Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[Admiral Yi]

I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.

You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.

[crazy canuck]

I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.

You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

[Berkut]

I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.

You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

Didn't I already address exactly that, and Yi basically said "What he said" (albeit in much more cruel words)?

Someone agreeing to stop doing something does not mean that the person asking them to stop has a reasonable reason for the request.

[Malthus]

My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!

It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?

The reason some Jews find it annoying is historical. Involuntary baptism played an unfortunate role in Christian-Jewish relations over the centuries. Not that these Mormons are in any way like medieval inquisitors, it just carries an unfortunate history created by others - like a helpful Indian decorating Jewish graves with "good luck" swastikas. It isn't the Indian's fault that Jews tend to dislike swastikas.

[Admiral Yi]

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

The theory that the Mormon Church agreed to stop baptizing dead Holocaust Jews because they had an epiphany about the moral reprehensibility is one among many.  It doesn't much affect my judgement.

[crazy canuck]

I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.

You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.

Didn't I already address exactly that, and Yi basically said "What he said" (albeit in much more cruel words)?

Someone agreeing to stop doing something does not mean that the person asking them to stop has a reasonable reason for the request.

I agree, it does not mean that in every case.  But it is some evidence that the request is reasonable.  In Yi's example, which appears to have been fabricated to some degree on the internetz, a good argument could be made that no change in behaviour was required.  The fact that Yi appears to have been basing his argument on a false fact pattern does tend to weaken his argument and says nothing about the bona fides of the concerns in this case.
I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

[Sheilbh]

So if everyone gets in, why all the fake baptism bs?

I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.

(And when you throw predestination into it, it becomes awful and vicious.)

I kind of like the idea of predestination.  Plus I've always been a bit Graham Greene, I think Hell's a lot more believable than Heaven.

[Berkut]

My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!

It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?

The reason some Jews find it annoying is historical. Involuntary baptism played an unfortunate role in Christian-Jewish relations over the centuries. Not that these Mormons are in any way like medieval inquisitors, it just carries an unfortunate history created by others - like a helpful Indian decorating Jewish graves with "good luck" swastikas. It isn't the Indian's fault that Jews tend to dislike swastikas.

Fair enough.

Seems nice that everyone can agree on the right resolution though.

Jews are happy because the Mormons won't baptize their dead relatives* anymore.

Mormons are happy because it's not like there aren't 6.995 billion OTHER dead people who need baptizing anyway - and more all the time! Plus they can just do it on the sly anyway.

Nobody else seems to care!

Wins all the way around!

*-except when requested by relatives. Can another relative counter-request? I wonder...

[crazy canuck]

I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.

Then for God's sake please tell them not to fake baptize me.  I would much rather live in the splendor of the lowest level of heaven then have to hang out with those nut jobs.

[Berkut]

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.

No thanks, Eric Clapton's already on that job.

[crazy canuck]

I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.

No thanks, Eric Clapton's already on that job.

Nicely Done!

[crazy canuck]

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".

The assumption in this logic is there was no theological reason for them doing it in the first place which seems patently false - at least from their perspective.  You seem to be judging the costs based on your own point of view.

[Berkut]

I see.  And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?

As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".

The assumption in this logic is there was no theological reason for them doing it in the first place which seems patently false - at least from their perspective.  You seem to be judging the costs based on your own point of view.

No, just nothing that the theological reason applies equally to all 7 billion dead people, and since have only finished with 100 million so far, it is trivial for them to simply not address those 6 million or so right now. In whatever time it would take them to do those 6 million, they can simply do some other 6 million.

Of course there is a theological reason for them to do this - I don't know how you could construct, even accidentally, the strawman that I am claiming their isn't one.

Now, if they got everyone BUT those 6 million all done, THEN it would imply some actual cost to their theological plan to agree not to do Holocaust Jews. Hell, they probably figure that at their current rate, they won't have to worry about THAT 6 million for several more decades, and by then maybe nobody will care.

In any case, I don't think you've supported your claim that their agreement to not do this anymore implies agreement that the concerns are valid. That is one and only one explanation, and one that doesn't really fit with the known facts.

[Ideologue]

(And when you throw predestination into it, it becomes awful and vicious.)

I kind of like the idea of predestination.  Plus I've always been a bit Graham Greene, I think Hell's a lot more believable than Heaven.

As long as everyone is elect, it's okay.

But yeah, while eternal anything strikes me as unlikely because of thermodynamics, before that distant end, aggregate negative utility is certainly a more plausible prediction.

I mean, my God, we don't really even have a aggregate positive utility for First World humans living today, and it would take thousands of generations of everyone being happy to counterbalance everything bad that's happened so far just to homo sapiens, let alone eat into the deficit caused by the rise of nervous systems several hundred million years ago.  A God that made Earth obviously has little compunction in causing pain to a great many sentient beings, and for a very long time.

The upshot is that fundamentalist Christians should embrace evolution, since it helps prove that God can be just as cruel as they intend.