Comments on: LDS baptisms of the dead explained & contextualized

By: Apparently there’s a place in Muslim heaven for Useful Infidels | Augean Stables

Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:10:28 +0000

[...] It’s nice to know that he got flak for this statement (which you don’t have to be Muslim to find grotesquely brown-nosing). Apparently, Ahmadinejad is so desperate for friends in the international community that he considers enthusiastic useful infidels honorary Muslims. Shades of the Mormons doing post-mortem baptisms. [...]

By: Tsdh

Tsdh — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:21:34 +0000

It is ridiculous to try to justify the morons. They are the most disrespectful people on the planet. Good luck to me as my mom joined the moron cult 20 years ago. She has spent those years doing the genealogical thing and has done hundreds of proxy baptisms on my Jewish and non Jewish ancestors on her side of the family as well as my fathers side. It really sucks because I believe my ancestors were soul raped as will my name be blasphemed eventually and we have no say about it. Believe me as an outsider whose family member is in that cult, the intention is evil not good. Their belief is that the men will be gods in the afterlife. This proxy baptizing is about populating their planets with slaves and prostitutes for their own pleasures. You can say its all hocus pocus and it doesn’t matter but it’s an insult and causes trauma and emotional harm to the living who believe as I do that their relatives are being legally tortured by this insane cults desecration of the non believers name. I hate the moron cult and all their evil ways. My related moron has the temple recommend obviously because they’re constantly going to sl temple to do their nasty stuff. It’s so gross. They also have on many occasions stolen from and taken advantage of vulnerable non-lds family members. They have no values in regards to non-morons. The problem is people who put up with crap and actually defend it. Go to ancestor.com and if you’ve had a Mormon family member you will see that now all your ancestors were Mormon. That’s what your descendants will find out about you too. Disgusting cult.

By: Canof Sand

Canof Sand — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:25:32 +0000

“Posthumous baptizing — and I’ve always had it explained to me that the person is now and forever retroactively Mormon, in LDS beliefs, which is rewriting history”
“forced conversion”

Seems these sorts of ideas are the crux for all the “offense” and “outrage” . Yet not only are they patently untrue, they were debunked in this very thread. Yet people are still offended. Seems to me that many of you guys don’t actually WANT to understand the LDS people and their beliefs, that you’d PREFER to remain in ignorance so as to justify your own prejudices, and that’s far more offensive than anything the Mormons are doing.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:48:16 +0000

So. I converted to Judaism, and there is nothing worse than a convert. I was appalled and insulted when I found out that the Mormons baptised Anne Frank post mortem. I had a similar repulsive experience at the death bed of my Jewish friend. Our mutual christian friend insisted on praying over him CHAPEL PRAYERS! To ensure his entrance into Heaven. It’s so obnoxious, it is beyond my understanding.

By: Mormon secrets revealed! : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:04:37 +0000

[...] Thinking about that thread on LDS post-mortem baptism of people of other faiths left me wondering: did some of the commenters actually know what Morman post-mortem baptism entails? I knew all along that there is no use of human remains, no disinterrment, and no real involvement at all of the baptisees and their families. If this kind of thing were central to the ritual, then I would share the outrage that some expressed at the practice. Perhaps people really thought there was some kind of involuntary conscription involved that went beyond uttering someone’s name while a live Mormon undergoes a symbolic baptism on behalf of the baptisee? [...]

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:30:46 +0000

Feminist Avatar, even when C of E records are in a county record office, you need permission from the parish to film them. And diocesan records can’t be filmed without the bishops permission. I once had a long – and in retrospect funny – exchange with a PCC to get permission to film a parish register.
(Just thought I’d bring history back in…)

By: Western Dave

Western Dave — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:42:07 +0000

Oh Travis, you couldn’t let well enough alone could you? Where to begin? Have you never heard of Marriner Eccles? You never heard of George Romney? Or maybe Reed Smoot? Sigh, it’s not about current politics. It is about theology and pluralism.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:42:14 +0000

The idea that a Mormon might baptize me without my knowledge/consent, alive or dead, annoys me a fair amount. But it only annoys me exactly as much as a Christian praying for my soul to change.

That is the real equivalency here – stopping the phenomenon of people praying for people who don’t wish to be the subject/object of other people’s spiritual lives.

Praying for people is presumptuous and offensive and jerky true believers a)don’t see it that way, b)will never stop, and c)are offending mostly in their own minds.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:40:45 +0000

"This post attempted to understand LDS post-mortem baptism on its own terms.” Why? Because I am a historian and this is a history blog. MOST of the ideas I engage here I'm not terribly wild about, especially those in my research field, but it's my job. Defending forced religious practices isn’t defending a pluralistic society. You’ve got the whole thing exactly backwards. Forced religious practices? You've got to be kidding me. You continue to ignore the fact that we are talking about the baptism of the dead. You're done here.

By: Emma

Emma — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:33:43 +0000

“This post attempted to understand LDS post-mortem baptism on its own terms”

Why? Given this statement: “I don’t like most religious ideas”, why bother to engage this particular “idea”, i.e. the practice of forced baptism?

You’re able to “defend” forced baptism in the name of (false) pluralism because your ox isn’t gored. Then when people complain about their oxen being gored, you dismiss that complaint as itself arising from the speaker’s own “hokum” and therefore valueless in a “pluralistic” society.

Meanwhile, you show a distinct disinclination to situate the practice of forced baptism within all the other religious practices that Mormons would similarly force on everybody.

Defending forced religious practices isn’t defending a pluralistic society. You’ve got the whole thing exactly backwards.

Pluralism doesn’t require non-believers to graciously acquiesce to religious practices being forced on them because, in your estimation, all religious practices are “meaningless” “hokum” that are nothing more than “annoying”.

Pluralism requires that nobody have religious practices forced on them, at all, ever, regardless of the personal meaning or non-meaning any particular person may find in those practices.

And, also, you’re really going to take Mormons’ *word* for it that they’re just being *nice*?

And, you know what I *am* offended by the Taliban. I *am* offended by the Lubavitchers. But it’s exactly my vision of pluralism that means that they don’t get to force their religious views on me.

Your vision of pluralism would have us defining some forced theocracy as ok, because essentially meaningless, and some not ok because, you know, something that “really” mattered was affected.