Would you be offended if a Jewish rabbi performed a circumcision on another Jew to "save" your dead ancestor?

Question

Some folks feel it is disrespectful when Mormons do vicarious baptisms for and in behalf of their ancestors. Neither the baptism nor the circumsion would bother me if done with love and concern for my dead ancestors.

Let’s see. It appears to me that of the 14 so far who have given responses, only four have actually attempted to answer the question: Christopher (no), KKingS (no), cut50yearsago (yes), and Pinkadot(no).

I think it can reasonably be inferred that brian8907 intends “no” because he sees no disrespect in the baptism for the dead practice and points out that it was practiced in the Bible. Poppet asks where is that, and the answer is 1 Corinthians 15:29, “else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they baptized for the dead?

I’m guessing “The angels have the…” would say “yes.” He does seem to be offended at the idea. In fact, it appears that he thinks the idea will be used for anti-Semitic purposes. I don’t really see how, and I hope not. It would seem to me to indicate a loving concern on the part of Jews to include others in the blessings of being part of the Chosen People.

Underground Man says it bothers some people. He doesn’t say whether it bothers him or not. His venom seems directed against Mormons, so perhaps it can be inferred that he would also be offended if a similar practice were part of Jewish doctrine. Hard to say.

Similarly For Da Ben Dan – SC, gratvol, bluestareyed, and allonyoay seem to have erroneously addressed their responses to baptism for the dead, which is not the question I asked.

Mark S points out the obvious that this is a hypothetical question. Others also make the irrelevant comment that the concept doesn’t exist in Judaism.

I do take issue that such a practice is impossible. Suppose someone who was about to perform a circumcision were to say “I circumcise this infant for and in behalf of great-grandfather bluestareyed , who is dead.” That should do it, so it is not impossible. Now bluestareyed would find it disrespectful, allonyoay might find it disgusting and disrespectful, and possibly For Da Ben Dan – SC would be offended because great-grandfather bluestareyed did not choose to be circumcised while he was yet alive. I can’t help thinking that great-grandfather bluestareyed would be pleased to be remembered, and while he would probably say to himself, “Thanks, but I really don’t want to be Jewish,” the practice would not, in fact, make him Jewish against his will. And no one would be trying to tarnish what I have no doubt was a sterling reputation for great-grandfather bluestareyed.

If anyone would like to change his response to give an honest answer to my question, or further elaborate, I would appreciate it.

Allonyoav – I didn’t say that my question wasn’t related to baptism for the dead, I said that you have addressed your response to baptism for the dead, which isn’t my question. The additional details I gave (not part of the question) was meant to clarify what I meant by circumcision for the dead. And you still haven’t answered the question, nor even given a rational explanation for your emotional outbursts.

It’s presumptuous of you to speak for the dead, who undoubtedly now know some things you don’t, and they didn’t know before. Or don’t you believe in life after death? I might not have wanted to be circumcised, but I would feel no disrespect if someone did this in my behalf in loving concern for my welfare. How is your position logical?

Answer 1

No, that would not bother me. One thing people need to remember about the Mormons and performing those ordinances for the deceased... their names are not added to the membership records of the church. We believe they still have a choice, and if they choose to accept what is done, then their work is already done for them since it cannot be done by themselves after they die. (would be pretty hard to baptize a spirit wouldn't it?)
Anywho, no I would not be offended.

Answer 2

The Mormon practise of "saving" dead Jews by converting them posthumouslyis disgusting and disrespectful. They don;t do it for their ancestors- they do ti for people that have nothing to do with them and died as Jewish martyrs- such as the those that died at the hands of the Nazis.

Edit: You claim your question wasn't related to the baptism of the dead- yet you put it into your question... On top of that- you ask about a practoce which is non-exitent, has never existed and will never exist- in other words, to try and validate one practice (the baptism of the dead) you create a strawman. Botoom line- people saw through what you were doing and addressed the real issue here- the baptism of dead Jews by the Mormons- a practice that the Jewish community has objected to as being disgusting and disrespectful, and going against what the dead person would ever have wanted!
Edit: In Judaism it is an impossible scenario- you cannot atone on behalf of somebody else, or do something to yourself which was meant to be done on somebody else. It would be a meaningless action. On top of that- Judaism does NOT have a concept of hell, thuse there is no need to "save" anyone from it. To us- such a practice is just disrespectful and demeaning to the people who professed their faith and adherence to God's word in this life- and no one has the right to sully their memory and their lives by performing a ceremony to posthumously convert them to a religion they rejected during life- and which is rejected by Jews. No matter how much the Moromons want to try and claim their actio is "love and concern" in our eyes it is hateful, abusive and insulting.

Answer 3

Since you're asking for a comment not only about a hypothetical, but also impossible situation, I don't even have an answer. As to what the Mormons do--I don't really care since to me it's irrelevant. They've done an awful lot for genealogy in the process so as far as that goes it's been useful to many of us.

Answer 4

The fact is half the time it is not their ancestors, or anyone else related to them for that matter.

While I find the concept lacking in taste I personally do not find it so offensive, if it dose not imply that the person was ever a practitioner of Mormonism.

Answer 5

That just wouldn't happen. Circumcision is about identity, not some Christianized 'salvation'. But now that you've put the idea out there, someone will create a new piece of anti-Semitic rant from it. (Q!As do show up in search engines.)

Please don't mis-use us just to make a point that has nothing to do with us.

Answer 6

This concept does not exist in Judaism.
Nothing can make up for a Jewish man not being circumcised, other than the circumcision of the said man.

Answer 7

Well, it does bother some people who don't need to be "saved." It's patronizing for some Mormon to implicate a Jewish person in some idiotic ritual for some other religion they don't follow.

Answer 8

Yes, I would hate to think that anyone was mutilated for my family.

If the LDS want to sprinkle some water and do some mumbo gumbo nobody loses healthy body parts.

Answer 9

Not offended....I could really care less. Of course, the dunking in water sounds a bit more pleasant than having some guy's appendage sliced up....that's just my opinion though.

Answer 10

Who says it's disrepectful. Baptisms for the dead is even in the bible.