In 2010 a pact was signed between the Mormon Church and Jewish leaders in which the group promised not to baptized the groups dead, now former Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints whistleblower Helen Radkey says that pact was broken when the group posthumously baptized Anne Frank.
Radkey claims that the Mormon church baptized Annelies Marie “Anne” Frank by proxy on Saturday. While Anne Frank died in 1945 the Mormons have submitted different versions of her name on more than a dozen occasions in an attempt to receive approval for proxy rites.
Radkey says Frank had received at least nine baptism rites from 1989 through 1999 but she admits that this is the first time in over a decade that her name has been found in a database that’s used to track genealogy and to submit a deceased persons name for proxy baptism consideration.
The database is only made available to Mormons.
This isn’t the first time a jewish community member has been submitted, Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor has had his name submitted even though he’s still alive, in fact Wiesel has campaigned against the practice which led to the church banning the proxy baptism of Holocaust victims or so it said.
The Mormon church has also taken it upon themselves to posthumously baptize Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal’s parents, a baptism that forced the church to apologize for its actions.
Apparently if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints an’t convert someone in life they do it in death. Maybe for their next trick they’ll start claiming every famous or influential person ever alive as their own.
Here’s a screenshot Radkey sent to the HuffingtonPost that showcases the Anne Frank database listing:
Do you think the Mormon church is acting despicable in its forced baptismal practices of dead people who likely wanted nothing to do with the Mormon church?
oh give me a break…I didn't even bother reading the whole thing, it is so petty.
if you don't believe in the church then there is nothing to worry about.
I did read the whole thing. It almost seems set up. Like someone did it on purpose.
they tried to do the same thing at my grandmothers funeral until I demanded that it be stopped, people should have the right to decide while the can not after they are already dead!
Elie Wiesel is a man. Might want to check next time before you try to have someone take your article seriously.
Also, the person who wrote this article apparently didn't do ANY research what so ever. No one is baptized against their will. LDS church believes in free will. Everyone has the choice to accept baptism or to not accept it. But everyone should be given atleast the opportunity to choose.
It isn't petty, Dani, to those who are devout in their religious beliefs. They don't want any part of the Mormon church, which they see as a cult and not Christians. It should be up to each individual as to who baptizes them…..even after they're dead. I'm Catholic. I was baptized Catholic. I have my place in heaven. But the Mormons believe that they are the only true religion and if they don't baptize all of us, we won't get to heaven. Well, I say, no thanks, Mormons. Leave us alone.
Life does not end at death, only life in your physical body ends. The choice is still theirs in the hereafter.
NO harm at all. http://www.TouchoftheMastersHand.wordpress.com If LDS is correct then they have done well, if not someone only got "wet" for her…………..
it only gives them the opportunity to accept after death
Nonie Weiser Pherson …it's petty. People who get all offended and worked up about things like this will surely stroke out before their time. I didn't even read the rest of your comment…I'm too busy reading an article about a little girl who was abducted and trying to find out all the details since it was in my area and I could possibly help….you know, things that really matter. Have a blessed evening.
I think that the whole thing is ridiculous. You can't "save" someone who is already dead. He or she has already gone on to whatever afterlife they believed that they deserved. End of story. And all this argument over church? None of you are correct. Since the bible or any other religious book is open to interpretation (as it's not being taught by the person who wrote it and we can't read minds or speak to the dead), the only person who can say who is right is God, and She ain't talking. So get the fuck over yourselves.
LOL Jen! I was thinking the same thing!!!!! hysterical, glad you pointed it out.
Maybe the head rabbi in Israel should hold a service asking YHWH to forgive all the Mormons for believing their great prophet Joseph Smith's fantasies about the night in the woods and the angel who showed him the Golden Plates.
Allison Craig Smith , I live in Utah. I'm surrounded by Mormons. It is a common practice of theirs to baptize the dead. I was told that we(the deceased) can reject the baptism if we want to. What they don't get is once we are departed, there is no option to reject.
okay, no reason to get all riled up people. when the church baptises on behalf in this way, it is only giving an additional option. in the afterlife, the spirit of that person still has the right to reject the option. no harm done. relax.
YES!
Nonie Weiser Pherson I'm sorry that you were misinformed regarding the LDS religion. That's what makes this article so sad. It's yet another attempt to pretend to know a religion without actually doing any research at all. LDS are Christians, it's in their name. And the church is big on Free Will, that everyone has the choice to accept the baptism or not. And if you don't believe in the LDS religion, then I say you shouldn't worry. It only affects you if you have faith and believe. So Nonie, I don't think you need to worry as you have no faith in their beliefs.
Mitt needs to get his cult under control.
Allison Craig Smith We don't all believe the same way you do or the way the Mormons do or the way the Episcopalians do. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Some people just don't believe in the hereafter.
But Allison Craig Smith actually IS mormon. It is different to be surrounded by them and gather your material the to be one and actually study the material your whole life. Like I said, it is petty. maybe not to you, but to me it is. So we can just agree to disagree…it's what makes the world goes round!
Nonie Weiser Pherson , it seems you were aptly named! Because without your own research, your facts are Nonie the Weiser! lol
Only the Mormons believe that the baptism can be rejected. I'm not Mormon and don't have the option of rejecting the baptism. Out of good, old common respect, the Mormons should mind their own business.
Everyone has the right to their opinion…absolutely!!! And anyone can be against the LDS church, it's their right. But I also believe everyone should have an informed opinion. But the whole thing is petty, I agree.
I could barely read the article because of all the punctuation and spelling errors. If you're going to be a writer, learn the language. Please.
Nonie Weiser Pherson, or perhaps out of good old fashioned respect, people of other beliefs should also mind their own business as far as what Mormons are up to also! If you don't beleive in it, what are you so afraid of?! I'm both a decendent of a holocaust survivor as well as a formerly practicing mormon. If I don't have an issue with it, what's your beef?!
The members of the LDS Church are not a part of a hive mind. Some enterprising member of the LDS Church could submit this of their own accord because they don't care what the church says or wants to try to get the church in trouble. Unless there is a suggestion that any iteration of the name "Ann Frank" be banned from the system, the only thing that can be done is remove the record upon discovery.
listen, if you don't follow the mormon church, and don't believe in its principals….ignore it! what's the big deal?
The mormons are a group of gutsy people aren't they? Another cult strong arming people into converting………even the dead don't stand a chance against these cultish crew.
I agree, and quite honestly, the people that seem to have issues with baptisms for the dead in the first place…if they don't believe in it, then why should it matter?
If you don't believe in the mormon church why make a big deal?
stop it! not a cult!!!! ridiculous!
Allison Craig Smith I was not misinformed. All of my neighbors and most of my friends are LDS. I've lived in Utah for 28 years. I was told many, many times by very devout Mormons about Baptism of the Dead. They believe it's necessary so all souls will go to Heaven…..but if we don't like the idea, we can reject it. BTW, I get my information from people who have lived and studied the Mormon religion their whole lives. I didn't make this up. And in my opinion Baptism of the Dead is totally disrespectful.
Orange jellybeans are my favorite. I don't know why, but I thought you all should know.
Nonie Weiser Pherson so, then fine!!!! if i don't actually believe in a certain religion or philosophy—then i really don't care what they do!!!!! the antithesis of love isn't HATE–it is INDIFFERENCE!
I think many view it as disrespectful to the wishes of the dead based on how they lived their life, and also can be viewed as disrespectful to current day beliefs of many groups, such as the Jews. The baptizing of holocaust victims in the 90's comes off a very disrespectful to them. Hence why we (members of the LDS church) are told to only submit names to be baptized that are of our own ancestry.
Tiffeny Herrick Baptism of the Dead involves people of other faiths. They are intruding on others lives and deaths. They need to take care of each other and not worry about the rest of the world.
Nonie Weiser Pherson yes, you can reject and not accept. Just like when Catholics baptize babies. You think they can stand up and say no at that time, yet you still baptize them against their will. Then when they gain knowledge they can choose to stay in the church or not. Only your physical body ends on earth, your spirit continues to live and you continue to learn. And if you choose to accept the blessing on baptism after you have learned about the gospel in the hereafter, then more power to you if not then you don't. You don't go to hell and not to heaven if you don't accept. It's not the way it works.
Yes, Elie Wiesel is a man and there are a few typos in the article (which always surprises me). But please, let it not distract us from the fact that this is SO wrong, there isn't a name for it.
not the point, the point is the Jews DIED for their religous beliefs and NO one should take that from them.
Nonie Weiser Pherson excuse me…..i don't know many religions which DON'T believe they are the 'true' church—the catholic church included!
And Mitt Romney has no control over how the LDS Church operates. This does not affect Romney at all.
how ignornant!!!! do your research before casting about such nasty slurs!
It doesn't matter and yes there IS a reason to be riled up. How DARE they take it upon themselves to do any such thing to ANYONE without the person or relatives consent. If a living relative cannot or does not give consent then there is NO babtism. I am so appalled by this practice. How DARE they assume they KNOW what's best for a person who has NO choice in the matter whatsoever!! It's dispicable, loathesome and WRONG. ESPECIALLY now when religion is the be all and end all in so many of our current day events. How dare they "baptize" anyone a Mormon who didn't ask to be!!!
Nonie Weiser Pherson , I live with two dogs and a cat, but that doesn't make me an all knowing veterinarian. Take a chill pill chica!
I can understand that, and I'm not arguing that the Church should change the policy. I think that it's fine that they worked out that people who were in the holocaust cannot be baptized unless their name is submitted by a direct descendant because I realize the circumstances surrounding it. I've just read too many comments lately on stories about baptism for the dead about people being angry that the Church does baptisms for the dead at all, regardless of the situation, and I think that if they don't believe it, they shouldn't care, because it's not affecting anyone then, is it?. As we believe, as members of the Church, those that have their work done are still allowed to choose to accept the ordinance. I was simply agreeing with you that the only thing they can do is remove records that are found in violation of the rule. Not that I think holocaust victims should all be baptized.
Nonie Weiser Pherson I also want to say that I'm sure you were told many, many times by devout Mormons about baptism for the dead, but just like in any conversation, misunderstandings can happen and unless you research ….really research it, can you truly make a judgement regarding it without being completely informed? That's all I'm saying.
ignorant person who wantonly slurs another's faith without knowing about that faith. i am a mormon. fine. whatever. i don't care what/how you believe!!! many, many faiths have missionaries. big deal. that's fine!
there is always danger in being myopic in other faiths/philosophies…..remember the holocaust???!!!
Bettie Ellis Gerard is a cult………..you are just brainwashed into believing in their garbage religion. (been there done that)
Nonie Weiser Pherson And Allison, YOU believe life does not end at death. You cannot FORCE your will on others, especially those who do not have a CHOICE. This is one of the most arrogant and disgusting practices I have heard of in my entire life. Dispicable. Absolutely dispicable and shameful!!
Bettie Ellis Gerard If something looks like a cult, acts like a cult … then what else should it be called? These are things CULTS do. If you don't like it – change it or convert to a more sane religion.
They also apparently baptized Simon Weisenthals immediate family. (souls who perished in the death camps)
Bettie Ellis Gerard , Its a cult, I live in an almost All Mormon state, its a cult
Other cults perform baptisms for the dead? Ask for 10% tithing? Or are you only calling it a cult because of your perception of the ordinances done in the temple?
Bettie Ellis Gerard I was mormon, until I woke up……….
I understand where Nonie is coming from. We have loyalties to own individual religions. We want to have a choice in that. I would like to add that LDS people believe strongly in following Christ and his example. When he came to John the Baptist to be baptised, he set the example why and how t be baptized. We baptise for the dead out of love. We feel if they weren't baptised while they had a body, we are doing it to "fulfill all righteousness" as Jesus said. We feel free agency continues on when we are spirits and can accept or refuse this. So maybe Nonie, just think of it as pople who are trying to do all they can to help everyone,,,just in case. If its not true, or needed,,,,no harm done. Only love for all Gods children. I respect your feelings. I lived in Utah for a time, surrounded by "Mormons" [nickname], and I could barely stand it myself. Lol. That's why we moved to Tx and never loked back. We are all trying to follow the Savior. Whatever any of us do in his name, "true" or not, it is a good thing don't you think?
Kate Stromlund
Darla, you make it sound like you aren't even mormon. LOL!
Sír Jeff Meadows other religions do baptize THEIR dead, they don't baptize another religion just because they want to……..the Jewish community asked the mormons to stop and they broke that "treaty". Just another proof that mormons do what they want and to h.e.l.l. with anyone else's wishes.
kate stromlund—i will give the final word here on my end–because i will not dignify ANYONE trashing ANYONES's religion. (and guess what! i am an INACTIVE MEMBER!!!!)
Kate Stromlund, no one IS trying to take anything from anyone. What you do with your life is all in record, there is no taking it back. I lost a whole generation of my family to the holocaust, save my grandmother and her sister who were smuggled out. I know all about their sacrifices and I love them for it. I was also raised in in the Mormon faith and spent the better part of my life studying these two exact topics. I can confidently say, being thoroughly educated on both topics, that there were no persons harmed in the making of this topic. Rest easy, no one is trying to take anything from you or anyone else. If you don't believe in it, you sure are investing alot of energy in it for no reason.
anyway, I don't understand why everyone seems to be getting so worked up…I guess this is just the beginning with Romney running for pres. so we should all just get used to it. Same thing happened when Obama was running. It just really doesn't make any sense as to why people are so upset…which is why mind immediately went to jellybeans….
Did you happen to read where it says the bapitism was performed 9 times between 1989 – 1999??? What matter does it make if the record were removed upon discovery if it's already taken place several times? How dare you or anyone try and justify this practice with "if you don't mind, it doesn't matter". To many it DOES matter – it's worse than theft and body snatching. To others, to the very people LDS has HIJACKED into baptism undoubtedly feel very differently about it. Who the hell is THAT arrogant to make a decision FOR someone posthumously without consent?? I am a Chrisitan born & raised and I FEEL for the Jewish community for having THEIR own, NOT YOUR own, stolen from them. Anne Frank is a SYMBOL of Judaism you morons!! How DARE you hijack her!!
Kate, What other religions baptize their dead? And you're blaming the whole LDS Faith and church based on the actions of some individuals who went out of their way to enter Anne Frank and other Jewish names into the program to be baptized. The Church only can remove the entry and baptisms. And short of blocking all possible ways of spelling Jewish names with corresponding birth/death dates, which is highly unfeasible, there is not much more they can do.
Laura Cataldo a more SANE religion?????? which one would THAT be????? and HOW does the criteria of a 'cult' fit into the definition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints??
NO – there IS harm done. How dare they HIJACK souls. The audacity makes me sick
Dani, I'm not,,,,its just what I do in my witness protection program.
Bettie Ellis Gerard – let LDS MIND their OWN business before any member has a right to tell someone else what can be said when he is protected by freedom of speech. Do we have to have another Amendment entitled "Freedom of hijacked baptism"???
Btw,,,stop trying to push your jellybeans on us chocolate lovers
Why haven't you txted all day? Damn jellybeans
Gary A. Vasquez then you should know better, sir. if i lived in rome—would i say that the catholic church was a CULT?
Laura Cataldo, hijack? a bit dramatic, don't you think?! no one can take souls that don't belong to them. none of us even own our own souls. if you believe in the atonement, all our souls belong to God. They aren't even our own so that comment makes no sense at all. Some dogs just bark because they like the sound of their voice. Clearly this topic will get us no where. No one likes to admit they might be wrong.
Excuse me, did I ever say it was right to baptize her? No. I am saying it is not the Church's fault. Since 1999 the LDS church has introduced better software to combat this sort of thing. You also seem to be unaware that repeated baptisms has been a general problem, not just for Jewish or other religious names entered. I have ancestors who have had their baptisms performed several times as well. To be clear, the LDS Church's position on baptism is to only submit names to whom you are related. To receive the ordinances for salvation. There is no condonation for Anne Frank's name having being submitted or any other Jewish name.
Laura Cataldo oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Laura Cataldo thanks for answering my question laura (not)
Laura Cataldo, you are of course understandably upset. No names should be hijacked like this. The Church policy is to submit names for baptism of deceased relatives only. Because the LDS Church believes that belief is not sufficient to enter into Heaven, but by baptism with the correct authority which we believe was restored after the apostles in the 1st century were killed. As members of the LDS faith, we want our ancestors to have the same opportunity that we have today. Baptizing someone of historical significance is wrong. I agree. But the Church cannot prevent individuals from entering whichever information they want to baptize someone. They can only remove the information.
Nonie Weiser Pherson I do understand what you are saying, I truly do. I'm just saying that if you don't believe in it or the hereafter, then you need not worry about it. Being baptized by proxy does not automatically make you a member of the LDS church. If you have faith in it, then it's a good thing, if you don't have faith in it then the worst thing that happens is someone get's wet in a pool of water for nothing. So there really isn't anything to debate here.
Laura Cataldo Because I believe life carries on in the hereafter and therefore you can make choices in the hereafter is disgusting? If you don't believe it, then what difference does it make? If you don't believe in the hereafter, then how does it affect you or anyone that gets baptized by proxy? It does NOT automatically make them a member of the church, unlike the Catholic faith when baptized you do automatically become a member. You have to choose to accept the baptism in the hereafter. And again, if you don't believe in the hereafter then you should no problem as it won't affect you according to your beliefs.
'Smith' Linda, you are full of bull. No LDS member of the Church would try to baptize your grandma at her funeral. 1. Such baptisms are by proxy; no dead bodies are involved. 2. A person has to be dead a year before their name can be entered into the FamilySearch program to be baptized. So you're full of crap and are just dogging on the LDS Church.
I agree with Bettie. Besides she can always say no.
Laura Cataldo If it were that simple to hijack souls, wouldn't Satan and Satanists have hijacked all the souls already?
As for baptisms for the dead here is how the LDS faith views it: Baptism by proper authority is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom/Heaven. Baptizing someone is akin to giving them a key to be able to enter. There is still choice, it does not take away from who or what they were in life. Merely it provides them an opportunity to accept the Mormon baptism if their soul so desires.
We believe in Tolerance of Religious views. Baptizing someone, by proxy, against their chosen religious views seems to be the opposite of tolerance. Therefore, you can now baptize friends and strangers to Notm Ormon, at http://www.notmormon.com.
Sír Jeff Meadows – thank you for the sanity you are attempting to bring to this discussion but I must tell you sir, I disagree with you. They were asked NOT to do this by the leaders of the Jewish faith and they AGREED not to … and they did it, 9 times prior according to the article between 1989 – 1999. If you could show us PROOF where an descendent of Anne Frank ASKED that she be baptized by into the Mormon church than I will apologize and keep silent. My point is: The information should not have to be removed because it should not be there in the first place UNLESS a descendent specifically ASKED for it to be. How would you and your family feel if someone were to baptize you of another faith posthumously??? Not many other religions have gone through what the Jewish one has – more than six million murdered. Can you not see and agree they are entitled to NOT be baptized ANYTHING or be connected to ANY religion other than their own? It is the most offensive form of disrespect I can imagine and I'm not even Jewish.
Bettie Ellis Gerard = Yes Bettie, that is exactly what we are doing "remembering the Holocaust". And that is EXACTLY why no Jew (or anyone without their express approval) should be baptized ANYTHING but what they CHOSE for themselves. No one has a right to change that. No one living human being. Not a one.
Laura Cataldo My point is that the system was faulty. That baptisms for Mormon Ancestors happened repeatedly as well. Redundant. The system has since improved to try to avoid repeated baptisms and the entering of non-family names. But no computer system is perfect. And not all LDS church members like or will follow the rules. Some who have left the church but still have records there can still attempt to make the church look bad. People are sneaky enough to get past software. No software is perfect.
As for me, having grown up in the church, I wouldn't care if someone baptizes me into some other religion after my death (or even for me while still alive) because I believe that the LDS Church is God's restored church and is the only religious organization with the priesthood, God's authority to baptize and perform other ordinances in His name. It wouldn't mean a thing to me. I'd laugh in life, and hopefully my family would laugh after my death.
That being said, I do agree that it is extremely disrespectful and I am not condoning Anne Frank's baptism, nor do I imagine that the LDS Church is either.
Wow…
What's the big deal? Your religion is taking prisoners. Dead ones. It IS a big deal. ESPECIALLY to the JEWS and I support them 100%. Granted, I left the religion I was born into many years ago. Why? Because I believe with my whole heart they were WRONG, where liars and had way too many "practices" and traditions I couldn't and wouldn't accept. Religion is not "selective" – you either belong to the club and abide by their rules or you don't. I didn't expect the Church to change because of me. I changed because of the church.
Sír Jeff Meadows – that is how you feel sir. What about those who don't feel the same way? Those who would be haunted by it, disturbed by it? I understand (and even some of my Jewish friends are telling me to calm down – that it doesn't bother them because they don't believe in it – and if they don't believe it in it, it can't harm them. I'm not that laissez faire kind of person. But I've made my case and you get it so I'll say good night.
Laura Cataldo Goodnight then. And your friends are right; if the LDS faith is a cult and not a divinely restored church than the baptisms mean nothing and we are baptizing each other with dead peoples names and associated details out of sure silliness.
Bettie Ellis Gerard I do know better- I have seen with my own eyes, Its a cult, no doubt, and the Degree of the brainwashing is scary. Then you add Warren Jeffs and that group, plus the still existant Poligamy, well, in Utah and Arizona, if you look the other way and don't ask too many questions, they will for the most part leave you alone. and the way the women are treated and end up, truly sad. Your obviously a victim of this cult and I, along with others I am sure, will pray for you. I am Jewish, sephardic, and this is offensive on so many levels. If the cult would mind its own, then Don't start none, won't be none.
Omg! This whole thing had me cracking up! I think I snorted and an orange jelly bean came out of my nose! Thanks for the laugh ladies!
Laura Cataldo your friends are right, As Jews we really don't believe in anything the mormon church says or even stands for. Its a fairly new cult, less than 200 years old I believe, started by a charismatic con man, cults come and go, and this one isnt even monotheistic, so it really doesnt bother those of us who are Jewish. It does offend though.
step away from my jellybeans jen…I mean it. but doesn't this entire article make you want to spout off crazy talk like a person with touretts?
Shout out from the Atheist faction! LOL. Just my opinion, but I say baptize all ya want, but leave the Jews alone. Seriously, they're not interested.
lol Jenn, I was waiting for you to show up! haha
But I'm with you, Dani. As long as there are orphans without families and children going to bed hungry, I don't give two shits about this.
That's my girl. LOL
while every one is here can anyone tell me were I can get my dog baptized. She has been running around with a shitzu that is just bad news and I'm trying to save her. Any help would be greatly appreciated
Bettie Ellis Gerard ~ Actually Bettie, yes, you could say that the Catholic church is a cult. I do and I was born a Catholic but left the church for many reasons. However, the Catholic church has a "rule" which states a baptism (without parental consent) may be conducted only if it is for the reason of saving a life; i.e. if a severaly deformed/compromised baby were born and not expected to survive, a Priest may be called in to perform a baptism. But because it is church law and not "state" or "federal" law (assuming it took place in the United States) and the child survived neither the baby or the parents have to acknowledge the child as a Catholic. It happened in the family of a Jewish friend of mine. The mother, understandably, had a fit. My friend told her to just consider it an extra blessing and ignore it. The baby did not survive. According to the Catholic doctorine, the child was obsolved of "original sin" and could be admitted into the kingdom of heaven. According to her Jewish parents, she was always a Jew (because her mother was a Jew). What do I think of it? I think it's absolutely ridiculious for the Catholic church to stand by "original sin", a convenient circumstance they invented (dating back to the book of Genesis and the whole Adam & Eve fairy tale) as just another way for religious leaders to keep the flock in line and grow their numbers. When examined with an open mind, ALL churches can be tagged a "cult". Cult defined:
cult/kəlt/ Noun:
1.A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2.A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
I gather "small group" of people is a key factor. So it that society's way of saying if you grow your numbers to no longer be considered "small", does that mean the organization is no longer defined as a cult? If yes, what reason does the Mormon church have for baptizing so many unknowing and unwilling people if not to grow their numbers? Think about it please.
The same can be said for the Catholics and ALL other religions with missionaries. Why are they so bent on growing their numbers that they would go to such lengths? Do you r-e-a-l-l-y think they care that much about your soul, my soul, anyone's soul? Or do they do it for their own status and self worth? Personally, I don't have a problem with tithing because it's part of the rules of the club. One either accepts ALL the rules and stays a member or chooses not to compromise their principles and leaves. But no one should expect any organization to change their rules to suit a small group of its members. Unless of course it's the US Government and that small group of people control the overwhelming majoirty of the wealth. But that's a whole other Geraldo show isn't it?
Long story made short… If you don't believe in Mormonism their baptisms for the living or dead don't mean anything!! So it becomes a respect thing… Mormons should respect family members wishes that are here and living!
Gary Vasquez … I'm glad for you that it doesn't bother you. But trust me, I am bothered enough for all Jews. I am so offended by this I couldn't see straight for more than an hour. Whew! I just hung up with my dear friend in Chandler who is a Jew. When I called her I immediately went into "this" by starting with "I'm looking for a sane Jew!!". She feels basically the same way as you described … until I told her it happened AGAIN – and of all people, Anne Frank, a major SYMBOL of Judisim much as Joan of Arc is a symbol of Christianity. OMG! I'm going to have to find out if they posthumously baptized Joan of Arc. And one last thing and I will get off my soapbox … If this is really "ok" by most LDS members, why the secrecy and why did they bother signing an agreement with the heads of the Jewish religion if they were only going to break it? And as well as Sir Jeff Meadows spoke, why isn't someone WATCHING or approving who is baptized? Is it THAT easy for ANY member to do as they will without church approval??? I see you're in Mesa – I am in North Phoenix. I know there is an overwhelming population of Mormons in this state, something I didn't know until after I moved here. Not saying I would have changed my mind, only acknowledging what you said earlier that you live among it and speak from experience and witness.
Gary, Warren Jeffs and his cult in Texas have nothing to do with the LDS Church. Any polygamists in Utah or Arizona are not LDS, they cannot enter the temple, they cannot be baptized.
Laura, you misunderstand tithing. It is not a membership fee. You can still go to church, you can take part of the Sacrament and go to the other meetings.
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ that is for THEM to decide for themselves, not the Mormon church. If you believe so vehemently that it's necessary and that they HAVE a choice to accept or decline baptizm posthumously, then well enough should be left ALONE and they should be free to CHOOSE baptizm at that time also. As for Satan hijacking souls – I haven't heard of any Satanic church conducting "baptizms" posthumously or otherwise. Have you?
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ I used tithing as an example because someone else brought it up. I know what tithing is, I was a Catholic in my youth and was subjected to two collection at every mass. One was to be an hours' wages and the other was 10% of ones' gross pay. I also know in the Old Testament to "tithe" was to give a tenth of your income, including one chicken if you had 10. I often wondered what they did after 10 weeks of attending "church" when they had no more chickens. Another ridiculous "story" of the Bible (and other religions) to keep their revenue afloat. People who choose to join should give what they can, not what they're expected to.
In response to is Warren Jeffs a Mormon: Yes and no. Warren Jeffs is is a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint (FLDS) which does regard the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, so he is a Mormon. However, he is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) which is (by far) the largest church with regards to the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, so he is unlike any Mormon you are likely to meet.
In the season of lent I would ask that all of you be humble to what God wants for us not what we want for each other. Be humble,
And pray
…and eat jellybeans
Out of good old fashion respect of religious freedom it is none of "our" business what someone else's faith dictates as it's own cosmological view. It is either the way the individual views it or it is not. If the LDS practice of proxy saving rites is correct then they are doing all a favor. If they are just crazy cultist weirdos then what they do means nothing anyway. The only fowl here is that there is a an agreement with Jewish leaders to not do this. Whom ever provided the name should be corrected and Sister Anne should be removed from the completed side of the leadger. If they have the power to bind in Heaven and on Earth they can undo this just as quickly as it was done. Over zeralous well meaning people are in all faiths and non-faiths. This should be corrected and an apology provided.
Out of good old fashion respect of religious freedom it is none of "our" business what someone else's faith dictates as it's own cosmological view. It is either the way the individual views it or it is not. If the LDS practice of proxy saving rites is correct then they are doing all a favor. If they are just crazy cultist weirdos then what they do means nothing anyway. The only fowl here is that there is a an agreement with Jewish leaders to not do this. Whom ever provided the name should be corrected and Sister Anne should be removed from the completed side of the leadger. If they have the power to bind in Heaven and on Earth they can undo this just as quickly as it was done. Over zeralous well meaning people are in all faiths and non-faiths. This should be corrected and an apology provided.
I think the part that was barly touchedon is the living family members. In order for a name to be sent in for baptism the person sendong it in has to be a family member. In other words if they baptised your great-grandmother than someone in your family submitted her. Just because you didn't want it done doesn't mean a family member of yours felt the same way. If they have now converted they have the right to do with their family names as they please just like you do.
Sorry my keyboard on my phone sucks so that got a little misspelled. By the way just for laughs my husband says "Hijacked Souls" is a great band name.
Sara Johnson Gunderson ~ your husband is right, that does sound like a great name for a band. In regards to your post – the family members have been discussed, at length. These threads are so difficult to follow and keep jumping to the top when another post is made before you've finished writing and you have to continually find your place again. Your concept (and the way I understand it is done) could be only another legal battle for LDS, there have been many over the years. What relative has a "right to decide" – the Executor of the estate or a 4th cousin by marriage who never knew the person or much about him/her? When it comes to Anne Frank (and other Jews) I cannot imagine any of her descendants would have submitted her name for baptism. And if one had I would think the church would have released a statement saying they had permission, according to church doctrine, to baptise her at the request of a descendent. There have been many cases where it was fought tooth and nail but someone at LDS took it upon themselves to go ahead with it anyway. That is so wrong to do anything like this against the express wishes of the family and or the person, regardless of good intentions.
Laura Cataldo And again, The Church cannot control all its members. Software precautions can be gotten around, all software can. Should Anne Frank have been baptized by proxy? No. But the actions of one member does not mean that the Church itself is breaking it's deal.
Laura Cataldo And just to note, the FLDS Church and Warren Jeffs have no connection whatsoever to the LDS church and the subject at hand. Judging the LDS church based off them would be the same as judging the Catholic Church for the actions of a Calvinist.
Laura Cataldo Prisoners? You're exaggerating Baptisms for the Dead to a whole new magnitude. Baptizing the deceased by proxy does not mean chaining up souls and forcing them to be Mormon or whatever you imagine. You used to be a practicing Mormon, correct? Then you off all people should know that the LDS faith believes that baptism by the correct authority is the only way to get into heaven, and that (by assuming the LDS faith to be true) is unfair for those who died without opportunity to accept the Gospel to not get into heaven. As you surely know, the LDS Church believes that there is a type of missionary work that happens among the spirits and once a deceased person is baptized, it is more like handing them a key in which they can choose to use or not. The soul of the person can choose to accept the baptism. It isn't taking prisoners by any measure.
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ 1st, may I ask where the "Sir" comes from? The church, as any organization, cannot control all of its members – but it CAN control who is ACCEPTS into it's church as a member via babtism, can it not? Otherwise, if the church does not figure out a way in which to accomplish that goal, they are leaving themselves wide open to innumerable law suits. To say they can't control something that is easily controlable with today's technology is a poor excuse to fall back on. If a committe, leader, what have you were required to APPROVE all baptisms PRIOR to their occurence (and applicable authorization to do so via documentation submitted be reviewed and approved by that committe/members/leaders) wouldn't that solve the problem?
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ re: Warren Jeffs. I understand the FLDS is an "offshoot" so to speak of LDS and is not of itself LDS. Many modern day Christian churches are offshoots of others (actually, the overwhelming majority of them are). The Catholic church has done enough damage to itself to be judged accordingly on its own behavior and needs no help from others. My point is whether it be LDS or FLDS – Jeff's is a Mormon because FLDS regards the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God; thereby, deeming him a Mormon.
re: Other comments regarding what other religions posthumously baptize ~ After a little research I found only two other churches who baptize "their" dead, not the dead of other religions; The New and Old Apostolic church and the Mandaeans of Iran & Iraq.
If anyone knows how to "control" the masses / flocks, it is surely religious leaders. Sticking to something I know about – take exorcism and stigmata for example. The Vatican, and ultimately the Pope himself, must approve all "requests" (for the lack of a better word) for proof of the need of an exorcism and to deem a stigmata valid. I'm not saying I agree with either – I'm saying it is "controlled" by the Cardinals and ultimately the Pope. Priests do not perform exorcisms willy-nilly outside the realm of approval of the Vatican. If they do they are chastised or ostrasized by the Vatican.
Laura Cataldo, your argument that Warren Jeffs is a Mormon becuase he believes in the Book of Mormon is not only incredibly simplistic but is also amusingly naive. if we use the same argument then we would have to call Muslims Christians because they accept the Old testament and even parts of the New Testament regarding the mission (not the diviinity) of Jesus Christ. they reject, however, certain points, and therefore, are not Christians. The FLDS may believe in the Book of Mormon but it is their interpretation of the book. Furthermore, they reject key doctrines taught by the Mormon Church, as well as all Mormon leaders since the third president. They are about as Mormon as I am Protestant. Which I happily am not.
Craig L. Foster ~ first of all, it was not "my" interpretation. I found the answer on the internet when I googled "Is Warren Jeff's a Mormon". To say it's a naive conclusion is sophomoric as it makes sense that one who believes in the Book of Mormon (not the old or new testament, not the Torah, Quarn or what have you) just makes SENSE to most people. What else would you call someone who's holy book they believe to be the "word of God" is the Book of Mormon? You can't call him / her a Christian (New Testament) or a Jew (Old Testament / Torah), or a Muslim (Quran). So exactly what would you call or how would you define that persons' religion? I imagine Mormons are as disgusted with Warren Jeffs as Catholics are with the many priests who are guilty of child abuse. That's ok because we all have our black sheep and those we are ashamed to call "one of our own" because we cannot relate, excuse nor forgive the crimes/sins they have committed. I'm calling a spade a spade; i.e., Book of Mormon is the "holy" book of the Mormons. If one believes and uses that as the substance for his/her religious beliefs then that person IS a Mormon. Interpretation is a whole other ball of wax amongst all religions but that doesn't CHANGE their religion – they branch out and form other sects just as the Catholics (Byzantines v Roman) Jews (Sephardic, Hasidic, Reformed..) Protestants and "other" Christians (Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist) … etc. Thus what led them to all of their different "books" to suit "their" leaders interpretations and agendas of what "THEY" believe is the word of God. Personally, this is precisely why I think ALL organized religion is a farce. If one believes in God and lives the best life he or she possibly can … isn't THAT what is important? And what God wants afterall? All of these nonsensical (to me) rituals and traditions are so far fetched to me. Does anyone really believe you are closer to God because of a Temple Garment, Cassock, Papel , Kippah, yamaka, an alb or a cincture??? GOD did not create or demand his flock to wear those garments. Man did.
And YES .. they may have a purpose (serve as a reminder) but no one can deny they are MAN made rituals and tradition and have nothing whatsoever to do with God. Women of orthodox belief shave their heads, cover their faces (at various intervals, again – sect interpretation & belief). Did God tell women they are unholy (they are not permitted to "touch" the Torah because they are "unclean" because they bleed) when most religions try to make up for it with yet OTHER rituals they incorporated to make peace with their mothers and grow their numbers because after all, it is usally the mother who is responsible for their children's education. But I STRONGLY beleive the Pope is no closer to God than I am simply because he wears a Papal.
Tiffeny Herrick ~ no one likes to admit when they're wrong? A barking dog likes to hear itself bark? Who is being naive here dear? I try my darndest to comment on the issue, not attack the person. Only small minds do that. Obvisously, this is a HOT topic that has bothered many. What it comes down to is wrong is wrong regardless of individuals beliefs or religion. Hijacked is just that – the taking of something that a) does not belong to you and b) is not yours to take, ESPECIALLY when descendents have expressly asked NOT to be taken. Sir Jeff Meadows explained it is not the common practice of the LDS church to baptize those whose descendents did not ASK for it. And there's the agreement between the two (Jewish leaders and LDS) that has been BROKEN. Wrong is wrong. There's no getting around that. Many have asked your church to STOP. Your church should (and must if taken to COURT) abide by their wishes and show RESPECT. Does it really have to come to a court battle when all they have to do is just do the right thing in the first place?
Laura Cataldo "Sir" is a joke among some friends of mine. As far as who it accepts as a member via baptism by proxy, no one (that I know I of or have ever heard) has said that any deceased person whose baptismal work has been done is now Mormon. They say that the work is done for said person, but not ever that the deceased person is considered a member of the church. The stats of the total number of people who have been members of the church and the total number of those baptized posthumously are different and not combined.
And as far as trying to control more the names submitted, perhaps more can be done. Great strides have already been done and the software and control is improving. But having people assigned to double or triple check every name submitted by members of the church I think is a daunting task. There may not be the work force to efficiently try what you suggest. And again, with all forms of technology there is no underestimating the ingenuity and creativity of others and what they will try and do. Technology is a great help, but there are always ways around it.
I do have a question, what would you have the LDS Church do beyond take off Anne Frank's name from the database of deceased persons baptized? Stop the practice altogether, 170 years of doctrine that 14 million people believe? What exactly is the right thing in your mind?
Bettie Ellis Gerard re: "thanks for answering my question (not)". If I missed something I apologize. It's very difficult to follow these threads. Please repeat the question and I will do my best to answer it.
We have the right to choose what we believe; However we will stand accountable for what we do in this life. God does not change.
We have the right to choose what we believe; However we will stand accountable for what we do in this life. God does not change.
If your family members loved their beliefs enough to die for them, you want their sacrifice respected.
Tiffeny Herrick So if someone you don't know decides after you are dead to place documentation in genealogical records that goes against your most basic beliefs, you'd be OK with that?
Your religion allows you to believe whatever you want to but you don't get to involve people who don't have a say. As is often said, 'Your rights end at the end of my nose."
Laura Cataldo Was my comment deleted? No matter. "Sir" is a joke among some friends.
Anywho, The LDS Church does not consider a deceased person baptized by proxy to be a member of the Church, as in that person is not counted toward whatever total of people who have been members of the LDS Church. It hands them a key to choose to use, it does not redefine them.
Also, no matter how complex the software, people are going to get around it. Doesn't matter how many protections or safeguards are in place. There will be those enterprising people who will continue to try and get around what the Church has set.
And Rene, LDS Baptisms for the dead infringe on no Rights. It does not convert them, in our eyes it does not change their lifestyle. It merely presents the dead, the souls in the afterlife, the choice to accept the baptism.
Laura Cataldo, that's right, not being naive, I'm actually LISTENING to what people have to say instead of just beating a dead horse here. That's exactly what I mean by barking to hear your own voice. There is no point in arguing with someone who is so closed minded to anyone else's views. None of us are going to change your mind because this is a disgustion here, it's a game called lets keep shouting the same thing until the other gives in, and I see no point in that.
Laura Cataldo Laura Cataldo, that's right, not being naive, I'm actually LISTENING to what people have to say instead of just beating a dead horse here. That's exactly what I mean by barking to hear your own voice. There is no point in arguing with someone who is so closed minded to anyone else's views. None of us are going to change your mind because this isn't a discussion here, it's a game called lets keep shouting the same thing until the other gives in, and I see no point in that.
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ Hello again. Some of my posts seem to have been deleted too? So I know what you mean. I have to sincerely thank you. Unlike what Ms. Herrick seems to think, this is not a barking dog discussion, at least not with you. YOU are educating us in the ways of the church. YOU have kept this a discussion and for that I thank you. After my initial hysteria (I was VERY upset about this when I first heard of it, "understandably" as you yourself said) I have enjoyed your filling me in on the ways of the LDS church. Honestly, it has settled my nerves. I will always think it's wrong but I see your side, and the position taken by others i.e. "if you don't believe, it doesn't matter". I will always feel; however, if the posthumous "baptized" person has a "choice" to accept or not accept – then one would think they would also have the ability to ask for it themselves if that's what they wanted. I am going to repost this as a response to Tiffeny Herrick in hopes of her understanding that this HAS been or IS a discussion and not beating a dead horse. People have spoken, some have learned (hopefully on BOTH sides of the issue) a few things they did not know before.
Tiffeny Herrick ~ (repeat of reply post to Jeff Meadows) Sír Jeff Meadows ~ Hello again. Some of my posts seem to have been deleted too? So I know what you mean. I have to sincerely thank you. Unlike what Ms. Herrick seems to think, this is not a barking dog discussion, at least not with you. YOU are educating us in the ways of the church. YOU have kept this a discussion and for that I thank you. After my initial hysteria (I was VERY upset about this when I first heard of it, "understandably" as you yourself said) I have enjoyed your filling me in on the ways of the LDS church. Honestly, it has settled my nerves. I will always think it's wrong but I see your side, and the position taken by others i.e. "if you don't believe, it doesn't matter". I will always feel; however, if the posthumous "baptized" person has a "choice" to accept or not accept – then one would think they would also have the ability to ask for it themselves if that's what they wanted. I am going to repost this as a response to Tiffeny Herrick in hopes of her understanding that this HAS been or IS a discussion and not beating a dead horse. People have spoken, some have learned (hopefully on BOTH sides of the issue) a few things they did not know before.
Rene King Thompson Baptisms for the dead does not invalidate their sacrifice though.
Laura Cataldo For the individual deceased person to ask for it, I think would require frequent visits from beyond the grave. Lets say someone says that they were visited by a deceased relative to get their work done and said visitation was required to start their baptismal work. How could such a visit be verified and if there were subsequent "visits", how could those be verified, even independently?
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ Perhaps I should be more clear. If I understood previous posts correctly: The deceased who was posthumously baptized is cognizant of the situation and has the option to accept or decline the baptism. Is that correct?
If I have understood it correctly my question is – which is of more importance to the LDS church:
1) That the deceased is accepting of the baptism and is welcomed into the church’s interpretation of the Kingdom of God
Or
2) That the LDS church have a physical record of posthumous baptisms?
Does the LDS church (and its members) assume all who have been posthumously baptized were accepting of it? If not, how can the deceased’s name be recorded member without proof that he/she accepted it? Without proof I would think that to be considered falsifying its numbers by listing members’ names who may not have been accepting of the posthumous baptism?
I hope I have made myself clear of what I'm asking is more important to the LDS church – that mortal records include names that may not belong to them without visits from the grave or that the deceased person is accepted into the Kingdom of God with or without any record at all.
Laura Cataldo Something I just found out is that if a person was excommunicated from the Church or requested to have his or her records removed while alive, that a direct line family member has to send a formal letter to the First Presidency (The Prophet and his counselors) to request the ability to that person's Temple Work, get them rebaptized. Perhaps if that was implemented for victims of the holocaust, that would serve as a greater road block to getting those people posthumously baptized.
Sír Jeff Meadows ~ (my post is missing again???) Perhaps I should be more clear. If I understood previous posts correctly: The deceased who was posthumously baptized is cognizant of the situation and has the option to accept or decline the baptism. Is that correct?
If I have understood it correctly my question is – which is of more importance to the LDS church:
1) That the deceased is accepting of the baptism and is welcomed into the church’s interpretation of the Kingdom of God
Or
2) That the LDS church have a physical record of posthumous baptisms?
Does the LDS church (and its members) assume all who have been posthumously baptized were accepting of it? If not, how can the deceased’s name be recorded in their records as a member without some sort of proof that he/she accepted it? Without proof I would think that to be considered falsifying its numbers by listing members’ names who may not have been accepting of the posthumous baptism?
I hope I have made myself clear as to my question of what is more important to the LDS church – that mortal records include names that may not belong to them without visits from the grave or that the deceased person is accepted into the Kingdom of God without any record at all.
re: Your last entry (that I can see) regarding implementation of Holocaust victims ability …Thank you for investigating that but why should Holocaust victims families be required to deal with more paperwork to be removed from something they never asked for in the first place. I understand and appreciate your attempt to inform how to set up a road block but I strongly believe that should not be their responsibility when it should be the responsibility of the LDS church to ensure no one is baptized a Mormon without a direct family members requesting such. As you say there are procedures for removal that must be approved by the Presidency – why it is the same is not required to be baptized? I realize it takes a lot of time (as does the same in the Catholic church for requests) but what does it matter when the person of interst is already deceased?
If someone is dead they cannot reply. Furthermore, Jews do NOT follow Christ, nor do we believe in him, nor do we believe in hell. So just what does baptizing someone posthumously do for that person. We certainly have different beliefs than Christians. I think it's wrong to do this. It's very sneaky as well. Do Mormons do this to have more names on their books or what. To baptize means you follow the sacraments and give yourself to Christ. All of which mean nothing to us Jewish people. I think the Mormons would get all riled up if Jewish people had a posthumous Bar Mitzvah for Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion. What a bunch of hogwash!
Marinelle Cannaday Carter That's true and very wrong. The mormons baptized hundreds, maybe many thousands of Jews who perished in the holocaust. They had no right to do so.
Katie Barker Clark I'm sorry Katie I think you are totally wrong. It goes against all the beliefs of the Jewish faith and to do that posthumously is sneaky. It just should not be done. Someone who is dead has no say so. Do you know that the Jewish faith is the only one who tries to discourage people from converting to Judaism? It takes more than a year to convert. Yet the mormons go door to door trying to impress their beliefs on everyone. Many are NOT polite and do not want to leave. I feel they are invading my privacy. Why is it that someone who is not mormon cannot enter the mormom temple to attend a wedding? What's the big secret? I am a Jew and proud of it. I want to be buried in a Jewish cemetary with Hebrew on my tombstone and NOT have my name in the book of mormon. That is a sin!!!!!!!!!
Arleen Sontag Berke ~ ABSOFRIKINLUTELY!!!!!
Arleen Sontag Berke ~ And we are all entitled to our OWN beliefs, living or dead!!
Arleen Sontag Berke The LDS/Mormon wedding ceremony is not some high-to do like many American weddings are, where there is a huge show made out of it. The wedding ceremony is a sacred event where the man and wife make a covenant with each other and God to be faithful to each other for Time and all Eternity. It's not that it is a secret, it is more that it is sacred and that inviting in all to see and participate can lessen the spirituality and sacredness of the event. And no one's name enters into the Book of Mormon. I don't know what you are talking about there.
Sír Jeff Meadows I only asked why someone who is not a LDS cannot enter the church to attend a wedding ceremony. Yes it is sacred and even those who are not very religious Jews can attend a wedding ceremony in a synagogue. A Jewish wedding ceremony is also sacred and we promise to love and honor till death do us part, etc. I will never judge someone else's religion or beliefs and hope they will never judge mine. I must add a "HOWEVER" I agree with you that to be baptized and put in the book of mormon you must submit names of ancesters. I'm sure no one submitted Anne Frank's name.
Arleen Sontag Berke ~ If I may elaborate on your post Arleen Sontag Berke … that is to say no one with AUTHORITY, a direct descendent, submitted Anne Frank's name; thereby deeming the posthumous baptism NULL & VOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are posthumously going to Bar Mitzvah Joseph Smith this weekend. We'll make him a man! After all when a Jewish boy becomes Bar Mitzvah he is no longer a boy. It's the same principle of baptizing Jewish people who do NOT have a.
say when they are baptized and put in the book of mormon. It is WRONG and I thought the mormons agreed to stop.
this nonsense. Yet they had the nerve to baptize the Weisenthal family, who perished in the holocaust, and Anne Frank.
a very brave young girl who kept a diary during the war while being hidden in a tiny attic room. HOW DARE THE LDS!
Arleen – as long as you're going to have a posthumous Bar Mitzvah, you may as well multi-task and have a bris at the same time. Any volunteers to stand is as proxy????
Linda, you just busted a gotcha moment. Mormons don't even consider baptizing someone by proxy until one year after they are deceased and it is done in the temple only after a direct family member requests it. Stop trying to spread lies just to destroy something you disagree with.
well said!
Jonathan Polander, I actually said that a couple of days ago.
Arleen Sontag Berke, it has nothing to do with having more names on our books. The 14 million members of the LDS faith are current living members. Any total count of people who have belonged to the LDS faith since 1820 (When the church was founded) would not include the numbers of those baptized by proxy. This isn't about boosting numbers, to the LDS faith we perform baptisms for the dead for our deceased relatives so they can have the same spiritual blessings and opportunity to enter into the Celestial kingdom (Heaven). And if you want to have a posthumous Bar Mitzvah for Joseph Smith, then go for it, it would not detract him from being our Prophet or of this faith.
Arleen Sontag Berke, Laura; What Laura said clarifies what you probably mean, and I agree with her, the posthumous baptism should be declared null and void, and stricken from the database. The Book of Mormon is not a book containing a list of baptized people, however. We consider it scripture, much like the books of the Old Testament and New Testament.
I'd like to know what purpose was served by posthumously baptizing Jews who perished in the holocaust? Being Jewish, myself, we do not believe in Christ.