This diary is purely an effort at providing information. I've seen this referred to Mitt's "Jewish problem" and there are plenty of people around here who have very strong opinions about what Mitt and the Mormon Church is doing. One recent diary about this had a ton of comments but the diary itself was flawed on many accounts, and I realized that maybe an "insiders" perspective is necessary--though I'm not an insider anymore and haven't been for many years. I strongly encourage everybody who is interested in this issue to do their own research and reading.
Let's discuss, shall we?
What is Baptism Of the Dead?
Pretty much what it sounds like. Baptisms performed by proxy for those who died without "knowing the full gospel." Basically, the Mormons believe that the restored gospel of the Book of Mormon and latter-day revelation with a living prophet is so self-evidently correct that if they only knew, they would probably convert. But since Joseph Smith didn't find his golden plates until the early 19th century, there are many, many souls who never had the opportunity to choose to folllow him! And after the restoration, there are many souls who never heard of the Church or hardened their hearts against the Church.
But all men will be resurrected when Jesus returns.
And in order to be resurrected with a perfect body during the Second Coming, you have to undergo a sequence of ordinances beginning with the ordinance of baptism. This is a requirement for all. And there's even more to it than that.
Doctrine and Covenants
15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their asalvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made bperfect.
16 And now, in relation to the baptism for the dead, I will give you another quotation of Paul, 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?
18. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a bcurse unless there is a welding clink of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the gfoundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto hbabes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.
Mormons don't believe that baptism for the dead is necessary for a single soul to enter into heaven. It's necessary for
all souls ever, and only when this task is complete with they "usher in the dispensation of the fullness of their times" ie, bring on the Second Coming. We don't know when Jesus is coming back, but it's only after everybody has been dunked.
How is this not exactly like what Catholics did to "save the souls" of all non-Catholics they tortured/murdered/dug up from the grave/etc during their long and complicated history?
Good question!
For Catholics and other Christian denominations who believe in baptism, that's it. Once you're baptized you're in. Their "baptisms for the dead" consisted of literally sprinkling the dead body with water and announcing them baptized. The Mormon process is different in action and in intent--and it doesn't convert anybody to Mormonism. The people who are baptized by proxy are not counted in the official record as members of the LDS Church, and nobody would consider Anne Frank (to cite one famous example) a fellow Mormon.
You're probably wondering at this point what the hell is going on. Mormons must baptize everybody in order to bring about the Second Coming, but the act of baptism does not make everybody a Mormon?
Yes, because as I mentioned above, baptism is just one step of many for the final salvation, not the only step (and for the living not even technically the first step). But all souls must meet this requirement. How does that happen?
Are they baptized in Joseph Smith's name?
No, the baptismal prayer is done "in the name of the father, the son, and the spirit."
Do Mormons think Jews are Going Straight to Hell?
Yes and no but mostly no with a side of "it's complicated."
First, Mormons do not believe in a permanent hell. After Judgement Day, the Earth will become the Celestial kingdom, purified and in all its glory, and all of the resurrected perfect beings (like Jesus) are fucking like bunnies and repopulating planets. Everybody in this kingdom is married to one spouse for all eternity, and the upper eschelon are the ones who not only married but had families and completed all the ordiances and did everything God said. But because of God Magic, the Earth will also be the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms.
These souls serve the Celestial winners. So no you don't have to be a practicing Mormon to go to heaven, but yes, all of the Jews and Buddhists and gentiles and everybody else who fail to follow God's strict rules will be eternal servants. But don't worry, because the kingdoms are so glorious--even the third one--that you'd kill yourself to get there now if you only knew its majesty (at least according to Joseph Smith, that's what he actually said).
Prior to Judgement Day all the souls are hanging out in Heaven's Waiting Room (which I guess is Kolob) and see, they've got some time on their hands. They also have some decisions to make. Between water and fire.
If they choose to accept the baptism performed by proxy, they will then "accept Jesus" and begin the rest of the path of salvation.
If they choose not to accept that, they will go to "Hotel Hell" a sort of purgatory where they will be punished for their own sins (since they didn't accept Jesus's punishment on their behalf, which of course is what the baptism signifies).
That's why baptized-by-proxy Jews are not considered Mormons. They still have a choice to make in their afterlife.
What kind of choice is that?
There's a scripture in Nephi 2 in the Book of Mormon that says something like "don't wait until you die to fix your mistakes because who you are here is who you are there..." It was a scripture mastery in seminary, but clearly, I didn't master that one.
Mormons do believe in agency and free will. For them, performing these baptisms provides opportunity without removing agency.
Why are they targeting Jews?
They're not. As explained above, they are targeting every damned body, because everybody has the potential of being "damned" if they don't. That's why Mormons are obsessed with genealogy work (their own and yours) and that's why they own ancestry.com and why the LDS Genealogical Library is one of the best places in the world to find that sort of information. All of the names have to be found and accounted for. I don't know why Jewish names from the Holocaust continue to pop up, but my guess based on what I know of the process is that people gather those names up because they're the easiest to gather.
So who picks the names?
The members. They don't come from the "leaders" even though there are several levels of leadership in the church. I'm not sure the "leaders" ever lead on much of anything due to their rigid adherence to hierarchy. When Mitt Romney was a bishop, he had to act within certain confines that were extremely limiting, for example. But that's neither here nor there, the point is that the individual members are the ones responsible for the entire thing, and they are largely unsupervised. They're told to baptize everybody, so they do. They don't care how offensive it is because they feel as though their work is far more important than that--as all religious zealots I do.
Who performs the baptisms?
I don't doubt that Mitt is a fully devout, faithful, believing Mormon. I really genuinely don't. But if he's done a baptism by proxy in the past, say, forty years, I would be pretty surprised. There's no way of knowing for sure, of course, but in my experience, it's been a task for senior citizens and teenagers. You know, the people with that kind of time to spare getting dunked into a baptismal font again and again and again. And it is a bit time intensive. People don't just run to the temple for a quick dunk--it's an all day event with dozens of names being read for each person.
Why are they performed in secret?
They aren't. Not exactly. Non-members aren't allowed to be present, and members who don't have the proper clearance aren't either, but that's not uncommon when it comes to religious places and rituals. But beyond that, there is a lot of information available. The members who participate are allowed to talk about the experience freely. The place and date of each baptism day is readily available. They don't make any effort to hide or disguise what's going on. The Mormon church loves its secrets, don't get me wrong, but this is not one they bother to keep.
why don't they stop baptizing Holocaust victims?
I don't know. Because they're assholes? That's my guess. They definitely could if they wanted to. Have the First Presidency issue a statement that says "Hey! Don't do that!" and most of the members will probably stop. But the First Presidency doesn't have a lot of weight to back up their orders. Sure, they're supposed to be God's reps on Earth, but their biggest punishment is ex-communication. So they could say "Hey, knock that off or you'll be ex-communicated!" but I'm not sure how feasible that is.
Mormons are unified but not monolithic. They have a huge amount of discretionary power and influence in their own communities. They can be told to do something or not to do something, but Mormons also believe strongly in the doctrine of personal revelation--the Spirit can and will talk to you if you pray with an open heart. So what if the First Presidency says "No more baptizing Holocaust victims" and Bobby Sue has personal revelation that she should be baptized in Anne Frank's name? In baseball, the tie goes to the runner, and in these matters, the tie goes to the member's personal revelation. Because Mormonism's greatest promise is a personal relationship with God, and that includes personal guidance from the spirit.
Are you trying to justify their egregious behavior?
No, I don't really care to justify anything those people do. But I am trying to inform. For the Mormons this is a complicated but necessary doctrine. For the outside world it's almost an act of religious terrorism, at the most insulting, and at the very least bizarre and ignorant. Well, it's still all those things, but at least maybe now you'll understand why they feel compelled to do it.
Should Mitt Romney have to answer for any of the criticisms leveled at this practice or LDS Corp?
I believe two things:
1) Religion should be an issue for Mitt Romney in this election because it's a major part of who he is--it's the core that nobody else can see. What sort of man is Mitt Romney? He's a Mormon, and if you are familiar with Mormons, you can probably understand why that's the only answer you need. If you aren't familiar with Mormons, having a fit over this issue will not get you any closer to understanding what makes Mitt tick.
2) Baptisms for the Dead is not the religious issue that should be hung around his neck. It's a red herring. It has no impact on Mitt's beliefs, his day to day behavior, his personal interactions, his understanding of the world. And it doesn't really clarify why people should be very concerned about a Mormon in the oval office. Oh sure, it signifies the arrogance and tone-deafness that characterizes so much of Mormon thought, but there's so much institutional misogyny, homophobia and racism that I think it would be more productive and beneficial to take a look at how that impacted the man Mittens is today (hint: IN A BIG WAY).
Besides, he probably never personaly baptized Jews, but he definitely personally harmed women in his ward/stake and he definitely personally believes he has magical powers, including the ability of "discernment" that allows him to "know a man's heart." He definitely believes he is always right, and he definitely hates to be questioned. Finally, he's a liar. And Mormons learn how to lie by persistent example from a very young age. His loose relationship with the truth is a direct consequence of growing up in an environment where the truth is constantly in flux, where the right answer can change from day to day, where obfuscating and obscuring is a way of life not a conscious decision.
1:50 PM PT: Anybody who thinks I'm out of line referring to the egregious lies of the Mormon Church, please read the essay entitled Lying for the Lord
I began this list when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and Stake CES Coordinator from 1975 - 2002. My last assignment was brief. I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned from CES a month later. I carry fond memories of the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted that critics accused LDS church leaders of dishonesty. I "knew" the criticisms could not be true.
As an informal defender, I discovered that those accusing the church leaders of being dishonest sometimes had the facts on their side (when I took the time to check). I dealt with the cognitive dissonance by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and if you search hard enough, of course you'll find a few isolated examples of deception; and (2) since the leaders are human, they will err on occasion. I guessed there may have been occasional isolated examples of premeditated deception but it was not a pattern or standard practice.
Sometimes I caught myself revealing less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I noticed that other members often did the same thing. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was defending God's one true church; or so I reasoned. Eventually I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would deal with it.