Archive for the ‘LDS’ Tag

Mormons, proxy baptism, and the Jews

The Salt Lake City Temple is the largest of 128 currently operated by the Mormon Church

The Salt Lake City Temple is the largest of 128 currently operated by the Mormon Church

Jewish leaders have expressed renewed opposition to Holocaust victims being baptized by proxy by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormons) despite their agreement in 1995 to stop the practice. Many Jews find the baptisms offensive and a possible threat to identifying their relatives as Jewish victims of Nazi persecution.  Mormons, for their part, see the practice as an inoffensive expression of their care for the salvation of others and the matter touches on a number of their core religious beliefs.

Mormons, like many conservative Christians, believe that a person must be baptized in order to qualify for the highest levels of salvation, a.k.a. exaltation; but they believe that the baptism can be just as effective if conducted by proxy after the person’s death.  In his recent book God is not Great noted atheist and critic of religion Christopher Hitchens explains and comments on the practice as follows:

It must be said for the “Latter-day Saints” (these conceited words were added to Smith’s original “Church of Jesus Christ” in 1833) that they have squarely faced one of the great difficulties of revealed religion. This is the problem of what to do about those who were born before the exclusive “revelation,” or who died without ever having the opportunity to share in its wonders. Christians used to resolve this problem by saying that Jesus descended into hell after his crucifixion, where it is thought that he saved or converted the dead. … The Mormons have improved on this rather backdated solution with something very literal-minded. They have assembled a gigantic genealogical database at a huge repository in Utah, and are busy filling it with the names of all people whose births, marriages, and deaths have been tabulated since records began. This is very useful if you want to look up your own family tree, and as long as you do not object to having your ancestors becoming Mormons. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to “pray in” to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi “final solution,” and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a “lost tribe”: the murdered Jews of Europe. For all its touching inefficacy, this exercise seemed in poor taste. I sympathize with the American Jewish Committee, but I nonetheless think that the followers of Mr. Smith should be congratulated for hitting upon even the most simpleminded technological solution to a problem that has defied solution ever since man first invented religion.

Despite Hitchens’s inauthentic praise, most Americans find baptism for the dead to be an odd and bizzare practice.  Mitt Romney, the first Mormon with a legitimate shot at winning a major party’s nomination for president, was asked numerous questions about his religious beliefs earlier this year, including at least one about proxy baptism.  While acknowledging that he had performed such baptisms, he declined giving details and referred the reporter to the LDS Church for further information.  In my experience, Mormons typically don’t volunteer information on proxy baptism (or their other ordinances) to non-Mormons and seem somewhat defensive about the practices, which are all conducted in their temples which are off-limits to non-Mormons and even many Mormons who participate inadequately in the life of the church.

This statue of Jesus is a well-known image among LDS members

This statue of Jesus is a well-known image among LDS members

Most commonly, proxy baptisms are conducted by a relative of the deceased (thus, as Hitchens points out, the vigorous interest in genealogy research among Mormons) or with at least the permission of a relative of the deceased.  The church actively encourages members to conduct such proxy baptisms for as many people as possible.  In their eagerness to do this, some Mormons began using sources other than their family trees to find people to get baptized for, like concentration camp records and the Israeli archives.  Despite rules put in place, LDS members have been baptized for Catholic popes and saints, the aforementioned Holocaust victims, and even Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.  At times, Mormon missionaries have baptised (living) people who clearly had no intention of becoming a Mormon, or even of understanding the event—the infamous “baseball baptisms“—just to preserve the people’s chances of salvation in the afterlife. Note that, according to Mormon dogma, the mere fact of a baptism—proxy or otherwise—doesn’t make a person a Mormon or ensure salvation; the person must, in the afterlife, accept various beliefs and such in order to make the baptism effective.

Despite what Hitchens wrote, baptism for the dead doesn’t solve all of the doctrinal problems.  Namely, what about those people who left no historical records or who had lazy descendants who couldn’t be bothered to do their temple work? Apparently, people who didn’t have a proxy baptism done for them will still be okay and able to become a Mormon in the afterlife through some mechanism or other that wasn’t made particularly clear to me (eschatological beliefs are frequently difficult to pin down).  If this is so, then doing a proxy baptism for someone seems superfluous, since they’ll be fine anyway.  It makes the ordinances just seem like busy work or worse.

Incidentally, I recently visited a Mormon discussion forum asking if the church had anything like a “do not baptize” registry that I could put myself on.  As with all of my conversations with Mormons, including the three I had with their missionaries this past summer (thanks for the free Book of Mormon and the discussions, Elders Humphrey and Poulson) the folks on the forum were very pleasant and polite.  After fielding their queries about why I’d want to take such a chance and their attempts to dissuade me (“just in case”) and I eventually obtained an address for the Family History Library in Salt Lake City and an indication that they might be able to handle such a request, but I’ve yet to write them to see if such an opt-out is possible.  Even if it is, I’m not sure I’d go through with it; I have Mormon relatives and I’d hate to cause them any grief just to make a point; that wouldn’t be a very loving thing to do. In any event the actuaries predict I have many decades yet to live.  Hopefully the Jews and Mormons can reach an agreement on how to proceed with this that demonstrates mutual respect and tolerance, though I think that’ll be tricky.

News and thoughts on California’s Proposition 8

MSNBC reports that the contest to pass or defeat California’s Proposition 8 is the second most expensive political battle in the country this year, trailing only the bajillions of dollars being spent by McCain and Obama—but mostly Obama—in their battle for the White House.  Proposition 8, which I previously blogged about here, would amend the California Constitution to remove the right of same-sex couples to marry.  This blog opposes the measure and hopes that Californians will defeat it at the ballot box on Tuesday.

Flag of California

It may be the best state flag with writing on it... but it's still got writing on it! Grrr.

The latest polls indicate that 49% of respondents intend to vote no (and support protecting the rights of same-sex couples) and 44% intend to vote yes (and remove the marriage rights of same-sex couples); the remainder are undecided.  Apparently, most people who are undecided in the final days of such campaigns on controversial social issues tend to vote no.  So, the smarter money would be on the measure not passing, though it is sure to be close.  Incidentally, Intrade speculators are indeed putting their money on it not passing; current market consensus is that it has about a 25% chance of success.

I am disappointed and distraught that Proposition 8’s main supporters are, with no exceptions that I know of, all part of my own religious tradition, Christianity.  Formerly, Christians like William Wilburforce—who successfully lobbied against the slave trade—and Martin Luther King, Jr.—who championed civil rights—were all about expanding human freedom; it’s unfortunate that that’s not the case in the present instance.  It is furthermore unfortunate that Prop 8 supporters and others similarly minded people—when they address the issue at all—make such flimsy arguments about why the parts of the Mosaic Code that they want to impose on other people must still be followed but the parts that they don’t want to be held to don’t apply any more.  I think they also damage their standing with their claims about the alleged harms of permitting same-sex marriage, which, at best, are all out of proportion to the evidence and, more commonly, are in direct contradiction to it.

Andrew Sullivan has interesting blog posts here and here on the enourmous amount of money that Later Day Saints (Mormons) are donating to the pro-8 cause.  Though they’re only about 1.5-1.8% of the state’s population, apparently about 30-40% of all pro-8 money is coming from Mormons (not all of them in-state).  The second Sullivan piece indicates that the total might be as high as 77%, but that figure seems insufficiently sourced and is pretty unbelievable to me.  He writes that LDS efforts are “about consolidating the Mormon church into the wider Christianist movement. If the Mormons can prove their anti-gay mettle, they will be less subject to suspicion from evanglicals.”  He quotes another gentleman who says that “For whatever reason, [Mormons are] trying to get some respect from other religions. … They’ve always been looked down upon by the Christians, the Catholics, and evangelicals” but would gain credibility if the marriage succeeds.  An interesting analysis.

The LDS Church is by no means monolithic, however (few religions are).  Mormons for Marriage have an excellent website explaining why they respectfully oppose Proposition 8 and are actively working to promote marriage rights.  (It strikes me as Orwellian how so many groups that are against marriage rights for certain people get themselves considered the “pro marriage” side.)  Check out their site; it’s very well organized and contains lots of information.

I feel that it’s very likely that by 2030 same-sex marriage will be legally available to most, if not all, Americans.  This current opposition is another one of those things some Christians think is a really good idea (and others think is really bad) that the church is going to have to come to terms with  and eventually apologize for.  Sort of like slavery, the inquisition, and the crusades.  Though I will say that taking away a person’s right to marry is nowhere near as bad as taking away his or her life or freedom.  Society is making progress; we’ve decided that it’s not okay to kill or enslave people and now are discussing if it’s okay to let them marry.

Anyway, here are some No On Prop 8 ads that imitate Apple’s “I’m a PC/I’m a Mac” ads.  Even if you disagree with the points raised, you may find them amusing.  I especially like the second one which features the Constitution of California, who’s a lot more attractive than I thought she’d be, given that she’s one of the longest state constitutions in the country, albeit nowhere near as long as the monstrosity that Alabama uses.

California polls close at 8:00 pm local time, 11:00 pm eastern time.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this initiative.

California’s Proposition 8

Flag of California

Flag of California

Actor and philanthropist Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to fight Proposition 8, which California citizens will be voting on this November. The measure is the result of In re Marriage Cases, a case decided by the 4-3 California Supreme Court in May that held “that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.” (Text of the decision, PDF) The decision struck down Proposition 22, passed in 2000 with 61.4% of voters in favor, which prohibited same-sex marriage by statute.

The summary of the measure, prepared by the Secretary of State and provided to the people in their voter information guides, reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Initially, polls showed a small majority of Californians supported the measure. Polls taken since May, however, have shown a majority opposed to it. One recent poll shows 54% opposed and 40% in favor of the measure; however only 47% personally favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, the same percentage as are personally opposed. The survey found that 80% of respondents believe the outcome of the vote is “important.”

Much of the measure’s support comes from socially conservative religious groups, like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (the Mormons). However, all six Episcopal Bishops whose sees are in the state signed a letter opposing the ballot measure. The statement says in part:

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved to urge voters to vote “No” on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. . . . We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus’ ethic of love, giving, and hope. (full text of letter in pdf)

The poll numbers have been steady for several months, so I would predict the measure will fail approximately 55-45%. If I were a Californian, I would certainly vote against Proposition 8. Bronze age purity codes should not to be enshrined in current constitutional law–if they should be, everyone is in trouble. This will be an interesting one to watch on election night.