We've recently watched the already abhorrent muckfest that is the Republican Primary descend into anti-Mormon bigotry at the hilariously and ironically named "Values Voters Summit" (values which apparently include the Jesus teachings of the death penalty, torture, and war on Muslims and Mexicans).
Most of us on the left don't care what religion a person is. We are only what policies they'll enact as President, and whether they believe in an America that respects differing religions and viewpoints or not.
And that is why important and legitimate question has actually shown up about the Mormon religion and the actions of the Church of Later Day Saints.
It concerns the L.D.S. Church's long standing practice of retroactively bapitizing Jews who died in the Holocaust.
If we had journalists who actually did their job, instead of preening frauds like David Gregory, Chuck Todd, and the rest of the "Two First Name" actors pretending to be journalists on the teevee, we might actually hear a question or two about this at these "debates."
The questions would be an honest query about whether practicing Mormons like Mitt Romney and John Huntsman support, or oppose, their Church's longstanding practice of holding private baptizing services in which the names of Holocaust victims are retroactively baptized in the name of Jesus (and Joe Smith).
The L.D.S. believe that even dead souls can be saved from hell if the Church performs a service Baptizing them.
Here's an article on the practice if you're unfamiliar with it:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often referred to as the LDS or Mormons) has spent millions of dollars microfilming, indexing and cataloging nearly every document known to man from every country on earth -- including millions of Jewish records. Church members are encouraged to find the names of ancestors to baptize by proxy, which they believe gives the dead the opportunity to embrace the faith in the afterlife. They say that those who are dead retain their identity and free will and therefore can either accept or reject the rites performed for them. A hands-on proxy baptism ceremony, called an ordinance, takes place in a Mormon temple, and includes full immersion to wash away sins and commence church membership. It is supposedly performed, commentators say, for people who had believed in Christ, but had not had a chance to be baptized. To be baptized is to publicly acknowledge one's faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. Originally, the practice was reserved for ancestors of church members, but over the years many other people have been baptized posthumously.
From the founding of their religion in 1830, Mormons have respected Judaism as a religion. Thus in 1994, Jews were outraged when it became known that members of LDS were posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims and other Jewish dead. Many followers of Judaism find the practice highly offensive, something akin to the forced baptism of Jews practiced for centuries in Europe during the Middle Ages. Some see the practice as an implicit bias, an act of intolerance.
The wrongful baptism of Jewish dead, which disparages the memory of a deceased person is a brazen act which will obscure the historical record for future generations. It has been bitterly opposed by many Jews for a number of years. Others say they will never stop being Jews, simply because there is a paper saying they had been baptized, that the act of posthumous baptism is unimportant and should be ignored. We think this to be a narrow, parochial, and shallow view. We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes.
http://www.jewishgen.org/...
This scandal, which reached national headlines in the mid 1990s, caused the Church to reverse policy with an agreement with Jewish leaders:
The six-page agreement, approved by Jewish organization leaders about two weeks ago, calls for all of the Jewish Holocaust victims' names to be removed from the church's vast International Genealogical Index.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintains the world's largest genealogical library, with some 2 billion names of people of many faiths and nationalities. The purpose, Brough said, is to "unite extended family members in an eternal bond." Brough is executive director of its Family History Department.
Of the 2 billion names, about 200 million have been baptized by living proxies who are members of the church. Most were from North America, Western Europe and Asia, he said. Most of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Germany and Eastern Europe.
Brough said the 380,000 Jews had been given the "temple ordinance" of baptism by nine well-meaning but overzealous Mormon record-gatherers.
The nine, whom he did not name, were motivated by "love and compassion" after visiting Holocaust museums and memorials, Brough said.
"The nine are apologetic, and appalled that they did not understand the sensitivities that were involved here," the church official said.
It will take several months for computers to find and eliminate all the baptized names, Brough said. Once removed, they will not appear in any Mormon genealogical index records.
But has this practice really stopped? There is evidence they have not:
Starting in about 2000 Helen Radkey of Salt Lake City 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 Michel who evaluated the evidence and he agreed with the conclusion. From 2004 thru 2008 Michel and I had a dialog with the Church but the matter reached an impasse, discussions have ended. The Mormons steadfastly refuse to comply with the 1995 agreement. They claim it is their First Amendment right to posthumously baptize Jews, including Jews murdered in the Holocaust.
http://www.avotaynu.com/...
In 2009, the L.D.S. also reportedly posthumously baptized Anne Dunham, President Obama's mother:
"With the revelation that Obama's late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was baptized by proxy last year in the faith's Provo temple, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it is "counter to church policy for a church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related." [Church officials] called it "a serious matter" that was being looked into by church officials."
My question to the National Media, is simple:
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are running for President of the United States, and both claim their strong affiliations with Mormonism are simply part of being Christians. However, their Church has a long standing practice of retroactive baptism of Jews who perished in the Holocaust.
Do Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman either support or oppose the retroactive baptism of Jews killed in the Holocaust as an act of "love" by the L.D.S.?
If Obama has to speak for random statements made by a Pastor at his church, how is this systemic action by the L.D.S. not relevant to the national discussion in the year before the next Presidential election?
If they would like to be President of the United States, don't they have an obligation to speak to this practice by their church?
Obama spoke out vehemently against Reverend Wright's controversial statements, and ended up leaving his church when he learned of Wright's rather tepid and out-of-context soundbites.
How do Romney and Huntsman feel about the idea that the L.D.S. has performed extensive research, and spent millions of dollars, to acquire the names of all Jews who perished in the Holocaust and use that information to perform secret baptisms in their name?
These questions are not meant to disparage Mormonism. They speak to a very specific and offensive practice that many Jewish survivors of the Holocaust are horrified about and disgusted by. The idea of baptizing Jews was the central impetus behind the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, numerous pogroms, and, in a secular reconfiguration, the subtext of the Holocaust itself.
Why shouldn't Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman be asked about this policy? 1995 was not that long ago.