Decent and Indecent
Mourn·ing [mawr-ning, mohr-]
noun
- the act of a person who mourns; sorrowing or lamentation.
- the conventional manifestation of sorrow for a person’s death, especially by the wearing of black clothes or a black armband, the hanging of flags at half-mast, etc.
- the outward symbols of such sorrow, as black garments.
- the period or interval during which a person grieves or formally expresses grief, as by wearing black garments.
People mourn in a lot of ways. When they lose a loved one, people need both to express their sorrow and and to receive comfort for their loss. This is a universal experience and has over the millennia been ritualized in some fashion by virtually every culture/religion/people group you can name. The Jews “sit shiva” and receive comfort from the living:
Shiva (Hebrew: שבעה) (literally “seven”) is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as “sitting shiva.” Immediately after burial, first-degree relatives assume the halakhic status of “avel” (Hebrew: אבל ; “mourner”). This state lasts for seven days, during which family members traditionally gather in one home (preferably the home of the deceased) and receive visitors. At the funeral, mourners traditionally rend an outer garment, a ritual known as keriah. This garment is worn throughout shiva.
The Roman Catholics have a highly ritualized tradition that culminates in a Mass which always includes the Eucharist which is a ritual in which all share in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I could go on like this all day. My point is that the variances are huge and the meanings in the rituals are nuanced, often understood only by committed individuals to the community from which the ritual comes.
As a Christian if I celebrate the Eucharist as a part of my mourning ritual for a Jewish friend am I insulting that friends faith, or am I finding comfort from the sources and rituals most meaningful to me? Am I telling my dead friend how “wrong” his faith was, or am I hoping for a blessed eternity for him? I am sure there are a few nasty people out there for whom the motivations in the first clause of that last sentence apply, but for most people it is the latter. Most people mourn in the fashion to which they are most accustomed not out of disrespect for the deceased, but in a mark of ultimate respect. These are acts of love, pure and simple.
And so it is with the LDS ritual of posthumous baptism. It is an expression of a Mormon’s love and concern for a deceased individual. It is not some sort of unilateral religious conversion ritual:
Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.
It is simply an expression of a Mormon’s love for the deceased and their hope that the deceased can have what they consider to be the best.
And so when we mock these rituals — Shiva – the Eucharist – Baptism for the dead — we mock the love that the living had for the deceased. In my book that is about as inhumane as it gets.
And so, when Stephen Colbert circumcises a hot dog to convert dead Mormons into Jews or a website offers to turn dead Mormons gay – I get angry, really angry. Not because I believe in the Mormon practice – I most assuredly do not. But I do have many Mormon friends. People for whom I have enough affection that I do not wish to see them mocked in their deeply felt pain.
Is all this mockery bigotry like Charles Blow? Probably not – but it is as, or even more, despicable. It is certainly not a mark of a civil society – it is certainly indecent.
Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 25 Feb 2012 at 8:44 am #
John, I think you are taking this mockery harder than I am and maybe more than most Mormons. It isn’t as big a deal personally to many of us, if not most, as our detractors would like to think. They do not understand and there is no sin in not understanding. The sin is in not knowing, choosing to not know and then telling others you do. It is called bearing false witness. Their sin is not against us as much as it is against Christ. The LDS version of Christ’s atonement is a bit different and not germain to the discussion at least from a tradtional Christian perspective.
In some Evangelical circles, as I understand it, there exists a belief that one’s bad behavior requires a greater claim against Christ’s grace. I do not understand it except that the message is that one’s sinful behavior on earth adds greater pain to our Savior. Maybe you can explain the idea if you know anything about it.
sewinglady on 25 Feb 2012 at 10:32 am #
Thank you for the thoughtfulness of this post. I absolutely agree with you that the CJCLDS performance of vicarious baptisms for the dead is done out of love for those who have gone before. It is a mark of our respect for those who have passed on. We also NEVER teach that these ordinances have any effect if the person for whom they are performed does not accept them. Free will is paramount in our Church. It is one of the reasons that we do not believe in the baptism of infants. Babies cannot make choices. Eight year olds are still children, but they do have an ability to discern right from wrong and to make choices.
I don’t really care if others want to “debaptize” dead people. Although, I think the media should stay out of it. I had thought better of Stephen Colbert; I THOUGHT he was a political commentator. I guess we can now add “religion mocker” to his job description. How exciting for him to add such crudeness to his resume! I would like to see these scoffers keep a record of all of the dead people they have debaptized and spend hours and hours of their time making sure all of the ordinances are undone. They can also dig a vault in the mountain to protect their records in the case of natural disaster. It certainly doesn’t make any difference to me. Knock yourselves out!
I will have to admit to being puzzled about “making Mormons gay.” I thought gay people are always “born that way”–at least, that’s what the activists always tell everyone. Unless the people running that website, and I admit to not wasting my time on it, have figured out a way to give rebirth to dead Mormons, I can’t imagine how it works. If they have figured out how to grant dead people rebirth, I think they could probably sell the technology and become the richest people this planet has ever seen. Still, how would we know the dead people would WANT to be reborn? Silly me, I guess we just don’t know how dead people feel about anything because they are *dead*.
Caissamatic on 25 Feb 2012 at 4:48 pm #
You mention Shiva, the Eucharist, Baptism for the dead as rituals for the dead in other religions.
Japanese Shintoism conducts rites for the dead.
Buddhism is essentially centered around worship of the dead, and has numerous rites that are conducted in behalf of the dead.
Burning incense and offering food items at a family altar, local temple, or the site where a loved one has died are expressly for the purpose of comforting and caring for the dead.
Even a western-style funeral is performed as a memorial for the dead. What of Memorial day? We visit the cemetery and conduct memorial services for the dead.
To mock any the sacred ritual of any religion is an offense against all religions.
heidiglyn on 26 Feb 2012 at 9:36 am #
Thank you, John, for your very coherent thoughts on this. A good explanation with no rancor . . . rare these days.
Virginia on 26 Feb 2012 at 1:07 pm #
I have not noticed any outrage from any commenters concerning the extremely disrespectful attitude of Stephen Colbert toward the Jewish rite of circumcision by which a male child becomes part of the covenant between God and His people . . .
He (Colbert) is certainly mocking Jewish religious practice more disgustingly than he is mocking Mormon religious practice by what he has done.