Talk:Baptism for the dead/Archive 1

August 19th Changes

I stumbled across this page and was more than slightly unhappy with its current state, so made a few changes:

Overall, I removed many of the POV type things (so much negativity in this article!), corrected the improper use of "mormon" (its a slang term... encyclopedias don't generally use slang terms in their entries...), and reworded several portions so that in the future, when "2002" is no longer "recently", the article will still be relevant.

I added several other current religions that practice baptism for the dead, but attempted to make it clear that this article deals exclusively (at least at the moment) with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also added in that baptisms for the dead must be performed in a temple by an endowed Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

I added in a few short paragraphs saying that historical documents DO in fact show that baptism for the dead isn't some strange new invention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but rather that is was practiced by many Christian groups for several centuries.

On to the "opponents":

The Christian opposition didn't need much tweaking. I changed it to "No other major Christian denomination..." from "No other Christian denomination..." because there are several Christian groups that practice baptism for the dead. It is just plain false to state otherwise. Also slightly modified the second paragraph in that section, because it sounded funny.

The Jewish opposition section was just plain silly. It made the Church sound like some omninious force that did whatever it wanted regardless of its agreements with others, and only changes its mind when public pressure is placed on it. Thats just bogus and doesn't belong in an article that is supposed to be NPOV. So I went through and fixed the spelling errors, changed the references to the Church and its members to reflect standard styles, added in dates instead of "recently", and softened the references to the Church to a more, IMHO, NPOV view.

The third paragraph of the Jewish opposition was just plain deceptive. I changed the first part of the first sentence to "In December 2002, independent research Helen Radkey...". The date is important, as that was practically a year ago. The "independent" part is important, because independent researchers commonly exaggerate their claims and so they should be taken with "a grain of salt" as the saying goes. I also changed the "promise...seems to have been broken" to the "promise...was not sufficient". The promise wasn't broken. The Church promised to remove 400,000 names from its index and it did, but the fact that other names are still in there show that the promise wasn't enough to satisfy independent researchers. I changed "over 20,000 Jewish Nazi victims" to "about 19,000 who had a 40 to 50 percent chance of having 'the potential to be Holocaust victims...in Russia, Poland, France, and Austria.'" That is a significant difference (about 10,000 people). I think it is reasonable to go with the lower estimate (since a nice rounded 20,000 sounds a bit strange) and the 40 to 50 percent clause is EXTREMELY important in showing that the Church shouldn't have to remove a name just because there is a 50/50 change that it was a Jewish holocaust victim. If the researcher doesn't know for sure that it was a holocaust victim, then obviously no Latter-day Saint is going to know if it was or not.

I did add in a quote, but then realized that it was already stated a few paragraphs up so removed it.

Cleaned up the references and external links a bit. Again, the word "recent" isn't really appropriate in most cases in an encyclopedia entry. How old is "recent"? When does "recent" become "old"? Who goes through and changes the "recent"'s to "old"'s? Also added in the title of the article to assist people in their research.

Anyways, these comments probably sound rude but quite frankly I was offended by the misleading and intentionally defaming statements made in this article. — Zulugrid 02:50, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Rude? Anything you can do to make an article more NPOV and dateless, the better. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

12th December 2003

Deletions: The Coptic church does not practise "baptism of the dead", hence i deleted this reference. A short search on Google will show that all references to such a practice are LDS sources, but none by the Coptic church themselves. Even Tvedtness article linked at the bottom of the page shows clearly that he has only hearsay on this practice.(one of the first footnotes)

Deletion : Unification Church : This is not a christian church at all, hence it is somewhat spurious to use it as evidence of a more general Christian consensus on this matter.

Tvetdness, described in the last addition as a Christian scholar is in fact a teacher at Brigham Young university, member of the LDS church and appears to act as an apologist for the LDS church. Use of this quote is obviously ok, but it should be attributed correctly.

General alterations : I am aware that the LDS church sees itself as "christian" but this is a perception not shared by any major Christian denomination. Hence I changed various places to make this clearer.

I do not try to be controversial but I feel these are important points. The LDS view on teh matter is clear , but it is disingenious to minimise the general Christian opposition to this practice.

refdoc 17:21 GMT Friday 12th December 2003

I do believe that there is enough evidence that the practice existed during the second century, aside from Tvetdness. Griggs and others have shown that it was practiced (I'll try to gather references later). I agree that I don't believe it is practiced by anyone today, outside of the LDS Church, but I am unsure. I also appreciate your edits to this article.

However, I disagree that no other Christian Church sees Mormons as Christians. If that is the case, why are they accepted into various Christian Coalitions etc, when then won't allow Jews, Rastafarians or others in? I know it's not the right forum to debate this, but be careful in over-generalizations, unless you've taken a poll and determined that 100 percent of people agree. When you have other Christian congregations (Southern Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc) in Salt Lake protesting and defending fellow christians (the LDS Church) against the actions of those who descecrated sacred mormon items (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/4805-Pastors_condemn_preachers__acts.html). That to me says that at least some who disagree with LDS viewpoints, still accept that the LDS are Christian. Anyway, this particular point should probably be discussed at the Controversies page. I also am curious about your bias in regard to the Unification Church. Visorstuff 23:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

WRT to baptism of the dead - the only Christian references I found was wrt baptism of corpses of recently deceased, who were in preparation of baptism. The practice is heterodox and but apart from this appears quite different to anything described in the article as being LDS beliefs. So the parallels are teneous to say the least.

I would hope that Christians will always stand up for other people when they are attacked. Currently the strontgest support fro French Muslims wrt the head scarf ban in French schools comes from Christian churhces. This has no bearing on whether Christians agree with Muslims in matters of faith etc, but simply a defence of other people who are under attack. Aprta from this I am no American and have no clue what is going on in Salt Lake City.

WRT the Unification Chuirch - Rev Moon sees Christ as a failure and himself as surpassing Christ, hence he has probably put himself firmly outwith common Christian roots. The Unification Church has a syncretistic approach, mixing various strands and forming their own ideology/faith based on this.

refdoc 00:57 13/12/03

Here's some additional resources (most not Mormon) about Baptism for the Dead aside from the Tvedtnes article (which can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc23.html): http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1150, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/htm/iii.ix.xiii.htm, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r001.html, http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.com/biblestudies/baptism4thedead.htm, http://www.nccg.org/FAQ116-BapDead.html, http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/temples/Baptism_Ancient_EOM.htm, and a very good resource from a Mormon perpectiv that shows some additional sources: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml, And a source that is skeptical: http://groups.msn.com/ISEE2020/baptismforthedead.msnw.

It definately was believed to be practiced in proxy for the dead among the Marcionites, and others. "Tertullian believed that Paul referred to a custom of vicarious baptism (Res., 48c; Adv. Marc., 5.10). There is evidence that the early church knew such a practice. Epiphanius mentions a tradition that the custom obtained among the Cerinthians (Haer., 28 6). And Chrysostom states that it prevailed among the Marcionites. (from searchgodsword.org)" I guess I should add in the above quote into the article.

Hope this helps. Visorstuff 00:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed the links and what becomes obvious is that the Marcionites existed, that they practised baptism for the dead, that they also denied the ressurection and that they were at the time already considered as heretical. Rees has the most "charitable" view that Paul maybe accepted it as a result of being himself still a child of his times, while the rest of the Christian quotes you gave just shows what appears obvious to me anyway - Paul ridicules the local (splinter-) groups who do not belief in ressurection but baptise for the dead. Paul has used in various other places similar ways of argueing - showing people how ridiculous their beliefs are by thinking them through at absurdum (here ridiculous wrt to ressurection of the dead!)

Be that as it may, I do not think that mutual evangelism is what this encyclpaedia is about - hence I suggest following approach - we edit the pages and make clear where things come from. This way everyone is able to follow through the POVs and come to his own. I will do this now. Tell me what you think of the result.

refdoc 11:19 13/12/03

"Ridiculous?" I cannot believe you came to that conclusion (especially with the jefflindsay extra resources and searchgodsword references). I would encourage you to read the original source texts that are mentioned, which you obviously haven't. You cannon claim (not can anyone else) to know exacly what Paul meant by saying what he said in your edit. You are not Paul, therefore you don't know if he was condeming the practice or not. Yes, many protestants see this as heretical. So do many Catholics. Others see it as heretical, yet similar to the doctrines accosiated with purgatory. You draw to many conclusions on your own, that are not possible to draw without being present at the time Paul and others wrote.

Comments to other edits: Not all Christians believe in Faith Alone. Clarified to relflect protestants. Mormons do not believe in salvation by works either. Also, Duke univerity professor I spoke to with, agreed that early Christians, although heretical or coptic, may have practiced Baptism for the dead and similar forms of what he called "ancestor worship." So my point is, not every Christian dismisses the practice as easily as you. I've removed that part of the sentence to reflect that change.

I agree that this is not about evangelism, and I am not trying to push Mormonism, however, you obviously have never written an objective historical paper, as you draw too many conclusions, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.

BTW - Your beliefs about Moonies is not what my Unification Church friends nor their doctrine beleive. Perhaps a reading on them would be good too. I'm not trying to attack you, just try to be more NPOV in your conclusions before posting, and be careful of absolutes (all Christians, everyone), unless you've spoken to everyone (try many of most to stay NPOV).

Happy editing and thanks for posting. You have some other good points that round out the article more NPOV. Visorstuff 15:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

"The practice of Baptism for the Dead appears to abrogate this, although the LDS Church does not believe in salvation by works alone." This is a bit of a non sequitur as the question was not whether "by works alone" or otherwise. I am struggling though how to change this. The point is here whether the works of others can cause salvation, in particular for the dead. You will probably see a sudden change in a couple of days when inspiration strikes.

WRT to Duke university professors - leave them out, will you ? Either quoted and with sources or not at all. Also I am on the other side of the globe, where American universities are relatively irrelevant (or completely unknown) I guess it would be the same for you if I told what my Krakowian uni prof thought differently than yours. Not that I am in Krakow either - but you get my drift.

Ok I'll go back to the actual text. Listen, this is great fun and I do not mean nasty when I edit. You get this, do you ?

refdoc 18:02 13/12/03

Right I did siome more editing. I cut and changed again, but took your references into this bit so that you can re-utilise them. The problem is not "faith vs works", but salvation by interference of others and abrogation of personal responsibility. ( I have formaulated this overly striong, to emphasise my point.

Your references . , "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

refdoc 18:02 13/12/03

I hope you don't think i'm attacking either - i just have the tendancy to be a bit blunt in my comments - and very protective of the use of Absolutes. If you are not a Mormon or Moonie, it is hard to know exactly what they mean by certain things. My apologies if it comes off harsh. According to Mormonism, the works of others do not "cause their salvation" as you put it. Mormons do not believe they change the dead's salvation status or rob their agency, but allow for them to have access to an ordinance that they believe is required for Salvation. The dead are more than welcome to accept of reject the ordinance after it has been completed for them. This places the personal responsibilites back to the indivdual (D&C 124 gives more info on this), who can accept the gospel or reject it. Is it this practice controversial? Yes. But I personally think that Mother Teresa's practice of baptising people on their deathbed without their knowledge is as controversial, if not more so. At least in Mormon's case they try to get permission from surviving family members if there are any.

The reason I referenced my conversation with a Duke professor is that the univeristy is considered in many early Christian Scholarly circles at the world-wide pre-eminent univeristy in early Christian history and New Testament studies. I did not attend Duke, and as a friend I didn't think his name needs to be attached to such a simple point. I did not reference him in the article, just here on the talk page to illustrate a point. I don't reference the Krakowian univerity as they definately don't hold the same status amoung Worldwide Christian scholars.

I think you were wise to remove the links I included. Keep up the good work! Visorstuff 17:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I applaud any attempts Mormons make to get permission from surviving family members, they seem to be inconsistent in this regard. Both the older scandal of baptizing holocaust victims, and the current scandal in which they seem to be targeting deceased Russian Orthodox Christians en masse, demonstrate this. To address a similar but related point, if Mormon baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, I hope this is included in the article (sorry I don't have time at the moment to verify.) Wesley 18:00, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's too bad the reporters in the articles you referenced do not understand the process and policies of the church and is inaccurately portraying policies. The permission is required, but unfortunately, some church members find a way around this policy. It is an unfortunate situation. For the most part, people do temple work for their own or other's relatives, not for groups of records "en masse," as you understood from the article. The LDS Church spends millions of dollars preserving records for eventual temple work and genealogy, but Church members must find and submit them for their own family, etc. Visorstuff 18:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Requiem etc

WRT to requiem mass and prayer for the dead ythis is as far as I can see the only place where mainstream Christian churches will make any attempts at "interfering" with the fate of those already dead. Hence my referenceRefdoc 17:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

February 2004

I removed this from the opposition section (paragraph about personal responsibility for salvation) because it is not NPOV, it doesn't fit, and it is not a complete logical thought in complement to the paragraph it resides in.

however in the Latter-day Saint view, personal responsibility to accept of reject the ordinance still resides with the deceased individual.

I am LDS (see my profile) and a fervent believer. The most honest LDS philosophy on this matter is that LDS have to acknowledge that this paragraph has a good point. We DO give talks in church saying our ancestors are waiting on us. In LDS doctrine, since it is NOT the deceased's responsibility to perform the ordinance, how can we say the subject paragraph doesn't make sense? Hawstom 16:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Young men must hold the priesthood. (Huh?)

Please explain the term... Demf 00:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made several changes in the hopes of making the article more easily understood. A link is now in place for those who wish to do further reading on the priesthood within the LDS church.

In the Church of Jesus Christ, when a young man achieves the age of 12 he is usually ordained to the priesthood. There are no paid clergy within the church and all men typcially are ordained. There a many priesthood offices: Deacon, Teacher, Priest for the young men between the ages of 12 and 18 and then Elder and High Priest for adult men. Hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

August 6th, 2006

Added links to and quotes from an official church news release about the Holocaust controversy. Anon 70.19.43.64

Edited references for deceased people "being baptized". This is incorrect language. A living person is baptized "for and in behalf" of a deceased person. It is "baptism for the dead" not "baptism of the dead". Anon 70.19.43.64

No, it's non-Mormon language. Let the Jews speak for themselves: the Mormons can decide the terminology when they are speaking. - Juden 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But 1) This is NPOV. It's not the Jews or the Mormons' speaking. I say think we have to go with the words of the ceremony. 2) we are talking about what the Mormons are -doing-. I'm referring to the -actual words of the ordinance- performed, and what the official doctrine is called. Jews have every right to be offended, but they have to be offended by what -Mormons are actually doing. Anon 70.19.43.64

NPOV means attributed: the Jews are entitled to say what offends them in their own terms, and the Jews perceive that their ancestors are being baptised. But I can see our anonymous friend will only permit Mormon terminology to be used. It's a shame, really, but it's the usual way of treating Jews. At least I've corrected the removal of Hitler and his friends from the article. - Juden 02:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with saying that the "Jews are greatly offended, as they perceive that Hitler and their ancestors were baptized", as opposed to "Jews are greatly offended that Hitler and their ancestors were baptized". The first statement sounds totally accurate to me.

Though I'm not sure that most Jews are offended by this point -- in the articles I've read, it's not that the same ordinances are being performed as with Hitler -- it's the fact they are being performed at all. So, I think it's a stretch to include Hitler, and seems rather spiteful -- but note that I did NOT edit it out. USER:MRS

Thanks for "permitting" the mention of Hitler, that was very Christian of you. - Juden 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to edit my above comment (it was a bit harsh) to:

"Though I'm not sure that most Jews are offended by this point -- in the articles I've read, it's not that the same ordinances are being performed as with Hitler -- it's the fact they are being performed at all. So, I think it's a stretch to include Hitler." - MRS 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous user has a valid point -- proxy ordinances were performed for Hitler. However, since it doesn't relate directly the discussion that it's in (i.e., that Jews were offended that fellow Jews were being treated insensitively by having Mormon rites peformed on their behalf), it seems to be an attempt to associate the church with neo-Nazism by insinuation. This was almost certainly not the intention of the previous user, but I think it would be a reasonable reaction from a random viewer. I leave it for a more neutral user to change things as they will. MRS

I think you'll find that most Jews object to having their ancestors enrolled in a church that actively (and repeatedly) extends the benefits of its sacraments to Hitler after and in full knowledge of his having perpetrated the Holocaust. They would prefer that such a church keep its hands off their ancestors. - Juden 03:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not a very robust verification process to match names coming in -- it's done in an automated manner, and even if there is a match with a previous name, a user of the family history network can override and say, no, it's actually a different person. It's a big problem -- many people have had proxy baptisms performed for them dozens of times. It's definitely something that needs to be fixed, but it is different to attribute this to intentional malice when it's most likely a poor record keeping system (I know, I have to teach people how to use it -- ugh.) Pretty excruciatingly poor judgement on the two or three people who submitted Hitler's name, though -- I have no clue what they were thinking.

Incidentally, the church believes that all people who lived on earth will eventually be extended an opportunity to receive this sacrament, to be accepted or rejected -- no matter how bad they are, as it will be God's judgement, not ours. The majority of these ordinances will not happen, LDS church members believe, until after Christ's coming. At this point, that group would include any Holocaust victims. So if you don't believe in Christ coming back to Earth, then you have only to worry about inept record keeping for having Holocaust survivors have ordinances performed on their behalf. There certainly has been a lot of inept record keeping, however. :( MRS

Of what value are ordinances for fictitious people? Of what value are ordinances given on the basis of improper, ineptly kept, and inaccurate records? If TempleReady can't screen out Hitler, how can it hope to get other things right? And if God will offer the benefits anyway, why persist in angering those who resent your appropriation of their ancestors? When they see God do it, they'll ask God for an explanation. In the meantime, it's you doing it, you're the one who has to answer for it. - Juden 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I will add my two cents. It has always surprised me that anyone would be offended by a sacrament such as Baptism for the Dead. First, if one does not believe in the religion, is there any effect by the sacrament being performed? Heck no; it is completely meaningless. Two, does it take away from the cultural or religious heritage of the individual who is dead? As far as I can tell they are still who they were. For a Jew, they are still the dust to which they returned.

So who has actually been harmed? That's right, people who have nothing to do with the deceased...the living who have become hypersensitive. The deceased isn't talking to anyone, there is no ongoing relationship; they are turning to dust or actual dust. Does the deceased person become a Mormon? Get real. If one believes one still would have to admit there are no Mormons in heaven; nor are there Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, atheists or any other "ists". There would only be children of God belonging to the Kingdom of God. If one is not a believer, it is a total farce.

I know my statements are not politically correct, but I still find it comical. The vast majority of the "hurt" feelings come from a total lack of understanding of the sacrament being performed. Absolutely nothing has happened that is absolute. LDS believe a baptism has been performed that the deceased may reject or accept. If the deceased rejects the baptism, it would be as if the baptism was never done. If they accept the baptism, it would have been their choice. So why get your panties in a wad?

Humans seem to have an incessant need to gripe, complain, and seek offense where none was intended or given. Oh, that's right! In today's politically correct world we have to acknowledge that if one "feels" offended then we need to beat the offender senseless even if they never intended offense. Lesson: wear your feelings on your sleeve and then scream anytime anyone gets close to stepping on our hypersensitive sense of entitlement and the world will bow to our petty sense of self. Now I will step down off my soapbox. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your response mirrors that of your church: if the Jews don't like it, it's their fault ("Regrettably over the years, some Jews have taken exception to the practice"). Which (along with the "it's not our fault if we baptize Hitler" response (an example appears on this page) and the "I'm unable to comprehend why the Jews don't appreciate the great favor we are doing them" and the "according to our theology, God will do it anyway even if we didn't, so we'll continue, even though it's superfluous" and "we don't think we're being obnoxious appropriating your ancestors" responses is why there is not going to be a satisfactory resolution to the problem. The idea that the "Jews who object" do so because they "don't understand" what you're doing is both untrue and obnoxious. - Juden 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Juden, I am quite comfortable exchanging verbal jousts; mostly because I think your arguments are simple examples of "I am a victim and nobody loves me" and really are not difficult; but, then the article would not be improved. For my part, my babblings were a personal soap box.

I don't see any fault by any side of the issue. I do see where the LDS church has said they will do our best to ensure no Jews that are not the direct ancestors of members will have proxy work done for them. So your facetious wine that Mormons will do it anyway is without merit and more the words of a troll then an interested party wanting to right a wrong.

They have admitted they are imperfect and errors will happen and probably should be expected. If those outside of the church expect perfection, they will be disappointed. However, if they continue to expect perfection I would say, "Look in a mirror. If you see perfection there, then you can expect perfection from everyone else." If you continue to expect perfection, welcome to a life of disappointment and frustration. It might also be helpful to learn from my Orthodox Jewish friends and ignore what you can not change….they are happy people.

No one is appropriating your ancestors. Have you any evidence that your specific ancestors have had "work" done for them? How have they been appropriated? If not, let's not attempt to claim something that is not yours. It either demeans the dignity of the dead or is an attempt to aggrandize your own life.

Your very complaint is evidence enough of your lack of understanding and a desire to take offense. Worse, you still have not answered any questions posed, what is the harm? If it is a false religion anyway, these ordinances have no affect. They would be done behind closed doors out of the way of the public where no one knows about it. Who in the heck cares?

Now this bit about Hitler. I wish I could say that my heart was full of love for my fellow man and that I could have been big enough to condone such an action. However, I am not and I don’t. I understand it, but he was a man that did grossly evil things. He is not my relative, but had he been my relative I still think I would have delayed his work until the millennium. Our job is to act in a manner that is in accord to the teachings of Christ and let God judge the heart of man. The fact that the work was done, (if it was done at all the only evidence I have seen is that on an anti-Mormon site (not the most reputable source when their agenda is so flagrant), does not entitle any person any merit in the afterlife unless they are willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah. It does not remove guilt or sin.

In closing, this type of debate is something I need to forgo. I need to learn to just let it go when someone is being so obnoxious and demonstratively ignorant. However, by my very participation it is obvious I have a long way to go before my actions are in line with those taught by the gospel. If you feel the need to respond, write it on my talk page. I probably will not respond unless the conversation moves beyond whining to an actual intelligent exchange of ideas on both our parts. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Trooper oops, Rider, for the kind invitation to respond to your insults on your talk page, but I think I'll decline. - Juden 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much; your ilk tends to find blathering in front of people too tempting to pass up. However, this will unfortunately be my last response to your pitiful attempt at defending your position. When logic and intelligence fails; always attack the person. Yup, I got your number. Best of luck in your editing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, for your hearty good wishes, and for demonstrating my point with what is, I am sure, certain not to be your last insult. - Juden 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Schisms?

Which schism branches of the LDS church currently practice Baptism for the Dead? I was under the impression that only the LDS church still performs the ordnance.JBPostma 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo of a temple baptism font

{{reqphotoin|Utah}}

Being in Utah isn't going to be helpful for this. Cameras aren't allowed in temples, even during open houses, except official photographers. The only photos you'll be able to find will be ones taken by official photographers. To get a photo for Wikipedia, you'll have to get permission for one of the official photographs. Val42 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Baptism for the dead or Baptism for the Dead?

Should dead be capitalized? If so, we should move this article to Baptism for the Dead. --Lethargy 01:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews reaction to baptisms and Juden's insistence for POV

The statement has changed, but it currently reads:

Many Jews are annoyed that proxy baptisms are performed for their own ancestors alongside those for Nazi luminaries such as Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.

This is a POV statement. Which Jews are annoyed? How do we know? When were they annoyed; in 1992, 1993, 1994, now? Maybe the sentence should read, "Juden, possibly a Jew, is annoyed that a Mormon had the termity to do to attempt whey they felt was a saving ordinance for the abomination known as Hitler and his wife."

Juden, I do not know your edit history or your experience level, but on WIKI we do not make broad statements, but rather we quote experts of the field. In fact, the statment you insist on entering is redundant. Just read the entire section and you already have statements, many still remain unreferenced and have been for some time, for the point you are trying to make. Your language adds nothing to the section, does not make it a better article. You have reverted twice already today. I will revert again because of the above information. I suggest if you have some reason for making such an redundant statement, please share it on the discussion page rather than reverting three times. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling the fact that Jews were annoyed by proxy baptisms for Hitler and their relatives a "POV" is ridiculous. You know it's true: stop using requests for citations in what will be your ultimately fruitless attempt to exclude Jewish sentiments. - Juden 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) By the way, calling the addition of citations-requested ones-a revert doesn't make it one. - Juden 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's get the history correct...You said that Jews were "annoyed" (that is hardly the appropirate word to describe the feelings, I am sure; galled is not any better. This is the kind of statements best left for the pages of polemic writers). That is the problem, WIKI is not a place to for individuals to vent their feelings. It is an encyclopedia. If you have read any of the background on this issue on the discussion page, you would already realize the position of Mormons and Jews alike. NOTHING of what I said above was intended to harm your feelings or those of any Jew, but it was a request for REFERENCES. Further, the statement is redundant. Please read the whole section and delete everything before it that says almost exactly the same thing that you want to say again. Repetition is the first sign of a weak mind and it is not acceptable writing.

Let me repeat myself so that you understand, I want to see an excellent article that addresses the concerns of Jews. Present the position in a concise manner and move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done so, and well before you ordered me to. There is no "venting" going on in the article: there is simple recognition of the actual reactions provoked by the actions of the church. And as long as we're "getting the history correct", what you've repeatedly tried to do is remove all mention that temple ordinances were performed for Hitler from the article. You haven't been removing "redundancies", you've been removing facts you find uncomfortable. - Juden 05:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you will agree that I have focused on the statements of Jews being galled or annoyed. In the preceeding paragraphs this point was already stated clearly. If you feel that it is important to note all the people have have had "saving" ordinances done who have also been murderers, liars, etc., I think you will find a very long list. I suspect that a fair number of truly repugnant people have had their "work" done. In fact, my great uncle killed the county doctor over a dispute between his brother, my grandfather, and granddad's date. Simple event, went outside to fight and my guncle stepped in and shot the man. He went to prison for murder, but only served a few years because of the circumstances. I had these saving ordinances done for him. I don't know if he accepted them, but I felt it important to do. I also recognize that this work does not remove or override the judgements of God. All it does, or is believed to do, is ensure that everyone's baptism is done. If they should accept the gospel in the afterlife, then the work is done. It may be legalistic viewpoint, but it is LDS doctrine. As a LDS I try not to put myself in a position of judging who is worthy of forgiveness or not. Would I have submitted Hitler's name? I don't think so, but then again he is not a relative and I am not in a position to choose. I don't think Jews are the only people who have been horribly abused in history. Maybe a compromise is writing a section about about the feelings of those who have been terribly abused knowing that Mormons might, or have done, this baptismal work on behalf of the abusers. I think that might be more appropriate for the article. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't agree that your edits were focused on "galled" or "annoyed", since what they actually did was remove all mention of Hitler from the article. Your church, of course, is perfectly free to welcome Hitler to its ranks, but really should not be surprised that that annoys Jews. And you are not free to exclude that Jewish reaction from this article. The NPOV policy ensures that you won't be able to. If you know of any groups similarly appalled by the church's baptisms that have been left out of the article, you should by all means add them. But the Jewish reaction is by far the most prominent one, and you shouldn't attempt to marginalize it by making it just one of many instead of what it is: the most significant and prominent reaction. - Juden 07:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not think of allowing the Jews to dislodge themselves from any degree of victimology. Nor would I ever think to disagree with your personal issues. I still think the paragraph is redundant given the preceeding paragraphs; however, if you think it puts you and all the Jews in a better light, please include everything to your hearts content. Of course, the result if an inferior product and a poorly written article. Also, NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with this petty issue. This issue surrounds redundant material. Just so we are clear, you do not represent all Jews, "Some" Jews are annoyed. Most could not care less what Mormons think, feel, or believe. This is your personal crusade to sensationalize. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You, of course, were the first to mention POV, so I can hardly be chastised for responding to you. And your edits demonstrate that it was not any supposed redundancy you were dealing with, but rather some uncomfortable facts you wished to exclude from the article. Let me point out that it is you, not I, who have claimed I am a Jew representing all Jews - on no basis other than the fact you don't like the article mentioning the Nazi baptisms. And no one would say "all Jews" think anything. I never have, and the article never has, so you are responding in this instance to your own internal stimuli, not external ones. Good luck in dealing with those issues. - Juden 17:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes: "They did not get baptized when they were alive and they had a choice, and doing so after they are dead is beyond the ethical bounds," and "They are also showing a tremendous insensitivity to the living." come right after the Hitler statement, which implies that these quotes are in response to the Hitler issue, when they are actually talking about Jews who have been baptized.[1] --Lethargy 20:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the prose to make the referrents clearer. - Juden 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a very brief look, but it looks better now. I'll chime in with more whining suggestions if I see any. --Lethargy 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer quote

Although the quote by Boyd K. Packer in the Holocaust victim controversy section is useful, isn't there a limit for how much we can quote before it becomes a copyright violation? --Lethargy 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Can we trim down the external links section, preferably by integrating their information into the article and using them as citations, assuming that they meet the reliabe sources guidelines. --Lethargy 14:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Would LDS members be upset if some other religion started baptizing active Mormons after their deaths, if the other religion said that they were the only true church ? Duke53 | ^Talk 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for all members, but IMO that wouldn't be offensive. In fact, there might be other denominations who do exactly that, I'm not sure. Of course, Latter-day Saints have been raised with these doctrines, so that probably isn't much of a surprise. --Lethargy 01:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is semi-related, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City said: "I don't take it has[sic] an insult to my faith in large part because I don't think it is meant as one," he said. "If there is not harm intended, why should I concoct harm?"[2] --Lethargy 02:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am told the hospital I was born in had a Catholic Priest who baptized me even though I was born LDS and continue to practice LDS. I have a good deal of fun telling my Catholic friends about that, and take no offense, even though this was done without my or my parent's permission. DOFUG 19:36, 18 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.179.101.133 (talk)

Separate article - Comments requested

Note: this section was originally posted as a subsection of #Jews reaction to baptisms and Juden's insistence for POV above. This was because I had added advice about how to improve what was being discussed above, and had stated that I would add more suggestions later. I did NOT mean to imply that this suggestion was part of that discussion. I don't know whether this caused any confusion or not, but I would have received the wrong impression myself, and thus I moved it. --Lethargy 01:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This section is getting long enough that we could probably create a separate article for it, with a summarized version here. Baptism for the dead controversy, Jewish Holocaust victim baptism controversy, or something like that would work. Comments? --Lethargy 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In general I think it's not a good idea to shunt information aside into less-trafficked articles in the hope it won't be seen. - Juden 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I thought the same thing when a section in another article was moved (mostly eliminated) in the name of cleaning up the article. We aren't supposed to notice this tactic? Hiding things doesn't change the truth, it just disguises it.Duke53 | ^Talk 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested removing the information, please read my comments again. We would leave a summarized version here (e.g. one without the lengthy Boyd K. Packer quote), with a separate article covering this in depth. And Duke, don't attack me for an experience you apparently had with another article and editor. --Lethargy 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that you suggested that. I said that in another related article, some editors 'cleaned' up a section by moving and greatly changing it. Don't you try to put words in my mouth, it won't work. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that could possibly not be taken to mean that you are accusing me of doing the same. Also keep in mind that I was also addressing Juden's comments when I said "I never suggested removing the information". --Lethargy 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Then that would be an odd reply indeed to Juden since he doesn't mention 'removing' anything; his concern was 'shunting information aside'. I was the one who mentioned 'eliminated' sections, in an entirely different (but 'associated') article. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"shunting aside" seems the same as removing to me, he also said "in the hope it won't be seen", which would definitely imply removal. But why are we arguing about what he said? If he has a problem with what I wrote, he can comment himself. --Lethargy 02:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing about what he said, I am stating what you said. Please don't use doubletalk; shunting aside does not remotely equal remove. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you shunt a person into another room hoping that another person will not notice them, you would be removing that person from the room, would you not? --Lethargy 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, partitioning off non-Mormon points of view degrades articles, and isn't supposed to be an acceptable practice here. One searches in vain, for example, for an enumeration of the women Joseph Smith married in his biography on Wikipedia, because it's been shunted off elsewhere...though the names of one's wives would be standard for any biography, and though much of the apologetics remained behind. So no, I do not think the article would be improved by carrying out your suggestion. - Juden 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lethargy, I would urge caution with Duke; he does not care to produce excellent articles, just ones that put his point of view forward. His behavior are those more closely resembling an internet troll with a major axe to grind. Look at this contributions and it is not hard to disguise his intent.

Your suggestion for a separate article that focuses completely on Juden issues has merit. The summary here should be complete enough to describe the utter contempt of the Jewish people for Mormon baptisms for the dead for all people including Adolph Hitler and his wife. We could possibly sensationalize the issue better by putting it in block quotes in bold letters. In doing so, Juden and Duke could not possibly then use the lame comment that those bad Mormons are trying to hide and "the truth". Juden and Duke, would that pacify you? Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making frivolous suggestions dripping with contempt for your fellow editors. It doesn't help in any way, and it's unbecoming to you. - Juden 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was serious and you are correct, it did contain contempt. It is also unbecoming of me; you are correct. However, your actions do not lend itself easily to cooperative engagement. You seem to have an axe to grind and insist upon overdoing it. The article has become unbalanced; thus the need for a separate article. I would think that this would be acceptable to you because two objectives are met; 1) You still get to highlight the contempt of the Jewish people for Mormon baptisms for the dead and 2) you still get to highlight some Mormons have a forgiving attitude (I am not one of them) and baptize people that have committed such atrocities in mortality that it is incomprehensible that God could be forgiving of them. Now, please leave off the personal diatribe and comment solely on the proposal. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already informed you that I find your proposal frivolous. I have no interest in trying to attain any of the goals you've misattributed to me, so of course your proposal also holds no interest for me. And if you'll notice, I've been leaving the diatribes to you. Including Jewish objections in no way unbalances the article: in fact, it helps balance it. That's the reason such objections belong here. Any action to exclude documented opinions from the article because you don't share them would be a violation of the NPOV policy, which is why we must consider your proposal a dead letter. If there was ever any question about the motivation behind the push for a separate article, you've clarified it nicely. Thanks for that. - Juden 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please never begin to imagine you have an understanding of another individual from reading their comments on WIKI. My esteem for the Jewish people and the Orthodox Judism and Chasadism is highly profound. My contempt is for your behavior and narrow POV. I suspect it is simply a sign of youth; or possibly intelligence poorly applied.

Interestingly, all of the other editors are not here to satisfy your specific whim and desires. As directed by the five pillars of WIKI; one must be bold. If you wish to continue to be obstructionist, of course you are free to do so. Mediation is always a first step. It can be a drawn out process, but one with which I am very comfortable. In fact, it might be the most appropriate course at the moment given your intransigence. It would be a learning experience for all of us and would certainly eventually yield a better article. Would you like to start the process or would you like me? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to misuse Wiki rules and procedures to try and get your way. Your threats of involving me in lengthy litigation are--once again--unbecoming. I've never expressed any opinion about your esteem or lack thereof for Jewish people, so please stop pretending I have. Please stop fantasizing about me (so far, according to you, I'm Jewish, young, speaking for all Jews, and misapplying my intelligence, all without any evidential basis). And failure to capitulate to your desires is not intransigence. - Juden 05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Juden, I notice that in your request for comment you said "...and any description of the posthumous baptisms of Adolf Hitler be included in this article, or placed in a separate one?"

I don't have a problem with mentioning baptisms done for Hitler, in fact I think we could probably expand it to include other people who would seem unworthy of baptism. As I have stated already, I do NOT want to remove anything important from this article, but the holocaust victim section is getting too long and therefore this article is becoming unbalanced. You also wrote "If there was ever any question about the motivation behind the push for a separate article, you've clarified it nicely. Thanks for that." Keep in mind that I was the one who suggested the separate article, so my opinions do not necessarily match those of Storm Rider. --Lethargy 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In my request, I was asking for further guidance on both your suggestion, and Storm Rider's repeated deletions. Don't worry, I won't confuse the two of you. - Juden 16:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the material should be a separate article. If there weren't a "baptism for the dead" article and the information lived on an "LDS beliefs" page or something, then it would be too much. But as long as there's a "baptism for the dead" article, then the article has room for this material. I came here because of the RfC, and I'm not watchlisting it. Jonathan Tweet 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong. This material belongs on Mormonism and Judaism, with only a summary here. It's more about Mormonism and Judaism than about baptism for the dead. Jonathan Tweet 21:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs right where it is. It's about Baptism of the Dead, not relations between Jews and Mormons. - 22:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the current article unbalanced?

The current article consists of 3,209 words. The Holocaust Victim controversy consists of 1,199 words or a full 37.4% of the article. The topic of the article is supposed to be Baptism for the dead; however the article has become unbalanced and is no longer focused on the topic, but a subtopic. Given the interest of several editors in the reactions and feelings of the Jewish people, and in particular their outrage that baptisms are done on behalf of the holocause victims, it is apparent that a a new article is the only way to do justice to this heretofore unrecognized important topic. Proposing a subarticle is not a "misuse of Wiki rules" as Juden has stated above, but is an appropriate action when a subtopic has grown so large as to overpower the purpose of the original article.

Given that Juden has already requested comments[3], I assume that his obstructionist behavior and threats will cease and we can proceed without further edit warring. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's been edit warring, you've been a participant. And it's very peculiar for you to label me as "obstructionist" as if it were true, and to claim I've made threats, which are non-existent. Do you really think that if you say something, others will simply believe it's true? The misuse of rules, by the way, was your threat to involve me in mediation as a first step. It's never a first step. And vexatious litigation as a way to wear down those who dare to oppose you is not what mediation is supposed to be. Proposing a POV fork of an article is not a misuse of Wiki rules, it's a violation of them. And your snide way of characterizing Jewish objections (a "heretofore unrecognized important topic") is noxious. Put your venom away, and wait for the outside opinions that have been requested. By the way, no editors have expressed outrage. That's another thing you're making up. What editors have done is suggest that we include the feelings of non-Mormons in the article, and it seems that that is what you really object to. But this is not an article on "what Mormons think about Baptism for the dead". It has to include both Mormon and non-Mormon viewpoints. The current article is not imbalanced. You just don't seem to recognize balance when you see it. - Juden 10:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The word count argument is more than a little specious. Of the 1197 words touching on the controversy, about half (601) are Mormon apologetic explanations for the baptisms. Couldn't be much fairer than that. - Juden 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New article name

Lethargy, the names you presented above would seem difficult to find for people searching. I suspect the vast majority of those who would read the article would be directed from this article, but for those few who have a specific objective we need a title more easily found by a search. I propose the following titles:

• Mormon baptisms for the dead and the Holocaust victim controversy
• Holocaust victim and Mormon baptism controversy
• Jews and Mormon baptism controversy

Let me know your thoughts. I am eager to begin an article that more compeltely focuses on this issue and expand the already lengthy comments to date that have unbalanced the current article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And I am eager to incorporate any material you feel is lacking from this article within this article. Point of view forking is not appropriate. I've posted a request for comments on this issue. - Juden 05:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't the naming conventions state that we should use Latter Day Saint instead of Mormon? Although in this case, the controversy is solely about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so perhaps we should use the hyphenated Latter-day instead, and use your proposals as redirects. --Lethargy 20:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of these titles just get so long. The objective is to have a title that is easily found should someone be searching for a specific subject. Graned, as stated above, I still think that few people know of this specific controversy and many people have heard of a "weird" practice of baptizing for the dead in the LDS church. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment

For non-Mormons (i.e., the vast majority of people) the controversy over the Holocaust victims is one of the most notable things about baptism for the dead. A.J.A. 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A., your comment has merit and we would like to account for it. We have stated that the subject should be addressed in this article in a summarized fashion with a full, complete, and total focus in its own article. The simple reason is that the article now is overweighted and does not address what Baptism for the dead, but rather the reactions of a single group. When we look at the size of Christian opposition section versus this the reaction of Jews it is easily apparent that this topic demands its own article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thus far it seems apparent that only editors especially sympathetic to the apologetic point of view think this material belongs elsewhere, and other editors do not. The article is not overweighted. A POV split would be inappropriate. - Juden 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So far there's not enough material for a separate article to be worth having. If there's any imbalance (which I'm not persuaded of), the article's short enough that it makes sense to just expand the other parts. A.J.A. 04:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A., I am not a proponent of redundancy. It has been said that redundancy is the sign of a weak mind. Excellent articles are/use concise descriptions, explanations, of the given topic. This article fails that test when it babbles on about this issue. It is almost as if an editors wants to sensationalize the issue. Juden is obstinate and refuses any compromise; it is his way or no way. You and I have seen that behavior before in editors; it is not unique, particularly with editors with as little experience as Juden on WIKI (his edit history begins August 6, 2006, which in itself is interesting. He almost only edits this single article; rather focused wouldn't you say?).

The same thing could be said in a different tone. For example, "Some Latter-day Saints have a degree of forgiveness that is very difficult to comprehend. Jews, upon discovering that a single Latter-day Saint performed a baptism by proxy for Adolf Hitler and his wife, were shocked and dismayed to an extreme. It is impossible for that anyone would have the termity to provide an ordinance of forgiveness to such a despicable human being as Adolf Hitler." NOTE I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS LANGUAGE, but it does put a different spin. What Juden has done is just repeated the same quality of phrases of the above paragraph. I do not think there should be an absence of lanaguage about baptisms being performed for Adolf Hitler and anyone else that fits his ilk, but I think the article is made less made the redundancies of focus given.

I am curious, A.J.A., I have always thought Jesus died for each and every human that ever lived. Who is so great in this life that they should sit in judgement about who should be forgiven or not. I am sorry to say that I personally would not have done the work for Hitler, but then again I am not his descendant or related to his extended family in any way. However, I can also say I would never stand in the way of anyone who desires to perform this ordinance on behalf of another.

The other thing that amazes me is that fact that a member of another religion would care what those crazy Mormons do in their temples. I am not aware of a member of another religion or even another Christian church who thinks what Mormons do has one iota of an impact on their belief, their standing before God, or anything else. It would be like me saying that because a Mufti in Iran says that I am condemned to hell I should be concerned. Who cares what the mufti says; it has no impact on me, my prayers, my belief, or the God of Israel and all mankind. If someone wants to be concerend, I view it as a personal issue. If someone wants to be offended, they will be offended regardless of my actions, thoughts, or words. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We are here to state how things are, not how Storm Rider wishes they were. Your personal belief that Jews shouldn't care whether Mormons baptize Holocaust survivors doesn't mean Jews don't care. We are here to report that fact, not to report that Storm Rider doesn't like the facts as they exist, or to edit Jewish sentiment to conform to Mormon sensibilities. - Juden 16:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Juden, stick to facts. It is my OPINION, not my beliefs, that I find it difficult for anyone to care about the beliefs, actions, voodoo, mythology, etc. of another individual or group. I do not lead my life, nor do I think it healthy for anyone else, by the dictates of the beliefs of others. This is simply a sad example of when some individuals let what others believe bother them. It says more about those individuals than it does Mormons, Muftis, or anyone else. That is opinion not belief. You are not stating facts, but sensationalizing them. It is the difference between reading The Financial TImes and the National Enquirer. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be you doing the sensationalizing. And your "OPINION" that Jews shouldn't care still doesn't matter: they do. - Juden 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice any glaring redundancy. The part about Hitler didn't look POV either -- the negative tone is in an attributed quote, so it's not really the same as the hypothetical spin you posted above. I suppose calling Hitler a "figure of notoriety" is a technical NPOV violation.

BTW, I don't believe Jesus died to save everyone. If He had, either a) everyone would be saved or b) He failed. A.J.A. 19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I was reading the first lines of the article (and didn't get much farther before running here) and saw a lot of "citation needed" tags. How are we supposed to cite those? I mean, yes, that is what happens, but can we verify it? Or should we remove the notices? Pahoran513 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They definitely need citations, but we could use the {{unreferenced}} template instead. --Lethargy 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I added a reference today[4]. My question, is there a way to provide a reference to an article that highlights the specific section of the article? The previous reference just gives the reader the article, but then they have to search the article for the exact reference. Any help? Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference - but sorry I can't help you there. Meanwhile changing "...ise" and "...ising" to "...ize" or "...izing" endings is not a correction just a change - people do spell funny in different plarts of the world ;) I won't bother changing them all back again.

After I did that, I suspected it was the difference between English and American spelling. Both are acceptable and I should have reversed myself. If I have offended our English editors, I apologize and I would accept those who desire to change it back. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No that is fine, I'm not trying to be too precious. Just let you know that it is accepted in Australian English too. When I edit other people's work I take out the double space after the fullstop/period, even though I am not accusing them of bad grammar.

To further clarify what Paul was trying to say...

The text following this phrase represents an opinion. I don't think that it is appropriate to "interpret" the scripture here. Perhaps a source can be located which conveys the same information? Bochica 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the way it was written was horribly POV. This is such an easy subject to source and handle in an NPOV manner... hopefully I did an alright job for the time being. gdavies 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Latter-day Saints doctrine

This section needs to have some information rearranged. Here's an example:

"Young men must also hold the priesthood. The practice is one reason for the emphasis on genealogy within the church."

This paragraph is stating that geneaology is emphasized within the church because young men must also hold the priesthood (obviously not the case...:-)) I can rearrange it, but I don't want to start modifying this article without feedback from other editors. Bochica 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like this has been a battlefield... I'd like to help clean up this article at this point though as well. gdavies 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

I've removed two dead links. I'll place them here - we may be able to locate the associated articles and restore them in the article.

• Honoring our Religious Traditions Official explanation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with respect to concerns about unauthorized baptisms
• Vicarious baptism of Jews continues in 2004

Bochica 06:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

People in the afterlife...will rarely reject it

"Church leaders have stated that the people in the afterlife for whom these ordinances have been performed will rarely reject it."

I've moved this here, because it sounds like speculation or someone's opinion. Everything I've ever heard indicates that church leaders tell us that we do not know whether or not someone in the afterlife accepts or rejects ordinances performed on their behalf. Maybe this sentence was based upon someone's obscure opinion in Journal of Discourses or some other piece of literature, but it is certainly not taught to modern church members today. Bochica 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead section is way too big to meet FA critera 2(a)

From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2.(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; I think the lead should be cut down to the first paragraph and maybe a little more and the rest of it re-orginized into a section titled observatoin or Pratice or some how intergrated into the history section. Dalf | Talk 13:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New Testament Reference

My significant quibble here is that for the non-LDS, the first paragraph is a problem. "The practice is referred to in The New Testament (1 Cor. 15:29)..." For the non-LDS, 1 Corinthians does not refer to baptism by proxy. There are many non-LDS views as to what this verse might mean. Certainly this article has an LDS slant and that is appropriate for this matter. However, it seems to me that the offending sentance could be reworded: "The practice is understood by the LDS to be referred to in the New Testament..." and meet the standards of balance for which Wikipedia is known. emesselt 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curious. The scripture reads:

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?

What is evident is that some of the people of Corinth were baptizing for the dead. I think this could appropriately be called practicing baptism or the dead. What are the interpretations you would put to this scripture? Though I have heard many churches give an interpretation of this scripture, I am curious of your references.

The article immediately give the orthodox viewpoint; that it was forbidden in the 4th century. I am not sure whether you mean that it never took place or that the scripture does not really mean someone was being baptized for the dead.

As an aside, your proposed language would not be incorrect, but it does cause the reader to assume that the Bible does not say baptism for the dead, which it obviously does. Before implementing can you please share some thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

StormRider, thank you for responding to my comment! It is not my intent here to debate theology or Biblical interpretation. It is enough to note that the LDS' interpretation of this passage is, in the context of the totality of the current Christian religion (1Corinthians being part of the Christian scriptures), a minority opinion. You may not like that fact, but a fact it is. To discuss the other interpretations would, seems to me, be better accomplished in another article. My point remains that given the current wording; this article could be seen as merely an LDS apologetic. To briefly respond, the text clearly says "baptism on behalf of the dead" or "baptism for the dead." What is not clear is what that means. The LDS interprets that as post-mortem baptism by proxy. The rest of Christendom tradition says that it is not post-mortem baptism by proxy. What that phrase might mean for the rest of Christendom is certainly a matter of debate. But I'm suggesting that to not recognize the debate, assume that the LDS' interpretation is correct and others are flawed, makes this article non-neutral and could be seen as violating the Wikipedia guidelines. StormRider, should you wish to continue this discussion off-line, please feel free to contact me at the email address on my user page.emesselt 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you recognize that what the "phrase might mean for the rest of Christendom is certainly a matter of debate," because that's obviously true. However, you have asserted that "the rest of Christendom tradition" says that it's not post-mortem baptism by proxy. Of course that is not the case, and this isn't what the controversy regarding this references hinges around. The only serious debate I've heard is whether proxy baptism (which is obviously referred to here, "why then are they baptized for the dead") was an accepted or heretical practice. That's the only real point for debate where many non-LDS people disagree with LDS. gdavies 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gldavies - thanks for responding. Please note that my point was not whether the practice of post-mortem baptism by proxy is heretical or not. The purpose of this discussion page is not to discuss the topic, but to improve the article. My point is, what I believe to be, a more helpful re-wording of the first paragraph regarding the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29. The paragraph strongly implies that the majority of the Christian religion today believes that scripture reference refers to post-mortem baptism by proxy. My contention is that while the LDS does interpret that scripture as post-mortem baptism by proxy, the vast majority of the current Christian religion does not agree with that interpretation. Therefore, the LDS' interpretation is a minority interpretation. As such, I suggested above what I believe to be a neutral re-wording of the fist paragraph. Again, without rewording, this article reads like an apologetic for the LDS and would, in that case, not meet Wikipedia standards.emesselt 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With the statement that it was rejected by the Orthodox church, and later in the article further clarifications that it is rejected by mainstream Christianity may already suffice. It seems like it is a bit of belt and suspenders, but if you want to change it go ahead. This is a good situation to be bold. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious people being baptized

I tried to find support that Adolf Hitler's temple work was performed; I could find none. I looked his name up on FamilySearch.com and found that his name is in the genealogy of two different people (i.e. they are related), but I did not find any evidence that any temple ordinances had been performed on his behalf. I am more than happy to look up other names; particularly to support the claim of popes and saints, but I would need specific names and dates of either their birth or death. However, in this instnace, I think the claim is false or at least there is no record in the church's genealogy site of such work being done. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Try googling "Hitler Mormon":

• • Baptising Hitler's Ghost
  • Hitler Temple Records
  • LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate (online version of The Salt Lake Tribune's article by Bob Mims, October 9, 1999, noting that "the records show temple work has also been done vicariously for the Holocaust's chief perpetrator, Adolf Hitler, and many of his Nazi henchmen.") Other notable figures for whom Temple work was carried out are Martin Bormann, Reinhardt Heydrich, St. Joan of Arc, St. Ignatius Loyola, and St. Francis Xavier; Buddha and "Mrs. Buddha", Karl Marx,Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi-Minh, Herod the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Dracula, and Rasputin. This article contains scans of some of Hitler's temple records.
  • Mormons meet with Jews over Baptizing Holocaust victims - notes baptisms of Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Buddha.
  • Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies? - "Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, King Herod, Al Capone and Mickey Mouse have all appeared for a short time in the International Genealogical Index for proxy baptisms" "Jewish Holocaust victims, Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin and Mohammed ibn Abdel-Wahhab, founder of Saudi Arabia's stern version of Islam, have all popped up on the list. A purged version of the IGI is on the Internet, at http://www.familysearch.org, a Web site run by the LDS church, but does not show which rites have been performed." "Names are purged from the public IGI after being found and publicized"

IGI temple ordinance entries, now removed from public access, show that that Adolf Hitler was baptized on September 30, 1993 and endowed on April 27, 1994 in the Jordan River Temple, Utah. Eva Braun was baptized on October 16, 1964 and endowed on February 5, 1965 in the Los Angeles Temple, and had been sealed to her parent prior to 1970. Ancestral File ordinance records show Adolf Hitler baptized on September 4, 1993, endowed on October 12, 1993, and sealed to his parents and to Eva Braun on Jun 14, 1994 in the Los Angeles Temple. These records were silently removed in the 1997 edition to the IGI, as were the records for Adolf Eichmann, Paul Joseph Göbbels, Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Heinrich Himmler and Benito Mussolini. Some entries where, however, missed; in any case, the removal of the records of the ordinance work performed on behalf of Nazis doesn't alter the fact that the work was indeed carried out. There's no question that these ordinances were performed; church spokesman Michael Purdy noted that they had been performed in the process of claiming they were "nullified". This--right down to the specific dates--has been mentioned on this talk page before, at a time when you previously questioned it and so it is rather surprising you are unaware of the facts here. - Juden 09:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Juden, I only researched this last night after I saw that another editor had deleted the information; a bit of an edit war about information that I don't think really matters. I have not read your edit to the article yet, but as long as you have added the references from before I think the edit should stay. Wasn't that the conclusion last time? The inclusion is a bit sensationalistic, but I would think it does more good than harm in the long run.

I did find that Hitler's family name, Hiedler, has had some moderate research demonstrated by going back to 1672 to a Stephan Hiedler. The work had been done by a fellow in California.

The actual statement was, "While their names may still pop up, periodically submitted by diehard genealogists, Purdy said any temple work done for them is for naught." Although the phrase whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, I have never heard of an ordinance being for naught. I can't determine if he is making an assumption that their deeds on earth are so bad that they are beyond redemption or something else. Regardless, his statement is perplexing. The Atonment of Jesus Christ is believed capable of washing away all sin except the sin against the Holy Ghost. I wonder if Purdy is assuming that these individuals of such disrepute could only have done their crimes after rejecting the Holy Ghost; however, that seems like a gigantic leap of logic. It is my understanding that at some point temple ordinances will be completed for every person that has ever lived regardless of the personal actions. Those ordinances will then be open to the individual's choice to accept or reject. Thankfully, there will only be one final judge when it comes to forgiveness. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No one who objects to having their Jewish relatives, or Nazi War Criminals, receive Mormon ordinances is going to object any less because the ordinances are acknowledged to have no actual effect! They already believe they have no effect anyway. As for which statement was the "actual" one: Purdy made lots of statements. None of them contested the fact that the ordinances had been performed. - Juden 08:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianson's statement

I think it's important to avoid misleading our readers by juxtaposing Christianson's statement, in which he refers to "our" (i.e., Mormons') ancestors, with Michel's, who is referring to all Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The Church had already agreed not to posthumously baptize Jews who were not ancestors of a Mormon, and his statement does not address those who were baptized in violation of that agreement, with whom Michel is concerned. Juxtaposing the two statements as though they referred to the same population is deceptive and attempts to score a "point" using Wikipedia's voice, in rather a sneaky way. - Juden (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your analysis of Christofferson's statement, I've switched it for a quote from the "letter to ernest michel" that in my opinion speaks to the same population to which Michel is referring, and makes no limitation to "our" ancestors. When I added it, the purpose of the DTC quote was to replace the one that was removed for lack of citation, that emphasized the fact that the LDS do not consider any of the vicarious baptisms to change the ethnic/religious identities of the deceased persons, nor do they count those deceased persons as Mormons. This doctrine applies equally to ancestors of Mormons and to those names of those without Mormon descendants. It was not an attempt to be deceptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the new quote is a great improvement. However, the article now states and restates the Mormon point of view on this matter at least four times, often in a tone which suggests the reader ought to find the Church's opinion determinative. ([1] LDS belief holds that proxy baptisms must be acknowledged and accepted by the deceased person in the spirit world to be binding upon them. [2] The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. [3] Vicarious baptism does not mean that the decedent is forced to accept the ordinance performed for him or her or that the deceased becomes a member of the LDS Church [4] the effect of the baptism by proxy or any other ordinance for the dead is to make an offer, which the individual may choose to accept. If not accepted, the ordinance is of no effect). Surely this is special pleading and overkill. Perhaps in the spirit of fairness, and of avoiding giving undue weight to one side of this dispute, some of these could be consolidated. - Juden (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think [1] and [3] could be removed without loss of clarity in the article. [2] should probably stay since it is in the section on the LDS doctrine (and move the ref for [1] to that sentence) were the point is relevant. IMO [4] should also stay since the church includes it as a major point in its responses to some of the Jewish criticism of vicarious baptism. Is this a fair compromise for consolidation so that it doesn't sound like overkill? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will you do the honors? - Juden (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

D. Todd Christofferson mentions in the quote under "Genealogy and baptism" [no date] that plans were underway to prevent authorized submission of names for baptism and other temple ordinances. One NEW thing to note is that these methods are now functional in many parts of the world. When I log onto the LDS website for use by LDS members in finding and linking themselves to their ancestors I see that Adolf Hitler is listed as not having proxy ordinances done and is blocked from having them done. If they were done before, they now must be canceled (revoked). This also appears to have been done for several other people, including those who I assume had Jewish ancestry but no link to an LDS member (which is much easier to determine on the new website). This is a new website that began rolling out in 2008 and isn't yet available to all members worldwide. I have been doing family history with the LDS Church since 1977 and we have been consistently encouraged to find our ancestors and not submit names of people we are not related to. It's printed in every manual for every course I have taken through the LDS Church. Finally, the LDS Church has a way to better ensure that unauthorized baptisms (and other ordinances) do not take place! --Becstudent (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish section

This section has continued to grow until it is almost the size of the entire article; in fact, it was the largest section before I cut it back. It is not necessary to repeat that LDS will baptize anyone regardless of their actions during their mortal life; even the despicable like Adolf Hitler or the saintly (pick someone). More importantly, it is redundant to repeat every Jewish leader that feels the same way. It is sufficient to state that Jewish organizations, particularly those concerned with the holocaust, are opposed to the ordinance being performed for anyone of Jewish descent and specifically those who died during the Holocaust. Also, it is not needed to repeat all of the responses by the LDS Church.

Does anyone think we need to repeat things? Or is the article improved by the repetition of the same concept? The topic is Baptism for the dead and the majority of the article should focus on that topic; not the Jewish perspective of the ordinance. This is really elementary policy stuff. --^StormRider 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually re-read the article after you performed surgery on it? The "Holocaust victim controversy" (not the "Jewish section"!!!) now begins "The LDS church urges members to submit only the names of their own ancestors for these type of ordinances". What type of ordinances? No way of knowing, as you've cut the preceding referrent for "these". Without the first paragraph, the new first sentence makes no sense. As to size: we report what exists. The "controversy" is the main reason people even know about this particular Mormon ceremony. If you think there's some aspect of that ceremony that needs further explaining, just add to the article; no one's stopping you. Given the resistance of Mormon editors to this material (with repeated requests for references in an attempt to exclude it, and repeated unjustified removals), it is no surprise that the attempt resumes. But the excised material is, in fact, material, interesting, and informative, and belongs in the article. If you think something needs to be removed, please obtain consensus for same on the talk page first rather than resort to unilateral removal of information that has long existed. In fact, a "request for comments" would probably be optimal, as it would attract the attention of editors without any particular religious axe to grind. - Juden (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I've restored my edit, including the excision of the extra "}}" you added, pending any consensus for changes here. - Juden (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of concise? How many times is it necessary to state that there is a concern by Jewish people? I have several friends, most Orthodox Jews, and their opinions were not listed; should we add their opinions too. How many times do we say the same thing before it is enough?

Gosh, if we got a thousand rabbis to give their opinions then we might really make a more sensational article (assuming they all think alike, which is highly unlikely). Assuming you found 1,000 with the same opinion it might be different words, but the meaning would be the same. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Now for the stupid comment about Jewish people and Holocaust above. Please indicate if the Jews and holocaust have anything in common. Was it the Holocaust victims complaining or is the section about the Jewish peoples concerns about the LDS practice of baptism for the dead!!!!!!!!!! {It seems you think using multiple exclamation marks adds meaning; did it make the sentence more comprehensible to you??????????? (it must work with question marks also?)) Also, the title certainly is more sensational, but it lessens the focus of the Jewish people and their concerns. They don't want any individuals of Jewish heritage to be baptized not just the victims of the Holocaust. Or are you saying that the Jews are only concerned about Holocaust victims being baptized by Mormons?

Tell me the difference between these two sentences:

"This includes both victims and perpetrators of genocide, including Adolf Hitler. Some people and organizations, including Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, and the Catholic Church have objected to this practice."

"Despite these rules, some members of the church have submitted the names of Catholic popes and saints, Holocaust victims, Adolf Hitler and other prominent Nazis for vicarious baptism without adequate permission."

Does Adolph Hitler's name mean something that it should be repeated twice? Did you read the bloody section before you hacked to death???????????????????????????? They are the in the fist paragraph and third paragraph. It is redundant (it repeats itself). What does the Catholic Church have to do with Jewish Holocaust victims. Is this section for Holocaust victims or Catholic Popes? The section title seems not to apply to your objective or you are bleeding all over. Did the pope object to baptisms for the dead or just for Holocaust victims (there is no references, but it does make it more sensational to include in a Holocaust section)?

No consensus to make a paragraph more concise (not redundant, not repetitive, to not same the same thing multiple times) needed. If you think you are capable of doing it, do it. Given your apparent ownership of this article, if you actually read the section you would see its necessity.

As for adding to the rest of the article, what do you think is missing? Do you know of anything about the ordinance that is not stated? I thought not. Do you know the meaning of staying on topic? You know as in Wikipedia policy. If you think this is really so improtant to be redundant, then maybe it is time for a sub-article where we could even ad more repetition and keep this article for the concise claims. --^StormRider 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of concise? How many times is it necessary to state that there is a concern by Jewish people? I have several friends, most Orthodox Jews, and their opinions were not listed; should we add their opinions too. How many times do we say the same thing before it is enough?

Gosh, if we got a thousand rabbis to give their opinions then we might really make a more sensational article (assuming they all think alike, which is highly unlikely). Assuming you found 1,000 with the same opinion it might be different words, but the meaning would be the same. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Yes the pattern I'm seeing is that you think Jews are entitled to have exactly one opinion. Like it or not, Jews, and Jewish opinions, are not interchangable. You'd like us to assume that all Jews have a single opinion, and one mention in the article; that's both wrong and dismissive. To exclude someone's opinion on the basis that another Jew holds it is, quite simply, bigotry. You should be embarrassed to suggest that the full panoply of Jewish opinion not be included. You think it's redundant to mention that both the Simon Wiesenthal Center and The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors have the same opinion; it's not.Juden (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another miss entirely. The position they both share is that they reject that Mormons practice baptism for the dead on behalf of Jewish people. Is there a difference that is more important than that? When the opinion is same i.e. both have an identical position what is being added? The mere fact that some Jewish people disagree with the religious practice of another religion is what is important. Again, the issue is that they both have the identical position. Nothing is added to the article by listing a diatribe by both groups. It would be just as easy to combine it into a single paragraph.--^StormRider 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now for the stupid comment about Jewish people and Holocaust above. Please indicate if the Jews and holocaust have anything in common. Was it the Holocaust victims complaining or is the section about the Jewish peoples concerns about the LDS practice of baptism for the dead!!!!!!!!!! {It seems you think using multiple exclamation marks adds meaning; did it make the sentence more comprehensible to you??????????? (it must work with question marks also?)) Also, the title certainly is more sensational, but it lessens the focus of the Jewish people and their concerns. They don't want any individuals of Jewish heritage to be baptized not just the victims of the Holocaust. Or are you saying that the Jews are only concerned about Holocaust victims being baptized by Mormons?

I think that, by and large, Jews object to Mormons baptizing Jews, as it hearkens back to the forced baptisms of Jews by Christians, and that, by and large, Jews object more to this when it is done to those killed in the Holocaust, as it represents not just victimization, but revictimization. Jews don't have to choose to be offended by only one of these, when they find both offensive.Juden (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the section title should be different. True, it will not be as sensational as the current title, but is should reflect the entire issue being raised. --^StormRider 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Adolph Hitler's name mean something that it should be repeated twice? Did you read the bloody section before you hacked to death???????????????????????????? They are the in the fist paragraph and third paragraph. It is redundant (it repeats itself).

Well, yes, of course it does, or you wouldn't object to it. The enormity of baptizing Adolf Hitler ought to be self-evident. I have no problem with excising the second mention, as long as the other Nazi leaders are included. Juden (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you mentioned every evil person that has ever lived. In fact, please do so. The overriding principal of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that even the most wicked can be redeemed by the atonment of Christ...even those like Adolph Hitler, Genghis Kahn, (insert your favorite evil person). To be washed in the blood of Christ is to be made clean. So please make a bigger deal of it, but just don't be redundant; it is just terrible writing.--^StormRider 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What does the Catholic Church have to do with Jewish Holocaust victims. Is this section for Holocaust victims or Catholic Popes? The section title seems not to apply to your objective or you are bleeding all over. Did the pope object to baptisms for the dead or just for Holocaust victims (there is no references, but it does make it more sensational to include in a Holocaust section)?

I didn't title the section. I think renaming it to be more inclusive of those objecting to vicarious Mormon baptism without consent would be a good idea.Juden (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is stunning that we actually agree. That would be a first I believe, may it be something that is repeated more often than not. --^StormRider 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to make a paragraph more concise (not redundant, not repetitive, to not same the same thing multiple times) needed. If you think you are capable of doing it, do it. Given your apparent ownership of this article, if you actually read the section you would see its necessity.

As for ownership, I think that's a complaint that cuts both ways. I'd be happy to rewrite the pararagraph, which would include moving the apologetics (easily half the length of the section) to footnotes, as you had previously attempted. Should you not like my efforts, I'd be equally willing for some neutral third party to do the copyediting.

As for adding to the rest of the article, what do you think is missing? Do you know of anything about the ordinance that is not stated?

Nothing, you're the one who thought the article was imbalanced. - Juden (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is only out of balance when a subsection becomes the entire article. The topic is baptism for the dead: what, when, why, where, and how. What you have continually done is expand the section of the perception of the Jewish people so that it outweighs the topic. It would be very easy to make this section two paragraphs at most. One that state what groups criticize this specific ordinance and why and a second one that states how the LDS Church has responded to the criticism.

The section still is too long. It still repeats the same thing. You are sensationalizing their postion rather than just presenting the facts. Your desire is to grind your personal axe rather than produce a good article. Further the section title is unreflective of facts. Dead people have no volition so it cannot be involuntary. I will change it to the broader topic of Criticism. --^StormRider 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, you think it's too long, I think it's too short. So we've compromised. If you think it's still too long, I suggest we request comments. That two Jewish groups object is not repetitive. It would be repetitive if we included the objections of one group twice, but that's not what we've done. I've removed one phrase as patronizing, and suggested another, more particular, title; otherwise I think we've come to substantial agreement. - Juden (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed something; are you saying that two Jewish groups have nothing in common or are you saying that their reasons for objecting are different? Do you consider their Jewishness an insignificant character to their objection?

Poignant: affecting or moving the emotions. How in bloody hell is that patronizing? Are you denying the fact that having both Jews and the likes of Hitler and other Nazi criminals baptized does not create a visceral reaction? Isn't that the shock factor that you are seeking to highlight? You carry so much baggage that when there is nothing there you create it. Set the axe down, take a breath, and then attempt to write well. Even a dictionary might be of help; there is nothing condescending about using the term poignant to describe the emotional feelings of individuals. --^StormRider 09:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is Jewish criticism when we are talking about the Jewish criticism of the practice. It is shorter, more concise use of language than saying Criticism by Jewish people and Jewish organizations... You are grasping at straws. --^StormRider 09:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidbits, silliness, and sensationalism

An editor added a new section to the article today regarding the vicarious baptism of Stanley Ann Dunham, the mother of President Barak Obama. Baptisms are only supposed to done on behalf of relatives and no evidence was provided that an actual relative performed the work or not. Violations of this LDS Church policy are frowned upon by the Church. Regardless, I don't see any notability or notoriety for an entire section being devoted to this single individual. Baptisms for the dead have been performed for millions of people including US Presidents, European Kings, African tribal chiefs, the wash woman, the garbage man, and individuals of complete insignificance. The article already makes clear that members of the LDS Church believe in and practice this ordinance. Is there something more than base sensationalism or have I missed something?

The object is to write an encyclopedia article. This is not People magazine or the National Enquirer, but an actual encyclopedia. This article is not a list of all the famous people that have been baptized or even those far less notable like this individual --^StormRider 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many people in the world who do not feel that these 'baptism's performed by the lds church are 'silly'.

If the Salt Lake Tribune decides that this event was notable enough to warrant an article and and the lds church issues an official statement about the event, it is notable ... notice that I didn't say that the lady was notable: capiche ? Duke53 | ^Talk 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This section simply points out out that even though " Violations of this LDS Church policy are frowned upon by the Church" they still occur. One would think that the lds church, which conducts these rituals, could better control the actions of their members; maybe excommunicating some of the offenders would show the world that the lds church really doesn't want this type ceremony being performed. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. The edit of 'found and 'revealed' was vital ... are you saying that this event wasn't revealed in May 2009 ? Duke53 | ^Talk 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Dunham's baptism ought to be mentioned in the article, given that it was considered newsworthy; however, I don't think it is presented properly in the article. The reason why this is important, from an encyclopedic perspective, is not the fact that Dunham was baptized, but more broadly, that (1) the LDS Church has a policy that members should only submit names of their relatives, and (2) the fact that there are not presently controls or enforcement of this policy (but possibly soon will be, under New Familysearch), so that "celebrity baptisms" can and do occur. There ought to be a section devoted to celebrity/historical figure baptism, using Dunham as just one example. This also ties in with the Jews/Nazis section. COGDEN 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about merging it into the Jews/Nazi section and renaming the section something more broadly, but then did not proceed. Consensus would be needed for that given the strong feelings of Jews and others on that specific topic.

I don't think this merits and section all by itself as you, COgden have stated. I am not opposed to it being mentioned. I think most of the things you brought up are already in the article, or at least they once were. It has been a little while since I read the full article. Regardless, it would be appropriate to discuss this in the fuller context of the fuller responsibilty of members to their ancestors and the abuses of that policy.

Duke, feel free to write an article to the Church about your concerns. Excommunication seems like overkill. I wonder if we could get the Catholic Church to excommunicate their members for praying for non-Catholics? Heck, spread that out and excommunicate all individuals who do anything on behalf of anyone else but themselves. What a wonderful world we would have.

It was "found" that the baptism was done. It is decidely POV to say it was "revealed". Who "revealed" it? Did they find it down some dark alley in the dead of night? Or maybe a highly confidential squad broke into the Geneological Library and stole the information. Or, is the more likely they just found that on the website? I am betting they just looked on the website and found the work had been done for the individual. --^StormRider 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stor, would writing an 'article' to the church be the same as writing a letter to them ?

Way to build a strawman (" ... excommunicate all individuals who do anything on behalf of anyone else but themselves") ... the penalty would be for disobeying church policy (but you knew that :) ) ... an organization that can restrict sales of underwear surely must have the resources at hand to stop these unauthorized 'baptisms' at their temples; it makes a guy wonder if the church really wants them to stop (wink, wink). Cheers Duke53 | ^Talk 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

'Reveal' as POV ? haha. The authors were simply revealing it to their readers (most of whom probably don't cruise websites looking for stuff like this) for, most likely, the first time. They chose to reveal it to their readers in May, 2009. Pretty elementary. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Catholics and other Christians cannot make it church policy not to pray for others, particularly in regards for their salvation? No, wink-wink about it; just straight forward. Put down that axe, focus on the article and how to improve it.

You are still good for giggles even though this single track is so very repetitive.--^StormRider 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The only one who is discussing Catholics here is you, which is simply a strawman that you have created.

The only one here who wields an 'axe' is you ... the lds 'axe' which you yield in an attempt to turn WP into yet another mormon tract. As far as 'giggles' go, my friends and I have a pool on how many times you can use that trite 'axe to grind' line in a year; we're not really laughing at you, because it has become pathetic more than anything else. You have become a 'one trick pony' indeed. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say to improve the article? Focus little one, just focus and it will get better. --^StormRider 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a significant academic resource to consider in all this: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=67 64.92.140.190 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Smith