Revenge for Posthumous Mormon Baptisms?

[valsa]

I have said before that I do think it's spiritually disrespectful and in bad taste. However, I don't think it's nearly as spiritually disrespectful or generally abhorrent as tattooing someone's wrist in a death camp. As for "doing anything to a person without their permission," that's quite a leap from what I was saying.

You said it was distasteful, but I don't see where you said it was disrespectful. You also gave them a pass because they think they're doing the right thing. I just wonder why the Nazis don't get a pass either, since they also thought they were doing the right thing (for an entire race even) I think doing anything without someone's permission that has to do with spirituality or religion is equally disrespectful, no matter if it's something specifically against prohibited their religion or not. You said that as long as it's not specifically prohibited, it's not that bad. And apparently you give people as pass as long as they have good intentions. There’s a reason a very oft-quoted phrase says “the path to hell is paved with good intentionsâ€.

The Mormons should totes start marrying dead people into plural marriages. It would be hilarious. I would say I don't think it's far off, but they'll probably have an issue with the fact that these marriages can't be consummated (although maybe the rules are different for so-called "celestial marriages.") I wouldn't put it past them.

Where is a "can't tell if trolling or just stupid" image when I need one?

[Rachel333]

They already do posthumously marry people...

[valsa]

They already do posthumously marry people...

Non-Mormons? If that's true it makes me... weary. I think I'm beyond anger.

[Jessica]

Non-Mormons? If that's true it makes me... weary. I think I'm beyond anger.

Yes. Well, they baptise the dead then marry them in the temple after they've been baptised. For example my dad took a bunch of family members' names to the temple and baptised them all (all the men anyway. A man can't be baptised for a woman, and vice versa) then went into another room and did their "endowments", then sealed them, all in the same day.

[chiccy]

You said it was distasteful, but I don't see where you said it was disrespectful.

Voilà:

This. I'll agree that the baptizing is spiritually disrespectful, but it's spiritually disrespectful at worst. The tattooing is spiritually disrespectful at best.

[Guest Anonymous]

Could we be confusing membership rolls with the IGI (International Genealogical Index)? It's available online at http://www.familysearch.org

[valsa]

Voilà:

Thank you, I missed that. Though I still don't see how you get to the "disrespectful at worst"/"disrespectful at best" determination, at least spiritually (again, not talking about all the other ways the Nazis tattooing their prisoners were fucked up)

If, say, some drunk mortician decided to tattoo the corpse of a Jewish person, how is that any different than if a Mormon mortician decided to baptize him?

[darareaksmey]

What a fun thread. Two points occur to me:

1. Not all Christians believe that the rite or sacrament of baptism is reserved for those who make a spcific choice. Many perform infant baptism. Do Mormons baptize infants, or is it one of those churches where you have to make a "decision" for Christ, or Joseph Smith, or whomever? If they do infants, perhaps they don't think anything of baptizing any random human who crosses their path, because they don't think that choice is involved. Lest anyone think I approve of that, though, I hasten to add that I belong to a denomination that does infant baptism and I would never agree that it's cool to baptize a non-living person.

2. And speaking of non-living, in general I don't know what to think of any religious practice, especially in Christianity, that purports to "help out" dead people. Aside from this whole baptism of the dead thing in LDS church, I also don't get having masses said for the souls of the dead. I'm thinking that when I die, my fate is pretty much already sealed, and I don't need rebaptized, and I certainly don't need masses said for me. If you'd like to, pray for me while I"m living; but once I'm dead go ahead and pray for someone else who's still alive.

[Jessica]

They baptise at 8 (at the soonest... most people baptise their kids then by tradition but I've heard of a couple people TRULY letting their kids decide, and the kids either never got baptised or else didn't do it until their teens... it's very rare though) because they want you to be able to choose and because they believe that until then, children are innocent (I don't know why suddently turning 8 years old makes you 'accountable' or responsible enough, but hey, whatever...).

[chiccy]

Thank you, I missed that. Though I still don't see how you get to the "disrespectful at worst"/"disrespectful at best" determination, at least spiritually (again, not talking about all the other ways the Nazis tattooing their prisoners were fucked up)

If, say, some drunk mortician decided to tattoo the corpse of a Jewish person, how is that any different than if a Mormon mortician decided to baptize him?

That's an interesting question. I see the point you're making. I still think the tattooing would be worse, considering the emphasis on corporeal propriety in Judaism (they have all sorts of laws about what you can and can't do with/to dead bodies, as well as living ones). The tattooing would be a literal, physical desecration of a dead body, not just a pseudo-manipulation of the soul from a far distance (=not really a desecration of the soul at all, because the soul can't be touched, dead or alive. And least of all by the mumbo jumbo witchcraft the Mormons are doing.)

My main argument has always been "the posthumous baptism doesn't actually do anything that affects anyone." But the flaw in that is that the baptisms could in fact be a substantial insult and offense to the families of the dead. Same with the posthumous tattooing, except I think the insult would be even worse 1) because of Jewish cultural/religious sensitivities relating both to tattooing and to improper physical treatment of the dead and 2) because it is literally desecrating a corpse, not merely performing some hocus pocus that can touch neither body nor soul.

BUT, in my opinion--and this could be more contentious--neither the tattooing nor the baptism of a dead person would be as bad as doing these things to a living person. I know that sounds very pragmatic to the point of coldness, and I understand it would be horrible for the families of the dead. However, the dead themselves don't inhabit their bodies; they are far gone. I am not at all saying I would support or approve of the tattooing of dead people. Far from it. Just that I think it is less of a crime, from a utilitarian and practical standpoint, than doing it to the living.

All that said, you make a good point. Though, for the reasons I've described, I don't think the posthumous baptism is as bad as posthumous tattooing, it is nonetheless a quite revealing analogy.

[valsa]

That's an interesting question. I see the point you're making. I still think the tattooing would be worse, considering the emphasis on corporeal propriety in Judaism (they have all sorts of laws about what you can and can't do with/to dead bodies, as well as living ones). The tattooing would be a literal, physical desecration of a dead body, not just a pseudo-manipulation of the soul from a far distance (=not really a desecration of the soul at all, because the soul can't be touched, dead or alive. And least of all by the mumbo jumbo witchcraft the Mormons are doing.)

My main argument has always been "the posthumous baptism doesn't actually do anything that affects anyone." But the flaw in that is that the baptisms could in fact be a substantial insult and offense to the families of the dead. Same with the posthumous tattooing, except I think the insult would be even worse 1) because of Jewish cultural/religious sensitivities relating both to tattooing and to improper physical treatment of the dead and 2) because it is literally desecrating a corpse, not merely performing some hocus pocus that can touch neither body nor soul.

I'm glad we're starting to understand each other a little better. Though the problem I have with even this view is that tattooing does nothing to the soul either. Plus, I'm sure it could be argued that, since the admonishment against tattoo is "YOU shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you", if you're forcibly marked by other people without your consent it doesn't count. I mentioned before that I thought you were giving more weight and validity, in general, to Judaism over Mormonism and I still see it here. As an atheist; baptism after death, not getting tattoos in life- it's ALL hocus pocus.

BUT, in my opinion--and this could be more contentious--neither the tattooing nor the baptism of a dead person would be as bad as doing these things to a living person. I know that sounds very pragmatic to the point of coldness, and I understand it would be horrible for the families of the dead. However, the dead themselves don't inhabit their bodies; they are far gone. I am not at all saying I would support or approve of the tattooing of dead people. Far from it. Just that I think it is less of a crime, from a utilitarian and practical standpoint, than doing it to the living.

Are you speaking generally or spiritually? Spiritually speaking, I think doing those things to a dead person is worse than doing them to a live person. Live people have options. They could have the tattoo removed or file a complaint against the church that baptized them without their permission and make it clear they're still Jewish. The dead have no recourse. However, if we’re speaking generally, then of course tattooing or baptizing a life person against their will is worse than doing it to a dead person. Could you imagine how terrified and violated you’d feel if a group of people kidnapped you, dragged you to their church, and tossed you in some freezing cold water to baptize you without your permission?

[thoughtful]

Here's my question -- is there a way to find out if one's dead ancestors have been "baptized?"

If they mean it as a lovely, inoffensive gift, shouldn't it be published for all to see? Is it secret, and, if so, why?

[chiccy]

I'm glad we're starting to understand each other a little better. Though the problem I have with even this view is that tattooing does nothing to the soul either. Plus, I'm sure it could be argued that, since the admonishment against tattoo is "YOU shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you", if you're forcibly marked by other people without your consent it doesn't count.

That can and has been argued. Of course, no one sees the Jews of the Holocaust as anything but innocent in the matter of their tattoos. I think that after the Holocaust, the Torah prohibition grew into a broader sensitivity to and distaste for tattoos among many Jews; a law that had previously been just one of many detailed regulations turned into a well-known and significant cultural norm. (Not that no Jews have tattoos--far from it! I am a halakhic Jew and I have a tattoo, and I know many others who are in the same boat.)

I mentioned before that I thought you were giving more weight and validity, in general, to Judaism over Mormonism and I still see it here. As an atheist; baptism after death, not getting tattoos in life- it's ALL hocus pocus.

I guess the subtlety I have been trying to point out and have failed to express is that in one case, the victim of the nonsense would not believe it to have any purchase on his soul, where in the other case, it is a subversion according to the victim's own spiritual paradigm. So, let's say I'm Jewish and the Mormons posthumously baptize me, or let's say I'm Mormon and the Jews posthumously tattoo me. (I think the second case is still worse because it's literally messing with a corpse, but no matter.) Neither is as bad as forcibly tattooing a Jew, or doing [xyz] to the Mormon. (I don't know what the equivalent in Mormonism would be--I was thinking "ripping his temple garments off," but that seems more akin to pulling off a Jewish man's kippah. It would have to be something as physically invasive, irreversible, and publicly obvious as tattooing, and I don't know what that would be in Mormonism, but if there were something like that I'd say it was as bad.)

I agree with you to a great extent that it is all hocus pocus--both the Jewish stuff and the Mormon stuff. You are right that I am naturally biased towards Judaism because it is my heritage and I have a lot of respect and appreciation for its traditions. But I think that ultimately what matters is whether the point of view of the victim has been undermined.

Further supporting your point is the fact that Jews are not supposed to be baptized into other religions, particularly so-called idolatrous ones such as Mormonism and Christianity. However, if an act of baptism occurs in which the Jew has no part, and which only applies to him by dint of a feat of long-distance sorcery in which neither he nor his religion believes, then the Jew is hardly implicated. (Tattooing is another matter: even though, as you mentioned, the prohibition is against tattooing oneself, the rabbis' interpretation of that law dictates that Jews may not be tattooed by others. Of course, as I mentioned, the Jews of the Holocaust are personally innocent of their tattooing even though it WAS an affront to their beliefs.)

Are you speaking generally or spiritually? Spiritually speaking, I think doing those things to a dead person is worse than doing them to a live person. Live people have options. They could have the tattoo removed or file a complaint against the church that baptized them without their permission and make it clear they're still Jewish. The dead have no recourse. However, if we’re speaking generally, then of course tattooing or baptizing a life person against their will is worse than doing it to a dead person. Could you imagine how terrified and violated you’d feel if a group of people kidnapped you, dragged you to their church, and tossed you in some freezing cold water to baptize you without your permission?

This is a great point. My argument would be that according to most religions, the soul departs from the body upon death. Thus, spiritually speaking, the soul of a dead person is unassailable and cannot be desecrated. The body can be desecrated, and that is an affront primarily to the living--i.e., to the family and community of the deceased, and to human sensibilities in general. But the soul is immune. It cannot be touched with a tattoo knife or a baptismal ceremony, and it cannot be implicated in the actions of those here on earth. There would therefore be much less reason for the dead to seek a recourse even if they could. Does that make any sense? However, I see what you are saying and it's compelling.

It has been interesting to talk about this with you, Valsa. I'm sorry if anything I've said in this conversation has come off as snippy; I do respect your position and your commitment to explaining it.

[Witsec7]

Here's my question -- is there a way to find out if one's dead ancestors have been "baptized?"

If they mean it as a lovely, inoffensive gift, shouldn't it be published for all to see? Is it secret, and, if so, why?

I used to have a web site where you could search by name, try a google. I had to stop using it 4 years ago because it often caused my head to explode when I saw that family or friends (Christians and Jews) were being baptized.

[valsa]

This is a great point. My argument would be that according to most religions, the soul departs from the body upon death. Thus, spiritually speaking, the soul of a dead person is unassailable and cannot be desecrated.

I don't believe in the existence of souls. To me, the spiritually disrespectful part is that it goes against the wishes and beliefs of the person themselves, not whether or not it actually has any effect on the soul.

[chiccy]

I don't believe in the existence of souls. To me, the spiritually disrespectful part is that it goes against the wishes and beliefs of the person themselves, not whether or not it actually has any effect on the soul.

Right, but they do. That's the point I'm trying to stress. Spiritual "truths" have only subjective relevance, and so the question was one of subjective relevance. In this case, souls are subjectively relevant to religious people.

[valsa]

Right, but they do. That's the point I'm trying to stress. Spiritual "truths" have only subjective relevance, and so the question was one of subjective relevance. In this case, souls are subjectively relevant to religious people.

I get what you're saying but I don't agree with you. If someone tells me I'm going to hell for being gay, it's a shitty, disrespectful, offensive thing to do. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in hell (and it certainly doesn't matter whether the person telling me that I'm going to hell is doing it for what they think is a good reason)

[chiccy]

I get what you're saying but I don't agree with you. If someone tells me I'm going to hell for being gay, it's a shitty, disrespectful, offensive thing to do. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in hell (and it certainly doesn't matter whether the person telling me that I'm going to hell is doing it for what they think is a good reason)

This, I think, is a really good analogy. This is approximately how problematic I think Mormon posthumous baptisms are--about on par with saying someone will go to hell for a stupid reason that is true in some religion (except in this case the addressee is dead) or casting a spell to make them go to hell. Disrespectful, distasteful, and not good--but still not as bad as tattooing, specifically tattooing of the living.

[valsa]

This, I think, is a really good analogy. This is approximately how problematic I think Mormon posthumous baptisms are--about on par with saying someone will go to hell for a stupid reason that is true in some religion (except in this case the addressee is dead) or casting a spell to make them go to hell. Disrespectful, distasteful, and not good--but still not as bad as tattooing, specifically tattooing of the living.

Again, if we're talking just spiritually, I don't agree. I think they're the same level of disrespect (spiritually)

[thoughtful]

I used to have a web site where you could search by name, try a google. I had to stop using it 4 years ago because it often caused my head to explode when I saw that family or friends (Christians and Jews) were being baptized.

Various google searches have not turned up such a site. If you happen to remember what it was, let me know.

No biggy -- I was just curious as to whether they are open and aboveboard about it (and, yeah, whether any of my ancestors are on it!).

[thoughtful]

Stephen Colbert just circumcised-by-proxy all of the dead Mormons, using a hot dog and a Jewish intern.

[DarkAnts]

Stephen Colbert just circumcised-by-proxy all of the dead Mormons, using a hot dog and a Jewish intern.

:clap:

[thoughtful]

:clap:

Here, watch:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... on-baptism

Did I mention that he eats the tip of the hot dog?

I guess he doesn't give up meat for Lent. :lol:

[DarkAnts]

Here, watch:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... on-baptism

Did I mention that he eats the tip of the hot dog?

I guess he doesn't give up meat for Lent. :lol:

Thank you for the like

[FaustianSlip]

I was kind of in love with Stephen Colbert anyway, but this just seals the deal. Video here.

Winning lines:

- "Don't worry, my deceased Jewish viewers!"

- "Jews don't baptize people, so instead we'll do a proxy circumcision."

Incidentally, Jews actually do have something comparable to baptism when it comes to conversion; after you go before a beit din (a panel of three rabbis), you dunk in a mikvah, or ritual bath (which does not sit on the backs of twelve bulls, a la the Mormon baptismal font), come out and you're an MOT. Probably a tad esoteric for the Colbert Report's crowd, though.