Reader comments
Holocaust survivors halt talks with LDS

297 comments   |   Read story

oh boy | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 10, 2008
here we go again...
Disturbing trend. | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 10, 2008
It's disturbing that this keeps happening. "The Church" has been asked to stop this a number of times and they have said they will stop doing it.

It's about time they actually live up to their word and respect others beliefs.
Dallas | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 10, 2008
"We do not ask for, or want your love"
I'm LDS, and would be touched if a Jew, Catholic, Muslim, etc...would devote any resources to my salvation, whether or not I believed it would help.
Comments continue below
Ricky | 11:23 a.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I'm LDS and know Baptisms for the Dead is a valid practice, whether anyone believes it or not. If someone who is Catholic prays for a Jewish friend who then died and had a mass service to bless the Jewish friend, what effect does it have upon Judaism? Zero. It is simply a gesture of goodwill faith and charity towards one another, not taking away the Jewish identity nor any other religion for that matter. I've had friends who are Baptists, Lutherans, among other non-denominatal religions pray for my Catholic father at his funeral and I appreciate that very much. Wouldn�t it be sad if the younger Jewish generation didn�t know whose ancestors were in the holocaust? I think it builds faith and family bonding for everyone and takes nothing away from us.
What does it matter? | 11:59 a.m. Nov. 10, 2008
If the Jewish group does not believe in the practice that the Mormons are doing, what does it matter if the Mormons continue? What are they afraid that this practice will do to their deceased loved ones? Could someone explain why this is such a big deal?
Confused | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
If the Jews, like the Catholics who also have pulled back on the availability of their geneological records, don't believe that the Mormons are the 'true faith' anyway, then why the concern over the proxy practices of the LDS Church? If a person leaves the LDS faith and decides to join another, will the new denomination accept his Mormon baptism? Of course not, and if the sect requires baptism for entrance, he will be baptized again. Call me simplistic, but if you don't recognize the spiritual authority of a religion in this life, why are you worried about it's standing in the next? With all due respect to the Jewish (and Catholic) leadership, their position couldn't be more intellectually inconsistent. Mormons let all other faiths worship "how, where and what they may," and simply ask the same privilege in return.
Anonymous | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Why don't you stick to baptizing your own? Leave the Holocaust families alone -- you have no idea how the idea of Baptism hurts Jews.
Kathy Baumgarten | 12:09 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Would they be angry if Catholics were lighting candles for them? I guess I feel that in this way we are saying "we will never forget" those who perished. We will keep these names connected to their other family members safe. We are Christians who take the responsibility of caring for others very seriously indeed- we do not talk, but we act.
Free Agent | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Compassion for the living should outweigh concern for the dead: Leave Holocaust victims out of the geneology/temple work program. If this is the Lord's work, it will all get sorted out in the eternities.
confused | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
What happened?
I thought LDS authorities had promised this practice was to be halted?!!!
Anonymous | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
If Jews do not believe the LDS religion is a true religion then why do they worry so much about this? If they don't believe in it then why are they so upset? I am hurt that it was said that the Jews from the Holocaust have been hurt enough and that they don't need any more pain (through doing baptisms for the dead). Baptisms for the dead do not hurt anyone it quite does the opposite.
Don't blame the Church | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Members of the Church can add names of their ancestors; it is not necessarily the Church itself putting the names in.
respect? | 12:30 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Time and time again the LDS church has violated their agreement with the Jewish community to cease baptizing holocaust victims. With the sophisticated computers and equipment the LDS Church uses to track geneology and baptisms, surely its an easy proposition to flag the names of these victims as ineligible for baptism. It seems extremely hypocritical for church spokesman Mike Otterman to accuse the Jewish community of belying mutual respect when it is the LDS church who first violates that respect. This issue and the agreements were made over a decade ago, how long does it take to ensure this practice stops? The statements and agreements and expressed respect for the Jewish community that have been made by the LDS Church appear to be more and more hollow every time they violate their agreement. How can the church possibly expect to be respected when they are the first to repeatedly violate that mutual respect themselves?
Linda | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
No one can be baptized for another person, especially if that person is dead. That person can be baptized only if he/she believes in Christ and wishes to be saved per Christ's teaching. There can be no baptism of the dead as practiced by the Mormon church. You can do proxy baptism until you are as WRINKLED AS A PRUNE and it will still not be valid. You can only pray for people's eternal souls. If they didn't get baptized while they were alive, then you can't do it when they're dead. It was THEIR choice and IS NOT YOURS OR ANYONE ELSE'S. Worry about your own souls!
BobP | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I am by Jewish tradition a Jew although I am a fifth generation active Mormon. My mother's mother was a Jew as my LDS geneolgy has turned up. I have therefore submitted a few names of that line for temple ordinances. None were holocaust survivors, but had they been I would have submitted the names.

For the life of me, I cannot see the problem
Ricky is exactly right! | 12:42 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Not only is Ricky right but what organization in this world has a greater right than that of a literal descendant? I say none!
JR | 12:43 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
When my father died, the Filipino Roman Catholics in my office collected donations and sent them to a monastery in Mississippi to have his name prayed over. At first, I was taken aback. He was not Catholic. But after thinking about gesture, I realized that my co-workers were trying to show me their love in the way that was most meaningful to them. I do not consider it disrespectful, just different. People should accept genuine love when it is shown to them.
Relocated Southerner | 12:44 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I've never understood the anger over this. If you're not LDS and don't believe the baptism is valid or has any effect, what could it possibly hurt to allow it to be carried out? I had a baby sister (born three years before I, over 50 years ago) who lived only three days. She (as I) was born in a Catholic hospital, and when the nuns realized she was not going to survive, they made arrangements to have her baptized. Now we were not Catholic, but the nuns felt they were doing the right thing, and one of them came apologetically to my mother following my sister's death to tell her what she had done and ask for my mother's "forgiveness" for doing this without her consent. I always remember that my mother told the nun she had nothing to worry about -- that the baptism had not "hurt" my sister since we didn't believe in infant baptism anyway or the validity of it. She knew the nun's heart was in the right place and that there had been no ill intention on her part. The same would seem true in this instance.
Anonymous | 12:45 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
How magnanimous of you to tell me it's a valid practice. Mormons spend so much time telling everyone else that they have the real way to salvation, that they think little of trampling on other religions. How about if I, as a Catholic, knocked on your door repeatedly to tell you the "one true way?" I'm sure you'd be as welcoming as I am to your Missionaries.
Anonymous | 12:46 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Ricky,

Why wouldn't younger Jewish generations know whose ancestors were in the Holocaust? Please explain yourself.
Abominous | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
In the great Abominous church, we baptize the phone book to extend our Abominous blessings to everyone listed therein.

If you're listed in any of the Salt Lake area phone books, you're already an Abominator. Congratulations!

Utah county is next, then we'll be moving North to Davis and Cache counties. I hope you newly baptized Abominators don't mind. After all, we baptized you out of love.
Anonymous | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
This just isn't ever going to go away - is it?
Anonymous | 12:52 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I guess the "Lost tribe of Israel" thinks it can do whatever it wants with or without anybody's permission.

Kind of like today's neoconservative movement.
benjamin hyam | 12:53 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
This is certainly good news. Why should Jews continue to be discrimated against regarding temple work. Promises have been made that should not be made or kept. Leave this issue alone. There is no way this group could be satisfied in any case. I am LDS of Jewish descent. I have done temple work for over 3000 of my ancestors, and yes some of these are Dutch. Some of the Dutch by name are Groomsfeldt, Hamburger and Hamilberg. It grieves me to see 200,000 Jewish names removed from the database. While this does not cancel the work, it makes it difficult for Jewish geneologists. I hope this is the end of this whole farce. Advise to the Church : Leave it Alone.
J W Goethe | 12:55 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
On the one hand, I can understand why Jews object to the LDS practice of proxy baptisms for the dead. However, it is purely an emotional response, and not based on anything rational.

On the other hand, if people have a choice whether to accept or reject a baptism performed on their behalf in the afterlife, or if the descendants of the dead person believe the whole thing is meaningless and pointless, I really don't understand why it should be a problem.

The Church doesn't identify Holocaust victims whose names are submitted for temple work. If a descendant of a victim joins the Church and wants to submit their name for temple work, should we really expect the Church to refuse to do it?
Carol | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
If we are right, then it increases there chances for a greater heavenly reward. If we are wrong, what could it possibly matter...they are dead.
CiCi | 1:05 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Collecting souls? I thought that was the Lords job!
Respect them and leave them alone! You can't change their religion after they are gone! Ambulance chasers, good grief!
Anonymous | 1:04 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
who cares? It is children fighting children over superstitions.

Since none of it is valid. I don't care.
hev | 1:06 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Dear Brother Otterson:

Please just admit there has been a faux pas somewhere along the line, where some of the over-zealous and faithful family historians have entered more Jewish names since the agreement. Have the names taken off and know that when the Millenium occurs all will be taken care of then.

Let's show respect for the Jewish point of view in spite of their anger. That is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is: loving unconditionally. :)

Reality | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
The reality of the situation is that although the LDS Church itself has stipulated that Holocaust names not be submitted for temple ordinances, individual members seem to be unaware of or disregarding that stipulation. Since individual members can submit names for ordinance work, it's a challenging task to police every submission.

If you believe, as I do, that these ordinances are essential for all God's children, then you also recognize the beauty of His plan to assure that those who lived and died on the earth when they were not available now have the opportunity to accept the ordinances (or not) done on their behalf in modern-day temples. It is a massive task, however, when you consider the hundreds of millions who've lived on the earth and the relatively small number doing the work. Managing the resulting database has been an ongoing challenge for the church. Preventing submissions of a particular group such as this is one difficulty. The most frustrating to me, however, is the inability to prevent the work being done multiple times for the same individual�that is time and effort better spent on those whose ordinance work remains undone.

Eventually the issues will be resolved�patience!
Anonymous | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I have a difficult time wondering why the Jews care. The people are dead and if they don't want to accept the baptism done for them by the living, they don't have to. Just because a baptism is performed for them doesn't mean they have automatically become LDS. They still have to accept the baptism. The Jewish people need to stop worrying about it and move on. Unless they are concerned about their people having a choice in choosing to accept the baptism and don't want them to have any say in how they spend their time in eternity, I don't understand whey they are making such a fuss. Surely there are other things to be more concerned about.
bilbo | 1:12 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Come on, does a RELIGION own the soul and afterlife of members?
It appears no one has proprietary responsibilities to the souls of anyone, except what we believe to be a valid practice: Baptism of the Dead.
This practice affects in no way the decisions made here and in the afterlife by any individual these rites involve. If it is valid, then all win. If it is not valid, then there is no harm.
A bit possessive here, it seems.
Waste of time | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Why are the Jewish people wasting so much time on this issue? Baptisms for dead people that have been dead for 60+ years. They'd be better off devoting that same time to peace efforts in the Middle East that would start saving Jewish and other lives today.
Just Curious | 1:16 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Who elected these Jews speaking out against baptism to be the spokesmen for the Jews who died during the Holocaust?

How do you know they wouldn't want this done for them?

If the LDS church is right, they can reject this if they are wrong, it still won't have any effect.

If the LDS church is right and some of them want this work done, who elected or appointed you to deny them this?

Why I ask who?
KittyCat | 1:18 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
"The Church" is not the only doer of genealogy within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members submit family names as well and have every right to submit their Jewish ancestors, Holocaust victims or not, to have their temple work done. I can't imagine what is so offensive about it and completely agree with Ricky and Dallas. Anyone who wants to help me with my salvation, please step forward!
Ricky | 1:18 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Dear "Disturbing trend," the Church formally honored and kept its word since 1995 with the Jewish leaders. Be careful not to jump into conclusions that those names that appeared again may have been performed by their own direct LDS descendants this time. This is an authorized measure between the LDS church and Jewish parties. Some people who performed proxy baptisms not related to their ancestors may not be aware about the standing policy for those not related to them. There may be some "rogue" genealogists who know and purposely violate this policy but never sanctioned by the LDS Church. Recently there's a new system soon in effect that will track each member who submits the names and if questions or red flags are raised, this person can be easily located and then counseled not to use names not related to their families.
To Ricky | 1:18 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
the point here isn't how you feel about it, the point is how the Jewish community feels about it. The bottom line is they don't practice your religion, they have a different culture and attitudes, and different beliefs and the vast majority of the holocaust victims don't have LDS descendants. It is offensive to the Jewish community regardless of your beliefs. Your own leaders have acknowledged this and promised to discontinue the practice based on the fact that the Jewish community is offended. At issue here is honoring promises made and keeping those promises. Unless you've received personal direction from your leaders saying it's ok to speak up and tell the world and Jewish community how it's not a big deal to baptize holocaust victims you might consider expressing regret that you recognize they've been offended one more time since this agreement was put into place. I doubt you would be so happy if your own relatives names were used in satanic rituals or baptized for the dead into some hostile anti-mormon religion? Just because you feel it's a good thing doesn't mean they do.
Chris D. | 1:19 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
While I don't get it why the Jews are concerned about this-if we said we wouldn't anymore, we should probably stop.

Or, if we've changed our mind, then we should say that. I think we have a right to baptize anybody who has died. It's a name, that's it. The public record of my name can be uttered by anyone.

No Soup for us, I guess.

Chris D.
Freedom of Religion | 1:24 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Jews would do well to remember the concept of freedom of religion. Seems like they don't want those in the afterlife to have the freedom to choose.

Might I suggest if you don't want to do something, then you should make that decision for yourself, and stop trying to impose your will on others.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Why don't the LDS beef up their numbers the legitimate way? By converting their brothers (non-lost tribes of Israel) instead of baptizing dead people without the permission of the family members?
on second thought | 1:27 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
i dont live in utah and i must say after all the recent press on prop 8 and this baptism thing -- i wouldn't mind if we went back to being 49 states, one star less on the flag and no one will notice, you all could go back to doing your own thing and leave the rest of the country at peace.
Red | 1:30 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
If Jewish watchdog organizations have no difficulty identifying Holocaust names, the LDS genealogical/temple theocracy should be able to do it just as easily.

Genealogy/temple "paper"work is actually digital today. How hard would it be to have an automatic pre-screen that would kick out suspect names for closer inspection? Part of "Temple Ready," maybe?

A holocaust name may actually belong to someone else and shouldn't be automatically dumped. Just ask the Jim Smith Society!

Also, it's OK by LDS rules to submit holocaust names, if those names actually represent a direct ancestor. Actual descendants of holocaust victims shouldn't be denied the right to honor their direct ancestors.

One final thought: the practice of periodically removing Hitler, Stalin, holocaust victims, and suchlike from the IGI doesn't have any real effect according to LDS theology. AFAIK there's no way to actually "un-baptize" a dead person. Proxy excommunication, maybe?
re: respect? | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I agree with your sentiments, but I don't see it as an "easy proposition" to flag 6 million names as ineligible.
To Anonymous at 12pm | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
"you have no idea how the idea of Baptism hurts Jews." Perhaps I am callous then. Explain it to me. Are Jews being persecuted by this? While there have been some legitimate scatterings, gatherings, re-scatterings, wars and persecutions, are you saying that performing a baptism rite in the name of a deceased Jew creates some type of unfathomable pain for their descendants? I thought Jews were much more practical and realistic than that. I think the Jewish people as a nation have been through far worse than to have to worry about the recitation of a prayer that includes their great-grandparent's name. Feelings hurt? Perhaps, but without cause. I also don't see the Mormons indicating their feelings have been hurt through the multiple forced migrations of their ancestors, or asking for their original land be returned back in Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois.
Does it hurt you | 1:33 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Do people think this is really a threat to baptise (by proxy) for those who have passed on. They have their free agency on the otherside also, to accept it or not. Personally I know they are asking for their work to be done, there are some of those who know more than some of us here know. Just wondering why it bothers people so much. You get a two for one, their work done and a connection made through geneology to your ancestors wow!, that is amazing. And you really don't have to feel a thing. It is a painless gift the one who has passed on gets, if they want it, when it is offered to them. Doesn't hurt you at all. I would love to hear if it does hurt you in anyway.
Oh Brother | 1:34 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
I guess the world is not that bad off, if we can worry about such things as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Your life must be worry free | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
Go ahead and baptise me, just don't start withdrawing from my bank account and have tithing automatically withdrawn.

Whew are there not more serious problems to worry about?
Henry Drummond | 1:39 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
The Church has been aided by many organizations in building its database of names. Some of those organizations have insisted that the names they provide not be used in Mormon religious rituals. The Church has agreed. I think what is missing in this article is a reply to the accusation that the agreement has not been lived up to. If it hasn't been lived up to was it on purpose or inadvertent? I suspect the later. So much of this is being done with databases meshing untold millions of records.
Re: Confused | 1:44 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
The problem here is that the Jews want the LDS Church to stop ALL proxy baptisms of Jews, even if the names are submitted by living relatives who are members of the Church.

In the past, persons had submitted the names of Holocaust victims or Jews they were not related to for baptismal work. By previous agreement, the Church removed these names from the records.

However, there are members of the Church who are related to these persons and they re-submit the names as part of their genealology. The Jewish group in the article wants this practice to stop as well.

In effect, they wish to prevent these people from practicing their religion.
How does anyone know? | 1:44 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008
How does anyone know what the Jews who died in the halocause really want?

If not, how can anyone speak for them?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Image

Elder Lance B. Wickman of the First Quorum of the Seventy with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talks about the 1995 agreement not to submit list of names of Jewish holocaust victims to the practice of baptism for the dead.

previousnext

Latest comments

Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers

It will be good to hear "real play by play or even as analyst with Joel...

i hope hot rod gets confused while doing the play by play and thinks he's...

The BCS bowl team match-ups aren't what you think. First, yes the top two...

Even Ed Gein was found competant to stand trial.

BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall

So Bronco's okay with the churches "standard bearers" spewing hatred. Wierd....

Non-BCS schools not given fair shot

By putting TCU & Boise together that means that the other 3 BCS games will...

Ticky... Tacky...

High school girls soccer: All-region

The DNews requests the lists from the region coaches. Ask your coaches why...

Flash apologize, offer refund

This story brings back memories of an Ogden base ball team, who promiced if a...

GO UTES!!!

Advertisements