Religious Issues in Utah

The news brought two stories of particularly interesting religious issues that are linked to Utah.

Back in May (specifically May 13) I mentioned in this blog about the court case involving one of the small cities south of Salt Lake and the religious group, Summum. The town had accepted a stone monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from a private group and placed it in a public park. The Summum people then proposed to donate a similar monument engraved with their Seven Aphorisms, which they claim were given to Moses first. The town declined to accept; Summum sued; and now the case will be heard in the Supreme Court tomorrow (November 12).

The town raises some logical and practical concerns about their reluctance to accept monuments from just anyone and everyone promoting just anything. The officials of Summum raise some interesting points concerning a town accepting a monument extolling one faith tradition and not another one.

I, for one, will be interested to read the oral arguments presented and to hear the decision, once it has been made. This, of course, raises the issue of religiously oriented items being accepted and displayed by governmental entities in this religiously plural culture.

The other issue involves the LDS practice of baptism by proxy. According to LDS teaching, a member of the LDS church can undergo baptism for someone who has died. This enables the deceased person to have the chance to make a choice to follow the "right" way in the afterlife. Several years ago, Jewish groups objected when Holocaust victims were being "baptized by proxy." The Jewish groups objected to the practice, and the LDS church took steps to stop it. Except now, there is some evidence that the practice continues. From the Jewish perspective, this whole process showed lack of regard for the victims and essentially diminished the Jewish identity of the Holocaust dead. From the LDS side of things, only LDS members who happened to have Jewish relatives could be baptized for them; thus, this was a sign of love for that dead Jewish relative by their now LDS descendant.

Is this different from an evangelical Christian or a Jehovah's Witness witnessing to a Jewish relative? I think so because, obviously, the dead cannot make their wishes known, but a living relative can tell you what they think. Is it right for one religious group to tell another one to ban a practice that is such an integral part of their theological framework?

Both of these incidents will be interesting to follow, especially since I am here at the epicenter. If you were to make a ruling on either or both, which way would you rule?