. Perhaps it's time to tell them.
Here you go Hedonista; they don't "permit" hyperlinks from newbies (and I haven't figured out how to get them to change my status for me and my aging PowerMac; a friend with a PC has no problem).
The Mormon Dialogue Board is:
//www.mormondialogue.org
Type "http:" into a browser window and then copy-and-paste the rest...
A bit of history: That site was originally operated under the aegis of "FAIR" (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research). It morphed into the "Mormon Apologetics and Discussion" board, but somebody quickly nicknamed it the "MA&D House."
One of the "principal heavies" on the site is Daniel C. Peterson, an LDS bishop who's also a professor of Middle Eastern languages at Brigham Young University. Dr. Peterson is clearly the pre-eminent "LDS Apologist" (gonna challenge that one, too, Solo?), but in the interest of "plausible deniability," the site makes it clear that it is "unaffilated" with the LDS church.
Some a--hole cabdriver hung the nickname "Denial C. Peterson" on Danny years ago, and I've been dodging cyber-Danites ever since... Cabdriver Confession: It's been a lot of fun. Helps mitigate the chronic road rage.
Only a token "handful" of critics are permitted at that site; two friends of mine, one a PhD who's a working scientist and the other a thoroughly competent researcher, were both barred from the site after less than a dozen posts apiece.
I've only lurked on the site over the years (and it has been an occasional source of comedy material, but if entertainment were my primary goal, I'd go for LDSFreedomForum first). I have no doubt I would censored and barred in short order. A few years ago I made some modest and polite contributions to the comments section of the Deseret News, the church-owned local newspaper. Some were on the subject of Native American DNA, where I reviewed and explained the research summaries of my friend, Dr. Simon Southerton, and the others were on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I'm only a middlin' level "authority" on MMM (a prestigious history site did invite me to blog for them; I did so once, and I was immediately subjected to wholesale attacks by LDS faithful, accusing me of fabricating the material), but my friends Will Bagley and David Bigler are easily the two most knowledgeable historians on that subject in the world.
Anyway, here is Dr. Peterson speaking on a "scholarly issue" involving the Book of Mormon, which makes the claim there were actually horses in this hemisphere circa 500 B.C.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkydMSmv1Zo
And,
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXbUy3b6H9k&feature=related
Peterson's and Tvedtnes' claims are so far outside of mainstream science and archaeology they are essentially ignored by nearly all serious scholars outside of Brigham Young University. Even the "Spencer Lake Horse" that Peterson pointed to was proven to be a hoax years before the FAIR video was produced.
Other LDS apologists have included Jeffery C. Meldrum who is also the "World's Leading Bigfoot Authority" and Steven C. Jones, a physicist who was "involuntarily retired" from BYU for continually insisting that "9/11 Was an Inside Job Involving Controlled Demolition."
Cheap shot. Just another gratuitous cheap shot...
~ MM
Why not address whether the charges are true instead of engaging in the hysteria you accuse church critics of employing?
Marginalized-
Regarding your claim of Jesus never being known as "Jesus Christ":
Romans 6:3-Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
1Cor 2:2- For I determined not to know any thing among you ,save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Phil 2:11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Heb 13:8-Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
All from KJV
And from the Boof of Mormon: It was prophesied that Jesus would come to earth and appear to the people of whom the Book of Mormon is a record of. He was referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus, The Messiah, The Lamb of God, and many others.
Example of "Jesus Christ" being referenced:
2 Nephi 25:19- ......his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Like pretty much everyone else that takes a hard-line stance against the Mormon church, you are misinformed.
Goliath's corporate criminal profiteers, the cleptocracy, has no respect for any religious persuasion, other than how its manipulation can affect mob mentality. John Nash's paranoid schizophrenic theorum of economic freedom, underlying the current chaos, has only one enemy - altruism.
RLind - I am not misinformed - This line is right out of the book of Mormon.
If Jesus were to appear to you today he would not reference himself as Jesus Christ, plain and simple - Christ is not his last name - this is the mistake Joseph Smith made when writing the book of Mormon.
I was visited by Mormon missionaries when my wife was looking for a church home. We read a few passages from the book of Mormon and I was asked to pray and meditate on these versus. This I did. I spent much time reading and meditating, and this is when this verse jumped out at me. Rather than be convinced that LDS is the one true and only religion - I was convinced that the book of Mormon was false. this one line did it for me.
You make the same mistake as Joseph Smith - we call Jesus 'Jesus Christ' , but I am quite convinced Jesus would never refer to himself this way.
All religion is myth. How can anyone believe that some day the dead people will get out of their grave and walk the streets? Why would God eliminate the best thing that can happen to anyone which is just to "die in peace" and end it all peacefully. God is not supid that he would create such a thing as "eternal life" in terms of duration. The nature of Eternal LIfe, how to treat one another in justice, fairness and kindness is Eternal LIfe, not the duration. To live trillions of years is nonsense. What would I do for trillions of years? Play chess?
If heaven is a spiritual world, why would Jesus want his body to go to heaven? Is the physical body of Jesus, the only physical body in heaven?
RLind - you also make the mistake of quoting 2 Nephi 25:19- ......his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
These are not the words of God, or the words from a gold plate, but the words of Joseph Smith - made up by him. The book of Mormon is a fraud.
This is the overriding mistake Mormons make, they somehow believe their religion is mainstream and acceptable to evangelicals. This is not the case. Any Christian who has been baptized, born again, and is a practicing Christian, and who seeks God and Christ on a daily basis, knows the difference between what is true and what is not. LDS is not.
My folks, practicing Christians, who rejected LDS theology, never were, never bought into it, died as Christians - have been baptized into the LDS. I guess the dead don't or can't object, as it is I really could not care less if the same happened to me, but what is really insulting is that this affects and insults the living - but the LDS don't get it, nor do they care.
I don't understand the opposition to the LDS practice of proxy baptisms for the dead. I am an ex-Mormon, I've been baptised for hundreds of dead souls but I no longer believe in Mormon doctrine or that practice, to me it all superstition. It seems to me there are two possibilities here, either the Mormon church is right and dead souls will have a chance to accept "the gospel" after they are dead in that case no should be opposed to the practice. The other possibility is the Mormons are wrong and that means the baptisms for the dead are meaningless and thus don't matter so once again there is no reason to oppose the practice.
Mr Wiesel, doesn't seem to completely understand the LDS teaching on this, he said victims of the Holocaust like his parents, his brother, his sister where converted by a proxy baptism. That is not the LDS teaching, the teaching is the proxy baptism only gives the dead person a choice whether to convert or not, nothing is forced. Who could be opposed to someone having a choice?
This whole issue is silly, it truly is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin by people who don't even believe in angels. There are many important issues in the real world to focus on, that someone puts so much time and effort into finding about what happens in someone else's imaginary world is astounding.
Precisely correct. Thank you for articulating the issue with such clarity.
No-one would really care but for the fact the LDS publish on the internet the genealogy of these folks. I'm wondering if the LDS would take offense to a satanic group 'baptizing' their proxies in the name of a deceased LDS member and then published the list of names on the web. After all its harmless so why bother .....
If a living Jew or non Mormon finds this practice offensive, maybe you should listen, rather than blow them off - because its no big deal to you.
Yes, it is all rather silly, but it does highlight the disregard and disrespect the LDS has for the living - The disrespect and disregard it has for those who do not follow their true religion. What they are really saying is 'Yes, we are all Christians .... BUT ... in fact, you are NOT' The more the general public gets exposed to this false religion, the easier it is to make an informed decision.
False religion? Is there any other kind? Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism …. They are all true by their own standards but unreasonable by any objective standard. Mormon's regard being baptized for the dead as favor, their aims are good, not disrespectful. Why get offended? What they are doing doesn't matter here on earth or in the invented land of the here after. There are lots of things that real matter one could spend their time complaining about.
"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Article VI, paragraph 3, US Constitution.
Hopefully these attacks are motivated less by what appears to be Lawrence O'Donnell's unabashed bigotry and contempt for the sincerely held religious beliefs of 13 million Americans than by the desire to vilify a Republican candidate who happens to be Mormon — and latent bigotry against Mormons happens to be a convenient tool. Shameful!
I now await the continued onslaught of mindless platitudes and embarrassing hateful attacks on Romney's faith used to explain why his faith disqualifies him for service in public office, or which attempt to explain why your personal disagreement with his faith are some how relevant to the public dialogue on Romney.