Hmmm. Two stories, in two different publications, on the Mormon Church? Is something afoot?
Alana noted a Washington Post piece about the church posthumously baptizing Holocaust survivors, and that same issue made the cover of The Daily (which you can only read if you own an iPad). The Daily goes further than the Post, sharing some of the stranger Mormon beliefs and customs, including the odd, 18th century-ish style undergarments Mormons supposedly wear (they actually look quite comfy).
Mormonism was bound to come up sooner or later, and it looks like someone (Santorum? Obama?) has decided the moment is now. So the sooner Mitt Romney deals with it the better.
Baptizing dead people who had no desire in their earthly sojourns to be Mormons is bizarre and offensive — and not only to Jews. Romney has been tiptoeing for too long around the issue of religion – though his reluctance is understandable. I’m not even going to try to come up with good underwear talking points for Romney. (I have a hard enough time trying to explain tefillin.)
Seriously, though, there is a question here that bears considering: Do we really have anything to fear from our president’s religion? Back in 1960, the boogeyman was the Catholic Church – and the possibility that JFK would take his marching orders from the Pope (turns out, as we know now, Hugh Hefner had more of an effect on what went on in the Kennedy White House than John XXIII).
The fact is that all religions have rituals that seem pretty weird to outsiders.
But in case anyone has forgotten – the U.S. is not a theocracy; we have something called the First Amendment, and no matter the perversion that atheists have tried to make of it, it makes the religion of our public officials largely immaterial.
Being a religious country, we want our president at least to pretend to have some kind of religion. But as to which one? Given the seriously scary state of the world, and Barack Obama’s abysmal weakness and incompetence, I think we have a lot more pressing things to worry about.
This is an issue of symbolism and should not be one of theology to Jews. As an Orthodox Jew, I would not be terribly offended by Romney's silence on the issue. n nEven if the LDS church does not change its posthumous conversion policy, Judaism does not recognize such conversions. In fact, in Judaism, for the living, once a Jew, always a Jew. For the soul, the condition of the soul ("neshama") is transcendent. Although we like to say "yiddishe neshama," after the neshama leaves the body, nobody is going to change it. It was created by God, and not by man, and cannot be converted by man. n nSo I say, worry more about Obama's abandonment of Israel's 6 million living Jews and less about the LDS church's rituals and customs.
Do Mormons really wear sacred underwear?
Mitt can wear all the magic underwear he wants. I'm much more worried about Santroum's deeply ingrained and theocratically based opposition to contraception.
Santorum is *so* opposed to contraception that every time there was a bill to use taxpayer money to supply contraception to people who couldn't afford it he voted in favor of the bill so they had access to contraception. Santorum's support of contraception is as deeply ingrained as his personal — get that? personal — decision to follow his religious conviction not to use it himself.
This is an embarrassing post. Mormons do this ritual for everyone, not just Holocaust victims. Why are Holocaust victims the only group that can't be subject to this ritual? What about Jews murdered in Pogroms? Or Israeli children murdered by Palestinian terrorists? Or, for that matter, other murder victims in other religions? Plus, they don't baptize Holocaust victims. That would require exhuming their bodies and dunking them in water. They do a ritual on the name of a deceased person. n nIt is ridiculous that anyone finds this offensive. Frankly, we Jews should be the last to throw stones at this practice, given that we have plenty of controversial practices to defend, such as circumcision and treatment of women. I'm not calling those into question, but others do, and we should have the good taste and judgment to leave the harmless, if odd sounding, religious practices of others completely alone.
If you don't think it has any effect, ignore it. If you're worried that it does, read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. n nIf your complaint is that "Baptizing dead people who had no desire in their earthly sojourns to be Mormons is bizarre and offensive," well, let's not get started talking about religious practices that someone may find bizarre and offensive. I understand that San Francisco is trying to outlaw circumcision. People can take offense at all kinds of things. I don't consider Jewish rituals and dietary laws bizarre or offensive. They're what they are, and they're no concern of mine.
The entire discussion around Mormon garments is much ado about nothing. Not "nothing" in the sense that the garments are unimportant, but "nothing" in the sense that it has nothing to do with Mr. Romney's presidential candidacy. As Mr. Hodson states above, the garments are simply a reminder to Mormons of covenants that they have made. Many, if not most, religions have some form of sacred clothing. Mormon garments may seem to be more odd than yarmulkes, prayer shawls, or hijabs, but this is only because they are worn under regular clothing. Apparently there is a large section of the population that, although technically adults, still cannot resist the sophomoric impulse to snigger at anything associated with the topic of underwear.
No doubt they grew up on "Captain Underpants."
The concern that Mr. Romney, if President, would take his marching orders from Salt Lake City is misplaced. If he were elected, the LDS church would not try to influence his policy. Harry Reid (D-NV), the current Senate Majority Leader, is an active Mormon, yet I have never heard of anyone being concerned that the LDS church is telling him what to do. Ezra Taft Benson was the Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower while he concurrently served as one of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, yet, to my knowledge, no one ever accused him of using his influence to do the Church's bidding. Similarly, there is no reason to worry that Mr. Romney would receive marching orders from Salt Lake. Mr. Romney's past political behavior corroborates this. He has previously taken stands on abortion and gay marriage that are explicitly contrary to non-negotiable doctrines and practices of the LDS church. The only faith that Mr. Romney takes orders from is the Church of Political Expediency.
I could care less what the Mormons do about deceased Jews. It's not going to make them any less Jewish in our memory, and I'm more concerned with whether a President Romney will revive the economy (good for Jews) and give Israel the tangible and intangible support it needs to survive in a hostile world. I think he will pass that test, too. n nWe already know that Obama fails on both counts.