tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post116642588329603513..comments2024-03-05T06:04:06.918-07:00Comments on Tracing the Tribe: The Jewish Genealogy Blog: Anger over 'baptism' of Simon WiesenthalSchelly Talalay Dardashtihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10930641777765846278noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-2881873725135650542009-12-28T20:29:46.563-07:002009-12-28T20:29:46.563-07:00And we LDS should also take a step back and look a...And we LDS should also take a step back and look at what others are telling us. Our organization does use manipulative, guilt-based tactics to get the result desired. There exists the unspoken notion that the end justifies the means. We do this among ourselves and we all experience this sort of thing regularly. None of us like it but each of us puts up with it because of that dogmatic idea that to speak up in protest is somehow "disloyalty" to our leaders. Those not of our beliefs have no such fears in that regard. It should come as little surprise when they speak up and let us know that often our methods are not appreciated. To “support the brethren” at the expense of the truth is to support neither the brethren nor the truth.<br /><br />Personally, most of us would not care at all (I know I wouldn't) if upon our deaths someone of another faith performed ordinances in our behalf in their religion. Who cares? We don't believe those would have any binding effect anyway, so to us it's a non-event.<br /><br />But to some other people it's not. Logical or not, to some people it matters. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider the entire matter pragmatically.<br /><br />If our theology is correct, everyone without exception will at some point be given the opportunity to be included in all necessary ordinances, either in this life or hereafter. No one gets left out. No one CAN be left out or it makes God a respecter of persons. So this really is a case of "no child left behind."<br /><br />If there's no possibility of missing anyone, then the importance of doing this becomes one of our being obedient to the commandments to perform vicarious ordinances. In other words, if we fail to do the work the consequences will fall on our heads. We should then ask ourselves, is there some way we can be obedient to these commandments, still doing the work, still making the efforts, and at the same time avoiding offending those who, whether logical or not, are going to be offended if we perform ordinances for their family members? It simply does more harm than good to alienate people from us when it is so unnecessary. I fully agree that in taking offense they are not reacting logically, but being offended is an emotional reaction, not a rational one, so it's illogical on our part to look for logical reactions from those who are offended. What they feel is what they feel and they're telling us that. To the degree we dismiss it we will only drive them further and further away. If we vicariously baptize someone's Uncle Bob, perhaps Uncle Bob on the other side of the veil will accept that work and we will have helped that person. But is it a worthwhile deal if in the process we alienate a dozen of Uncle Bob's family members who are still living? Is that really the trade off we're aiming for?<br /><br />If memory serves, I believe the church's genealogical archives house some 2 billion names in total. Not all of these have had ordinances performed, that's just the raw number of names of which we have some record. But for the sake of argument let's say that all 2 billion had their ordinances performed. At the rate we are performing these ordinances we aren't even beginning to keep up with the current birth rate let alone make any serious dent in the numbers of people who are deceased. Our best efforts still leave us in severe deficit.<br /><br />Would it not make more sense then to concentrate our efforts on our own families and leave others who are completely unrelated to us out of the picture for the present? These others will be caught up in time, perhaps at a point when those who now object will either agree it makes no difference to them any longer. We can still be engaged in the work for our own ancestors with more than enough work to do without risking offense to others. This seems to me a better approach.<br /><br />Again, I apologize for the length of this, and thank you for reading this far (if anyone actually makes it this far!)ShadowRaptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349232691223584948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-70953002546996027902009-12-28T20:28:59.426-07:002009-12-28T20:28:59.426-07:00The concept of baptism (and associated ordinances)...The concept of baptism (and associated ordinances) for the dead is an example of acts designed to benefit those for whom they are performed without in the slightest obligating the individuals for whom they've been performed to accept them. I believe Dr. Peterson has expressed this idea several times, worded in different ways. There is no payday involved in this for LDS members. There are no tangible rewards; no trophies for the one who performs the most vicarious ordinances. Instead there is much work, research and time, voluntarily offered up by those LDS who engage in the work. The only thing they have to look forward to is that perhaps one day they will meet those for whom they have done this work and be told, "thank you." That's it. That's the only pot of gold at the end of this vicarious rainbow.<br /><br />And, as Dr. Peterson and others also point out, if we're wrong; if our LDS faith turns out to be nothing but fairy tales, we won't even have that to look forward to. For those rabid LDS detractors, please keep in mind that we LDS don't have absolute proof we're in the right with our beliefs. We have faith, not metaphysical certitude. All the efforts we make on the behalf of others; all the sacrifices they entail; all the work they require; all of these are offered up based on nothing more substantial than personal faith that it's the right thing to do. That seems pretty selfless.<br /><br />It should also be pointed out that these practices are religious, not legal in nature. The US is a land in which each is or ought to be free to exercise his or her faith in good conscience, and within bounds that do not infringe into the legal system. In no way do vicarious ordinances encroach into areas of legality, nor is there physical harm perpetrated on anyone, nor in most cases, does anyone outside of the immediate ordinance even know this work has been done. In most instances no case can even be made for causing some sort of emotional suffering.<br /><br />Vicarious ordinances are considered by LDS to be a commandment from God. You may not believe this, but we LDS do. What would it say of our faithfulness if we refused to follow commandments just because others of different beliefs do not accept them as commandments? What an incredibly anemic faith that would be.<br /><br />To those who are rabid I would say, look at it from the LDS viewpoint for a moment. See the good intentions behind the actions. If you are incapable of viewing it this way, even for a few moments of reflection, it suggests your objections have less to do with vicarious ordinances and more to do with systemic hatred of all things LDS, in which case be honest and admit it. Stop hiding behind facades of equanimity and tolerance while carrying out your general crusade under the guise of attacking a particular practice or doctrine.<br /><br />Christianity (as it exists today) generally has an intolerant attitude towards other beliefs, even other Christian beliefs. It is odd that many Christians write “anti-Mormon” books, “anti-Catholic” books, “anti-this-or-that” books, and yet think themselves to be acting as Christians even as they do it. One can usually find an entire wall of “anti” books in any Christian bookstore explaining why Mormonism is a cult, why Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult, why Catholics are quasi-pagan. But I would challenge anyone to go into any LDS bookstore and find even a single “anti” book about any other religion. You may not like our religion, and our church may have serious organizational problems, but this “anti” diatribe so prevalent in much of Christianity today is not something we participate in as many other Christians do.ShadowRaptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349232691223584948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-87971387680799693542009-12-28T20:28:14.642-07:002009-12-28T20:28:14.642-07:00I apologize in advance for the length of this post...I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I’ll have to break it into multiple entries to get it all to fit. I've read this topic with no small degree of fascination. Clearly some contributors have axes to grind with the LDS church that have nothing to do with the Wiesenthal situation. Others exhibit obvious personal dislike for Dr. Peterson. It seems likely if he wrote the sky is blue and grass is green a good many here would attack him for lack of sensitivity towards the color blind.<br /><br />At the same time, Dr. Peterson is absolutely aware of the depth of hypocrisy within the organization of our church, (yes, I am also quite solidly LDS.) It would be fair to say that everyone of any stature whatsoever within either the LDS church's education system, or members who are professional historians having anything at all to do with church history, is well aware of the requirement to voice only "approved" opinions or risk the consequences. Having worked with many LDS historians I can say from personal experience that privately, amongst themselves, and then only in very guarded fashion, subjects are discussed which would never be acknowledged publicly.<br /><br />To say that as an organization the LDS church does not hide or obscure inconvenient information is to be either disingenuous or completely blind and ignorant of what is plainly before us. If Dr. Peterson wishes to stay out of the fire he will never post some of the private, professional conversations he no doubt has with other professional LDS educators and historians on a forum such as this.<br /><br />That is not to say that much of the anti-LDS trash expressed by people with personal axes to grind isn't just that...trash. But it would be foolish not to acknowledge that in certain respects we LDS are our own worst PR enemies. We're fallible people and our leaders (yes, even Joseph Smith) are equally fallible. We like to point that out when our leaders say it; that they're "just men", but that's little more than lip service. Should one point out any specific way in which a leader acted or spoke as "just a man", disciplinary action is usually not far distant.<br /><br />Put another way, we like to say it, but we don't really believe or accept what those words actually mean, and neither do many of our leaders. As our organization approaches its 200th anniversary it is evident we have become an institution and a dogmatic one at that. This is hardly surprising. It is difficult to think of any large organization that hasn't become a dogmatic institution given sufficient time. As with all dogmatic institutions, protection of the institution has become almost the sole purpose of the power structure that governs the institution. At that point, "truth" is often sacrificed for the greater good of that protective function.<br /><br />Religious institutions are not the only ones prone to this problem. One look at our current US political system should convince any rational being it has also slid far down this same slope. What began as a government devised to promote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all people devolved into circles of power and influence that serve only themselves and the inner elite cronies.<br /><br />So yes, as an LDS member I freely admit our organization has serious problems. Having so stated, there are still countless people of genuine good will, working for the betterment of their own lives and the lives of those they can touch. There are leaders who devote their lives to those for whom they have responsibility, often at great personal sacrifice.ShadowRaptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15349232691223584948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-87744114565072412312008-03-28T15:06:00.000-06:002008-03-28T15:06:00.000-06:00I think that two vital things have been left out o...I think that two vital things have been left out of this argument.<BR/><BR/>The first being that in all of the faiths mentioned, respect for your fellow humans ranks right near the top... Something about "love thy neighbor?" I will admit I do not know a great deal about the mormon faith, but it is my understanding that it didn't completely get rid of the "old" bible, and, last time I checked, that little line is in there... If you love your neighbor, it requires being willing to accept them for who they are -- whether their decisions in life match yours, or not... You know, it's something about "casting the first stone..."<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the Mormon church is a religious establishment that started, and is based, here... in the US... Last time I checked, we had some rules about freedom of religion -- meaning that we, as individuals, get to decide for ourselves which religion we should follow. Overstepping and circumventing those ideals only deteriorate our society further.<BR/><BR/>In my readings on this topic, I found an idea that sums it up for me...<BR/><BR/>Jewish people don't want to fear Mormon baptism, any more than a Mormon would like the idea of being posthumously resigned from the church.<BR/><BR/>I'm not anti-anyone, but I think that this boils down to a matter of respect. In this case, I think everyone needs to check themselves. Pray for each other, but don't arrogantly assume that you know better. <BR/><BR/>-- Kam K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-55952129035532327772007-04-25T21:40:00.000-06:002007-04-25T21:40:00.000-06:00I am a Christian, as was my father, and I was appa...I am a Christian, as was my father, and I was appalled to see his name listed on the IGI. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I cannot even think of a word that would properly describe how revolting the LDS policy is, it is so egregious. Keep fighting, okay? You are doing a service for all of us, Christians, Jews, EVERYONE.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167972446645690432007-01-04T21:47:00.000-07:002007-01-04T21:47:00.000-07:00I note with some pleasure that this thread seems t...I note with some pleasure that this thread seems to be dying down. That's good. It has had little value.<BR/><BR/>Still, though, there is one clarification that I think I need to offer.<BR/><BR/>In my first post here, I commented, among other things, that "Jews have precious few friends around the world."<BR/><BR/>I see on at least two zealously anti-Mormon message boards that that comment is being taken as clear evidence of my alleged anti-Semitism.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that Jewish readers here (if there are any) will have taken it in the spirit in which it was intended, which was precisely the opposite of the way in which my detractors here and elsewhere have wanted to see it.<BR/><BR/>As an Arabist, I'm painfully aware of the virulently anti-Jewish propaganda and attitudes that have been spreading for years throughout the rapidly-growing and rapidly-radicalizing Muslim world. As someone who has lived in Europe, travels there frequently, and tries to keep up on intellectual, cultural, and political trends in several of the European languages, I'm also acutely aware of the rise of (<I>real</I>) anti-Semitism there, and of the often somewhat irrational hostility to Israel that seems to be running rampant not only among skinheads but also among some of the elite political, cultural, and intellectual strata. I've also noticed a rise in anti-Semitism in certain portions of the African-American community. I find this all deeply distressing.<BR/><BR/><I>That</I> was what I had in mind.<BR/><BR/>Anything but "anti-Semitic" . . . as I trust Jewish readers of my comments here to understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167970754875353412007-01-04T21:19:00.000-07:002007-01-04T21:19:00.000-07:00If the Church believes that baptisms for the dead ...If the Church believes that baptisms for the dead are necessary for the salvation of souls, why would they agree to exclude anybody from the practice?<BR/><BR/>I don't understand at all. It seems like an awfully strange PR strategy. The agreement seems, further, to be a tacit admission by the Church that there is something potentially offensive about the practice, even if not intentioned, and that Mormons now have to answer to. Quite a logical and theological can of worms that was opened. This kind of debate seems a foregone conclusion, in hindsight.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, and as an observer with no dog in this fight, I find the criticism of Dr. Peterson's contributions awfully strange. Particularly Mr. Huston's.<BR/><BR/>He is, as you (Mr. Huston) point out repeatedly, an academic. As such, why would you expect him to speak to the contents of material he's never seen? Or to respond to poorly worded, obviously inflammatory "bait" questions? If you can dismiss his academic merits because you've read his CV, surely you might have something to say if he stooped to the level of a blogworld bar room brawl?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's impossible to determine any academic's true contributions to his or her field by a cursory glance at any list of publications. Even if Dr. Peterson has gone soft, as you claim, I don't know that you can blame that on his particular institution. There's nothing unusual about academic welfare -- it's called "tenure."<BR/><BR/>BeckyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167784497072850762007-01-02T17:34:00.000-07:002007-01-02T17:34:00.000-07:00Mr. Jim Huston: I have provided a number of sourc...<B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>I have provided a number of sources showing that the Jewish people feel that the Mormon Church is not operating in "good faith."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I rather doubt that "the Jewish people" have an official view on this topic. What you mean to say, of course, is that <I>certain</I> Jews feel this way.<BR/><BR/>But feelings -- as you and your co-detractors here, of all people, would hasten to inform me in other circumstances -- do not constitute evidence. <BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>What evidence do you have that shows that they are?</I></B><BR/><BR/>I have the evidence of personal acquaintance with many of them, which leads me, very strongly, to give them the benefit of the doubt -- particularly when, as in this case, no actual evidence has been supplied to indicate that they're <I>not</I>. If you have any evidence that they are acting in bad faith, surely now is the time to present it.<BR/><BR/>I can also see no serious motive for them to deliberately violate the agreement. As I said above, doing so creates a huge ratio of risk to benefit, so that even a cynical and unprincipled person of the type you presume me and my leaders to be would see no particular reason to violate the agreement.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Have the names stopped going on the IGI?</I></B><BR/><BR/>Apparently not, though I would be surprised if the rate of entry of such names has not slowed considerably.<BR/><BR/>But, as I've already pointed out, the 1995 agreement, signed by both LDS and Jewish representatives, foresaw the likelihood of Jewish names being improperly entered into the IGI, and, quite expressly, set up a mechanism to remove them -- a mechanism that appears to have worked as it was intended to in the the case of Simon Wiesenthal. Thus, the mere fact that some names have been improperly entered into the IGI by no means demonstrates that the Church intentionally violated the agreement.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>If the names go on the IGI, isn't the intention to perform ordinances?</I></B><BR/><BR/>Presumably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167430600747739282006-12-29T15:16:00.000-07:002006-12-29T15:16:00.000-07:00Dr Peterson;I have provided a number of sources sh...Dr Peterson;<BR/><BR/>I have provided a number of sources showing that the Jewish people feel that the Mormon Church is not operating in "good faith." What evidence do you have that shows that they are? Have the names stopped going on the IGI? If the names go on the IGI, isn't the intention to perform ordinances? Please provide the sorces for the things you are claiming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167330335571950472006-12-28T11:25:00.000-07:002006-12-28T11:25:00.000-07:00To Daniel Peterson:"I'm also, contrary to assertio...To Daniel Peterson:<BR/><BR/>"I'm also, contrary to assertions above, neither a Nazi nor a member of the Ku Klux Klan."<BR/><BR/>This is illustrative of how mormon sophism works. I never said YOU were KKK, Mr. Peterson (although your church has an illustrious history of the worst kind of racism imaginable). I said baptising someone into your cult would be like baptising a loved one into the KKK. I didn't refer to you personally, but tried to demonstrate how very offensive your necro-dunking is. I did not say either you or your cult was the KKK, just that necro dunking is so abhorent it would be like the KKK signing up deceased loved ones, thus smearing their good names.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167329780737280182006-12-28T11:16:00.000-07:002006-12-28T11:16:00.000-07:00To David Bokovoy:When I was baptised for the dead ...To David Bokovoy:<BR/><BR/>When I was baptised for the dead at the Logan Temple, I was told by one who was herding us through the process that these were "golden calves representing the 12 tribes of Israel." I remember it distinctly because it put the first of many questions in my head about mormonism. I had just watched The 10 Commandments and it had made an impression on me. I remember thinking, "Huh? I thought G*d didn't like golden calves and if The Cross is idol worship why the golden calves." I had several discussions about this with my parents and Sunday school teachers. I am not mistaken about what I was taught. (If it was incorrect, maybe that's because you people don't have educated clergy---just people with "callings"--no education necessary.)<BR/><BR/>BTW, it's vastly ironic that it was a Dr. Peterson from Utah State (professor of psychology, I think), who helped release me from the mormon cult. I had many, many questions, most of which my family and bishop and seminary teachers didn't even understand, let alone answer. I finally made an appointment with Dr. Peterson who sat on the High Counsel. He did understand my questions, and bless his honest heart, he told me that if he were my age, he would leave also, but he had family--a wife and children--who would be hurt if he followed his own conscience. <BR/><BR/>I never looked back and honestly never really paid much mind to the mormon church for 40 years. I then found out that my father was a pedophile and my very large mormon family knew it. I found that the local Patriarch was a pedophile and most of the community knew it. I found that a member of the stake presidency was a pedophile and a lot of people knew it. I found that the sexual molestation was reported--and ignored. I began research mormonism in an effort to understand HOW this affrontery to all decency could have thrived in a community with 95% mormons. I now understand. I now also understand that my community and my family are not unique in mormonland. I think my anger escalated to absolute outrage---almost the same sort of outrage I remember the first time I read of how Jews trying to escape Germany were denied entrance into civilized "Christian" countries--my outrage was close to that when I read (Mark Peterson or Packard) one of your general authority's prouncing at one of your general conferences that women who had be sexually abused/raped/molested by their priesthood bearing, high-office holding fathers needed to get over something that was an incident during the second semester of the first grade. That statement was made just 16 years ago, and indicated that the sexually sick men who perverted and stole the innocence of children and enslaved women during the first century of your church hadn't changed in the least.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who wants an insider's look at what the first half of mormonism was like need only examine Warren Jeff's practices and life amongst his followers. Except that I actually think it was worse for the women and children of early mormons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167256710547944852006-12-27T14:58:00.000-07:002006-12-27T14:58:00.000-07:00I don't care about Mormon "baptisms for the dead" ...I don't care about Mormon "baptisms for the dead" in the large sense because I know it's so ridiculous. In the smaller sense religions should be called on to be respectful of others (both living and dead). It hurts some people when they think that they or their loved one wasn't good "just the way they were."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167256297354319712006-12-27T14:51:00.000-07:002006-12-27T14:51:00.000-07:00To me, and apparently to the Jewish delegation inv...To me, and apparently to the Jewish delegation involved in the agreement, felt that the agreement was for all Jews. In reading this excerpt, that is what it sounds like to me.<BR/><BR/>Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to <B><I>discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews,</I></B> including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims....... <BR/><BR/>From your posting, I am assuming that you do not feel the press release does not constitute promising to <B>discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews.</B> <BR/>Interesting, I can't see how you could get another interpretation. <BR/><BR/>The quote I gave that you are questioning came from the Jewish News of Phoenix in which a group of Jewish leaders are proposing a suit againts the Mormon Church for failure to comply with the agreement. Here is quotes from Evans, since you wanted more.<BR/><BR/><I>According to Don Evans, the Arizona spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "in the next life, there is no such thing as Mormon." "Mormon" refers to the name of the earthly church, he noted.<BR/><BR/>The ritual of posthumous baptism is an earthly ordinance, "a proscribed ceremony from God."<BR/><BR/>"Baptism is the key to get into heaven," said Evans. "Millions of people never have the opportunity. We believe that the ordinance must be done on their behalf on the earth."<BR/><BR/>Whether or not the spirits of the deceased accept "the gospel" is up to them, he added.<BR/><BR/>"It is pure speculation" whether or not proxy baptisms have occurred since 1995, Evans stressed.<BR/><BR/>"If so, they happened accidentally," he said.<BR/><BR/>An "accidental" baptism could occur if Mormons obtained names of the deceased from microfilm and baptized all of them before checking beforehand if there were any Jewish names on the list, he explained.</I><BR/><BR/>I also assume that you do not feel the article by Gary Mokotoff on the background of the agreement and the Mormon Church's lack of cooperation is worth your time.<BR/><BR/>I guess that shows you for who you are.<BR/><BR/>For people who are interested, here is the link again:<BR/>http://www.avotaynu.com/mormon.htm<BR/><BR/>Here also is a series of newspaper articles and commentary about the number of requests since the agreement and the Mormon reluctance to change their practice.<BR/>http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html<BR/><BR/>Dr. Peterson. Let's turn this around. I have shown you a number of articles and proofs that the practice continues. Can you provide any documentation, other than the canned official statements that there HAS been a good faith effort? You are asking for proof of a negative. I have provided quite a bit of documentation, but you know that proving a negative is next to impossible. Please show me the documentation that shows there has been a good faith effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167250725130695842006-12-27T13:18:00.000-07:002006-12-27T13:18:00.000-07:00Mr. Jim Huston: you have commented on a number of...<B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>you have commented on a number of items I quoted, would you care to comment on this?<BR/><BR/>Don Evans, Mormon Church spokesman:<BR/>Evans agreed that permission should be obtained from an immediate family member before conducting the ritual, "but ordinarily, we have not asked for permission."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I would love to see the full context of his remark. <BR/><BR/>There is a considerable distance between acknowledging a gap between the ideal implementation of a policy and its reality in practice, on the one hand, and, on the other, declaring that there has been deliberate, cunning, sneaky, and dishonest institutional violation of an agreement. I'm perfectly willing to grant the former. Since I have every reason to believe the leaders of my Church sincere and well-intentioned, however, I'm quite doubtful about the latter. (Heck, even if they were just cynically obsessed with <I>PR</I>, as some of your co-detractors have claimed, it's doubtful that they would have deliberately violated a very public agreement: Out of all of the hundreds and hundreds of millions of names for whom temple ordinances can be performed, Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors represent only a small proportion. Catastrophically high potential cost, little gain.)<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>This seems to be a very clear violation of the agreement. A Church spokesperson admitted that it is not being done.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Incidentally, how do you explain that apparent frank admission from Don Evans in view of your conviction that we Mormons believe in shamelessly "lying for the Lord" without conscience whenever it suits our nefarious purposes? <BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Here is a quote from the press release. Please note that the release says that the Church will discountine baptisms of deceased Jews, with the Holocaust victims being a subset of that group.<BR/><BR/>Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.<BR/><BR/>You have yet to address this.</I></B><BR/><BR/>That statement emphatically does <I>not</I> say that the Church would discontinue baptisms on behalf of "all Jews."<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>You seem to be very selective in what you respond to.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I am. I don't consider myself the slave or full-time servant of any critic.<BR/><BR/>The simple fact is that I'm not an authority on the 1995 agreement or its implementation or lack thereof. I'm not a "professional apologist," as you have claimed, I'm not a spokesman for the Church, and, however "disingenuous" you may find my saying so, I've never seen the text of the agreement. I don't run the Family History Department of the Church, and have no particular ties with it. I've never submitted a Jewish name to the IGI. I've never, so far as I'm aware, received or performed any ordinance on behalf of a Holocaust victim or survivor, and most likely not even for a Jewish person.<BR/><BR/>I came on this thread as a private member of the Church who sought to explain to Jewish participants here how I, as a member of the Church, view the issues involved in this matter. I had thought it might be possible to have a relatively short, mutually respectful, and charitable conversation with Jewish people here. Instead of interacting with Jews, though, I've been followed over here by angry and personally hostile ex-Mormons like yourself (and worse).<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>On a side note, you are evidently still spending a lot of time on the Recovery from Mormonism web site to know who my wife is.</I></B><BR/><BR/>With the search functions there, I need only spend a few minutes from time to time. Very efficient. It wasn't difficult at all.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Why would you spend this much time on a site dedicated to helping people disengage from Mormonism?</I></B><BR/><BR/>As I've said publicly, and even in print, on several occasions, I find your home board fascinating, psychologically speaking. <BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>I know how much time you spend on FAIR and on blogs like this. No family life?</B></I><BR/><BR/>Very <I>good</I> family life. Happily married, excellent relationship with my children and extended family, son on a mission in Japan, wonderful Christmas, etc. Thanks for your concern.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>As a Mormon apologist, we all know your motivation. Should we discount your remarks in the same manner?</I></B><BR/><BR/>ROTFL. You and your co-detractors routinely <I>do</I>! And <I>then</I> some.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167247937069636612006-12-27T12:32:00.000-07:002006-12-27T12:32:00.000-07:00Mr. Jim Huston: One time I suggested that you wer...<B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>One time I suggested that you were aware of the content of the agreement. You may not have read the actual agreement, but you were aware of the terms as released in a press release by the Mormon Church in 1995. Saying that you have not read the agreement was to lead people to believe that you did not know the content with any level of detail.</I></B><BR/><BR/>It was meant to lead people to believe that I have not read the agreement. Which is precisely true. I don't favor arguing about whether an agreement has or has not been broken when no party to the discussion has actually read the agreement. My academic training and specialty focuses on the careful reading and explication of primary texts. That was a deliberate choice on my part, because I dislike sloppy discussions based on inaccurate readings and hearsay. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you don't find such things problematic.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>That was disingenuous.</I></B><BR/><BR/>It was <I>not</I> disingenuous. But your continued accusation is duly noted.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Saying that I am continually calling you a liar is incorrect. . . . Saying that I “habitually” call you a liar is a bit of hyperbole.</I></B><BR/><BR/>You're right. You probably take breaks for meals.<BR/><BR/>Ordinary readers of this thread are presumably unaware of the obsessive crusade that your wife says you're on.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>I don’t have a lot of respect for your credentials and even less for you as a person.</B></I><BR/><BR/>D'oh! What a shocker!<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>We have been on opposite sides of discussions like this many times.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Actually, I don't think we <I>have</I>. I noticed your wife's claim, a month or two ago, that I was obsessively stalking you all over the internet. Truth be told, I don't recall having ever noticed your <I>name</I> to that point. You two give yourselves too much credit, I think. But it plays well, I suppose, on your home message board.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>There is nothing derogatory in calling you Danny, you just don’t like it.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Right. Using diminutive or very familiar names to refer to people who don't use them themselves, whom you don't know personally, and for whom you have no respect (e.g., a political liberal calling George Bush "Georgie" or a political conservative referring to Senator Kerry as "Johnny") doesn't convey even a smidgin of disdain. Uh huh.<BR/><BR/>The lack of civility shown by you and others here has, I suspect, not helped your case against the Church in the eyes of any outsiders who may have been looking on. What seems so wildly rebellious and daring on your home message board may not play particularly well outside of the Compound.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>You would prefer that I recognize your august designation of Doctor.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Actually, I don't much care about that, one way or the other.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>I agree with you, using a name that I know you dislike is juvenile.</I></B><BR/><BR/>True. It is.<BR/><BR/>But this is all beside the point.<BR/><BR/>You haven't even begun to demonstrate a deliberate policy, on the part of my church, to violate its 1995 agreement with various Jewish groups. Nor has there been any evidence to demonstrate that the Church promised to remove all Jewish names from the IGI, to forbid vicarious ordinances on behalf of Jews, or to "cancel" any that have been performed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167247898194017352006-12-27T12:31:00.000-07:002006-12-27T12:31:00.000-07:00Another brief comment:DCP:(Actually, since she[Hel...Another brief comment:<BR/><BR/><I>DCP:<BR/>(Actually, since she[Helen Radkey] has a fairly lengthy track record of showing up in expressly anti-Mormon publications -- evangelical Protestant, mainly -- I think I have a good sense of her motivation.)</I><BR/><BR/>As a Mormon apologist, we all know your motivation. Should we discount your remarks in the same manner? You both have an agenda. Hers is to show the non-compliance of the Mormon Church and yours to defend the Mormon Church's actions at any cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167247337123937792006-12-27T12:22:00.000-07:002006-12-27T12:22:00.000-07:00Dr. Peterson;you have commented on a number of ite...Dr. Peterson;<BR/><BR/>you have commented on a number of items I quoted, would you care to comment on this?<BR/><BR/><B>Don Evans, Mormon Church spokesman: <BR/>Evans agreed that permission should be obtained from an immediate family member before conducting the ritual, "but ordinarily, we have not asked for permission."</B><BR/><BR/>This seems to be a very clear violation of the agreement. A Church spokesperson admitted that it is not being done.<BR/><BR/>Here is a quote from the press release. Please note that the release says that the Church will discountine baptisms of deceased Jews, with the Holocaust victims being a subset of that group.<BR/><BR/><B>Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.</B><BR/><BR/>You have yet to address this.<BR/><BR/>The article I suggested was written by one of the members of the Jewish delegation who worked out the agreement with the Mormon Church. His article documents how uncooperative the Mormon Church was until it started getting bad PR. It includes letters written to and recieved from Mormon leaders.<BR/><BR/>This article was originally published in 1995 in the Avotaynu. The world's largest circulation magazine devoted to Jewish genealogy. The group could hardly be considered activists. If you add the rest of the quote Gary Mokotoff [the author] and Ernest Michel reviewed the evidence presented by the activists and concluded it was correct. Would you consider Gary Mokotoff and Ernest Michel to be unreliable sources for information? You seem to be very selective in what you respond to. I remember a similar discussion on FAIR the night I was permenantly banned. <BR/><BR/>On a side note, you are evidently still spending a lot of time on the Recovery from Mormonism web site to know who my wife is. Why would you spend this much time on a site dedicated to helping people disengage from Mormonism? I know how much time you spend on FAIR and on blogs like this. No family life?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167244898004534742006-12-27T11:41:00.000-07:002006-12-27T11:41:00.000-07:00Dr. Peterson;One time I suggested that you were aw...Dr. Peterson;<BR/>One time I suggested that you were aware of the content of the agreement. You may not have read the actual agreement, but you were aware of the terms as released in a press release by the Mormon Church in 1995. Saying that you have not read the agreement was to lead people to believe that you did not know the content with any level of detail. That was disingenuous. Saying that I am continually calling you a liar is incorrect. I said that not acknowledging you knew the content was disingenuous and asked if you were “Lying for the Lord.” That is the only time lying was even mentioned in connection with you. Saying that I “habitually” call you a liar is a bit of hyperbole. <BR/><BR/>As far as calling you Danny, that started almost a year ago when you were a regular lurker and sometimes poster on the Recovery from Mormonism board. I don’t have a lot of respect for your credentials and even less for you as a person. We have been on opposite sides of discussions like this many times. There is nothing derogatory in calling you Danny, you just don’t like it. You would prefer that I recognize your august designation of Doctor. Sorry, when I do recognize the title, it is not in a complimentary manner. I agree with you, using a name that I know you dislike is juvenile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167244008105580602006-12-27T11:26:00.000-07:002006-12-27T11:26:00.000-07:00Robert: "I am outraged by the Mormon Idiot, Danie...<B>Robert: <I>"I am outraged by the Mormon Idiot, Daniel Peterson, and his insensitivity to this issue.<BR/><BR/>"Unite, and call and write your local Mormon authorities on this jackass. Like most cults, they hate bad PR."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Robert has also been corresponding with me directly, calling me "anti-semetic" [<I>sic</I>], "arrogant," "offensive," "disrespectful," and a "racist," pronouncing Mormons in general "racists" who are members of a "cult" and are "incapable of Christian compassion or sensitivity," and informing me that he is "disgusted by you people for being so hateful towards Jews."<BR/><BR/>"You need to be respectful," he advises me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167242790476055102006-12-27T11:06:00.000-07:002006-12-27T11:06:00.000-07:00Mr. Jim Huston: The secondary reference provided ...<B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>The secondary reference provided was the Mormon Church's statement of what was contained in the agreement. It should therefore be relatively accurate unless you feel that they were lying in the press release. If you feel that way we can discuss it.</I></B><BR/><BR/>I don't, of course. But you were claiming that, as a "professional apologist" (which I'm not), I should be familiar with the actual text of the 1995 agreement and that, if I say that I'm <I>not</I> familiar, I'm probably lying. And now it seems that you <I>yourself</I> haven't seen it.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Here is a link to a paper written by Helen Radkey that shows that the Mormon Church routinely violates it's own policy. Included in the article is a letter from a General Authority stating the Mormon Church does not perform ordinances for famous people unless specifically requested by family members. The case used was Hitler who had no children, so therefore, no descendants.</B></I><BR/><BR/>So you do, in fact, believe that the sheer existence of violations of a policy, in a case where millions of people are in a position to comply with or fail to comply with that policy demonstrates that the Church itself deliberately violates that policy. That seems quite a leap.<BR/><BR/>I wonder, incidentally, who it was who submitted Adolf Hitler's name to the IGI. A friend tells me that, when an attempt was made to identify the submitter, the name and address given on the submission form proved to be fictitious. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it wouldn't altogether surprise me if it were.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>With the vast resources of the Mormon Church and the level of record keeping which they demand, I can’t believe that the practice could not be stopped.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Thus, even though, by your own showing, the 1995 agreement signed by both Mormon and Jewish leaders seems (by its creation of a mechanism for the deletion of improper submissions and the correction of unacceptable inclusions in the IGI) to have recognized that improper name-submissions and -inclusions would occur, you believe that the improper submission and listing of names in the IGI demonstrates that the Church is deliberately violating the 1995 agreement. Your logic eludes me.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Here is a paper from the Jewish perspective . . . Starting in about 2000 activist researchers claimed "</I></B><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that there <I>is</I> such a monolith as "the Jewish perspective," and I'm always just a little bit leery (and not only on this subject) of accepting the opinions of "activists" at uncritical face value. Yet that is precisely what you seem to do: In this dispute, the judgments of the "activists" are to be taken straight, while anything that the Church says is to be discounted as dishonest. Most observers, I think, would see that as neither fair nor reasonable.<BR/><BR/>My own assumption is that both the leaders of my Church and mainstream Jewish leaders are people of sincere good will. I don't always make that assumption with regard to activists and agitators, who may have a hidden agenda. I'm told (but cannot, at this point, verify) that leaders of the Church approached Helen Radkey, asking her to help them to develop a method to more effectively identify Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors in the IGI, but that she declined to speak with them. If that is so, one has to ask what her real or primary motivation might be on this issue. (Actually, since she has a fairly lengthy track record of showing up in expressly anti-Mormon publications -- evangelical Protestant, mainly -- I think I have a good sense of her motivation.)<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Jim Huston: <I>Here is an interesting AP release April 10, 2004 that explains that the Mormon Church did not agree to remove the names:<BR/>In a Nov. 14, 2003, letter from church Elder D. Todd Christofferson to Michel, a copy of which was sent to Hatch, Christofferson said the church did not agree to find and remove the names of all deceased Jews in its database.<BR/>From the agreement- the Mormon Church agreed to remove the names:<BR/>Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.<BR/>Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.</I></B><BR/><BR/>I assume that you've noticed that finding and removing the names of <I>all deceased Jews</I> in the IGI database would be a rather distinct action from removing the names of <I>all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church and who were improperly included contrary to Church policy</I> from the IGI. The Church agreed to do the latter. It did not agree to do the former.<BR/><BR/>As your overall remarks make clear, your accusation of lying here against me and my church is merely part of a longer litany of bitter complaints and angry accusations. (Over on your home message board a few weeks ago, I noted your wife's mock-lament that, as a result of your crusade against the Church, she was becoming a widow and you were wearing out the keyboard of your computer, posting everywhere and anywhere you could to attack your former church and faith.) Perhaps some of the Jewish readers of this thread (if there actually <I>are</I> any) will want to discuss your various accusations with you here on a blog devoted to Jewish genealogy. Personally, I'm not interested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167235669943945362006-12-27T09:07:00.000-07:002006-12-27T09:07:00.000-07:00The secondary reference provided was the Mormon Ch...The secondary reference provided was the Mormon Church's statement of what was contained in the agreement. It should therefore be relatively accurate unless you feel that they were lying in the press release. If you feel that way we can discuss it.<BR/><BR/>Here is a link to a paper written by Helen Radkey that shows that the Mormon Church routinely violates it's own policy. Included in the article is a letter from a General Authority stating the Mormon Church does not perform ordinances for famous people unless specifically requested by family members. The case used was Hitler who had no children, so therefore, no descendants.<BR/>http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitlertemplework.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>I also provided three news sources from three different periods of time since 1995 showing that the practice has continued. There are many, many more, but three are sufficient to illustrate the practice continues. With the vast resources of the Mormon Church and the level of record keeping which they demand, I can’t believe that the practice could not be stopped. In these sources the 1999 baptism of Anne Frank and her family is discussed. This is another famous person who died in the Holocaust and Mormon ordinances were performed. The Mormon Church has removed the indicators of temple baptism and endowment from the records, which are publicly available on the Internet making it more difficult to identify when Mormon ordinances have been done. The evidence I have shown, as well as the removal of access to the indicators for vicarious ordinances on the on-line records indicates that a good faith effort has not been made to stop the process. <BR/><BR/>There is no way of proving a negative as you are well aware, but the evidence is there that the practice has not stopped, they have just made it more difficult to find out where and when it was done. Removing easy public access to the ordinances is particularly telling. Proving the Mormon Church is not acting in good faith can only be show through their continuation of the practice.<BR/><BR/>Here is a paper from the Jewish perspective from the initial agreements, by one of the people involved in the agreement. The following quote is interesting to me. It shows the unwillingness of the Mormon Church to discontinue the practice.<BR/><BR/><I>Starting in about 2000 activist researchers claimed that the LDS Church was not honoring its commitment to the Jews, for they continued posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims and others. Investigation by me verified that information. I notified [Ernest] Michel who evaluated the evidence and he agreed with the conclusion. Since 2004, Michel has had a dialogue with the Church but the matter is still unresolved as of the summer of 2006.</I><BR/>http://www.avotaynu.com/mormon.htm<BR/><BR/>Here is an interesting AP release April 10, 2004 that explains that the Mormon Church did not agree to remove the names:<BR/><I>In a Nov. 14, 2003, letter from church Elder D. Todd Christofferson to Michel, a copy of which was sent to Hatch, Christofferson said the church did not agree to find and remove the names of all deceased Jews in its database.</I> <BR/>From the agreement- the Mormon Church agreed to remove the names:<BR/><I>Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.</I><BR/><I>Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.</I><BR/> <BR/>Don Evans, Mormon Church spokesman: <BR/><I>Evans agreed that permission should be obtained from an immediate family member before conducting the ritual, "but ordinarily, we have not asked for permission."</I><BR/><BR/>A very large block of names was added to the database through name extraction without any review or attempt to comply with the agreement.<BR/><BR/>The agreement was made in the same manner as the 1890 Manifesto on polygamy. The Mormon Church had no intention of living by the document. It is the same as the letter from the First Presidency read periodically from the pulpit, stating that the Mormon Church will not be involved in politics, but then funds and supports the defeat of the ERA the agenda of the International Year of Women and gay marriage. They support these while denying that they are supporting the activities. Joseph Smith lied about polygamy for years. Gordon B. Hinckley has lied in interviews, saying, “I don’t believe we teach that anymore, I don’t know much about that” when asked about a fundamental doctrine of the Mormon Church. Researchers in connection with the Mark Hoffman affair also documented his lies to police and prosecutors. He is quoted as saying that he didn’t know Hoffman, even though there was evidence of meetings and phone calls. He also said he didn’t know anything about the Kinderhook plates, when this was something Hoffman had offered him. Saying what is convenient – “Lying for the Lord” is a common practice and has been a part of Mormonism from the beginning. Removing access to the ordinances performed on familysearch.org is just a way to make it more difficult for people while they continue the practice. <BR/><BR/>I think it is also very interesting that on familysearch.org, people who use the database are asked to submit their family tree. I cannot find anyplace on the site that tells people that by submitting to the IGI, their family members will receive vicarious endowments in the Mormon Church. Do you think this is a simple oversight on the part of the Mormon Church, or do you think is simply not giving all of the necessary information to the people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167191765292375482006-12-26T20:56:00.000-07:002006-12-26T20:56:00.000-07:00My great great great great (several greats) grandf...My great great great great (several greats) grandfather joined the Mormon church in Denmark as a young twenty something in the mid-late 1880s. He left behind all of his family, a fair amount of farm land, and modest wealth to come to America/Utah and to join with the Mormon Saints. His father told him that when he joined the Mormons, he would essentially be disinherited--perhaps further sealing his decision to leave the life he had and adventure to the U.S.. <BR/><BR/>In comeing to Utah, he endured many hardships on the journey--losing a child with his new bride, enduring persecution not only for his religion but also because of his poor english and scandanavian strangeties. Nonethless, he persevered and made it. He went on to settle in Sanpete County Utah with other Danes and helped build one of the finest Mormon churches in terms of woodwork ever seen as well as the Mormon temple in Manti (where baptisms and other ceremonies for the dead are performed.)<BR/><BR/>How would my family feel if were to one day learn that a devil worshiping cult had dug up their great great granpa's name, and performed some goofy, seceret ceremony using his name to bring them into their fold by painting his name in blood on the backs of nearly naked teenage girls and boys while they endulged in an orgy? <BR/><BR/>What if it wasn't a devilish cult, but instead a some popular gay organization who decided that he was gay. In so doing, the organization proxy married him to some living gay guy in a special ceremony to some transvestite who liked his name and lifestory--and had the "marriage" published for the public to view anytime they looked up my ancestors name in their popular research portals. Would my family enjoy knowing that some living, dirty gay guy gets joy out of thinking of my ancestor as his spiritual gay lover with whom he can have spiritual sexual relations for ever and ever?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167187265550321412006-12-26T19:41:00.000-07:002006-12-26T19:41:00.000-07:00Hey all you Jews,I just want you to know that it h...Hey all you Jews,<BR/><BR/>I just want you to know that it has been revealed to me that the spirit of the deceased Simon Weisenthal actually did accept the baptism performed on his behalf in the LDS temple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167185286627688112006-12-26T19:08:00.000-07:002006-12-26T19:08:00.000-07:00I am outraged by the Mormon Idiot, Daniel Peterson...I am outraged by the Mormon Idiot, Daniel Peterson, and his insensitivity to this issue.<BR/><BR/>Unite, and call and write your local Mormon authorities on this jackass. Like most cults, they hate bad PR>Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01639037626523859808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32414509.post-1167182675430616992006-12-26T18:24:00.000-07:002006-12-26T18:24:00.000-07:00Anonymous said... Can the Mormon church please exp...<B>Anonymous said... <BR/>Can the Mormon church please explain why it CONTINUES to baptize Jews and non-Mormons after death, after they have been asked and TOLD repeatedly not to do it?</B><BR/><BR/>I can explain why. They do not care. They will do what they want, when they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com