This past week, the Mormon Church, and Mitt Romney, came under fire when it was discovered that the parents of Simon Wiesenthal were proxy-baptized by the Church. In 1995, the Church of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormon Church, outlawed the baptisms of anyone outside of their members’ ancestors in response to outrage over their baptisms of Holocaust victims (which Wiesenthal’s parents were). In an apologetic statement released after the Wiesenthal baptisms became known, the Church explained that a rogue member had submitted the names without the knowledge or consent of leadership and that there would be action taken to ensure it wouldn’t happen again.
Immediately after the baptisms hit the headlines calls came for Romney to condemn the action, from Elie Wiesel to top leadership of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, pushing the story onto front pages. Given that the Church had already officially prohibited the baptisms of Holocaust victims, there was little for Romney to do but condemn his own Church, publicly, with no chance of accomplishing anything but further embarrassing his faith.
What kind of statement was expected of Romney? There was outrage not only about these baptisms, but proxy-baptisms in general. Was he supposed to call his own religious ritual offensive and cast judgement upon it? On Bill Maher’s show following the controversy Maher pretended to perform an “unbaptism” on Romney’s deceased father-in-law. The Hollywood Reporter reports,
Donning a sorcerer’s hat and wielding a magic wand, Maher then produced a black and white photograph of Davies, on which he performed his mystical ritual. The brief ceremony was made complete with references to “Laverne and Shirley,” “Harry Potter” and ”The Blair Witch Project.”
“By the power granted in me by the Blair Witch,” he declared, “I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the f*** alone.”
There was no outcry, no outrage. For some reason, it’s become acceptable to criticize the Mormon faith, and with Romney’s stature as its most famous member, it has become increasingly common.
Imagine if these sorts of statements were made about Jewish, Muslim or Christian practices. Was Joseph Lieberman asked to condemn actions of his own faith as forcefully when he was on the ballot? Was he expected to cast shame on the Jewish faith, its practices and customs? If nothing else, Romney’s candidacy will expose the American public’s perception of the Church of Latter-day Saints, the largest and most influential religion born on our soil. In the event Romney manages to secure the GOP nomination, we’ll be seeing nine more months of this. It could get ugly.
Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal are dead wrong on this one. The Mormons do (or did) this for every religion, not just Jews. It is none of our business if they pray for the souls of others and accompany their prayer with their own ritual. Why should just Holocaust victims be exempted from this? What about Pogrom victims? What about other murder victims? It is not as if they are praying for bad things to happen. They are praying good things. This is a totally stupid controversy. Frankly, Wiesel and Wiesenthal should be ashamed for their religious intolerance.
It's not a referendum on Mormons – it's a referendum on FAKE OR BLATANT NON-Conservatives.
Please explain.
What folks object to in both Jon Huntsman's and also Mitt Romney's case isn't about their individual beliefs in their religion – it is about their political stances – both men are Liberals. Both men proudly tout they are NOT "Conservatives" as a political movement, and certainly not "Tea Partiers", no matter what the concept of Tea Partiers is, or is not. n nThose who disagree with the records of these men are perhaps using Mormonism as an excuse – and ordinarily, a valid excuse. However, when you compare that attitude of "anti-Mormonism" against their excuses for being EITHER for or against any of the NON-MORMON candidates, and it lacks everything. If they are pro-Newt for instance, they show they are Anti-Christian regardless of the Christianity or FAKE Christianity of it – they support Newt and his CURRENT RECORD – IN HIS FAKE CHRISTIANITY – in spite of the fact that his CURRENT record is identical to and consistent with his OLD records. nDitto Santorum and Paul, as well. nSantorum is a Liberal in his voting patterns. Paul in his Foreign Policy and in his support of highly addictive and highly mind-altering drugs is similarly anti-Jesus, and fraudulently pretends to be a Christian. n Think about it in simplest terms. First Law of Earth is Harvest. GOD says, what you do unto others SHALL BE DONE unto YOU. nPaul condemns youth to a life of utter destruction and decadence, by force of addiction, with no available aid from Society in that battle of wills to the totally unsuspecting, the naively young and inexperienced. And a life of slavery. nWhen that Harvest comes to him from God, the result will NOT be a drug-induced HEAVEN. It will be an addict's worst nightmares. Just a pure fact, with no window dressing.
I'll believe it's a Referendum on Mormons when somebody asks Harry Reid to condemn it. Or Udall. Or … *any* of the *Democrat* Mormons in Congress. Otherwise it's just a convenient stick to batter someone with.
EXACTLY!
Excellent article. I couldn't agree more. Seriously, if Romney were to condemn the practice of proxy baptisms, he might as well just leave the church entirely. Or at least give a ridiculous speech in which he throws his grandmother under the bus.
” …my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all peopleu201d (JSu2014H 1:33).r nr nThanks, everyone, for helping to fulfill the prophecy.
…. Imagine if these sorts of statements were made about Jewish or Christian practices …. n nOK. n nFair enough. n nBut only if you first imagine Jewish or Christian practices being deformed to include the "proxy-baptizing" of Simon Wiesenthal's Shoah-slaughtered parents. n nOr, if you prefer? n nGag me.
You can deform Jewish or Christian practices in a lot of offensive ways, you idiot. n nGag yourself.
NOT DEFENDING MORMONISM! n nBut, as a point of Theology, what does this mean: n1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, what do people mean by being [themselves] baptized in behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? n?????? n nThe problems I have with Mormonism have to do with John Smith and with "Adding to or taking away from the Holy Bible" which addition was concocted by means of peyote button-chewing and mescal-drinking rounds of discussions with Aztec Indians – to my understanding n nI don't understand 1 Corinthians 15:29. But it is Scripture and it is the Apostle Paul apparently condoning the practice – and given Paul's introduction and induction into Christianity, I am strongly disinclined to disagree with Paul. HARD to tell a man like that that he doesn't know what he is talking about. n nAnd like others said, in baptizing those murdered in horrible fashion by proxy can have no evil intention, however misguided we may think they are. Now if they were cursing such murdered folks to Hell, that is a DESTRUCTIVE and EVIL intention and we have every right and compunction to object. n nALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL. No matter HOW OPPOSITE they are. Einstein was referring to the exact same air blowing in two different directions. He was NOT referring to two OPPOSITE THINGS, such as air versus water opposing eachother. Or Hydrogen versus Helium versus Helium, or something.
Baptism for Deceased Ancestors is referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" Baptism for deceased ancestors was practiced by Marcionites, an early Christian group, Orthodox Christian groups; Coptics (who even practice it today on occasion); Ethiopian Christians, called Abyssinians; and early Roman Catholics, as reported by Augustine and others. nThe Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. n