Elie Wiesel calls out Mitt Romney on dead Jew baptisms.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Let me remind you then.

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

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not simply imposing the Berkian view of the world on all Mormons and assumed you meant there was no cost because there was no real theological reason.  In fact there is a cost - even on your theory that there were just easier targets to exploit.  They were doing it for a theological reason.  I dont buy the argument that stopping those activities isnt at least some evidence that the Mormon's themselves recognized the complaint had validity.

[Berkut]

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.

Let me remind you then.

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

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not simply imposing the Berkian view of the world on all Mormons and assumed you meant there was no cost because there was no real theological reason.  In fact there is a cost - even on your theory that there were just easier targets to exploit.  They were doing it for a theological reason.  I dont buy the argument that stopping those activities isnt at least some evidence that the Mormon's themselves recognized the complaint had validity.

So you took what I said, which was that there was no cost to them in a practical or theological sense, and decided that what I actually meant was that there was no theological reason at all? How does that even pass a basic common sense test? If there was no reason, then it would not matter if there was a cost or not! My statement is by definition stating that there IS a reason! And of course it is blindingly obvious that there is a reason to anyone involved in the discussion. And you say grumbler plays semantic games?

There is no cost because they can simply baptize some other dead person, and as far as I know there is no theological desirability for baptizing one non-Mormon versus another. If there IS some cost to them not baptizing THESE PARTICULAR non Mormons, please let me know what it is - absent that, my point stands. It is not based on my view of the world, but rather their own view as they explained it. If my view is wrong, then I am happy to adjust, but so far you have not even tried to explain why it is wrong, just asserted that it must be.

Nor have you even tried to explain your reasoning behind the claim that their agreeing to not baptize dead Holocaust victims implies their recognition that the complaint is valid. This is just argument by assertion.

[crazy canuck]

No, I took you at the plain meaning of what you wrote.  All you are doing know is providing an argument to counter the prima facie observation that the Mormon's backed down because they realized there was merit in the complaint.

In crafting your argument you put the Mormon's in your shoes and try to argue that from your perspective there would be no theological cost to the Mormon's putting an end to those particular religious ceremonies.  I think that is at the very least a weak argument.

[crazy canuck]

One thing for you to consider Berkut, is if there is no cost at all, as you claim, then why didnt the Mormons simply stop the practice of fake baptizing Jews completely?

[CountDeMoney]

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...

Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy.  It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith.  Period.

[Malthus]

Next up: is it offensive for Mormons to pre-emptively baptize those Marines with the SS flag? Inquiring minds want to know ... 

[Martinus]

What's up Sheilbh loving all homophobes like Mormons, or Rick Perry? Surely there'snot enough self-loathing even in being raised a catholic.

[Martinus]

I think Mormons should all die in a fire, btw, I just think the same about pretty much every other monotheist religion out there.

[Neil]

Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy.  It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith.  Period.

Link?

[Caliga]

Is that the currently popular myth?  I hadn't heard that one.  Was this mythical Congressional threat actually supposed to have been issued in 1978, or was it supposedly issued earlier and the Mormons just responded in 1978? 

I suppose Congress could have issued a threat and it never made the news, but I'd have to see a serious source before I believed that one.  Passing laws aimed at punishing specific people or organizations isn't Constitutional, either.

I think I got it wrong and it was the IRS who threatened the church, not Congress.  If you google on this topic you'll see tons of sites/articles/etc. about it, none of which I know will meet your standards, but if you actually go to the LDS website, there's this:

Priesthood Ordination before 1978

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Additional Information

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior's earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6–8).

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).
http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

and this

Official Declaration—2

To Whom It May Concern:

On 30 September 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.


Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

So the church openly admits that prior to 1978 it engaged in racial discrimination, and following a direct revelation from God it no longer does so (note: the LDS Church believes in living prophecy so this type of revelation is not singular in the history of the church).  I don't see any direct reference on the website as to why this revelation might have occurred, but the below piece is kind of interesting if you sort of read between the lines:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks' Reaction to Priesthood Revelation

The following is an extract from the interview Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — gave for the PBS documentary The Mormons.  The full interview transcript can be viewed here.

SALT LAKE CITY 20 July 2007

Helen Whitney: Another subject. Take me back to the time just before the ban on the priesthood was lifted.

Dallin H. Oaks: I can't remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years '54 through '71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father's children. And I didn't understand why; I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.

Nobody was more relieved or more pleased when the word came. I remember where I was when I learned that the priesthood would be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I was at a mountain home that our family had purchased to have a place of refuge. I had my sons up there, and we were digging something. We had a big pile of dirt there. I've forgotten what it was now, but the phone rang in the house. I went inside, and it was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He said: "I have been appointed to advise you as a representative of the academic people, many of whom have been troubled by the ban on the priesthood, professors, and students, and so on. As president of Brigham Young University and as their representative [Elder Oaks was president of BYU at this time], I've been appointed to advise you that the revelation has been received that all worthy male members will be eligible to receive the priesthood, whatever their ancestry." I thanked him, and I went outside and I told my boys, and I sat down [voice cracks with emotion] on that pile of dirt and cried. And I still feel emotion for that moment. I cried for joy and relief that the Lord had spoken through His prophet, that His blessings were now available to all: the blessings of the priesthood, the blessings of the temple, and the blessings of eternity. That's what we desired. I praise God for it.

Helen Whitney: I know you weren't there, but you've obviously talked to people who were there. Is there anything that you could vivify for us?

Dallin H. Oaks: What I heard about the revelation on the priesthood can't add anything to the eyewitnesses that were there. But I would like to speak of that in terms of what I know about revelation. Revelation comes in a lot of different ways. God speaks to His children in many ways. A face-to-face vision of God is very rare. That was the First Vision of God to Joseph Smith. Another way that revelation comes is by the appearance of an angel. The Apostle Paul had that kind of experience. Revelation can also come in a dream or a vision. None of those were the experience in the revelation on the priesthood. Other ways that revelation comes are in comfort (feeling of comfort), information, communicating restraint, or impelling one to do something, or to give a feeling.

I think in the context of the descriptions that I have heard from my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve about the revelation on the priesthood that was revelation that confirmed what they desired and gave them a feeling of rightness about the time. The prophet of the Lord, President Spencer W. Kimball, had pleaded with the Lord for guidance on this problem the Church faced as it became a worldwide church. It came in contact with more and more good and worthy and wonderful people who desired the blessings of the restored gospel and were blocked by the Church's position that they could not receive the priesthood. And I think everyone in that room desired and wished and hoped that the Lord would say, "This is the time."

[/b]So they went to the Lord, I think with a semi-proposal, that this be done.[/b] But I was not there. I didn't hear the words spoken. But I have the feeling that everyone felt the need, everyone felt the rightness of it. I say a "semi-proposal" because often when we pray for guidance we say, "I'm inclined to do this, is this right?" We look for confirmation. I've had that experience many times of confirming an action. Sometimes I'll feel a restraint. I propose to do something and the feeling is profound: "Don't do it!" And I think that as I've heard the explanations that this was a profound feeling to confirm the rightness and the timing of what was being asked, and the feeling was sufficiently profound and sufficiently individual that people have described it in different ways. But it fits for me within many revelatory experiences I've had in my life.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/elder-dallin-h-oaks-reaction-to-priesthood-revelation

So it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position.  The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership.  It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff.

[dps]

So it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position.  The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership.  It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff.

The Mormons were doing a lot of missionary work in Africa, and not allowing blacks into their priesthood was creating a problem in those efforts.  It didn't have anything to do with the IRS, which can't just rescind a religious groups tax-exempt status.

What you may be confusing this with it the incident in which the tax-exempt status of Oral Roberts University was rescinded (or was it Liberty?--anyway, it was a university affiliated with one of the tele-evangelists).  But the government's legal argument there was that while churches are tax-exempt by law, and churches can legally discriminate on the basis of race, the university held tax-exempt status not on the basis of being a religious organization, but on the basis of being an educational organization, and educational organizations can't legally discriminate on the basis of race.

Note that the tax-exempt status of religious organizations isn't a constitutional matter, but a matter of statute--Congress could revoke the exemption if they wanted to.  But any law that did so would have to revoke it for all churches, or it would almost certainly fail a constitutional challange.

[grumbler]

Is that the currently popular myth?  I hadn't heard that one.  Was this mythical Congressional threat actually supposed to have been issued in 1978, or was it supposedly issued earlier and the Mormons just responded in 1978? 

I suppose Congress could have issued a threat and it never made the news, but I'd have to see a serious source before I believed that one.  Passing laws aimed at punishing specific people or organizations isn't Constitutional, either.

I think I got it wrong and it was the IRS who threatened the church, not Congress. 

The IRS, I believe is possible (though I haven't seen any reference to such).  Congress, I didn't believe possible.  You have retreated from the position to which I took exception, so we are all good now.

So it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position.  The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership.  It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff.

The pressure was coming from within the LDS, from what I understand.  In particular, it was coming from the missionary branch, which had opened missions in Brazil in particular, where the concept of "black" has little meaning, since there is so much intermarriage between groups the Americans (and the LDS leadership) mistook for "races."  If a "negro" can't be ordained, can a 1/2 "negro"? A 1/4?  A 1/8?  The position of the church with regards to "race" wasn't supportable outside the framework of a "race"-based society, and the missionary branch was going global.

Plus, around that time, the LDS and the SLC police had just gotten a lot of bad publicity over two former fairly high LDS officials that had opposed the ban on "black" priests and had been kicked out of the church over it.

I am not disputing (and in fact, have always argued) that the church leadership had an awfully convenient visit from Hod.

[CountDeMoney]

Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy.  It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith.  Period.

Link?

It was in the Frontline piece I linked, but here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=1ec52f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/why-do-mormons-baptize-the-dead/2012/02/15/gIQAnYfOGR_story.html

They've knocked out about 2 million of their register of 11 million dead, and are working hard to get all 9 billion recorded deaths in history.

Enjoy your white robe and slippers, Neil.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm rather annoyed they have my maternal grandfather's family tree from Germany back to 1710 in their little white slipper index.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if I have any ancestors in there?  My dad's side the family is kinda sketchy.