Keep a close eye on this issue, because if Mitt Romney wins the nomination it’s going to be a big component of Democratic attacks. Elie Wiesel has been a longtime critic of the Mormon Church’s proxy-baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims, a practice the church has now officially prohibited. But apparently there was a breakdown in the safeguards used to prevent Holocaust victims from being entered into the Mormon Church database, and the deceased parents of Simon Wiesenthal, the notorious Nazi-hunter, were recently proxy-baptized:
Nobel-laureate Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and a top official from the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should use his stature in the Mormon Church to block its members from posthumously baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
Their comments followed reports that Mormons had baptized the deceased parents of Wiesenthal, the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi-hunter. Wiesel appeared in a church database used to identify potential subjects of baptisms. …
Romney “is now the most famous and important Mormon in the country,” Wiesel said. “I’m not saying it’s his fault, but once he knows, morally he must respond. . . . He should come out and say, ‘Stop it.’”
As a Jew, getting “proxy-baptized” by the Mormon Church seems akin to somebody casting a magic spell on you or sticking needles in a voodoo doll. But for historical reasons, the practice is seen as disrespectful to Holocaust victims from a symbolic perspective, and the church has rightly promised to avoid it.
It’s an issue Democrats will undoubtedly raise if Romney’s the nominee, as it’s a way to bring up the unorthodox practices of the Mormon Church under the auspices of religious tolerance and respect for Holocaust victims.
So why hasn’t Romney come out and condemned the baptism of the Wiesenthal parents yet? He has every reason to do so. The church has already officially prohibited them, and Romney’s family has a history of standing up to controversial practices in the Mormon Church.
Then again, he may be nervous about drawing attention to his Mormon faith during the primary out of concern GOP voters will hold it against him. There’s also this:
The practice of baptizing Holocaust victims has long been offensive to Jews. After years of negotiations, Mormon officials have prohibited posthumous baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims.
There is no indication that Romney has ever been involved in the proxy baptism of a Holocaust victim. Asked if he had ever participated in posthumous baptisms, Romney told Newsweek in 2007 that “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”
Again: There’s “no indication” that Romney’s been involved in proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. But that doesn’t mean it’s never happened. If Romney comes out and condemns them, and it’s later revealed he was involved – that would be a big, big problem.
This is stupid. It is their religion. If they want to pray for me as a Jew, or baptise me or whatever, that is their business. It is not at all like voodoo, which is (or is thought of) as designed to harm and inflict evil. They are doing what they think helps people in the afterlife. Why on earth should I care? Anyone who really believes in religious tolerance will bud out of this one.
Totally agree. I find it rich that some Jews, including Alana Goodman, have decided to be offended, while at the same time Commentary, in its essay The Big Lie Returns, eloquently takes to task the New Left's identity politics. It's as if some Jews, by fiat, are equating Mormon proxy baptism with grave desecration. n nSo Baptism (which I always assumed was Christian mikvah) is regarded as meaningless by Jews. Or perhaps even blasphemous. OK, then, may the blasphemy redound on the actor, not the subject. A dead Jew can not in any way be defiled by a Mormon baptism except by those who wish it so. And that's why I have far more disregard for complainers like Wiesel than Mitt Romney. n nYou'd think Jews, even religious Jews, have far more important matters to attend to than to be offended by what is actually, in the heart of the Morman, a mitzvah. Why can't Jews just be gracious and accept this, instead of being touchy religious prigs?
I agree with you. You make your points very well. We Jews have much bigger problems than worrying about this. Our declining population with low birth rate should be a greater worry. There we could take a lesson from the LDS culture of high marriage rate and good birth rate. Leslie in NJ
Not to be disrespectful, but did Elie's parents object?
Do we believe that "proxy baptism" is anything but a delusion? In what way does it affect anyone, either the subject or the subject's descendents? It is a pathetic, vainglorious tenet of Mormonism, that no one else (including all the Protestants and Catholics whose ancestors have been "proxy baptized") can take seriously. Our future and possibly Israel's is riding on this election. Do we want to jeopardize that by bringing up non-issues like this?
This is some kind of attempt at a gotcha moment. Is anybody asking Obama, a professed Christian, to explain church doctrine past and present? Romney is not responsible for everything any Mormon has ever done anymore than a Catholic is responsible for the Habsburgs and the Thirty Years War or an atheist has to explain Madelyn Murray O'Hair and why the TV show "Touched By an Angel" was so offensive and dangerous she demanded it be removed from the air.
Why should I or anyone else care who they baptize or pray for? Does it affect me? Does it affect my soul, my status as a Jew, my standing with my creator? Should I be upset if a wizard somewhere casts a spell that all my food should taste like spinach? Neith the wizards spell or the Mormon prayers will have any actual impact on me. So again… who cares?
As a Jew I do not understand why anyone would be offended if someone wants to pray for them. It is not an insult for someone in their belief to baptise others when they are dead, they believe in their hearts that it is a gift. Why can't we just accept when others mean us well, are doing something for us they believe is to our benefit & say thank you.____
I respectfully disagree… baptism is a commitment by the living…not prayers for the departed…. there's a very big (and presumptuous) difference. I've never heard of this before..it's bizarre.
I would put this one at about #97,309 on Romney's lists of problems. n nBy the way, what percentage of the Jewish vote would Santorum get? Five?
Wait a minute, he's so clean cut. Like Pat Boone! Who I got to see in the flesh when he was touring Haifa in about 1972. He was exactly like he is on the screen, except more so.
The LDS Church has a policy of not baptizing people for Jewish Holocaust victims. But where is there a comprehensive database of those victims? Individual patrons of the temples submit names and they often contain mistakes or incomplete information. The church does not include them in its membership records because the whole point is to make ordinances available not to force them on anyone. The church has apologized many times and instructed its members not to submit names of Holocaust victims. n nStill, some LDS people doing genealogical research find that they have ancestors who were victims in the Holocaust and they feel an obligation to provide these saving ordinance to their ancestors. The temples are instructed not to perform baptisms and other ordinances for these people, but their names don't have tags. Any baptisms are inadvertent as far as the LDS church is concerned. n nMitt Romney doesn't need to tell the Church to put a stop to it. It's already against Church Policy, so doing so would be pointless. n nIt's always puzzling to church members when this complaint comes up because these ordinances are not forced on the individuals for whom they're performed. In fact, being baptized in life doesn't assure that one will go to heaven. One has to repent and live by God's commandments. Baptism is a covenant between a person and God. Baptism for the dead at most constitutes the physical part of one side of that covenants, and thus is incomplete. No one is forced to accept it. That being said, the Church doesn't wish to offend Jews or give the wrong impression and has adopted a policy against such baptisms.
i'm baffled. They're dead. How do you know whether the individuals accept it? At the second coming? Until then they're pretty incommunicado.
That is only determined by the individuals themselves in the next life, before they are resurrected. If you don't believe in God or that the soul lives on, it really doesn't make any difference. The important thing to recognize is that no one is forced to accept anything. It's all a matter of free choice. "For this eternal truth is given, that God will force no man to heaven." n nIf one believes that salvation is only obtainable through Jesus Christ, and that no one enters heaven except by being born again through conversion and baptism, it requires a doctrine like this. But baptism alone isn't sufficient, it requires a change of heart as well. There is no guarantee that anyone baptized vicariously will ever accept it. It may well be completely fruitless and will definitely be if Mormonism is false. So why bother?
For some reason, the closer I get to the years where natural death becomes unavoidably germane, resurrection seems less and less a front-burner concern. More worried about that passage across on the departure leg of the journey. We'll worry about making the connection for the return portion of the round trip when it happens.
THis is a non issue and has nothing to do with Mitt Romney or his campaign. Why should anyone care? Who alive does the practice hurt?
First of all, there's nothing wrong with trying to save souls for eternity according to the tenets of one's religion. No holocaust victims have been harmed by these baptisms. Secondly, Romney is no more the Mormon pope than Wiesel is the Jewish pope or Bush is the Methodist pope. And thirdly, the Mormons have already stopped baptizing deceased Jews, so what's this magillah about anyway? If Wiesel wants to be outraged about something, how about the North Korean gulag?
This is an excellent summary that shows a good understanding of the policy both in theory and in practice. Speaking as Mormon myself, I'd only add a couple things. First, Mormons believe that baptism is necessary for everyone, living or dead, and that's why (with some exceptions–like victims of the Holocaust) the genealogical work and proxy baptisms are performed. Tying into this, Mormons also believe that those that either didn't accept Jesus Christ as their savior and/or didn't even know who Jesus was (which covers billions of people), are being taught about it and given the opportunity to do so on the other side. Obviously, we have no idea how exactly this works there, but Mormons believe that people retain their free agency after death, so no one is forced to accept Jesus, let alone accept a baptism performed on their behalf. But since we have no idea who will accept and who won't, that's why baptisms are performed for as many people as possible. Furthermore, genealogical work is mostly done by average church members finding their ancestors. These individuals then submit the names to the church, and as long as the baptism hasn't already been performed or there isn't some other reason to decline the names (if they were known victims of the Holocaust, that would qualify, but there aren't that many who are widely known), they are approved. n nAs for Romney's "involvement," there's really no way to know if he ever was involved in a baptism for such a person. The church keeps absolutely no records as to who participated in the baptisms. There are records as to who can enter the temple to perform baptisms (basically, only active members who are adhering to the major commandments), but nobody keeps track of what they do once they're inside. And since the church already prohibits the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims, there's really no reason for Romney to address this. I suppose he could if he wanted, but he'd have to restrict it to just this special case. He can't condemn the entire practice of proxy baptisms. If he did that, then he might as well just leave the church entirely at that point.
Alana Goodman is off the mark. I respect her right to disagree with the practices of the Mormon church, but to denigrate them by comparing them to voodoo and magic spells is uncalled for. The doctrine of proxy baptism is sacred to Mormons, and it should not be mocked simply because it is not understood. Proxy ordinances are in our theology a profound blessing from a God who is infinitely just, and is His way of ensuring that all have a chance at redemption, if not in this life, then in the next life. It is understandable that people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the phrase "baptism for the dead" – I concede that it sounds shady. But in reality, it is a simple and dignified practice, done with the best of intentions. However, there is no excuse for any Mormon to defy the Church's baptism submission policies. Mr. Wiesel and all others concerned can rest easy in the knowlege that the LDS church does not suffer rebellion gladly. An agreement has been made, and it will be enforced.
Voodoo and magic spells are quite appropriate comparisons — I am sure that Haitian practitioners of Voodoo consider their religious practices to be sacred and could make an equal case of offense if they were compared to a baptism (posthumous or otherwise).. Likewise, the Native American faith healers performing what we would call "magic spells" take their practices quite seriously as well. Both faiths would consider these practices to be "simple and dignified" — I don't think Ms. Goodman — putting the religious practice of one faith not her own in comparison with that of two others — was in anyway inappropriate. These are three practices of three faiths other than her own, a point she clearly makes — and arguably is quite neutral in the matter. n nWords mean things and three above jump out at me: "baptism submission policies." This sounds like one is to submit to baptism, to agree to submit to the church's authority. Fine if you make that decision yourself, not quite so fair if you can't…. And if that isn't what "submission" means, pray tell, enlighten us….
Check out Robert De Niro and Mickey Rourke in "Angel Heart". Sometimes people can be saved, other times submission is the only thing that's left, and the express elevator down isn't stopping at the basement.
Ed, issetibbeha, in using the phrase "baptism submission policies" simply meant the process and policies the church has estabished for "submitting," or entering, names into the temple data base. No one is forced to submit to do anything in the LDS church, except in the sense that we all submit/surrender/subordinate our will to the will of the Lord as the Lord Himself did perfectly in the Garden of Gethsemane when He said, "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done."
Mr. Foutz is correct. By saying "baptism submission policies," I was only referring to the Church's policy about which names are and are not appropriate to submit for baptism.
Mr. Alberts, in writing my comment, I anticipated that your objection could be raised, but I did not have space to address it. I should clarify that I believe the rites of all religions should be respected, including those of the Native Americans and practitioners of Voodoo. However, I believe that Ms. Goodman was using these terms in their generic, day-to-day sense, with the negative connotations that are typically associated with them.
Respectfully, I must say that Mr. Wiesel is off the mark in calling for Mr. Romney to pressure the Church. Mr. Wiesel does not understand the way the Mormon church works. The high secular status of someone who happens to be Mormon does not translate into an ability to influence the Church's leadership. Mitt Romney has no more influence on Church policy than Gladys Knight (also a Mormon) does.
Romney was a bishop in the Mormon church. And his clan is one of the most influential. He could have used his position, influence and wealth (he tithes 10 percent of his considerable income) to help effect a "revalation" amongst the Mormon hierarchy that posthumous baptisms are wrong. Instead, he most likely performed these odious rituals himself.
Worse, he well may have *authorized* them. n nThat, I think is the other shoe to drop in this. Between being Bishop and Stake President, he was the head of a fairly large congregation for probably close to 20 years. He was *the* person in charge for and of everything – everything. And hence responsible for it as well. n nThis is the same man who, as governor, had to deal with a 6 ton ceiling panel falling and killing a woman — but for fate, it could have taken out a full school bus earlier that day. They immediately investigate for terrorism and the report is "no, but you got to shut *EVERYTHING* down, right now, because there are more of these coming loose." So Romney's people have to go out and hire a bunch of engineers to check the epoxy on each and every one of the bolts holding up each of *hundreds* of these 6-ton concrete tunnel ceiling panels. And does. n nAnd the Romney-friendly Boston Herald (not the Globe) leads one day with "Say it ain't so, Mitt" — seems that he had hired Bectell, the company that had messed this up in the first place, to investigate the shoddiness of its own work. Yep, he had hired engineers from Bectell to go up and look at those bolts…. n nHe fired Bectell as soon as he read the paper, but none of his people told him first. This is what I mean by the problem of the authoritarian approach. So too with Billy Bulger as President of UMass, he got rid of him after the Congressional testamony, but before that had no idea of the problem. And could he have overseen the posthumous baptism of a Holocaust victim — possibly without even knowing it — well, he hired Bectell to investigate the Big Dig ceiling panels, didn't he? n nAnd as to my comment about women, supra, I was referencing the position of the LDS not UCC.
Ms. Knox, I respectfully assert that you misunderstand. There are not influential "clans" in the Mormon church. Direction comes almost exclusively from the First Presidency (3 members) and the Quorum of the Twelve (obviously, 12 members). Local leaders, such as bishops, function under the authority of, and at the direction of Church headquarters. As of Dec 2010 (the latest date for which data are available), there are approximately 14 million Mormons worldwide. That divides up to approximately 3000 stakes, each with a stake president, and almost 30,000 congregations, each with a bishop or its equivalent. To assert that one of 30,000 bishops can "effect a 'revelation'" is silly. What's more, any Mormon bishop who did not agree with the practice of proxy baptism would not only lack influence, he would lose his status as Bishop, and could possibly lose his membership in the Church. Mormonism is only for Mormons who believe in all of the tenets of Mormonism.
Gladys Knight was not a Bishop, not the President of a Stake. n nRomney was. Romney was (is) on a first name basis with folk who run things in Salt Lake City. nKnight is a woman who needs to stay in her place. n nIt is not my faith, we wouldn't dare treat women like that (although sometimes I wish we could) and the more I see of how the LDS church is structured and the authoritarian nature of it, I start to see why there were problems with Romney as Governor in Massachusetts and why I am really uneasy about him as POTUS. n nOne more thing though: How many Governors, current or former, who are Mormon? How many families have donated to the LDS to the extent that his has/does? I really can't believe that the elders wouldn't politely listen to him if he really wanted to say something. And LDS policy already prohibits this from being done — so, like, he is asking them to enforce their own rules — quite reasonable for a mid level manager to request.
Given the size of the Mormon church, being a Bishop or Stake President does not even rise to the level of "mid-level management." Also, unlike other denominations with which I am familiar, individual congregations of the Mormon church are given very little latitude to stray from official Church policies. Mormons believe that God is a God of order, and, as much as possible, they try to ensure that each congregation functions in the same way as all of the others. Official policy is disseminated from Church headquarters. Influence in the LDS church moves down the ladder, not up. n nRegarding your second question, all faithful LDS adults donate to the LDS church to the extent that Mr. Romney does. That is, we all pay a tithing of 10%. In Mr. Romney's case, the dollar amount is large, because he is wealthy, but the percentage of income paid is the same.
Look, the Mormon Church can't possibly be any more authoritarian than the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church was — and they listened to the Kennedy Clan — Annulments in place of divorces, Mary Jo being Cremated (which Catholic theology doesn't like now, and really didn't like then), oh yes, they listened to the Kennedys. And the LDS listens to the Romneys. They are mortals, they have to.
Finally, although not limited to governors, other recent LDS politicians that you may recognize include: most former governors and congressmen from Utah (e.g., Bob Bennett, Jake Garn, John Huntsman), Harry Reid (D-NV, Senate Majority Leader), and five additional senators (Lee, Hatch, Udall, Crapo, and Heller), as well as eight in the House.
You are making the same failed assumptions that most non-mormons do in thinking that the hierarchy of the church is the same as in protestant or Catholic churches. It has no relationship to the education, family history or profesional accolades a person has. My family is neither important politically on a national scale or on some family dynastic scale, but we have and do pay 10% of our income for our tithing as well as substantially the same precentage in our fast offerings, missionary funds and building funds, when they have them. My family includes numerous Bishops, Stake Presidents, Temple Presidents, Mission Presidents and my ancestors include a few Apostles here and there. We have a better LDS pedigree than the Romneys if it comes to that, but that is not how it works. n nYour families past has no connection to your future, nor your influence in anything.
Most of these comments are missing the point. The memory of a loved one is sacred, and particularly sensitive if that person perished in a mass murder. Proxy baptism is not voodoo and does no material harm to the loved one. It is, however, an expression of religious arrogance and deeply disrespectful. Any society relies on conventions of respect. When invited to someone's house, polite guests will not put their feet up on the coffee table, even if their shoes are clean and the table is unscathed. These proxy baptizers are entering the memories of lost loved ones uninvited; they are treading on sacred space and showing no regard for the feelings of the survivors. Someone mentioned intolerance; it is intolerant to believe that only those who accept someone else's religion will be saved. The attitude motivating the proxy baptizers is primitive and should have been outgrown long ago.
Thank you — I knew that this was offensive and didn't quite understand why. n nThe memory of loved ones is sacred, and you don't get to rewrite history. n nHow would the LDS church feel if we proxy UNbaptised their deceased members? nWe have to have a mutual respect for each others dead — if we want to have peace amongst the living, we have to have that respect for the dead. This posthumous baptism is an insult — how would the LDS church feel if we were to do it to your people? Not preventing them from converting while alive, but arrogantly going out and converting them after death and without their having any input into it???? n nStay out of my cemetery and I will stay out of yours…..
"As a Jew, getting “proxy-baptized” by the Mormon Church seems akin to somebody casting a magic spell on you or sticking needles in a voodoo doll. " n nthis is my initial take on this issue: if someone believes that putting on funny clothes and dancing around wearing a tin-foil hat will increase the chance of rain, it matters not to me. n nOTOH, i think it is extremely insensitive and disrespectful of any "religious" believer to presume that s/he can or should "do something to" someone not of the same faith to "make" that person become of the faith. some people are just so self-centered and superstitious that they will do things like this. n nall religions have features that the rational person recognizes as just weird (because they are believed despite irrefutable evidence that they don't "really work"). if someone thinks that by chanting some magic incantation i will be helped, i am really indifferent. if the effort succeeds, i'm happy to be helped, but i don't expect that i will do anything i don't already want to do or eventually decide to do. nevertheless i'd prob tell the witch-doctor to save his or her breath and not expect me to start toeing his or her "magical" line.
"i think it is extremely insensitive and disrespectful of any 'religious' believer to presume that s/he can or should 'do something to' someone not of the same faith to 'make' that person become of the faith." n nThat's precisely NOT what Mormons believe. Such baptisms only takes effect if the spirit of the person involved accepts the ordinance in the afterlife. No one can or should be forced in matters of religion, which is why Mormons don't practice infant baptism. If you don't believe it has any effect, why be offended? Mormons don't consider Jews to be Christ-killer, as do some Christians. A Mormon Apostle journeyed to Jerusalem in the 1800s to dedicate the land from the gathering of the scattered tribes of Israel. Mormons have nothing but good wishes towards all of God's children, especially the descendants of Israel..
Members of my family were murdered because of their religion. They honored the faith of their ancestors to their very last second on this Earth. It is shocking that some Mormon who doesn't know me or my family would dare to change history by converting my ancestors to their religion and then putting their names down in their geneology records as being Mormon for all eternity. It is wrong, and I want it stopped.
read up on the now stopped practice … your ignorance is showing … knee jerk reactions don't make people think of you as a knee …
Ummm, they don't seem to have stopped it if it is still happening….. n nI am sorry but facts matter, if they are still doing it, then they haven't stopped doing it… n nOr am I missing something here????
agree with every word that Victoria Knox wrote.r nr nI thought the Mormon Church had really banned this practice, but, even with the ban, I am still waiting for the personal apology.r nTo read that ban is not really enforced is deeply troubling.r nr nyeah, I take this personally, out of respect for all my cousins who were targeted for extermination in the Shoah.
Let Mormons exercise their religion in accord with the first amendment. Their intentions are wholesome, loving, even if you find their theology untenable, as I do. Debate them, if you like, with respect. Don't pout, denigrate, take offense where no offense is given, and then try to intimidate or insult them in an effort to make them stop doing what they believe is nothing less than God's will. n nEven so, I am glad the Mormon Church opposes the proxy baptisms of deceased Holocaust victims. I write as a non-Mormon who finds either baptizing or marrying the dead a meaningless practice. But that is my opinion. I would happily debate the point with my Mormon brothers and sisters. Yet Mormons are entitled to their own opinions and, harming no one, they have the absolute right to act according to their beliefs and their consciences. n nJust as important, Romney is not a spokesman for the Mormon Church. If asked, he should simply express agreement with his Church and denounce the practice. But it is not his place to make a public statement about a theological issue, or about a "baptism" that his Church has already condemned.
Let Mormons exercise their religion in accord with the first amendment. Their intentions are wholesome, loving, even if you find their theology untenable, as I do. Debate them, if you like, with respect. Don't pout, denigrate, take offense where no offense is given, and then try to intimidate or insult them in an effort to make them stop doing what they believe is nothing less than God's will.
Faith and religious/spiritual beliefs are personal things for each person. To announce that you're baptizing someone who *is not* a member of your church or your faith — without their expressed consent — IS offensive. It doesn't matter if it's just a basic prayer or ritual that really 'does nothing' and harms no one physically. It's not a 'nice' thing they're doing. It is completely disregarding who the person is (or in this case, *was*) in life. It is a *disrespect* to the person and his or her right to make their own choices and come to their own beliefs. r nr nIt is even more disrespectful when you're trying to baptize someone who was killed for their own chosen beliefs. It's like you're trying to erase who they were, or diminish their experience.r nr nPeople were experimented upon, tortured, and murdered simply for being Jewish. For a Mormon to decide they want to baptize someone into the Mormon faith, without consent, is bad (and ridiculous) enough. To try to baptize someone who is no longer alive (and thus cannot contest) and may not have WANTED to be anything but Jewish is offensive.r nr nI can see why Elie Weisel, a Holocaust survivor, would find this sort of practice extremely upsetting, disrespectful and offensive, and why he would want someone who has a public face in the Mormon community to take a stand and say this is wrong. Especially if that Mormon is running for President of the United States and wants to present himself as a man of integrity. Of course Mitt Romney isn't responsible for everything that any Mormon out there does, but it would be nice if he showed that he understood why this particular practice is offensive to Jewish people who have endured much for their own faith, and assured voters that this is not something he would condone, as a president or as a Mormon.