Jewish groups are upset at the thought of the Church baptising Holocaust victims. It seems that they are being egged on by one Helen Radkey. The Church had agreed that members are to do the work only for those in their line–or with the permission of their next-of-kin. Despite assertions that the Church has reneged on that agreement, the Church’s NewFamilySearch web site has software that would make such breaches extremely difficult. To add to this woe, the Vatican has expressed concern about the practise of baptism for the dead, and has issued instructions to end LDS access to their records.
Leaving the present difficulty for members of the Church to violate this agreement aside, I would like to comment on both the reasons for Jewish objections and what is actually being done by baptisms for the dead, and to perhaps reassure them of both our intent and the absence of negative effects of those baptisms.
From the links above, I gather that Jewish groups believe that our baptising for the dead is a backdoor way of erasing the Jewishness of Holocaust victims, and a sly way to eliminate Jewry by latter-day revisionism. I can understand this fear. I am painfully aware of the forced conversions and other denials of basic human rights by the Spanish Inquisition and other pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust that was Nazi Germany. I have had Jewish friends from childhood, and I certainly would not want the erasure of what makes them uniquely them.
Fortunately, baptism for the dead does NOT make them non-Jews, nor does this force them to deny their Jewishness. To the contrary, we believe that personal agency is sacrosanct [See D&C 101:78; Moses 4:3; 7:32]. Indeed, since we Latter-day Saints claim to be Israelites, far from a denial of their status of Israelites–the Most High’s chosen people [Deuteronomy 7:6], that baptism is a resounding confirmation of it.
Furthermore, the fact that we are baptising proxies for our kin who suffered through the Holocaust testifies–quite loudly–that even though they probably have never heard of the Book of Mormon or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, let alone being members of the Church, the way they lived their lives–as Jews–makes them entirely worthy of the Kingdom of the Most High. In bureaucrat-speak, all that was left was the paperwork. As for the [Insert favourite epithet here.] that led Nazi Germany, as Wilford Woodruff put it about other persons who allowed the attempted genocide of another people, the Church will do their baptisms when “their cause is just.” That, I suspect, will come LONG after the Cubs win the World Series–in a four-game sweep. 😉
Clearly, Jews are not dealing with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel–and Jews–off the map, and denies that the Holocaust even happened. Rather, the LDS wish to remember the Jews as worthy people of the Most High, and not as vermin to be exterminated!
Radkey claims an ability to spot “Jewish names.” However, when asked to provide some, she demurred, demanding that WE find those names, and delete their work. This causes me to suspect that her goal is to frustrate our ability to do ANY of the Lord’s work, rather than to give proper respect for the Jews. Moreover, I suspect that her ability is, to put it kindly, overrated. I have an ancestor named Samuel Samuelson, and, since Samuel is a Prophet in the Tanakh (and he DID have children [See I Samuel 8:1]!), one might suppose that he might have been Jewish. Unfortunately, while my ancestors might have been Jewish at some time or another, when Samuel Samuelson died, he was a member of the Augsburg Lutheran Church, in Porter County, Indiana–and his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren were Lutherans, as well. Further, I know of other members of the Church who converted from Judaism. These people would, no doubt, complain–quite loudly–if they were denied the ability to give their dearly departed all of the advantages of the Gospel that they possess.
Leaving all this aside, let us suppose, for a moment, that we’re wrong in our authority claims. What effect would our baptising a Jew, a Catholic, or any other dead person in any religion–or no religion at all? I would submit that if our truth claims are without foundation, the power of our ordinances would likewise be wholly without power or effect. Even if we were as evil as Decker and his ilk claim, anything we would do for the dead wouldn’t hurt them at all–because they wouldn’t do anything at all.
But what if we’re right–and our baptisms have saving effect–provided their beneficiaries accept them? Are we not doing the dead a favour by ensuring that they will be able to take their rightful place in Heaven with the Most High? Moreover, this ordinance belies any claim that we Latter-day Saints think we’re any better than people of any other religion, for it proclaims to all and sundry that the Jew, Catholic, or person of whatever faith is just as good, just as righteous, just as worthy of Heaven as the Latter-day Saint doing the work.
What, then, is the problem?
Steven, while I’m 100% with you in doctrine, and share your evident frustration with the meddling interference of someone who has no one’s interests but her own at heart, this piece is written completely from the Mormon point of view and shows no sensitivity to Jewish concerns at all. (I don’t care about Radke’s concerns — blast away at her all you want, with my encouragement.) You won’t win hearts and minds with a post that says, essentially, “What’s yer problem? and quitcher bellyachin’.” It might be enlightening for you to speak quietly and off the record with two or three Jews who could explain to you why their peculiar history makes them sensitive to all this.
Wow, you really don’t get it.
Stan – instead of just dropping a lame one-liner, why not expound further on just precisely what it is you think Steven Danderson doesn’t “get”.
Now in response to Steven’s post, I think this is an excellent, thought-provoking description of the issue. Since 1995, the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors has relentlessly criticized the LDS Church over the proxy baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims. While I was initially sympathetic, I soon found that nothing the Church did seemed to mitigate their criticism; they continue to find fault with the Church’s abatement measures even to this day.
Consequently, I’m no longer sympathetic to their concerns. In my opinion, the Church has taken all reasonable measures to minimize the problem. The problem is that there are extremists within the Jewish community who hate all of Christianity, including Latter-day Saints, and would rather see us go out of business. They use history as an excuse to try to repress us; every non-Jew is, to them, the next Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Read the Anti-Defamation League website sometime and find out about Abe Foxman’s anti-Christian bigotry. While he hasn’t criticized Mormons recently, he did smear and defame Mel Gibson as an “anti-Semite” over his performance in “The Passion of the Christ”.
In the past, the Church extracted thousands, (? millions, I have no idea) of names from parish registers and other official documents and submitted the names for temple file work. In recent years, the angle has changed with much more emphasis on families providing their own family names for submission- quite rightly. The whole idea of families working together to save their kindred dead is central to this doctrine.
If converts who are related to Jewish families wish to submit family names themselves, I have no problem with that. I do think it is questionable to submit huge lists of names gleaned from records of any religious organisation, but to do so for Holocaust survivors is, at the least, immensely insensitive, and I was glad when the Church initially stepped up on this issue.
Part of the problem now is the fact that we no longer have those who check every submission as in days gone past.This means that the final responsibility lies with individual members, who take it upon themselves to submit names connected with pet hobby horses almost recklessly. Search for almost any famous deceased person on familysearch and see how many times the name has been submitted, most likely by non family members. That, imho, is the bigger problem here.As in many areas, irresponsible behaviour by individuals reflects badly on the whole.
Stan said it succinctly, Ardis said it more substantively. I couldn’t help but cringe reading through this. One thing Stan may have been referring to was this:
“…far from a denial of their status of Israelites–the Most High’s chosen people [Deuteronomy 7:6], that baptism is a resounding confirmation of it.”
Yea, from YOUR point of view, but decidedly not from the Jewish point of view. This statement is less about reassuring the Jewish people (I Hope–cuz if this statement were actually aimed at Jews, it manifests a total failure to even attempt to understand their point of view or take it seriously) than to reassure a Mormon that there’s no problem.
Further, the “they just needed their paperwork done” comment for me as a Latter-day Saint not only cheapens the concept of baptism, but further manifests insensitivity to Jewish concerns. Is that all baptism is, really–just something to check off the list? This manifests the exact same attitude of inevitability (insensitivity) about LDS identity that some Holocaust advocates are supposed to be bothered by.
The sentence immediately preceding about being worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven presumes first that Jews would recognize the concept of “being worthy” in “the Kingdom of Heaven” and then equates that supposed Jewish concept with an LDS-oriented reading of that phrase and quite surprisingly and conveniently (rhetorically) brushes aside the Book of Mormon and other distinctly Mormon beliefs on the way. As if the ordinance is not supposed to imply some acceptance or recognition of some of these distinctly Mormon identifiers and as if Jewish identity, therefore, can be seamlessly transferred over to Mormonism. As if the process for a living Jew to convert to Mormonism doesn’t involve some measure of altering of the past Jewish identity and restructuring of some fundamental understandings.
Those are just three examples of why I agree totally with Stan, this post just did not get it.
And I love how Jack M, reduces Jewish criticism down to Anti-Christianity, further failing to recognize or even conceive of any cultural sensitivities outside of blind hatred. Great job.
Let me try again….
1. From what I understand of the many things written by Jewish groups and the Vatican, the main objection to baptism of the dead is that when we do them, the beneficiary somehow loses his or her Jewishness or Catholicism or whatever religion he or she had in life. I was trying to state–categorically–that this is not the case.
2. From the Jewish point of view, Moses Maimonides was a Jew, and from the Catholic point of view, Saint Francis of Asissi was Catholic. Moreover, from the standard, objective viewpoint, Rambam was a Jew and Francis was Catholic, and anybody who thinks otherwise is confused at best.
3. Furthermore, I know of no Latter-day Saint who refers to either as a Mormon or a Latter-day Saint.
4. Since baptism is required for admission into Heaven [Mark 16:16; John 3:5]; we perform the ordinance in proxy for those who haven’t the opportunity.
5. However, we do NOT add the people for who we do this to the membership rolls. Hence they are not Latter-day Saints.
6. Our performing the baptisms indicates that their beneficiaries meet worthiness from our point of view. That, coupled with the fact that they are made Latter-day Saints by the ordinance, means that, as I understand our doctrine, these people are “worthy” as Jews, Catholics, or whatever religious preference they hold.
Thus, if a person were baptised for Moses Maimonides, that indicates that we hold him to be a righteous Jew, and if two persons were baptised for Saint Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa, we are acknowledging that they are righteous Catholics.
In my mind, they are in no way otherwise.
7. Even if we are stupid enough to think otherwise, how would this alter the reality that Rambam was a Jew and Francis and Teresa were Catholics? As Abraham Lincoln put it, calling a tail a leg does NOT make it a leg. 😉
8. Stan and Jared are right about one thing: I don’t understand how Rambam and Anne Frank and others could have their identity “seamlessly transferred from a Jewish identity to a Mormon one,” since they are considered Jews by all reliable sources, and we LDS have never considered them members. I also do not understand how Frances and Teresa and others could have their identity “seamlessly transferred from a Catholic identity to a Mormon one,” since they are listed as Catholics by the Vatican and we LDS do not count them as members.
That is why I wrote the post. I utterly fail to see how the reality of their religious preference in life can be altered. If we’re wrong, we are powerless to change reality, and, if we’re right, we don’t think that reality is changed anyway.
Does this make sense?
I could never understand sensitivity on this issue until a Catholic friend asked me how Id feel if the RC church asked for LDS lists to have masses said for their souls. It would seem strange that other people would consider “our” faithful in need of “their” prayers and rites.
aarondavidson says:
Maybe that explains my puzzlement. You see, I’m not bothered by the prayers of those outside of our faith. My non-LDS in-laws pray for my wife and me all the time–that includes our spiritual condition.
Don’t the Catholics have prayers/light candles on behalf of their departed loved ones–even those who are NOT Catholics?
Thanks for further elucidating the point, SD. Just from your #1, I can see there’s no sense in trying to pursue this any further. I’ll just refer you back to my initial comment, and I’ll be leaving the thread now. Good luck.
Hi Jared!
Sometimes, even verbally gifted people say things that offend–unintentionally. Sometimes the best thing to do is apologise and try to clarify intentions–then move on.
I understand the plight of the Jews. For centuries, Jews have been targets of systematic efforts to deny them even basic rights–chief of which is the right to live. I cringe whenever somebody states or implies that the Jews don’t deserve rights.
As with Islam [See http://www.fairblog.org/2008/05/03/seven-admirable-things-about-islam/%5D, there is much to be admired in Jewish culture, and I certainly don’t wish to eradicate it. I can certainly see how denying the Jewishness of their heroes. Saying that Moses Maimonides isn’t a Jew is like those who, in a gesture of Black esteem, claim that Socrates isn’t a Greek, but an African. This isn’t true–and it is ineffective in building cultural esteem. As the Greeks are justified in taking issue with the “back to Africa” movement for denying Socrates his Greekness, the Jews would be justifiably upset at denying Rambam his Jewishness.
This is not the same thing, however, as adopting heroes of other cultures as their own–while affirming (or at least not denying) their true cultures. Thus, I have no problem having Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a hero, despite the fact that my skin is several shades lighter than his! 🙂
(There may be, however, some Black ancestors in my family tree. That would bother me not at all.)
However, there are Blacks who told me that, because of my pallour, I have no right to have Dr. King as a hero. I wonder why. If following his example makes me a better person, would this not add lustre to his reputation?
Likewise, I have no problem with, say, Simon Bolivar [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim%C3%B3n_Bol%C3%ADvar%5D, who idolised George Washington, and tried to imitate his exploits in the liberation of South America from the Spanish. The fact that President Washington is widely admired by Latin Americans that General Bolivar freed does not change the fact that Washington was an American in the slightest–and it is in America’s interest that the ideals of liberty be spread.
In short, I view the LDS practise of baptism for the dead more like my having Martin Luther King as a hero than like those who say that Socrates was not Greek but African.
Do I make sense?
If ever you see something that merits comment, please feel free to do so.
“In Jewish tradition the greatest category of acts one can perform are those of ‘loving kindness,’ including taking care of the sick, welcoming the stranger, and sheltering the needy. The most treasured of these acts is taking care of the dead because, unlike the others, it cannot be reciprocated. Jewish tradition posits that it is then that the individual most closely emulates God’s kindness to humans, which also cannot be reciprocated.”
— Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies, Emory University
I believe Steven’s points are logical, but sometimes logic isn’t part of the equation. Particularly when it comes to deceased family and friends.
Honestly, it seems like all that needs to be said is: “If we’re right – we’re doing them a favor; if not – then no harm has been done.” Unfortunately, that just comes across as insensitive, in a time and place where that’s not how you want to be perceived.
Which is why I’ve felt for a long time now that the wisest course of action would be to comply with their wishes without question.
For one thing – it is the more compassionate way. It will net the church more goodwill than just stubbornly continuing on, while vainly attempting to explain the doctrine behind it.
For another – it’s simply not worth the hassle in this life. There will be time for the work to be completed once we all have been given eyes to see, and ears to hear. For now, let’s be a bit more diplomatic.
The issue of performing proxy baptisms for Jews who perished in the Holocaust first surfaced in 1994. At that time, the Church stated that the policy was to permit baptisms for people who had died within the past hundred years **only** if the work would be performed by a direct descendant of the deceased or with the consent of the nearest living direct descendant. If church members would honor that policy, most–not all, but most — of the problems would go away. Further, I see no reason why genealogical records the church makes available to the general public should contain information that is relevant only to the church or church practices. To do otherwise needlessly taunts non-Mormons.
I suspect the main problem is that the Jews who are upset at the Mormon practice simply dislike the very notion that a person needs (Christian) baptism to be saved.
Certainly, many liberal Jews have a strong dislike for those evangelical Christians who believe they (the unbaptized Jews) are bound for hell. Nobody really likes it when another person says they’re damned. The Mormon variant (which allows proxy baptism for the unbaptized dead) is a bit of a relaxation about this, but the bottom line (from the Jew’s perspective) is that the Latter-day Saint still thinks that unless you join his church, in this life or the next, you’re out of luck. Being a good Jew isn’t enough.
Being on the receiving end of evangelical Christian you’re-damned theology, I can see something of the Jews’ point.
However, I also believe that no religion has the right, in justice or in simple courtesy, to presume to dictate another religion’s practices that do not directly affect living members.
For Jews and Catholics to get so upset about it, they must think it really works!
“Further, I see no reason why genealogical records the church makes available to the general public should contain information that is relevant only to the church or church practices. To do otherwise needlessly taunts non-Mormons.” (RB Scott)
I think this ignores the very significant portion of the non-Mormon population who are impressed by how much we care about the dead.
I think the loud individuals who point the finger of scorn make us a little deaf to those who may be positively affected by what we do. (Remember that those who heeded the scornful voices in the great and spacious building, typically lost sight of the path they were supposed to be following.) Personally, I’m happy with the Church’s response, and think it is very reasonable and principled.
I have published my own LDS data (exported from PAF) on my website in the past, and never received a complaint. In fact, the reaction has been overwhelmingly the reverse.
Hi Ryan!
You said:
True! It happens too often to me. :-/
I agree–and I support the Brethren in this.
I agree with this too–to an extent. We will get opportunity soon enough, and we shouldn’t usurp it.
On the other hand, If Brigham Young is correct that people in the Millennium will retain their old religious preferences, then, unless we allay their fears, we will wait a LONG time until the Jews lose their fears.
Thus, I think we should also take steps to reassure the Jews that we are NOT trying to take their Jewishness away. As President George A. Smith said, we aren’t trying to take away anything–just trying to bless others with what we’ve been blessed with.
Do I make sense?
Exactly Stephen!
What our baptisms for the dead are supposed to do is to show great esteem for the dead of other faiths.
For one thing, we can certainly learn from the examples of their great ones; for another, they deserve it! 🙂
Jack Mormon says:
I’m not thrilled with some of the deeds of Mr. Foxman; some of his complaints seem more political than religious.
Still, even though people like Helen Radkey and Abraham Foxman may NEVER be satisfied until they can get us to shut down entirely, I am reluctant to place ALL those who have concerns about our baptising for the dead into that group.
The thing, I believe, is to try to allay those concerns–even if done clumsily.
Do I make sense?
RB Scott says:
Two impressions come to mind:
1. I agree that, except for a very few cases (e.g., a dying non-member specifically requests that the work be done.), we should stick to our own family lines. After all, as a general rule, family members are most likely to know and work for the best interests of their kin. However, the Jews may complain that, since the deceased are Jews, the Mormons–even family members have no business meddling with THEIR people.
What do you think?
2. Part of your comment gave the impression of a “What they don’t know won’t hurt them” approach. Is that accurate?
I think that we will have better relations if we have both knowledge and consent.
What do you all think?
Thomas says:
So can I. On the other hand, does not belonging to one religion at least imply that they have something that others lack; that is, that others are in some manner deficient?
If your group has nothing that others do not offer, what is the advantage to being whatever group that you are?
I agree. But what if you think that no outsiders have a right to baptise YOUR members?
Sean says:
Not just care; esteem. 🙂
Agreed. We’re trying to do the right thing! 😉
Most non-LDS appreciate what we do. However, sometimes we have people whose zeal exceeds their knowledge, who may run roughshod over the sensibilities of others. There was one person who published part of my wife’s line–without permission, and he got many things wrong. Imagine how my wife’s non-LDS kin felt about that….
As an RM I am extremely embarrassed by this offensive and pathetic article. There is no excuse to baptise holocaust victims. Those people were killed for their religion and their culture, and we have no right to be meddling in that. Your justifications are disgusting.
Steven:
“On the other hand, does not belonging to one religion at least imply that they have something that others lack; that is, that others are in some manner deficient?”
Not necessarily. We are inclined to think so, since we belong to a religious tradition that teaches that your eternal salvation may hang on making the right choice of religious affiliation, and because we are a missionary church that seeks to persuade people — including the already-churched — to switch denominations.
However, many religious people are more latitudinarian. They may believe that as long as various religions contain a bare minimum of moral and spiritual content, the differences between them are more accidents of culture and history than they are significant in the eyes of God, or as criteria for judging one such religion better than another.
Many people — many Catholics and Orthodox, for example, and certainly many Jews — adhere to those denominations not necessarily because they are convinced that they are objectively superior to others, but rather because those are the traditions in which they are acculturated. The main advantage those traditions have for people who approach them in this way, is that they are familiar to them; they have emotional resonance to longtime adherents as the traditions in which they, as children, first learned to pray, sense the beauty of Christ’s redemption, and join with others in cherished rituals.
This advantage of familiarity may far outweigh any perceived advantage or disadvantage the religions enjoy because of their actual theology. A longtime Catholic might conceivably think the Presbyterians have the better argument on some arcane question of theology, but he might conclude that both sides are really just speculating on the point, and the difference isn’t worth changing churches over.
So no, I wouldn’t say that a Catholic’s choice to be Catholic instead of Jewish necessarily implies that person’s conviction that Catholicism is objectively superior to Judaism — only that that person’s religious affiliation is superior for him.
This might seem close to some kind of easy religious relativism, but it’s not necessarily so. It is possible for there to be one actual true church — and yet God would not judge people for failing to affiliate with it, given that the true church’s identity isn’t so self-evident that failing to accept it could justly be held against a person.
“I agree. But what if you think that no outsiders have a right to baptise YOUR members?”
If religious liberty means anything, then I just have to put up with it. “Baptizing my members” may be offensive to me, but it doesn’t restrict my right to practice my religion; I am free to consider those dead subjected to (in my view) the other guy’s foolish ritual as Jewish as ever.
As between the right to free exercise of religion and the “right” to freedom from other religions’ practices that offend me, free exercise prevails.
Robert:
*sniff* Smells like troll.
As an RM, I would hope that you would be a little more familiar with the doctrine of your own church. There IS an excuse to baptize them, the same as there is to baptize anyone.
Please feel free to elaborate on why you feel that performing temple ordinances for them is “meddling”.
Robert says:
What does being an RM have to do with the merits or lack thereof of this article?
I find it noteworthy that you say this on the 171st anniversary of Lilburn Boggs’ infamous extermination order. We, too, have had people die for their faith.
You seem to imply that Latter-day Saints have not died for their religion and culture. That makes you sound like an anti-Mormon troll. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Another point of solidarity we have with the Jews is the fact that during the Brigham Young administration, the Saints built the first synagogues for the early Jews in the Rocky Mountain west–to their specs–even though non-LDS Christians tended to discriminate against them.
Why did the Saints help the Jews in this manner? We view them are our brothers and sisters; they are each one of us. Killing them is the same as killing us. Those baptisms are designed to send that signal–today.
Using your logic, why stop at just the Holocaust victims? Why not don’t baptise for those who died in the Pogroms? Why not don’t baptise for those who died because they just happened to fall on the wrong side of a border of a state that’s hostile to their religious preference? Why baptise for the dead at all, since those who did NOT suffer have just as much right to NOT be baptised as those who did?
Have you been to the Temple recently? Or are you boycotting it because we baptise for the dead?
Oh, and why be a missionary at all, since the living have just as much right to their present religious denomination as the dead?
Or are you an RM who came home early–because of this?
As much as I dislike Helen Radkey, she is at least consistent; she believe that everybody has a right to their religious preference–except the Latter-day Saints.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you….
🙁
Ryan says:
May be. It depends on whether he clarifies things, attack us for questioning him–or just drives by….
>> RB Scott wrote, replying to a Danderson commentary:The issue of performing proxy baptisms for Jews who perished in the Holocaust first surfaced in 1994. At that time, the Church stated that the policy was to permit baptisms for people who had died within the past hundred years **only** if the work would be performed by a direct descendant of the deceased or with the consent of the nearest living direct descendant. If church members would honor that policy, most–not all, but most — of the problems would go away. Further, I see no reason why genealogical records the church makes available to the general public should contain information that is relevant only to the church or church practices. To do otherwise needlessly taunts non-Mormons.
>Danderson responded: Two impressions come to mind:
1. I agree that, except for a very few cases (e.g., a dying non-member specifically requests that the work be done.), we should stick to our own family lines.< Danderson wrote: After all, as a general rule, family members are most likely to know and work for the best interests of their kin. However, the Jews may complain that, since the deceased are Jews, the Mormons–even family members have no business meddling with THEIR people.What do you think?2. Part of your comment gave the impression of a “What they don’t know won’t hurt them” approach. Is that accurate?I think that we will have better relations if we have both knowledge and consent.<
I think the policy as written is a good one. Members should follow it. It requires consent or a direct relationship.
RBS
RB Scott says:
Agreed. It is not up to people without a relationship to arbitrarily decide. I’ve long felt that it should be a rule for ALL baptisms for the dead.
Thomas says:
I agree. If we’re wrong, even if we INTENDED to take away their Jewishness (and we do NOT!), our effectiveness would be the same as stopping the sun from shining.
Thomas says:
But outside of those narrow ranges, you still judge one religion better than another.
People just don’t belong to a group–religious or otherwise–unless they figure they’re better off belonging than not belonging.
Measuring “better off” is not necessarily done by only material goods or only spiritually! 😉
Exactly!
Are you an economist? 😉
“People just don’t belong to a group–religious or otherwise–unless they figure they’re better off belonging than not belonging.”
1. This probably applies more to people who actively convert to a religion than people who are born within it. In the latter case, remaining with the tradition of one’s birth can just be the path of least resistance.
2. “Better off belonging than not belonging” isn’t quite the same as “Religion A is objectively better than religion B.” A person could choose A over B because he calculates belonging to A is subjectively better for him, but allowing the possibility that B could be better for the other guy. Under that analysis, A is not objectively better than B, any more than A&W root beer is objectively better than Hires. You say tomato, I say Presbyterian; de gustibus, different strokes, etc.
Not an economist, but I did enjoy Dr. Kearl’s undergraduate class in it.
Thomas, you’re right. “Better off” is not the same as “objectively better.”
However, I DO think there is an objectively better, but it is contingent on circumstances.
Sometimes, the quickest way home is the long way around.
Actually, I took only Book of Mormon classes at BYU. I got my degrees in Florida, where I live. 😉
One more thing:
The Jewish Holocaust was not about religion. The Nazis did not care what religion they were, theirs was a “race” ideology. So, technically, recanting Jewishness would not have saved a Holocaust victim.
Some of my people (Roma) were victims, too. That was not about religion, either.
So, no, Holocaust victims did not die for their religion the same way that many people have before and after them. Just saying that because it bugs me that there is this inaccurate phraseology bounced around.
Hi Velska!
Thanks for joining in!
You make a good point, but I think it is more accurately said that it is not ONLY about religion.
People who wish to rule others with an iron hand need one or more minorities to bully and/or blame for problems they encounter. Jews were ideal because, even though most looked virtually indistinguishable from other Germans, their religion was just different enough to enable the Nazis to portray them as a threat. Ditto with the Roma, or Gypsies; Wearing normal European clothes, I doubt whether one could easily–if at all–distinguish them from the Italians, Spanish, or Greeks.
It’s about power, and it is easier to maintain that power if there is a minority whom one can blame for one’s own ills. The fact that we get our verb, “to gyp” from the Gypsies shows just how easily a demagogue can falsely portray ANY minority as a threat. 🙁
Steven Danderson said:
Then later…
FAIR by proxy of Steven Danderson, loves this quote which he used earlier this year:
“HC 5:265: …a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”
It’s obvious the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead is spoken of in the D&C and a correct principle. And the keys of which were restored to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
But I’m sure FAIR can find some justification of a statment, made outside of the scriptures by the Prophet Joseph Smith regarding Baptism for the Dead, that FAIR can claim he made when he wasn’t acting as a prophet.
All to deflect wordly criticism in FAIR’s mission of Defending Mormonsim. That is the M.O. of FAIR, afterall.
“A Horse is a Tapir, of course” approach, if you will.
Thus any worldly criticism toward Mormonism is deflected by FAIR. All by diluting statements by the First President of the Lord’s Church.
Then we can all peacefully ride off into the sunset on our tapirs.
What then IS the problem?
The Jewish People are a close knit group, very protective of each other, and wary of even those outside of their group who profess their allegiance to them. Can we blame them for this? As a group of individuals they have been through more than any other in the history of mankind.
As a member of the church I understand the concept of baptism’s for the dead. For those outside of our church this is about as foreign a concept as any other. A simple explanation will never suffice with something like this. We simply need to honor their wishes as it is God’s will and then leave it at that. If we do this and continue to make sure that they know that we are their friends, we can accomplish more than we otherwise would.
We as testimony bearing members of the church know that the gospel is true and so we also know that everything will be made whole when the end of time as we know it comes to pass. At that time all will know the truth, including members of our own religion, as it is spoken from the mouth of God. Until then we need to respect others rights to believe the way they do.
To my Jewish friends who might read this, it was never the intent of this church to diminish the Holocaust, or dishonor those who gave their lives there, in any way. As a persecuted people in our own right we can only express how sorry we are if what we did was taken the wrong way. In our eyes you are the chosen people and we will stand by you as we are able. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in allowing those around us to worship how, where, or what they may.
The History Man
http://wwwhistoryman.blogspot.com/
WOW, Charlie, you said it SO much better than I could!
THANK YOU!