DISQUS

Indigo · 6 months ago

By the power of Unbelief and Ridicule, I hearby revoke all Mormon baptisms of all forms and widely let it be know throughout Bloggerdom that There Are No More Mormons Anywhere!

There! I did it! I unbaptized all of 'em!

Dave of the Jungle · 6 months ago

God just told me that all Mormon baptisms have been rendered invalid and have been vacated.

Judas Peckerwood · 6 months ago

I just DOUBLE BAPTIZED every Mormon into the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Top THAT Moroni!

Dave of the Jungle · 6 months ago

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is apparently real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg

Pass the word.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

No. Too late. I got 'em for the Giant Cucumber. It's green, it's healthy and it's better than all that pasta!

Now, stand corrected. YOU ARE EXCOMMUNICATED. ;-)

Cheers!

scottinsf · 6 months ago

These threads with the mormon cultists are fun. It's like flipping on a light switch in a dank room and watching cockroaches scurry.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Are you talking about the liberals here?

scottinsf · 6 months ago

Nah, mormons. It's like you're aware that these roaches are out there lurking in the shadows, but when they're suddenly exposed you're reminded how disgusting they truly are.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

I guess the same is true for any group that I dislike, none can come to mind....

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Jolley.

I like the commericals on TV. Also, LDS has some employment counseling offices around the country. Some good things are done by LDS people. But most of the cult's beliefs and acts are illy-fashioned, overly-redacted, and sadly, not representative of what Jesus was having us understand and do.

I don't dislike the group, I dislike the group-think and the passive-aggressive, yet arrogant, responses I hear from people like you.

If your religion was so faultless, then why is some of the history, the curses in D&C, and the actions in recent years so heartless and un-Jesus-like?

I don't associate your "Christ" with my Jesus. Not at all.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

No, Scott was talking about meddlesome LDS missionaries.

If you are around, tell us who Jesus was (NT only, not the BOM) and what Jesus means to all of us, believers or not.

Folks, you will now read some pretty wild stuff from Jolley, if s/he deigns to reply.

Some hints where I come from: Lord's Prayer, Beatitudes, Clearing of the Temple of Thieves, Parables and little else...

Ugh.

TerryInIowa · 6 months ago

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen the Freedom of (or from) Religion. Then question then is, "Does this right carry over after death?"
Unfortunately for those who "want something done about this," I think the answer is "No."
Afterall, the Constitution guarantees the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and none of these are possible after death.
Even though what they are doing may not be illegal, I think most people find it immoral. Getting this message out will bring more people to the realization that the Mormon Cult is crazy.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

1 Corinthians 15:29 (21st Century King James Version)

29Else, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

Rab · 6 months ago

Mumbo, Jumbo......... Let he who baptize without permission rot in hell.......see that's another saying.

mirth · 6 months ago

"Let he who believes respect the rights of unbelievers."

Always good to see you here, Rab.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Agree to disagree. "Who are baptized for the dead" this was a practice at some point in the early church and it is practiced in the LDS church.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

We're disagreeable for wanting our relatives' memories to be preserved?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Don't practice it on me, or someone gets a *spiritual* punch in the nose from me on the other side, whatever that is... ;-)

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Paul's words. Not the words of Jesus. This is Paul's religion, and yours if you like it....

But where is the Kingdom of God? Where did Jesus say it was going to be, eh?

I say it's here. We have to work hard to make it come to pass, and TV cults are not going to get us there.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yep, Terry, the Mormons are indeed crazy. Until they turn their efforts to good works and drop that nutty dogma (or whatever the BOM etc. is), they will not measure up to the real Jesus of the New Testament.

Ugh.

LuLulolly · 6 months ago

Every baptized Mormon is counted on the official rolls until their death is verified. If never reported (as in a large percentage of cases) they remain on til they would have been 120 years old.

Amost all of my HUGE once-Mormon family (8-12 children were born to all 4 sets of great-grandparents in the late 1800's; they and all of their countless progeny through maybe the 1970's were BIC and baptized) -- most of them long ago left the church but never bothered with having their names removed. Haven't been in a Mormon church in 20 or 30 years or more. But they are still on the roles and will be until their 120th birthdays, surely long dead by then. Example: my grandfather, born 1900, never entered a Mormon church since World War 1, when he (and all his large family) emigrated to another country and never again thought about Utah or Mormonism. He died in 1945. He will be on the roles til 2020 unless someone bothers to inform the church, and who would care to do that? I should, now that I think of it. Buyt he is just one of maybe hundreds of MY relatives in that situation. And that's just one family!

ngurl2000 · 6 months ago

The LDS Church encourages its members to vicariously baptize members of their own family who have passed away to give them an opportunity to accept or reject it in the spirit world. If they extend past their own immediate family, they are supposed to consult the closest relative for permission first.

So, this blog is incorrect in saying "We know that the Mormons have a policy of baptizing into the Mormon faith, without consent, every single person who dies on the planet." But there are those who don't follow the rules, just like in any religion.

mirth · 6 months ago

So officials of the church - that is temple workers to whom this capacity and power has been given - are performing these baptisms of the dead with no oversight?

Are they reprimanded for their failures and the baptisms nullified?

Oldhouse · 6 months ago

I am reminded of a time when the Baltimore Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was considering sending its records to the archive at Swarthmore. Some objected to making the records public, and available to Mormon genealogists who could then baptize the dead. Discussion went on for a good while, until an elderly Friend stood and said that her Quaker ancestors had had no trouble saying no thank you to the Mormons when they were alive, and would likely continue to do so after death, if the occasion were to arise. Unity ensured, and the records went on to Swarthmore.

InstantDogma · 6 months ago

Who cares?
A rational human being wouldn't.
It is all myth and superstition.
There is not one shred of tangible, data or evidence to support any of it. Not a bit.
If you disagree, then feel free to post any rational evidence or data (other than a several thousand year old historically/scientifically inaccurate text, that states the Universe is geocentric, written by folks that thought the world was flat and wiped their ass with their hands.)
Steve

LowKey · 6 months ago

Would you care if Martin Luther King Jr. was made an honorary member of the KKK post-humously?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Steve,

This is just a bit of fun. I really don't care if my Granny got necro-dunked by the Mormon cult. I won't be able to care if they Mormon-waterboard me, too. Nope, given this is a nutty thing that happens late at night during an ordinance where everyone is in slinky white robes and with secret signs doesn't rub my bottom one bit.

But the more the Mormon apologists squirm with their tracts, Bible quotes and apologies, the more I know they are trying to patch a hole in their dike that threatens to turn into a torrent.

It is fun. I still don't like their group-think ONE BIT, tho.

Ugh.

ingres · 6 months ago

"Mormons have a policy of baptizing into the Mormon faith, without consent, every single person who dies on the planet."

The policy is, in fact, approval of the nearest living relative. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made it clear that this is a *breach* of policy.

The post speaks of "forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism."

Mormons do not believe baptism on behalf of a deceased person in any way converts the deceased. To Mormons it is simply an offer, provided to their ancestors. That Obama's Mother's name was ever provided is unfortunate, as any Mormon, even the fool that originally entered it, is ready to admit.

And as for "forcibly," that's really a weaselish word. I'd guess Mormons would require a signature from the baptized, except for the fact that the baptized is dead. That's really the point of the rite. Instead, the permission of a near living relative is required. This requirement that was ignored by a foolish Mormon and to disastrous consequences. There is zero doubt the Mormon Church did not want this to happen.

P.S. What is a "blog-minder," the word the conspiracy-theorist keeps saying?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Mormon blog-minder = Missionaries, elders, or member who takes it upon his/herself to watch the progressive, liberal, GLBT and other blogs in order to assert spin-control, as above.

Forcibly = I have asked that you don't do this to my relatives. I don't intend to tell you my relatives names and pedigree, since I don't trust any of you. It appears that it is forcible, since many of you minders say, don't worry, it's good for you, if it's not for you or your loved one, then ignore it.

You know, ingres (a remarkable name, btw, it suggests penetration, invasion and force all in 6 little letters!), I am going to give you a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

{SNARK}
Let's say I find a pic of a young Mormon boy or girl. I know his or her name and I have their schoolbook bio. I know this person is under the age of 16. OK? Get it? I keep a record of all the names, pics, and bios of these kids. For each of them, I write a beautiful love letter, with all the appropriate innuendo, but nothing explicit. I enter a note for each of these kids I write love letters to, but I never send them and I never seek them out. Yet, the database keeps building, building of all the pics, names and bios. Sometimes, a template of that love letter gets out, with blanks where the names go and a frame where the pic should be. The letter is a spiritual suggestion that the boy or girl sees me as a love interest. Oooga booga!!!
{UNSNARK}

Are you icked out by now? Well, it's the same thing (a little different context, without question) as dunking the deceased for me, and it's icking ME out as I write it, too.

Conspiracy-theorist? Nope. I am just connecting the dots and following the money.

Zero doubt? The practice as documented by those who have done it does not seem to guarantee this. I think you are spinning this a bit, hah.

And you write that stuff to me with such Mormon arrogance and pride... Sucker.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"The policy is, in fact, approval of the nearest living relative."

PLEASE CITE.

Hahahahahaaha. I don't expect an answer to this, folks.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

To clarify "blog minder" a bit. When an outsider visits North Korea, or in the past when an outsider visited the Soviet Union or China during Mao, Inturist or the group that manages things for visiter assigns you a translator and guide, whether you need it or not. After a bit, you realize that your translator has "friends" who take over when their shift is over. Towards the end, you get the distinct impression that you don't dare speak to any of the natives, since your very words are being "monitored" or "MINDED", hence these people are called "MINDERS."

Therefore I coined the phrase "Mormon blog-minders," because they chime in at regular intervals, as if this thread has been T-O'ed or turned over to the next shift. If not, well, it's ok, it's our policy here to refer to Mormon blog-minders as such.

But--if you are NOT one, then no fear, you can refuse the appelation. If you are then you are welcome to feel free to act as such. It is an invitation to join our community as a Mormon blog-minder. It is your choice to accept or reject that name.

But I have a database, and I keep the names, pics and bios....

Ugh.

ingres · 6 months ago

"It is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related," written by Kim Farah, LDS spokeswoman. It's the best that two seconds of research could find.

I'm not a blog-minder. I visit progressive blogs like this one as often as any moderate reasonably would. Statistically U.S. Mormons are conservative. But the homogeneity of Mormon political belief has been quite overstated, especially in the wake of the issue of gay marriage in California.

Which leads me to a point. There are plenty of reasons that a politically progressive person could find to hate the Mormons. Their baptisms for the dead is not one of them. Baptisms for the dead in fact reflects the universalism of their theology, which does not condemn the unbaptized to hell.

I'm sorry for whatever unpleasant history you've had with the Mormon Church, UncleBucky. I beg of you not to let the dumb thing one Mormon did by entering Ann Dunham's name convince you of the insincerity of Mormons in general.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

One (1) dumb Mormon? Hah I myself have run into scads of very arrogant, narrow-minded Elders in many conversations and encounters. You don't know me. But I know enough about the Mormon Cult that I would fight with pen and mic (if nec) to let the general population know that your group is NOT Christian, not representative of Jesus's commands (clearly in view of the persona of Jesus outlined in the BOM), and certainly NOT parallel to the goals advocated by *Liberation Theology* in Latin America and the *Welcoming Churches* programs of many Christian communities. Get it?

See?

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Then, I wonder if we can have a statement from the current LDS President about not interfering in other people's personal lives, particularly those who are not in your cult.

This is important, since the LDS took special pains to interfere in other people's lives recently, and members have interfered in my life when I was employed at a State University. OK?

I would like to see policy from the LDS President on the group's dealing with those members who speak their minds on LDS practices they object to. That's none of my business, of course, but when compatriots of mine feel discriminated against by their own group, I feel empathy with them.

Get it?

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Couldn't you also consider the person who chimes in at every interval and never misses a shift a blog-minder? The one who takes personal responsibility to establish his own opinion as the opinion of the blog, the opinions of the natives - those who actually belong to the blog because they think correctly.

What kind of a name would you have for such a group, the ones that band together wit a policy and common purpose. The inviters. The ones that choose to welcome or not.

Those who protect the blog by keeping a database of the disturbers with names, pics and bios?

If that's not a blog-minder, then maybe you could come up with a name for it.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"the conspiracy-theorist" ????

I think my screen ID is pretty clear here. Something you don't like about addressing people directly?

See, when Mormon blog-minders don't like what you say, they simply throw metaphorical salt at you, and hop on their bikes in search of a new victim.

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

What probably happened is that someone submitted the name either intentionally to stir up debate or unintentionally not realizing that this might make the church look badly. Once the name reaches the temple, there is no way of verifying by a background check to see if the person is related to somebody famous or not or if the needed permission from the closest living relative was received. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of course does not mean any offense and there are procedures in place to ensure that people who would object to having this work done for their ancestors have their wishes respected. For the most part, submitted names are by those who are directly related. Baptism for the dead does not make anybody a “Mormon” and there are no official records saying that they are, only that the work has been done so it’s not needlessly repeated as you can see with Family Search. According to belief, nobody is forced to accept the baptism in the next life and the dead can reject it if they so desire. Regardless, if the practice is false, then it should not matter.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Hey.

Dead people cannot choose. They are dead. Choice is a behavior of a living thing. Souls, by definition, are not living, and their existence is not testable.

It is for the LIVING who contemplate that a crude cult would use the names of their loved ones in a bizarre rite in a dark basement that I fight back.

Imagine. We cannot see this rite. We are told it's ok, it's ok, the dead can accept or reject. We cannot ask them to stop sending this spiritual junk mail to our relatives. All we can do, says the Mormon blog-minder, is sit back and take proselytizing, whether we like it or not. In my suburb, we cannot even prevent these travelling religion vendors from coming to our door like a Fuller Brush man. I would buy the brushes and gimmicks, but I don't buy the BOM. I read it cover to cover as an exercise. I read D&C. I read Pearl of Great Price in the same way. It is a TRAVESTY!

You can do what you want with your own people, living or dead, I suppose, but when it comes to my people, STFU.

Leave my relatives alone. That is what matters.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I realize this is a re-post. But I think it answers a lot to one of the Mormon blog-minders who said they bring freedom as commanded by God, err Jehovah. So, if you want ace this, go ahead, it's my last bit I am pretty sure except for some come-backs.

========
Hmmm... Jehovah? Wanted us to be free? How free were the Canaanites from the Israelites? How free were the people of Jericho from them? How free were the Samaritans from the returning Israelites? How free were the Arians from the Catholics of Theodosius? How free were the Cathars from the Catholics of Innocent (haha) III? How free were the Jews and Muslims from the Spanish Inquisition (Not the...)? How free were the citizens of Constantinople from the Latin Catholic invaders? How free were the Jews of the Diaspora in Europe and Russia at the hands of Christian rulers? How free were the Arabs in Palestine from the Crusaders? How free were the Huguenots from Catholic death squads? How free were the people of Europe from the religious wars of the 15-19th centuries? How free were the natives of every non-European land that suffered so-called Christian missionaries? How free were the Native Americans from the viruses, bacteria and other bugs carried by the invaders? How free were the Caribs, Arawaks, Quechua, Aymara, Mayan, Aztecs, Athabaskans, Plains Indians, Forest Indians, Coastal Indians from Columbus, Cortez, Pizarro, and their Catholic camp followers? How free were the Cavaliers from the ire of the Puritans? How free were the forcibly-immigrated Africans from the Christians who used them as mules? How free were the Native Americans settled into reservation, stripped of their culture, and made to speak English by Christian missionaries? How free were Negros after the Civil War, when Christians told them they could not have equal rights? How free were GLBT/LGBT people from Catholics and Christians for millenia killing them for who they were? How free were Asians when Christians in the US told them they could never become citizens, vote or marry a person of the majority race (Asian women were not permitted at first to immigrate)? How free were women in this country when they were told they could not vote? How free were Latinos when Christians told them they could not become citizens and vote until they lost their culture, spoke English and acted "white"? How free were Jews, Roma, GLBT, Jehovah-Witnesses, Quakers, and Catholic dissenters from the hands of so-called Fascist followers of "Christ" killed by Jews? How free are people in the Mormon Cult from speaking their mind outside of the core beliefs? How free are Mormon women from acting on their own, secure in their own skills and accomplishments away from their domineering husbands/owners? How free are Mormon GLBT/LGBT from being who they are without being intimidated, hurt and cut off by their (hah) loving families?

What kind of freedom has all that been at the service of God? At the obedience of the words of Jesus?

Question: IF Mormons are Catholics/Christians on steroids, THEN what kind of world could you expect if the Mormon mindset became the majority?

Answer: Nothing different than all those horrible pogroms, massacres, murders, and forcible assemblies into ghettos and killing fields by Christians over the ages since 392 CE. Jesus would never have sanctioned this. Never.

Answer: God must not be getting his point across through the Christians. Funny thing, Buddhists get it. Ba'hai's get it. Native Americans get it. Muslims get it. Unitarians get it. Quakers get it, and they are not regarded well by the rest of Christendom, and not at all by Mormons. No. All Christians seem to do to non-Christians is try to convert them at the point of a sword. And Mormons, when they get that sword (critical mass) will do the same thing. Example:

Mountain Meadows massacre
Mark Twain wrote of the butchery in "Roughing It".

It has happened at Mountain Meadows.

It will surely happen again at Mormon hands. Don't turn your backs on them.

Ugh.
========

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

There is way too much here to make any sense of your comment, but I will give you a really short answer. Wickedness never was happiness and safety is to be found in keeping the commandments of God. The moment any society completely turn its back on God they have been destroyed and I’m certain it will happen again if things keep getting worse out there. It’s that simple. Moutain Medows massacre was done by bad mormons, nobody is denying that, but are you going to blame the many for the actions of a few? They're dead now.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Thanks for your critique, m-Hmm. So here, folks, is another example of not answering the question, and supplying a stock answer to a bad Mormon Cult.

Mormon people are not bad, the whole religion is founded on a megalomaniac's hallucinations from breathing mercury from some old hat. The BOM is a trite knock-off of some bad translations of the Bible, and compared with Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Mark, James and a few other works, the BOM is a travesty foisted upon fearful and hopeful people.

How's that for changing back to the right topic?

OK, let's talk about commandments. Which commandments? Whose? Down to what detail? And redacted by what body of male authoritarians? ;-)

Let's talk about blame. I don't blame the rank and file Mormon for trying to make sense of the world with some of the only resources they have. It is the LDS Church Hierarchy ("oh we have none" - uh uh I ain't buying that excuse) that bear the blame and shame. YOU TRY to speak for your self in the Mormon Cult. Just try it. You will find yourself seated on a wooden chair in front of several old goats, wondering if you will ever have a life (of course, you will, but without your family, you will have to find a "new" one).

I don't blame Mormons. I blame comfortable elders, stake presidents, bishops, co-dependent women of all ages, arrogant young missionaries, and of course the Grand High Deciders, the Presidents of the Church itself, from Joe and Brigham down to the present.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

BTW, this is yet another Mormon blog-minder come to tell us how wrong we are, and how we should return to the fold of the restored Church.

Now. ctrantrm. What about freedom as meted out by Catholics/Christians/Mormons? Nice trend, not so nice trend, bad trend, evil trend? Hm?

No, of course, you will change the subject to something you prefer to talk about. What we expected. NEXT!!!

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I don't attack Mormons individually. I have known several in professional and personal settings, but never on a religious basis, since they won't talk. I have sparred with missionaries, and I find that once the "victim" is articulate and offers arguments against the cult, then they cut me off and scamper away on their bikes. I think the Mormon mind set is abominable. Mormons, once they realize you can fight back verbally, act as if you and everyone else like you is unworthy, and with that mind set, the only reaction is to want to try to control you and everyone like you.

In essence, they are religious colonialists, no better than the Puritans, Conquistadors, missionaries to the Third World, and Fundies. If you don't agree with them in a conversation, they try to persuade you (You can't persuade them, uh uh), and if they have no success, they throw salt on you or something. Also, they hide their rather nasty secret practices and will not tell you what you have to do after they dunk you. They want nothing more than you join them and believe their nonsense. But if you have a voice, look out, prepare to be exterminated, err, excommunicated.

They are the Borg. If you don't assimilate, then they turn into Daleks (Exterminate!!! then ExcoMUNicate!!). And you become a non-person if you speak against them. Even if you are born into a Mormon family, say one bad thing against the cult, you are cut OFF. So, bottom line. Either you are with them or you are against them. Such a religion!

I belong to the Democratic Party. I voted for Barack H. Obama. I support the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you Mormons act against any of the three documents, even if you speak against them, I will give you a piece of my mind (Keith), and, sadly (Keith), I will not back down.

Next!

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

They are the Morg, not the Borg. ;-)

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

Mormons back the constitution and the democratic process so don't get all bent out of shape and if you didn't already know that, then you don't know as much about Mormons as you think you do. P.S. I voted for Obama too, yeah that's right, you can do that as a Mormon and still be in good standing so get a grip. You are talking crazy for crying out loud.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Bent out of shape. Nice name-calling, Mormon. Here, folks, is another Mormon blog-minder that changes the subject, blames the victim and blahdy blahdy blah...

Mormons had to say they support the US Constitution, etc., in 1898 to become the state of Utah (they wanted Deseret, but they got greedy).

The actual goals of the Mormon Cult is to place members in key positions, such as the ahhhh Presidency (Mittsy Romney, to be exact) and then, like George W., carry on the program of subverting the US Constitution to a Theocracy.

They SAY they aren't doing this (what cult would say what it is really doing, except Fred Phelp's nuthouse), but that doesn't mean they don't have very long terms goals of world domination. Check out Dominionists.... and you think Mormons don't have a competing plan?? Hahahaha!!!

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

It is mormon doctrine that the US government will be overthrown (together with all other goverments of the world) and replaced by a theocracy with headquarters in Missouri and run by Mormons.

Mormons do make claims to love the constitution, but only til they decide to set up their theocracy.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Excellent. Again you bested me on due diligence about their doctrines. Where do you find these things?

Exmormon is my home for this, but where do you go to shake out the cobwebs?

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

I am pretty sure I learned that in seminary. ;-P

Do you post as Unclebucky over there too?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Well.

So what the Mormons on this thread think is is that if they want to do something, it's their right, it's freedom of speech, and it's not illegal. What does that sound like? Hm? Does that sound like anything related to Jesus in any way?

Gospel of Thomas 108: “He who will drink from My mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become like him, and the hidden will be revealed to him.” Mormons do not drink from the mouth of Jesus.

Gospel of Mary 4:25: Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us also what is the sin of the world? Mormons do not know the sin of the world, the attempt to control others as things. Check out Martin Buber.

Gospel of Thomas 100: They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to Him : “Caesar’s men demand taxes from us.” He said to them : “Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give Elohîm what belongs to Elohîm, and give Me what is Mine.” Mormons confuse their Church with civil government. This is not a Theocracy, as they would wish it to be.

Gospel of Thomas 34: Jesus said : “When a blind man leads another blind man both fall into a ditch.” Mormons follow the false words of Joe Smith. So when it comes to the commands of Jesus, they not only fall into a ditch, they drag the world in there with them.

Letter of James 1: 23: For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror. Mormons look into the mirror of the BOM, the words of Joe Smith, which is all they see, and all they want to see.

Gospel of Thomas 9: Jesus said : "See, the sower went out, filled his hand, and scattered the seed. Some fell on the road ; birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rocky ground, did not take root in the soil, and did not give ears of corn. And others fell among thorns ; they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil and gave good fruit : it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure." Mormons are the birds, the rocky ground, and the thorns...

If you all can quote, so can I.

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

Good for you, now read the rest of the bible instead of cherry picking it.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Cute. Tell me about cherry picking Leviticus and the rest. How many people have you stoned? How's that cotton-polyester working out for ya?

You are hilarious!

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Um, the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible.

Did you think it was? :O

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

It's making you tired to try to keep your comments at the top.
Why attack Mormons? There are too many out there and they are too well known now for this argument to fly. They aren't into control. They believe in Jesus.

I hope the blog is interesting. UncleBucky thinks he can win an argument by putting out more words and keeping his comments at the top. We can make a more interesting blog by actually using reason and facts.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Nope. Not tired. But I bet YOU mean that I am tiresome to you. Keep checking back, Mormon blog-minder.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Keith, you appear to be a silly goose. I have things to say. And you are talking about me in the 3rd Person. That is what controllers do - Keith. I am speaking to you DIRECTLY.

Now. Mormons do not believe in Jesus. Joe Smith created a Christ who has a completely different persona than the historical Jesus (or what we can decipher from the centuries of mush down to the Early 19th Century) which we can now see through scholarly deconstructions of the remaining texts.

Jesus never was in the Americas. Never. He may have visited England, haha, but I doubt it. He may have visited in the East, but again, I doubt it. Joe Smith invented all this after inhaling the mercury vapours of some old hat.

Until you people stop trying to control the world, you will be met with the same force that Jesus exerted whilst throwing out the thieves from the Temple and saving the dovies.

I am using facts. The BOM is no such thing. It is a trite fantasy. Asking ignorant, fearful and intimidated people to believe that nonsense is worse than Fundamentalists trying to convince people that Revelation was something that Jesus ever intended (he didn't - Gospels were later redacted to make Revelations fit).

First: God is Love. Jesus is his Messenger. There were prophets before him, and there may be some pretty visionary people that have come after, but I must say, Joe Smith and his Book of Mormon is the greatest travesty ever foisted on fearful and hopeful people.

And your social views are no better than stinky - Keith - stinky.

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

What denomination are you Uncle Bucky? Are you a former member? You have a reason for all these attacks, but you haven't quite said it, not honestly. You have spent a lot of energy on this and I have seen others like you. There is nothing casual about it and you are on a mission, but no amount of ranting will do you any good. Critics have been trying for hundreds of years and I have seen these cut and paste attacks many times before, but the church continues to grow. If it were all just Joseph Smith's, then it would have failed by now. You are the elephant in the room by the way I hope you know that. These attacks are childish and uncalled for.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I see here, folks, a real Mormon blog-minder. Now, s/he wants to find out, what makes me tick? Am I an ex-Mormon? Am I something else? Am I on a mission?

"The church continues to grow"

That is the mission. The LDS continues to lie, persecute and plan for the future domination of the world based on a text that was written by a megalomaniac who breathed too many mercury fumes from an old hat. He also messed around with multiple young women, cursed people who disagreed with him, and was stupid enough to fight against State law officials. And he inspired people who would meddle in the lives of others...

For that, I fight.

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

I'm sorry. You definitely have me there. I continue to hope that there is somebody else out there filtering through all of this, so I slip back into the third person and address them.

I of course wish that this blogging phenomena could produce something of value by allowing actual discussion.

It's hilarious that you pasted in some old writing that you've done after I suggested that you were tiring of trying to keep your own posts at the top. I guess there is no limit to the filibuster if we can all just cut and paste.

There really are some points of view that are different from yours.

This spirit of control that you fear is also displayed in your writing. It attempts to quiet others. Ultimately people that want a quiet rational discussion will have to abandon blogs like this and find some community where participants respect and enjoy people with different points of view.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Quiet others? Let me tell you what LDS missionaries (as if!) do when I suggest alternative ways of meeting the Divine. They metaphorically throw salt at me, and off they go on their bikes.

Actually, I see your troupe of Mormon blog-minders have seen me as a threat. And now we go at it. Tell me, how do you deal with skid marks on your magic underwear?

So be it.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Regarding the cut and paste, well... I think the litany of abuses and horrors that were done by so-called Christians/Catholics/Mormons was important enough to put at the top of the list as a separate post. I WROTE THAT RATIONALE, too, bud!

But given that Mormonism looks like Pizarro or Puritans on steroids, I fear the future of a Mormon world.

Ugh.

NateOcean · 6 months ago

I've used that database, and because it basically consists of whatever crap some lay person decides to submit, it is riddled with errors. In my case a step-grandfather (Mormon) is now listed as my actual-grandfather, and the actual-grandfather (non-Mormon) is completely eliminated from the picture.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Lay person?? Meaning?

Ugh.

NateOcean · 6 months ago

"Of or pertaining to the laity, as distinct from the clergy; as, a lay person; a lay preacher; a lay brother. "

There is no attempt at verifying or correcting data submitted by church members to the archive. Much of the data is self-contradictory and provably so with a cursory glance.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Lay person? Non-Mormon? Rank amateur?

:)

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

You have never heard of a lay person? Really?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Ha ha. Only asking for clarification of a word that could be "code". I want everyone here to understand that Mormons and Mormonites use certain code to suggest one's membership, non-membership or former membership.

That's all, litttle Mormon.

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Nate is right. The database is not very reliable. But it is helpful. It's a work in progress.

You could compare it to Wikipedia for example. Wikipedia is much better for accuracy than the genealogy database. But in both cases the data is incredibly powerful when you keep in mind what the sources are and how corrections can be made.

jhoopes · 6 months ago

THIS IS FALSE, AND ANYONE WITH ANY CONCEPT OF HOW SECURE SITES ON THE INTERNET WORK CAN REALIZE THIS.

The Mormons do not have a policy of baptizing those without the consent of some direct linear ancestor. What are you saying is patently false.

Not only that, but had your image from the secure LDS website (which is accessible to anyone who properly registers), it would read https:// in the URL, not just http://. I just logged on, and it is a secured site, and does have the "s". Your image is nothing more than a doctored up falsity, meant to cause harm to religion you don't like.

However, assume it was read. If the Mormons are just a bunch of crazy nut jobs, who cares if they saying the name of anyone as they perform their ordinances? Would you be upset if a Catholic were praying for Obama's mother?

kell_bell09 · 6 months ago

I love mormons!!! they're the nicest people I know.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Oh, kell, you are such a nice blog-minder!

If you are Mormon, you are doing what you believe is right, I am sure. One day, before you die, you will see the delusions, I am sure.

If you are not, shake the cobwebs from your head, my dear, you have been Mormon-waterboarded!!!

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

You can't be for real UncleBucky. Mormon waterboarded? Give me a break.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

That is what it feels like when your relatives are dunked against their former and your present will.

Leave my relatives alone.

I am real, baby, and for me, one of the most abominable cults in the world is Mormonism. I had to find out the hard way.

I will not give you a break. You are a Mormon blog-minder of the worst kind. Turn around and ask your supervisor how you are doing.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Know what metaphors are?

If you are too literal-minded, you will never do well with progressives, widely-educated people in general and those who I call "lumpers" (not "splitters").

So reach beyond the first meaning!

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Hello litttle mormon, before telling lies on the internet, you should probably check and see if the LDS church has confirmed this. They did. Since you probably think that any non-mormon run newspaper is part of some satanic conspiracy, you aer still out of luck, Deseret News printed the story that the LDS church confirmed that this happened as well.

If you had any shred of honesty, you would apologize for your lies and false accusations. But you are mormon, a religion that has been telling lies for 180 years, so I won't hold my breath.

Moerover you miss the mark with your praying analogy. This is not like a prayer, Prophet's of the LDS church have decreed that Barack Obama's mother should be put to death for producing a mixed race child, postumously baptising her mormon would be like making Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an honorary member of the KKK.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Good one, Lowkey. Better due diligence than me.

Thank you.

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

and YW. ;-)

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Except they are greased fish. And they replicate like... well, like... well, like FISH!

Ugh.

henryedward · 6 months ago

Parts of my family have been involved in the LDS (Mormon) faith since the earliest days in upstate NY, and have held high leadership positions over the almost 180 years. I grew up LDS (Mormon), and was excommunicated twice as an adult in the 80's - once for moral failings while a missionary in Europe, the second for public disagreement with doctrine and leadership. After that pursued degrees in comparative religion and anthropology. In my teens I was baptized in proxy for the dead.

On this issue, I have insight and direct experience. In short, big deal. Other faiths indulge in the same pretend games. Evangelical and other Christians claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian, while most were Deists at best. Their memories are invoked and their words distorted to be used by the religions that have stolen them - the LDS (Mormons) don't even do that, Obama's mothers words are not written on banners on meeting house walls.

Having had extensive experience with Messianic Jew (Jews for Jesus), they have a great habit of saying every previous ancestor or famous Jew truly believed in Jesus and was some sort of Crypto-Christian. They even see them accepting the gospel in dreams and such, and tell of their secret conversions.

I know quite a few German (read Jewish) families that came to this country and denied their faith and ethnicity, and that of all of their forefathers - who are referred to as Lutherans - and changed generations chosen identity without permission.

I know many LDS (Mormon) who are very proud of their religious heritage. Many who still celebrate all of their traditional ethnic/religious holidays and carry over many of their doctrine and folk beliefs. Although they have been baptized in proxy for their Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Animist ancestors they do not believe that any of them are LDS (Mormon), only that the mechanical part of the ritual has been performed for them if they decide they want it.

If Aravois and the commenters are willing to attack the LDS (Mormon) on this issue, they must also be willing to attack the realities of other faiths. All of them are tall tales, singling out one faith is trashy and hypocritical. On that note, Yassir Arafat once said the reason that there would never be peace in Palestine is because both sides believed that their chosen superhero would come down and obliterate the other side at the last minute. Unfortunately, this kind of post and discussion just creates that kind of malarkey.

mirth · 6 months ago

"If Aravois and the commenters are willing to attack the LDS (Mormon) on this issue, they must also be willing to attack the realities of other faiths."

Nonsense.

Name one other religion that baptizes the dead without their pre-approval or the approval of their living relatives.

henryedward · 6 months ago

Dead people are dead. That is why we call them that. Do I need your permission to do anything with a dead persons name. This ultimately ends up in the same place as Danish cartoons and Fatwas on Rushide. Do you have Marx's permission to put his poster on the wall, how about his family? Do you have Jesus' permission to hang on your neck, your wall, your rearview mirror? Thin of all the Dicks and Janes co-opted into deviant behavior in children's books. Did Eminem get Sarah Palin's permission for her depiction in his video? They are dead, they have no rights. We all do this in one form or another. Just think it through, if this were always the case we would all be animists - defending the faith of our fathers. Talk about being a part of a "cult". All of the reasoned arguments everyone is making still come down to theology and honor. Since we are not all animists, we have no honor and have not defended the faith of our fathers. Theology, well, is theology.

Arguing theology is ugly and cheap, and confuses the issues. I mean the equivalent question would be about the abuse of infant baptism. What churches abuse non-consenting individuals to convert upon pain of damnation when they are days old? It doesn't seem any different to me. From a rational point of view, not a damn drop. However, theology and belief are not rational, to expect otherwise is frankly insane.

While arguing theology all of you are in a pissing match, getting wet and stinky. If Aravois and the commenters want to talk about political/civil aspects of religion then more power to them. I believe the main points are probably gay rights, and racist history. Racist history is a canard, and was addressed 30 years ago. Ugly history, and like school integration a long way to go, but the underlying system has been addressed.

In that vein, what about Gov. Huntsman endorsing Civil Unions. An active Mormon with deep family ties to Mormon leadership historically and presently. Announcing it in the middle of a legislative session. Popularity in Utah, the reddest state in the nation, went up after announcement.

LowKey,

I am not arguing that anyone is doing anything "bad", nobody is. Theology is theology, not reason, everybody gets whatever they want.

UncleBucky,

Sorry if you are scarred. As an adult you can freely choose what you want to do religion-wise, claiming victimization is a red herring. Unless you were physically or sexually abused by a Mormon as part of a church function, sorry. Scary stories are not abuse, and anything other than the above scenario is a simple crime.

Hope this helps stir the pot.

mirth · 6 months ago

LOL

I didn't think you could name one.

henryedward · 6 months ago

Dear Mirth,

Please refer to Elaine Pagels' book The Gnostic Paul, in which she explains the Corinthians passage referring to proxy baptism. I am including a Google Books link to the appropriate page: http://books.google.com/books?id=gYaHsWX_UpIC&p... . The Valentinians were a very successful Gnostic Christian sect in the 2nd century and were finally crushed in the 5th century by the Roman church. Here is a link for them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism . The Perfect Heresy in the 11th-13th centuries also contained many of the same elements.

Finally, intercessory prayer, practiced by many "mainstream" groups is exactly the same as proxy baptism. Prayers are offered for divine intervention on a person's behalf - especially non-believers, without asking their permission or that of their family. They are proffered either as forced blessings, or to be accepted by their target as such. I recently experienced this experience, let's call it "prayer rape" from Pastor Rick Warren at the Obama inauguration, as did millions of my countrymen. Am I pleading victimhood, give me a break.

Grow up, they are dead, you are an adult.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Grow up. Get a real religion. Not a cult that insults others.

In fact, say the Lord's Prayer and meditate. Better do.

Ugh.

henryedward · 6 months ago

I clearly stated that I am not LDS. The Lord's Prayer is Christian, which I also am not, and Meditation is an Eastern Tradition in which I do not believe. Real is a poor word to use, as is cult. All religions were cults before they went mainstream.

Full disclosure: I am a non-theist, not an atheist.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

whups. My misreading. Sorry.

Dang. Well, now I know who you are here. Very well.

Ugh.

mirth · 6 months ago

Can't think of one, huh?

Steve_in_CNJ · 6 months ago

people with a sense of humor are enjoying this immensely. some will feign outrage, but the main result is that the mormons will be mocked. don't be surprised to hear it in a letterman monologue. that is what they should fear the most. no one is going to sue them for a proxy baptism. but after bankrolling the prop 8 campaign they are now branded as neurotically meddlesome and thorougly ridiculous people. IMO, they richly deserve the mockery.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Yeah its ok to mock others of a different view, after all, everyone has the right to be a jerk. I respect that. And by "bank rolling," look, the Church has $$$$, but the members contributed both ways as did members of all other denomination and ways of life. I guess if you are going to single out just the Mormons, that is just intellectually dishonest to the facts. Prop 8 was a moral issue in their view and they won...well, maybe, let's wait and see what the California Supremes have to say.

Steve_in_CNJ · 6 months ago

who is singling out the mormons? i'll take all comers. but strategically, it makes the most sense to go after the people who sponsored the tv lies with their millions of mormon dollars.

i wonder what the "supremes" would say if we launched a tv campaign against mormons and spent millions branding them as a dangerous cult who run internment camps for children. could we get 52% to protect the sanctity of traditional christianity? could the supremes save the mormons?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yep. Haw Haw ha ha ha haaaaaa....

Thanks for clarifying that to the LDS Blog-minders.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"neurotically meddlesome and thoroughly ridiculous people"

Poetry! Sheer poetry.

See, meddling in other people's affairs is trying to control them. It is objectionalizing them for one's own benefit. Martin Buber described this in his "I-thou" and "I-it" dichotomy. Essentially what Mormons, in their childish regard of other people, are doing is trying to control others. Dead people are eminently easy to control. But later come the living. You and me, and our descendants.

That is what our corporate law student trollie is all about. Control. Yet, he denies it. Hah.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Good stirrings. No question.

But theology or not, dead people or not, I can spar with these LDS blog minders and have a little fun. As you write below, I C U R not one of them. Fine. But we can still stir the muck.

I would disagree with you that the Lord's Prayer is Christian, however. If it is Jesus's words (and all that Historical Jesus stuff aside) then it is not Christian. Christianity was invented by Paul and Catholicism was thrust on the world by Theodosius and his minions in 392 CE.

I rather like asking cultists like Jolley about "son of man", Lord's prayer, Beatitudes, Parables, etc. which are all about acts and nothing about faith unless acts are there. They never fail to amuse me in their responses.

But ummm, Henry, there is something vicious about this bunch, the Mormons, I mean. They are in it for the long haul. And by "it" I mean world control. They MEAN to take away the Constitution, the UN, the rest of the world's religious faiths (or non-faiths). They have the Eliminationist sound in them. The sound of Athanasius, Innocent III, Fred Phelps, Joe the Plumber, etc.

No apologies for these maniacs. They will get you.

Better to fight back a bit, as well as have a little fun messing up their minds.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

The "realities" of other faiths...

Such as? Literal Bible? 4004 BC? Tell me...

I don't mind a bit. :)

Ugh.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

We regularly criticize the religious right, the Catholic Church, and any other faith that crosses the line. This is an abomination what the Mormons are doing. They are quite literally grave robbing. It's simply abominable.

henryedward · 6 months ago

John,

Are you an animist? If not you or someone in your past left the sacrifices of your ancestors behind in the ultimate form of disrespect and betrayal. If you believe that your ancestors descended from Adam, or any of the other options available throughout the world, you are forcing them to convert to belief that you have - no other way about it. You are robbing their grave, and you are dishonest about doing it. Reason doesn't work for belief, it will always come back and bite you in the ass.

leshrac55 · 6 months ago

Has anyone done the opposite to the Mormons? Ie, say I believe in my religion that Mormons, through no fault of their own perhaps, are really the wrong path and in order for them to reach heaven after they die I have to "baptize" them by pouring some of my own, special, holy water on their graves. How do the Mormons feel about this?

ctreed728 · 6 months ago

Jolleyrodger is exactly right. They don't touch the dead at all. It is a proxy and the deceased have the right to accept it or decline it. Baptisms for the dead were around until the great apostasy and the church was lost.

1 Corinthians 15:29 talks about baptisms for the dead.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"... and the church was lost."

Ummm....

Matthew 18:20 (Today's New International Version)
20 "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Ya got that wrong, buddy.

Ugh.

mirth · 6 months ago

Really? By proxy?

'Cause we thought you were digging them up and, y'know, "touching" them.

Thanks ever so for clearing that up.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

LOL yeah the last I talked to a dead person, they weren't really in any position to accept or decline anything. It's telling, by the way, that the Mormons don't bother asking the living if they want to be baptized - giving the living the choice to accept or decline. No, only the dead. And for that matter, since the dead are agile in the after life that they can accept and decline baptismal offers, why don't the Mormons just leave it to dead Mormons in the afterlife to baptize the other dead?

And finally, if the Mormons are giving the dead a choice, they wouldn't have already baptized them first. It's not a choice when I do it to you first, then say you can undo it later.

JiggleWick · 6 months ago

John, the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is largely misunderstood. Most of the arguments made against it are based on a few mistaken assumptions:

1. That it represents some kind of forced conversion or that the act itself changes the religion of an individual.

2. That it involves some sort of seance, necromancy, or talking to the dead.

3. That it is done to inflate church membership statistics.

I will try to address the issues you raise, although based on the existing comments in this thread, I recognize that I am venturing into the lion's den on this one.

The LDS belief regarding baptism for the dead is internally consistent with two major points of LDS theology: 1) that the soul remains a conscious entity after death, and 2) that baptism is a necessary and earthly ordinance (I will spare you the biblical justification for this, unless you or someone wants to go there). With those two points in mind, I'll try to address your comments.

"the last time I talked to a dead person, they weren't really in any position to accept or decline anything."

I guess the honest truth for all of us is that we really don't know for a fact what if anything happens to us after death, although everyone seems to act like they do. :) The Mormon belief is that the souls of the deceased are conscious entities, and therefore would be in a position to accept or decline an ordinance performed on their behalf. As has been repeatedly stated, this has nothing to do with forced conversion. The fact that an ordinance is offered on behalf of a deceased individual does not equate to the deceased individual being already baptized or "made Mormon." S/he must first accept the ordinance.

I hate to use an analogy like this, because I know it will invite a lot of snarky comments, but think of it like a pre-approved credit card offer. If you like the offer, you can accept it. If you don't like it, you can shred it or throw it away. The fact that the offer was made should not offend, because you are not forced to accept it and you are not automatically enrolled in anything.

"It's telling, by the way, that the Mormons don't bother asking the living if they want to be baptized - giving the living the choice to accept or decline. No, only the dead."

As I mentioned previously, baptism is an earthly ordinance that requires a physical body and water. The living are able to do it for themselves and therefore are not in need of proxy ordinances. The idea is to provide an opportunity for all mankind to receive baptism, which is a good deal more generous than casting them off to hell as some other faiths would do.

"And for that matter, since the dead are agile in the after life that they can accept and decline baptismal offers, why don't the Mormons just leave it to dead Mormons in the afterlife to baptize the other dead?"

Again, baptism is an earthly ordinance that is performed by immersion in water. The dead cannot perform this ordinance themselves.

"And finally, if the Mormons are giving the dead a choice, they wouldn't have already baptized them first. It's not a choice when I do it to you first, then say you can undo it later."

The underlying premise of your statement is that the indivdual on whose behalf the ordinance is performed is actually being baptized. That is not the case. An ordinance is being performed on her/his behalf and offered to the deceased individual, who can no longer physically perform such an ordinance her/himself. The act of performing a proxy ordinance does not make the individual Mormon, so there is nothing to undo. Nobody's soul is stolen. Nobody's grave is robbed.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Honey, that was a nice essay.

We are not talking about the dead. We are talking about the living and their living memories of the dead whom you desecrate. It is the living who are put to grief when you do your little dances in the dark basements in your slinky white robes.

Just don't do it to my relatives.

Ugh.

Bronx2216 · 6 months ago

Dead people cannot speak for themselves and therefore it is not consensual. I'd hate for someone to come along and baptize my relatives (many of whom were devout in their religion) and figure it's "ok." It's an odious practice that should stop when permission can't or won't be granted. And those that persist should be reprimanded. This particular religious institution is organized well enough to put controls in place to verify permission or lack thereof. I don't care what they believe - it's flat out disrespectful.

pibasola · 6 months ago

Babies cannot speak for themselves. Where is the outrage about the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and other protestant religions who practice the baptizing of babies?

FuzzyandBlue · 6 months ago

pibasola-- You are correct in that babies cannot speak for themselves when they are baptized, but in many religions, that is exactly what CONFIRMATION does when one is a tween and/or young adult... ya know... the kid "confirms" thru the ritual and/or sacrament of confirmation that this is their chosen faith, and not just the religion into which they were baptized as infants by their family members.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Babies are alive, and later, they can chuck the fake religious words said over them and meditate on their real connection to the Divine. Then, I suppose, they can legitimately choose LDS, Catholic, a Giant Cucumber or whatever lights their fire.

The point is, we have no proof that the Dead can do anything with relation something done to them in this world.

I would rather be baptized by some loonie religion as a baby and then in my majority re-examine it than be baptized without ever being able to refute it in this world.

In short, by this temple work, Mormons are simply rude.

Ugh.

texrednface · 6 months ago

ohn, You have been honking about this issue for a while. But you accepted advertisement from ANCESTRY.com the Provo based genealogy site during the time of the campaign and while you were blogging about the proxy baptism of Jews. Ancestry.com uses the extensive Mormon genealogical data bases, and no doubt mines information from subscribers to further the practice. In fact the site you mention above Family Search is affiliated with Ancestry.com. I say:"JOHN, RETURN THE MONEY.Don't abet the practice."
And in defense of the Mormons in regard to genealogy: The church has done much in preserving the history and heritage of the USA, no charge to the taxpayers. I personally don't care if they baptize me by proxy after I am dead. I was born a heathen and nothing they can do will change that.I'll be dead and I won't know.

mirth · 6 months ago

Your comment makes no sense, and you seem to have no understanding of how ads are generated here and on other blogs.

texrednface · 6 months ago

I know exactly how they are generated, thank you. The ads I refer to appeared on AmericaBlog before the updated site and they were premium ads, those were not tiny ppc adsense ads.

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

As Mirth wrote, you do not understand how blog ads are generated.

lileasy · 6 months ago

Who is to say that Obama did not approve this baptism. Perhaps, here too, god is in the mix.

henryedward · 6 months ago

Parts of my family have been involved in the LDS (Mormon) faith since the earliest days in upstate NY, and have held high leadership positions over the almost 180 years. I grew up LDS (Mormon), and was excommunicated twice as an adult in the 80's - once for moral failings while a missionary in Europe, the second for public disagreement with doctrine and leadership. After that pursued degrees in comparative religion and anthropology. In my teens I was baptized in proxy for the dead.

On this issue, I have insight and direct experience. In short, big deal. Other faiths indulge in the same pretend games. Evangelical and other Christians claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian, while most were Deists at best. Their memories are invoked and their words distorted to be used by the religions that have stolen them - the LDS (Mormons) don't even do that, Obama's mothers words are not written on banners on meeting house walls.

Having had extensive experience with Messianic Jew (Jews for Jesus), they have a great habit of saying every previous ancestor or famous Jew truly believed in Jesus and was some sort of Crypto-Christian. They even see them accepting the gospel in dreams and such, and tell of their secret conversions.

I know quite a few German (read Jewish) families that came to this country and denied their faith and ethnicity, and that of all of their forefathers - who are referred to as Lutherans - and changed generations chosen identity without permission.

I know many LDS (Mormon) who are very proud of their religious heritage. Many who still celebrate all of their traditional ethnic/religious holidays and carry over many of their doctrine and folk beliefs. Although they have been baptized in proxy for their Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Animist ancestors they do not believe that any of them are LDS (Mormon), only that the mechanical part of the ritual has been performed for them if they decide they want it.

If Aravois and the commenters are willing to attack the LDS (Mormon) on this issue, they must also be willing to attack the realities of other faiths. All of them are tall tales, singling out one faith is trashy and hypocritical. On that note, Yassir Arafat once said the reason that there would never be peace in Palestine is because both sides believed that their chosen superhero would come down and obliterate the other side at the last minute. Unfortunately, this kind of post and discussion just creates that kind of malarkey.

pibasola · 6 months ago

Well stated Henry!

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Here here.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Nice "the we are bad but so are others" argument.

Not surprising to hear jolley not only agree, but misuse the term "hear Hear"

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yep, Lowkey,

It is easy to play the victim. But the real victims of the LDS will never forget their experiences.

I won't.

Ugh.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

There is nothing secret about this temple work. It has been going on since the 1840's. And I know that all of you who prefer to use the term"Cult" do so with the most loving of motives. It would be like using the N word to a person of African-American descent. But I guess it is ok when a church, or a suspect class minority is involved.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I suggest comparing the alleged words of Jesus reported in the Gospels (even the Gospel of Thomas the Twin) with some of the text in the Book of Mormon. Also, try comparing Psalms with any such analog in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is trite by comparison. And the other LDS books make Jesus into a vengeful, not a loving prophet. Not to mention how Jesus's God is turned on his head in the BOM.

No, it is a cult as far as I am concerned. A selfish, authoritarian and destructive cult.

I don't get how anyone converts to LDS except through fear, ignorance and intimidation.

Ugh.

robish518 · 6 months ago

Lemme give it a shot...

If this is real, what this shows is that the Mormon church is not concerned about the service people give to the Church or their community (I'm not talking about individuals, rather the institution). They're concerned about numbers though. It's almost as if they think by posthumously converting people to Mormonism, they'll become a larger majority? (sounds crazy, but I won't put it past them)... If these documents ARE real...

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Only living persons are counted on the official roll sheets of the church, some 5 million in the US and about 7 million more outside the US. This issue is not conversion, that is done on a personal basis, it is about opportunity.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

If it's done on a personal basis, doesn't the convert need to make the personal descision to do so?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

According to Mormon Theology, they will have an opportunity to accept or reject any work done for them before the final judgment and resurrection.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Then why do your records always act as if the conversions were successful?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

They don't, they just detail what ordinances have been done. We never claim that everyone is automatically Mormon-itized nor do we believe that everyone will accept the work.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Then why bother?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Because Mormon theology believes that everyone needs to be baptized by authority, they claim the necessary authority to baptize and proxy baptism is make available an earthly ordinance to those who do not have a body.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Who gives that authority?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

These questions are better directed to the full-time missionaries of the Church.

mirth · 6 months ago

Ok, you've convinced me. I'll call them right now.

Wait wait wait, that would nullify all the work it took me to get out of your bigoted, hateful "religion."

Nevermind.

PS: The "Like" you just got was from me and it was accidental.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

I'm sorry.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Joseph Smith claimed, years after the supposed event took place, that three zombies, Peter James and John, gave him the authority. Mormons today claim that they have that same authority passed down from Joseph Smith.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yikes that sounds like control to me...

Authority = Control of one person by a cult.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

As if: "you can't touch me, nyah, nyah" says the Mormon cult.

In reality, we don't know (by definition, we can't know) what happens on the spiritual plane.

I can't tell you how sad the LDS makes me when I hear of things like this. They are monkeying around with God's creation, and eventually, they will find this out...

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Thanks John, for posting this.

A common theme in the mormons posting here, and possibly some non-mormons as well, is a misunderstanding of the racist nature of the LDS church. "So what, she can still reject the baptism" say the mormons. "So what its all superstitious nonsense" say the atheists.

Both true, but missing the point. It's about the arrogance and the dis-respect. Both to the deceased and the life they lived, as well as to their children and grandchildren. What makes the necro-baptizing of jewish holocaust victims so disrespectful is that these people were killed because they were Jews, and now they are being post-humously baptised into a non-jewish religion.

Had Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama joined the mormon church while alive, this is what would have ahppened to the. They would NOT have been allowed to marry in the Mormon temple like all the other members. When Brarck turned 12 and all the other boys in his mormon congregations were ordained Deacons, Barack would have been denied this rite of passage.

Baptising Ms. Dunham into the mormon church may have no actual effect at all, but its just as disrespectful to her memory and to her relatives as Making martin Luther King an honarary member of the KKK would be.

pibasola · 6 months ago

Actually it appears to me it has nothing to do with mormons disrespecting the Jewish holocaust victims etc or even Obama's mother. It has everything to do with your bigotry against Mormons and perhaps any religion. It is most amazing to me how people who insist that others be tolerant of their lifestyle is most intolerant of somebody who lives a different lifestyle of your own. To shut people up from believing or expressing their beliefs or views you use lies and exaggerations due to your hate for the Mormons or religion period. A bigot is a bigot no matter if you hate someone for their skin color or if you hate them because of their religion. You Lowkey are a bigot!

LowKey · 6 months ago

My lifestyle? That's rich, how would you know anything about my lifestyle? And yes, you're spot on that someone who fights bigotry is a bigot! Err no, actually that's not correct. lol

Are you referring to my lifestyle as the fact that people should have equal rights and that I support equal rights? That's just what mormons like you do, they fight to take away people's rights, then call them liars and bigots when their own bigotry is exposed.

But I will be happy to play along little missinformed mormon. Please list the multiople lies you claim I have told.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Still waiting for you to point out my multiple lies.

Put up or apologize mormon.

pibasola · 6 months ago

I don't believe it to be a matter of disrespect to any particular person in the Mormon faith. I think your issue is Lowkey that you hate mormons and just maybe all religions. You are free to worship how you please or not. I could care less. You may think that the Mormons are intolerant bigots but you are blinded by your own prejudices and hate to what maybe the Mormons really believe.
It is amazing to me how people like yourself preach tolerance and you yourself is the most intolerant. When somebody disagrees with your point of view you shout them down with lies and exaggerations. It appears to me no matter if you hate somebody for being a member of a particular race or if you hate somebody for being a member of a particular religion it still is bigotry. Lowkey you are an obvious bigot. Why don't you live and let live. Accept people for what they are just as I have accepted that you are a bigot.

OleHippieChick · 6 months ago

Tootie's laughing her butt off at these sick Moron fux.

Levago · 6 months ago

What is the big deal about this?

As you said, Mormons have a policy of baptizing every person who dies (although the actual policy is that baptisms for the dead should be initiated only by relatives, and I'm sure Obama has distant Mormon relatives somewhere in his family tree). So why is Obama's mother such a big deal? You could look for any famous person who has ever lived and you would likely find their name in this database.

Also, how does baptizing a living being for and in behalf of a deceased one "forcibly" convert the deceased person into Mormonism? Are you claiming that dead people are forced to join the Mormon church once a Mormon is baptized for that person? Actually, if a person's spirit lives beyond death (as Mormons believe), then that person has the choice of whether to accept a proxy baptism into the Mormon church. The actual act of baptism does nothing more than present them with that choice.

Tracy Hall · 6 months ago

John, it is not fair to say that “the Mormons” committed this act of disrespect. If it in fact happened, it was the act of a single disobedient Mormon, perhaps even one who intentionally sought to discredit the Church. If the person is discovered, he or she will be subject to Church discipline, which could result in excommunication.

I personally apologize to the President and his family for this incident.

When the Church is made aware of such violations of its policies it makes every effort to take corrective action. I have access to the same web site as your anonymous tipster and certify that all ordinances for Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Hussein Obama (Sr), and his ancestors now have the status of “not available.” I cannot verify that the proxy baptism was performed as shown in the alleged screen capture, but if it happened, any record thereof has since been expunged.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a monolithic dictatorship and cannot possibly control the actions of its individual members. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

Members of the Church have been repeatedly instructed not to submit the name of any deceased person born within the last 95 years without first obtaining explicit permission from the person's living next of kin, in order of priority: an undivorced spouse, adult child, parent, then sibling. The policy is posted at
https://help.familysearch.org/kb/UserGuide/en/p...

Moral agency is a fundamental principle of Mormonism. It is impossible for us, or even God, to force any Member to obey Church policies. It is also impossible for us, or even God, to force any person, living or dead, to accept the ordinances of salvation.

In like manner, however, it is also not proper for anyone to try to prevent the Latter-day Saints from offering this free gift to past generations.

For more, please see “On LDS Proxy Baptisms and Freedom of Choice:” http://hthalljr.googlepages.com/choice.html

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

LowKey · 6 months ago

You know that the system is set up so that this occurs all the time. It is not a "single" mormon that did this. No one ever checks to see if permission to necro-dunk was granted by all of their living relatives. Mormons lied when they promised to stop necro-dunking holocaust victims. It went right on. And why? Because the administration wants the baptisms to continue. They just don't want the people to find out about it.

And you know as well that the proxy baptism and proxy endowment were not expunged from the records, as you claim, just hidden from public view.

And as for Joseph Smith, what correct principles were those? How a 38 year old man can bed the 14 year old daughters of his followers? How a "prophet" receives revelation sending a man on a mission so he can sleep with his wife while he is gone?

Sick principles is more like it.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Is this bash the Mormons Day? Or Cinco de Mayo? I forget.

mirth · 6 months ago

It is Truth Day.

LowKey · 6 months ago

To mormons, the truth is anti-mormon.

;-)

The Tim Channel · 6 months ago

To religious people of all persuasions, truth is poison.

Enjoy.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Aint that the truth.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

It is what happened. The history is there in squirreled-away documents and recalled versions of the BOM. Your memory hole is only your own. Everyone else knows what Joe Smith did, and how icky it was.

Ugh.

reindeer · 6 months ago

Thank you for your gracious explainations, but the fact remains that BOTH of my parents are in your IGI database. I am an only child and I have NOT given my permission. It still has not been 95 years since my mother's birth and my father only recently passed that mark.

It seems if the LDS truly meant their stated policies, they would require to written permission from the next of kin before posthumenous baptism. It is simple enough to check the birthdate.

Tracy Hall · 6 months ago

"Reindeer," I am sorry that this happened to you.

Please send an e-mail explaining the circumstances to support(AT)FamilySearch(DOT)org. Try to provide sufficient information for them to duplicate your search in the IGI database. If they can verify that the proxy ordinances were performed in violation of the policy regarding permission from next of kin, they will expunge the record thereof.

But do rest assured that whatever the final status of the records, the proxy ordinances themselves will have no validity unless your parents accept them, of their own free, fully-informed choice.

(Yes, there are Mormon missionaries in the spirit world:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138/57#57)

Neither you nor I are privy (in this life) to the choice that your parents will make, and they will have until judgment day to consider the offer.

- Tracy
hthalljr'gmail'com

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"missionaries in the spirit world" ????

Um, sounds like a Raiders of the Lost Ark line to me...

Ugh.

Suzyqalso · 6 months ago

Tracy,
You know full well that NO Mormon has ever been excommunicated for submitting names they shouldn't for proxy baptismk. My sister has done this hundreds of times, and no one has ever asked her about it, or called her up for church discipline. I am a former Mormon, and participated in these ridiculous ordinances for many years. Some people get a big charge out of submitting a famous person's name - looking for some kind of extra pat on the back from God. You are being disengenuous when you say the church just doesn't purposely do this. They do it all the time, and after 15 years of complaints by Jewish organizations to stop, they have -- just within the past year - been caught doing it again.

Pompous and self-righteous doesn't even begin to describe the mind-set of the Mormon church about their "one and only true church" status. The whole idea of Proxy baptism, marriages, etc. is so ridiculous it's beyond reason. They have't made a DENT in the number of people who's ever lived on the earth anyway, so what's the point! They say: God will take care of all those people who's names we will ever know, so why can't he take care of these micro percentage of people that the Mormon church does this vicarious work for? Think about that one for awhile, and maybe your brain will pry open a little. And don't accuse me of my some disgruntled exmormon. I served faithful for over 50 years and finally opened MY brain to what had been in front of me all the time.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Very nice. And you are right, the temple works are set up to completely teflon and weasely.

This is just some fun we are having with the visiting Mormon missionaries. The longer their posts become, the more we "have" them. The more they cite scriptures (real or otherwise) we "have" them. The more they apologize, the more we "have" them in their crocodile tears.

Ugh.

OleHippieChick · 6 months ago

Nerve!

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Uh?

Who the heck are you? Excommunication! Wow. I don't want to come across you on a dark night on an empty street in Nauvoo.

Scary.

Ugh.

Constant Comment · 6 months ago

On the other hand, unless we were baptized as adults, none of us had any say about the religion our parents had us baptized in. My parents had me baptized Presbyterian but I have nothing to do with any religion. It seems to me that making a big deal out of this is giving them power over you--you're acknowledging that somehow what they're doing actually matters. It's unbelievably arrogant and insensitive, so don't let them think it even matters. Because it doesn't.

caphillprof · 6 months ago

Christians are baptized in the name of the Trinity. They are not baptized denominationally.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

This is the great catch-all just in case measure. What if people had to be baptized? And were never given the opportunity in the only authorized way? What, just send them hell? That does not seem like a very loving Heavenly Father. Again, if you don't believe this is legit then forget about it and let us pretend (according to you) that it matters. If not, then we are wasting our time and that is up to us to do. :)

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

Do you research whether anybody was previously baptized before you do yours? If not...why not?

And if you do, and you find out they have been baptized, do you still re-baptize them? Why?

shell · 6 months ago

As a non-religious person, this is just funny to me. As others have said, what's the problem? If you ARE religious, and aren't Mormon, you believe that Mormons aren't the one-true religion. So, no biggie. My father is deceased. They can baptize him if they want. I just laugh. It seems to me that at least Mormons, in their weird religion, are at least trying to save souls.

I always thought it was just as weird for Catholics to be hysterical if a newborn died without being baptized. I still remember JFK after his newborn son, Patrick, died after 2 days. He had to make sure the baby was baptized first. So -- what would happen if he HADN'T been baptized? Limbo? (Does the Catholic Church still believe in limbo?) Yet, the Roman Catholic Church is so mainstream! No one would dare mock that religion. (Well, some do. LOL)

It is all just too weird for words.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

I wonder if the key difference in opinion is the phrase "non-religious". I grew up with nearly zero religion in my life. Sure, I had the Judeo-Christian milieu thing going, but was never submerged into any religion and never needed to rebel against anything. So this issue just doesn't push any buttons for me.

I know there's always a range here so I don't mean to imply a Sweeping Conclusion, but I suspect if you have any belief that your own religion has the power to make a difference (in the sense of power over people or their "souls", not a subjective feeling), then you might believe that another's religion can make a difference too, and be threatened by it.

LOL - is that a tentative statement, or what?

shell · 6 months ago

Well, I agree with it! I DID have a religious upbringing. Just the mainstream religion type, but religious nonetheless. And I still argue with my mother, who is 84! She just cannot let it be. She worries constantly that I won't go to heaven because I am a non-believer. I try to tell her that IF I am a good person, and if there IS a heaven, I will be there. Believing or not believing in Jesus makes no difference. But she doesn't see it. My own children tell me, "Just tell you believe to ease her mind." But I can't. hahaha The truly sad thing is that my brother, also a non-believer, died last year. I am sure my mother is haunted by that. Where does she think he is, now?

In a message dated 05/05/09 10:29:42 Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
scurl wrote, in response to shell:

I wonder if the key difference in opinion is the phrase "non-religious". I grew up with nearly zero religion in my life. Sure, I had the Judeo-Christian milieu thing going, but was never submerged into any religion and never needed to rebel against anything. So this issue just doesn't push any buttons for me.

I know there's always a range here so I don't mean to imply a Sweeping Conclusion, but I suspect if you have any belief that your own religion has the power to make a difference (in the sense of power over people or their "souls", not a subjective feeling), then you might believe that another's religion can make a difference too, and be threatened by it.

LOL - is that a tentative statement, or what?

Link to comment: http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/did-mormons-...

You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off notifications, go to your Disqus settings at: http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

As a child and because of the limbo dance craze of the 60s(?), I always pictured Limbo as a sort of eternal Carribean resort for babies...

shell · 6 months ago

hahahahahahahahahaha I had forgotten about the Limbo dance!!!!! (And whenever it started, when my own children went skating, the skating rink always played that song.)

In a message dated 05/05/09 10:31:28 Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
Citizzildent Dyspeptic wrote, in response to shell:

As a child and because of the limbo dance craze of the 60s(?), I always pictured Limbo as a sort of eternal Carribean resort for babies...

Link to comment: http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/did-mormons-...

You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off notifications, go to your Disqus settings at: http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

mirth · 6 months ago

I wonder how these artificial Mormon memberships factor in to their overall (and much touted) membership numbers?

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Shouldn't artificially processed Mormon product be called Morm-veeta?

LowKey · 6 months ago

The LDS church artificially inflates their membership numbers by including dead people, but only when those dead people were first baptised alive. What happens is that if somone leaves the mormon church (and more mormons quit the mormon church than join these days) and the mormons lose track of them (since they no loger go to church and move away) and then they ultimately die. But the mormon counts all these people as actual members (despite the fact they quit) until they are 110.

Confusing isn't it. Let me give and example. Mormon boy gets baptised at age 8, goes to church with his parents until he goes away to college at 18 and never attends the mormon church the rest of his life. Very common. So not only do the mormons count him as a member until he dies at say, age 75, but they count him as a member for 35 MORE years after he died.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

They don't, or else instead of being about 13 million members, we would be like 500 million. Only living baptized members (or children of record) are counted.

Suzyqalso · 6 months ago

Your assumption of 500 million people who have ever been baptised into the Mormon church is ridiculous!! I'm very familiar with the approximate number of people who have been baptised since 1830, and it doesn't come CLOSE to being 500 million. Defend the church if you want (and I'm wondering why you get furious at people baptising babies, but not furious at people baptising dead people -- who ALSO have no way to say no) -- but let's not inflate statistics -- although I'm sure you learned how to do that by being an apologist for the Mormon church.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Some people are saying that this isn't a big deal, and intellectually, it's not. However, on an emotional level it's about how disrespectful it is to the deceased, and how disrespectful it is to their surviving friends and family. My grandmother was a devout Catholic from the time she was a child, to her death two years ago just before she turned 91. If I find out someone baptised her into another religion posthumously...

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Your grandmother was your grannie. No one should say her name other than you and members of your family and people who knew her.

Mormons saying her name for any reason without your family's permission is simply rude. RUDE.

She's your grannie, not theirs.

Ugh.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Just for accuracy's sake, she wasn't my granny. She was my Ma.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

If someone offered to baptism me baptist or catholic "just in case," I could then get two or three bites at the apple, my odds just improved.

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

See, that's the thing here. You are not "offering" your baptism to people. You are secretly sneaking it onto them after their death. I'm sure nobody here has any problem with you offering your religion to living people. It's your sneaky shit that offends people. Get that thru your head.

mirth · 6 months ago

It is the act itself that offends, but it is the secrecy that galls.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Sneaky. That's the idea. The Mormons sneak their religion on the world, and then one day, the trap springs.

Better to push back now before they catch you.

A British Worker's salute to this practice (two fingers and raspberries).

Ugh.

Dave of the Jungle · 6 months ago

Did you know that God has a physical body and lives on another planet where he has sex with numerous women every day to give incarnation to humans on Earth?

Francesca1214 · 6 months ago

No, but if you'll hum a few bars I'll try to fake it.

wesindc2 · 6 months ago

Why are you posting about something as stupid as this? Yeah it's good for gossip but really, posthumously baptizing???? I thought better of A-blog. I'm an athiest so I guess I must be missing the point.

This is fodder for the weak minded in my opinon. Sorry.

HereinDC · 6 months ago

Yes, you are missing the point.
Why don't you reread what John wrote.

( databases, public records, non-public records. privacy,
June 2008, )

wesindc2 · 6 months ago

I disagree. Religion is for the individual and not the masses. What do I care if some freaking cult wants to indoctrinate someone into their fold? I understand the money issue but my point is more along the line that religion has a place for those that want it. Focusing on what one group or another does makes no sense and no point. Leave the rest and the world out of it. If you believe in a Jebus that's up to you. Don't shove your beliefs down on me.

SouthernYankee · 6 months ago

I will fight for your right to believe what you believe. I believe in god and you don't I can live with that. Personally I don't understand what the beef is. A good person who does the right thing always doesn't have to believe in god. I see many people who believe in god that don't do the right thing. Just look at the f**kups in the republican party.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

I think stuff like databases, public records, non-public records, privacy is very important - as do we all. But please focus the outrage on that stuff - it matters. Converting souls after death? Sorry I can't get excited about it. It's lame at best but, worse, can distract from the issues that matter.

mirth · 6 months ago

You aren't able to juggle several issues in your mind without one distracting from the other?

stefanzo · 6 months ago

The Religious Right claims I'm going to hell, which you'd think would be more dire. So, no - it doesn't distract me from caring about stuff that matters. It's not an issue to "juggle".

I DO think it's weird of course. That weirdness informs my opinion of them - which is part of your point I think. So yes it's part and parcel of what's wrong with them. But it's a footnote. Something to laugh at. I care more about what they DO then what they believe.

My mother is not going to some Mormon heaven against her will because of this.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Well, they gave $20m to the anti-gay battle in California and turned it from a defeat into a victory. They've given millions to anti-gay battles in state after state for over a decade. And now a mystery donor is giving millions to the anti-gay marriage group NOM. They matter because they are the religious right's banker. They also are the majority leader of the senate, and a future gop presidential candidate. Their bizarre behavior is highly relevant.

wesindc2 · 6 months ago

The world would be better off without a man hanging on a few pieces of wood, an 8 armed deity and some prophet from 2k years ago dictating to an age of enlightenment. I think (and hope) we are on the cusp of bringing religion where it should reside, on the individual and not into public discourse.

Gridlock · 6 months ago

I'd prefer it wiped from the planet, or drowned in the ocean but hey..

Jophus · 6 months ago

"a prophet from 2k years ago dictating to an age of enlightenment"

I really hope you aren't lumping buddhism with christianity. Enlightenment is about dropping your judgements of other people and living with compassion among other things, something I'd think most liberals would relate to. Then there is the fact that you are told you can view it as a religion or a set of morals, and that you can be a buddhist as well as a christian or atheist, at the same time.

I'm with anyone who wishes to separate religion from politics, but I'm not so keen on belittling a man hanging on a few pieces of wood, even though I don't think it happened.

vkobaya · 6 months ago

Well, they gave $20m to the anti-gay battle in California and turned it from a defeat into a victory.

Yeah, they won the battle and lost the war. I believe that their victory on the Proposition 8 battle in California turned the tide against them which is why a spate of states have since legalized gay marriage. Let's wish them a few more "victories" and perhaps they will completely cease to be any sort of force in the world, probably most of their members abandoning that idiot cult.

scoutucla · 6 months ago

I agree that this is weird and inappropriate, but this can't be regulated can it? I mean, the person isn't actively involved in the process, and it is no real invasion of privacy. Maybe I am naive, but is this not just a step further from praying for someone? My God knows I haven't changed religions just because after I am dead some nutjobs say I have.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

We can still give them bad PR. Not like they need any more of that.

Constant Comment · 6 months ago

This seems to be much ado about nothing. So, they're a bizarre cult who re-baptizes people. Why would anyone care? I mean, it's not like it matters. If there is an omniscient God, then I think he/she/it would see through this nonsense. If there isn't a God, then BFD.

HereinDC · 6 months ago

You too need to reread what John wrote....ie databases, privacy concerns, public/nonpublic records....

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Well, they gave $20m to the anti-gay battle in California and turned it from a defeat into a victory. They've given millions to anti-gay battles in state after state for over a decade. And now a mystery donor is giving millions to the anti-gay marriage group NOM. They matter because they are the religious right's banker. They also are the majority leader of the senate, and a future gop presidential candidate. Their bizarre behavior is highly relevant.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

And more generally, if anyone baptizes my mother after she dies, you'd better believe I'd find this more than just a bizarre irrelevant story.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

Now THAT is something to be irate about, for good reason.

But if they baptized my mother I'd still think they were irrelevant (as far as her soul was concerned) and I already think they are bizarre.

pibasola · 6 months ago

Speaking about irrelevance... Your argument is irrelevant. I am waiting now to see something about global warming or how Bush lied to get us into the war or how Obama wasn't really born in the United States.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Bingo, John.

Their goal is to be able to control everyone. What relationship to Jesus's alleged words does that goal have?

None as far as I can figure.

No, they can control the dead (so they think) and through their tithes etc. they are working to control the living.

Extend the hockey stick curve, and you know what will happen to your descendants... It will be a Mormon hell with its own Inquisition, its own Concentration Camps and its own Holocaust for those who disagree with them.

I vote to push back now, when they can still be discredited.

Ugh.

cion · 6 months ago

If all of this weren't strange enough, most of the "proxies" for these baptisms are LDS teenagers. It's a monthly activity for many congregations.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Who cares? If she doesn't accept this ordinance then no harm no foul. What everyone seems to forget is that Mormons do not hijack others religions, we just cover the bases in case it turns out that"Mormon Heave" is legit. If not, then why does it matter? You can keep saying no, and that is the end of it. Better safe than sorry.

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

OK, this is just stupid. How the fcuk can she "accept" or "not accept" this ordinance? She's fucking dead - for nearly 3 years.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Mormons believe that when the body dies, the spirit goes off into heaven awaiting the time to be resurrected (reunion of spirit and body). So her body is dead, but her spirit still exists and is aware and full of intelligence and will probably be informed that this temple work was done for her and she will either accept it as in "sign me up" or say no thanks, and go on to awaiting final judgment/resurrection.

cowtown · 6 months ago

jolleyrodger is right, as far as he can be. I am an ex-mormon (had my name officially removed from the books via certified mail), and when they had us get dunked for the dead as teenagers, it was always spelled out that this was "just in case" the dead person's soul (more of a "casper-the-friendly" variety ghost, really... Mormon theology is pretty infantile) decided to convert after death.

Theoretically, they could still say no (even though they're dead... if the missionaries ring my post-mortem doorbell, I guess I'll finally answer), and that's it, but if the spirit says yes, then they've had their i's dotted and t's crossed. Why this is so freaking important is beyond me, as, like I said, Mormon thoelogy is bizarrely literal and childish.

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

This post mortem Mormon baptism stuff is very odd aside from the gross violations of privacy and separate equality implicit in the web-published pages you show in your post.
I hope you continue to keep your teeth in this one...

FYI-Anyone else notice how physically odd Condi looked as she battled a 4th grader???
In the footage I saw last evening, Condi's head appeared to have been the singular focus of a swarm of angry bees...Her right eye was a mere slit as the entire right side of her face seemed puffy , bloated. The non-traditional conveyer looked bad, crushed under the weight of guilt and a hubris hangover.

shell · 6 months ago

It looked like she had a black eye -- and it was swollen shut. But I heard no mention of this, although I didn't look hard for a mention.

What happened to her? I can't help but think if Michelle Obama had looked like this, we would hear screams from DC all the way out here in CA. "Barack beat her up!!!!!" (And it seems doubly odd that she looked to have been beaten up, right after her "If the president does it, it is legal" quote.)

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Didn't see any Rhianna-esque bruising...
Can't imagine how anyone with eyeballs watching the footage would not notice Condi's misshapen head and nearly closed right eye...

jurassicpork · 6 months ago

It wouldn't surprise me. I found through this very same blog that the LDS are infamous for doing this. They can't proselytize the living fast enough so they have to resort to Burke and Hare methods to proselytize the dead.

They disgust me. They're a megacult, plain and simple. I always hated and distrusted them and that was before Proposition H8 last year.

ndtovent · 6 months ago

Aren't there laws against this kind of thing? If not, why not? The LDS has absoulutely no right to baptize anyone, even posthumously, without their prior consent or that of the deceased's family.

ndtovent · 6 months ago

As an added note.. NO denomination should have the right to baptize anyone without their consent.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

I find this topic utterly lame. It's not "disturbing" to anyone except an embarrassment to residents Utah. How is Obama, or his mother, impacted by what some weird cult does? Has a law been broken? Headstone vandalized? Slander? Impingement of Free Speech? Racial Slurs?

Sure it's creepy as all get-out - having some religious wackos use someone's name for their own purposes. But then what?

Show me evidence that her soul has transmigrated into some creepy Mormon heaven without appropriate paperwork, and I'll care.

We could do the same: get the Flying Spaghetti Monster to claim that anyone who has a religion that starts with an "M" (including Methodists) is now touched by the Holy Noodle and is retroactively One With The Sauce. The names are public, right?

That would show them.

Indigo · 6 months ago

Retroactively One With The Sauce? No, that sounds more like an alfredoist heresy than orthodox marinara.

clytemnestra · 6 months ago

well no. If they were to do this to my Mom after her death - knowing that she did NOT choose the LDS church in life (and she does know about it) - it would disturb me greatly. Not only would they violate my mother's wishes and her memory but they would claim knowledge about someone they know nothing about.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

I just don't have the same view. If they did this to any of my family, I'd shake my head and think "what a bunch of freaking weirdos" and forget about it. They don't have an iota of power to actually make a difference where my parent/child/sibling goes after death. I'd be concerned only to the extant I thought they actually had the power to make a difference. They have zero power, and I'm not concerned.

We already get this sort of thing anyway, and don't pay any attention. When the "Religious" Right says all Liberals are going to hell, do we freak out and say "how dare they send us to hell!"? No - because it's utterly stupid. Same with the Mormons, only creepier.

We could start our own church, and decide that all dead Mormons are now Democrats, and Vegans as well. How is that any less lame than what they waste their time doing?

The stuff about "laws" - why do you need laws? The thing about religions is that they get to make stuff up and claim it's true. It's a protected right. If some Tibetan Buddhist sect wanted to claim we're already enlightened (oops, they do - how dare they!) then they can do that - as long as they don't hurt anyone.

shell · 6 months ago

I agree with you!

vkobaya · 6 months ago

You are almost right. for those of us who are Christian, Mormons claim to also be Christian and despite the reality that Mormons are goofball cult, it should really not make one bit of difference. God knows what is in our hearts. What I find extremely offensive is that they also do this to Jews who have already been violated enough with the clear conviction that Jews are damned without their forced conversion to Mormonism. Not enough for the Mormons that the Holocaust victims died a horrible death, they still have to violate them in the afterlife. Personally, I believe that the Jews are still God's beloved chosen people and He probably takes great offense at what the Mormons are doing. And for those who don't believe in religion, why the hell should they get worked up what the damned Mormons think as by their beliefs, it is all flying spaghetti monsters.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

Exactly. If I were religious I couldn't say it better.

I think it's the "force" thing. Not being religious at all, I can't imagine how there's anything to "force". So it's a non-issue. But if you believe and/or cared, then yes it would be deeply insulting.

SouthernYankee · 6 months ago

Let get this straight. This is a cult religion that steals dead peoples religion (sort of). Than rebaptisizes them in their cult. Does anyone believe god doesn't know what is going on. If god is suppose to be all seeing and all knowning I don't think any of us have anything to worry about.

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

Methinks God needs to choose his friends more wisely. He is making bad choices these days.

He's gonna be pissed when He finds out his friends have been using & abusing Him.

SouthernYankee · 6 months ago

Yeah, if they just stop and take the time to really see that god pick the right guy to be president. He wants to love everyone not just certain people and republicans. Na, they can't see because they are blind with envy.

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

I'm not really sure how this works. It is my understanding that at the moment of death, our soul departs our wordly body and goes to.....wherever.

So how can the Mormons "baptize" a wordly body that has no soul????? (Especially in Barack's Mom's case -- she was "baptized" nearly 3 years AFTER her death...her soul was LONG gone.)

I always thought it was our soul that was being baptized, not our worldly body.

Seems like an excercise in futility to me.....but what do I know?!

vkobaya · 6 months ago

So how can the Mormons "baptize" a wordly body that has no soul?????

Well, in addition, I hope they didn't illegally exhume Barack's mother's body and perform their ceremony on the that body. So, all they are doing in reality is jumping up and down, yelling and screaming to be disgusting, obnoxious and hateful. Given their vile ignorance, I would say pay no attention. Or if they actually exhumed Barack Obama's mother's body, they should be prosecuted and the book thrown at them.

vkobaya · 6 months ago

Also given the bigoted racist nature of the Mormon church, I would be very surprised if they posthumously baptised Muslims and Arabs. It is more in character that they would not want former Muslims and Arabs in their church. Barack Obama's father may be an exception, something that they would do just to express their bigotry and hatred of our president.

vkobaya · 6 months ago

This practice also says something about their opinion of God. They clearly believe God is a dumb shit who can be manipulated for their own purposes of acquiring worldly power through inflated membership claims and God is too stupid to realize the false nature of a posthumous baptism and conversion to Mormonism. Do they really believe they can get away with giving God the finger?

SCLiberal · 6 months ago

I'll save my outrage for something that actually matters. Who gives a shit what a cult does?

HereinDC · 6 months ago

You too need to reread what John wrote: ie databases, privacy, public records/ non public records.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Well, they gave $20m to the anti-gay battle in California and turned it from a defeat into a victory. They've given millions to anti-gay battles in state after state for over a decade. And now a mystery donor is giving millions to the anti-gay marriage group NOM. They matter because they are the religious right's banker. They also are the majority leader of the senate, and a future gop presidential candidate. Their bizarre behavior is highly relevant.

Mike_H · 6 months ago

I understand the people who are saying "this doesn't matter", but for many people it is a bit disturbing.

I find it appalingly arrogant for another religion to take anyone into their fold without consent.

For people of another faith, or those who have loved ones of another faith, this idea is truly reprehensible -- and I suspect that if this were made more public -- and we could show that Baptists and other evangelicals were targeted -- that the Mormon church would see a TON of outrage and ire against them.

pibasola · 6 months ago

So how is that different from the practice of baptising babies? The truth is what is seen here in this blog and the comments are ignorance mixed in with a whole lot of bigots against religion and specifically against the Mormon Church. What ever happened to live and let live? Isn't that the liberal way? Oh I forgot that modern meaning of Liberal is you have to agree with my point of view and accept it or else!
If you believe in baptisms for the dead like the mormons do... Good for you! If you don't... Good for you! That is your choice and it doesn't matter if the Mormons believe in it. Cause supposedly all you atheists and mormon haters think they are wrong anyway. Everyone should just pull their own head out of their a$$. And get on with their life!

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

"What ever happened to live and let live? "

Mormons violate that with their after-death baptisms.

Mike_H · 6 months ago

Well, for one, under most circumstances, the baby grows up and either confirms the baptism, or changes religions. Baptising a dead person arrogantly assumes that the ADULT was wrong about their own religious choices. Parents, on the other hand, are allowed to make decisions for their own children in a wide variety of contexts.

Your arguments aren't as solid as you seem to think. I have no problem with people believing in anything -- for themselves. Just as the right to swing your fist ends with my nose, your right to deal with spiritual matters is for YOU to decide FOR YOURSELF, not anyone else.

Anything else is incredibly disrespectful. If Mormons are basing one of their practices on disrespect for other people's choices, then I don't see how they can complain about bigotry and ignorance directed against THEM, when clearly they have no problem doing it to OTHERS.

Liberal, conservative, Mormon, or atheist, hypocrisy doesn't get a lot of respect from me.

Frankly, if the Mormons were minding their own business, I wouldn't care one whit what they said or did. But they HAVEN'T BEEN. They've been inserting their money and their beliefs into the lives of non-Mormons. If they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

But how CAN a religion "take" anyone into their fold without their consent? They put some names in a list and wave their hands over it? To the extant there ARE souls, and choices, I don't think that's a very compelling method.

Besides, all you have to do is say "I decree that no Mormon has any power over the soul of me or anyone in my family" ("neener neener" is optional). Then you've countered their magic with your own. Problem solved.

The only thing that gives Mormons power here is people believing they have that power in the first place.

Scottsdalian · 6 months ago

"Besides, all you have to do is say..."

How do I say that if I'm dead???

stefanzo · 6 months ago

I'd say it now, while you still can. Add "for eternity" to it too, for good measure. :-)

lilybart · 6 months ago

I'm sorry but I have to just laugh at this. It makes NO DIFFERENCE. Baptism will not move his mother into Mormon heaven from wherever she is now.

Honestly, you have to be insane to even believe in baptism as important to your "afterlife" if there is one.

larkohio · 6 months ago

It is disturbing. If someone re-baptised my mother or father after their deaths, I would not like that. They had their own religion in life. Let them, and Ann Obama rest in peace.

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

If a person can be re-baptized without consent then they can be re-re-baptized.
Anyone can perform an emergency baptism (the example is usually a dying newborn and missing-in-action minister/priest) and, I would imagine, anyone can re and re-re baptize with the approval of nobody in particular.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

If you think that they need to be re-re-baptized then you must believe that a Mormon baptism is either a detriment and carries some weight, or that one must be baptized in a particular way or in a particular denomination for it to even matter. Once again, the person baptized can always say No to the ordinance in the great here-after and that is the end of it.

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Please...you must be as humorless as you are bossy.
"That is the end of it!." Please!
Do you use a thunder and lightening bolt effect in real time?
Make your comment and move along...please.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

The answer is more speech, not less.

mirth · 6 months ago

So Mormon-esque!

"I say it and that's the end of it."

You could not have written a more telling comment...

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

And YOU can simply leave me and my relatives alone.

RUDE sucker, RUDE!!! And arrogant, too, with some sprinklings of authoritarian and pater familias.

Yuck.

Steve_in_CNJ · 6 months ago

baptism is from the greek word for immersion. why are wacko conservatives obsessed with wetting people? do they secretly wish to exhume the bodies to get them wet? if someone dies while being waterboarded, are they considered baptised?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Baptisms are done by Proxy, So I would stand in the font and be baptized (by immersion) "for and in behalf of Steve_in_CNJ, who is dead..."

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Frankly, these Mormons should worry about their own souls...

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

We got that on lockdown, as I am sure you do as well.

kittycatastrophe · 6 months ago

What a disgusting thing to do to surviving family members who find out that they're loved one has been disrespected in such a way. It's not that I think that stunts like "baptizing folks up" for the Mormon Church when they're dead because you couldn't get them when they were alive counts to anyone but Mormons.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

If being disrespected is being offered one of the most sacred gifts that we can give, then yes, and I feel bad to have disrespected you with my gift. I am sorry. I am sure your baptized family member will not accept it.

mirth · 6 months ago

With your few comments on this thread, you have done more to disparage your religion than anything the rest of us could write, you sanctimonious prick.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

I guess this is the difference between us: I appreciate the difference of opinions here, but name-calling results when you do not have anything productive to say. I feel bad that people are really bothered by this practice, I hate it when people baptize little babies, but I do not name call and disparage the religion. Let's let all me the freedom to worship how where and what they may, eh?

mirth · 6 months ago

LOL

Based on your comments here today, calling you a sanctimonious prick is only stating fact.

"You called me a bad name" is ALWAYS what you christofascist fundie types fall back on when your arguments fail.

If you can't take the heat...

pibasola · 6 months ago

I love it when Mirth the intolerant preaches tolerance.

mirth · 6 months ago

In what way am I preaching tolerance on this thread?

wrong is wrong is wrong is...

mutised · 6 months ago

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Should I just write "jibber" or add the "ish"?

kittycatastrophe · 6 months ago

Is it a gift if you give it in a sneaky manner. That's the kind of "gifting" stalkers like to do, completely convinced that you'll feel as if it was the greatest thing you've ever received from anyone, like ever.

Jophus · 6 months ago

My grandma had a stroke and was air lifted to Memorial Hospital which is pretty much on the Notre Dame campus.... I think. Anyways, does anyone know the specific information of this? Is it a graduation thing? Could I go if I get bored?

I'll take pictures for John to post if I can go.

Rob Mule · 6 months ago

Time shall unfold what plaited cunning hides:
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.
--Cordelia

EvilPrincess · 6 months ago

Did they baptize any relatives of the other presidential candidates? And if they baptized Obama's mother, what about his father?

Yes, none of this affects the deceased, but it's insulting as hell to their families. My grandmother died last year, and if I found out she'd been posthumously Mormonized, I'd be royally pissed. How dare these loony cultists imply that God would like her better if she changed her religion to match theirs?

AllAboutMormons · 6 months ago

This article demonstrates a HUGE ignorance re. Mormon baptisms. Here's just a few corrections.

1. "Baptizing the dead of other faith's, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice." If it's so secret, why is the information posted on the internet where millions of people can see it? Also, the Church has specifically asked its members to focus only on their own families, so in the vast majority of cases there is familial consent. Of course, with millions of Mormons participating in the ordinance, the church cannot possibly police every submission to its databases.

2. "For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism" No one is "forced." According to Mormon theology, the deceased person is free to accept or reject the baptism. In my own opinion, it's also not fair to say that the baptism "convert[s] them to Mormonism." I doubt there is an organization called the "Mormon Church" in the next life. Baptism is simply seen as an essential ordinance for future progression after death.

3. "We know that the Mormons have a policy of baptizing into the Mormon faith, without consent, every single person who dies on the planet." Again, there is consent. The deceased is free to accept or reject the baptism. Again, the church has asked its members to focus only on members of their own families. Some violate this request, but that is not the church's fault.

You should also keep in mind that from a Mormon perspective, this ordinance is a way of _honoring_ the dead. That means that some Mormon, against the church's wishes, because the church requests that we focus on our own families, nevertheless so respected Barak Obama that he wanted to honor his mother.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I see. This is like the University of Illinois Alumni Association honoring Native Americans from the Illinois area who are now all dead with a Boy Scout project from 1924 called "Chief Illiniwek".

We found out that the costume was Plains Indians, the frat boy who did the dance was not even close to what is danced in the half-century old Pow Wows that occur in the UIC Pavillion, and the music that is played during the Chief Dance was composed by a Western person knowing nothing of Native musical traditions.

Honor? _up your ass_ with that kind of honor.

Stop giving grief to my relatives.

Ugh.

AllAboutMormons · 6 months ago

This article demonstrates a HUGE ignorance re. Mormon baptisms. Here's just a few corrections.

1. "Baptizing the dead of other faith's, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice." If it's so secret, why is the information posted on the internet where millions of people can see it? Also, the Church has specifically asked its members to focus only on their own families, so in the vast majority of cases there is familial consent. Of course, with millions of Mormons participating in the ordinance, the church cannot possibly police every submission to its databases.

2. "For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism" No one is "forced." According to Mormon theology, the deceased person is free to accept or reject the baptism. In my own opinion, it's also not fair to say that the baptism "convert[s] them to Mormonism." I doubt there is an organization called the "Mormon Church" in the next life. Baptism is simply seen as an essential ordinance for future progression after death.

3. "We know that the Mormons have a policy of baptizing into the Mormon faith, without consent, every single person who dies on the planet." Again, there is consent. The deceased is free to accept or reject the baptism. Again, the church has asked its members to focus only on members of their own families. Some violate this request, but that is not the church's fault.

You should also keep in mind that from a Mormon perspective, this ordinance is a way of _honoring_ the dead. That means that some Mormon, against the church's wishes, because the church requests that we focus on our own families, nevertheless so respected Barak Obama that he wanted to honor his mother.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Dang I had to post this twice since the Mormon blog minder posted twice. Yechhh.

I see. This is like the University of Illinois Alumni Association honoring Native Americans from the Illinois area who are now all dead with a Boy Scout project from 1924 called "Chief Illiniwek".

We found out that the costume was Plains Indians, the frat boy who did the dance was not even close to what is danced in the half-century old Pow Wows that occur in the UIC Pavillion, and the music that is played during the Chief Dance was composed by a Western person knowing nothing of Native musical traditions.

Honor? _up your ass_ with that kind of honor.

Stop giving grief to my relatives.

Ugh.

AllAboutMormons · 6 months ago

UncleBucky: I don't know all the details re. the event you describe, and quite frankly you have not articulated them very well. Mormon ceremonies do not try to imitate the cerimonies of other groups, so I fail to see the connection. Just the same, are you really angry at these people who apparently sincerely tried to honor your ancestors, just because they weren't able to accurately reproduce your ancestors' specific clothing, dances, and music? Were they not trying to honor your ancestors as best they could? If this bothers you, UncleBucky, you must lead a very miserable life, because there's plenty going on in the world that is far more egregious than what you've described. Let me know if there are additional details that you haven't mentioned that perhaps justify your apparent irrationality.

reindeer · 6 months ago

It has iritated me for years that my Huguenot ancestors, who came to America in the 17th century for religious freedom, have been hijacked by the Mormon church! Today, after reading this article, I checked to see how recent an ancestor had been claimed. Much to my surprise, I found BOTH my PARENTS are now on the IGI database (presumably now members of the Mormon church). They were both born, raised and died Methodists...and did not hold the Mormons in very high regard.

Is there a way to force the LDS to I can remove them from their rolls? I am their only descendent.

I suggest everyone check familysearch.org's IGI database for their nearest deceased relative. Most of you will find a close relative there.

evan_la · 6 months ago

Both *BOTH* my grandparents appear in the database. As an atheist, it doesn't matter to me, but how dare they? Both my grandma and grandpa were life-long devout Catholics and were they alive they would be FURIOUS.

AllAboutMormons · 6 months ago

As the article itself indicates, the IGI database is not a list of the names of people who have been posthumously baptized. It is a more general genealogical database open to the general public.

woodroad34 · 6 months ago

Religion is a choice. There are supposedly many paths to God and to have one particular path foisted on someone is fairly reprehensible. The simple rule should be, what if some Mormon became inducted posthumously into another religion -- e.g. Judaism, Islam, or Catholocism -- and had his "mormonism" reduced to the whim of someone else? I doubt the Mormons posting on this thread would like it. And just because a living relative doesn't care about a dead relative's beliefs shouldn't matter. A person has died with the beliefs that formed his life and actions--changing the dead's religion then makes that person's personal history different. The Mormons, with this practice, have no respect for the dead or familial history, theirs or any other person's, despite their dogma.

HelenRainier · 6 months ago

How in the world can you baptize someone who is dead? I always thought a person had to be living to be alive. Just goes to show though that these religious zealots only care of themselves and their goals and don't respect anyone else.

ndtovent · 6 months ago

omg! last time I looked, there were only 5 comments on this thread, now it's at 104! LOL!... Obviously, it's a very hot button for a lot of people, as it should be. There should be laws against this kind of crap. I understand and support the separation of church and state, but still. This IS a cult-like activity and goes beyond the pale.

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

There are a bunch more comments to this thread from people who have yet to register with Disqus and/or have their email addresses verified.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Yeah, no more freedom of religion! No more tolerance! No more civility!

LowKey · 6 months ago

Are you aware that your fellow mormons contributed over 20 million dollars to strip gay and lesbians of their equal rights in California last year?

Why is it that the intolerant scream intolerence all the time?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

I am all about equal rights, when there is actually a right involved. It was up to Californians to decide what those rights are. They voted. Let them change the state constitution. This is a state issue. Let there be Gay marriage states and traditional marriage states. But to single out one group is intellectually dishonest and unfair. Funny how the Religious right is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mormons in keeping the traditional marriage status quo, but toss them under the bus when it comes to temple ordinances.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

And there you see, the agenda of the Mormon missionary in our midst. Weasel words and teflon responses.

Ugh.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Last I checked, minority rights are not decided by majority rule.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

The answer is more speech, not hate mongering.

caphillprof · 6 months ago

No, the Mormons deserve some hate mongering. Sometimes you have to get down on their level and go at it.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Spend your money, rally your troops, and lets have a civil debate and vote. And when you lose, you can try again and again. This is democracy.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

It's civil to remove people's civil rights now?

pibasola · 6 months ago

Here I go... Just a little sarcasm is going to come out on my part here. You have hijacked the word "Gay" you can have it. It was an ugly word anyway. You've hijacked not just one color but all the colors in the rainbow. Now you are trying to hijack the definition of "marriage". Aren't you being selfish? Why can't you come up with something new? I thought you people were creative. LOL

When did the government remove civil liberties? You have the same right as I do. If you so choose you can marry a member of the opposite sex just like I can. To create special laws for a small group of people is just insane and harmful to civilization. What if I wanted to drive on the left side of the street? I don't know why I want to drive on that side of the street, maybe I was just born that way. Should the government make a special law for me?

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

You're using the same argument that was used against interracial marriage.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Once the Supreme Court says there is a civil right found in the Constitution to gay marriage then there will be one. Until then, it is up to We the People to decide.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

The supreme court ruled in Loving v Virginia the marriage is one of the "fundamental rights of man". The fourteenth amendment states that all citizens must be treated equally. Where is the ambiguity?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Homosexual marriage was never held as a fundamental right.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Marriage itself was held as a fundamental right. The fourteenth amendment states that ALL citizens must be treated equally. I ask again, where is the ambiguity?

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

There is none. Marriage as defined is a fundamental right. Gay marriage has not been held a fundamental right.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Not Gay Marriage. Just Marriage. And actually really nothing but Equal Marriage.

And don't baptize my grannie! She already has one.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

It is not "gay marriage." It's marriage. A fundamental right that is being denied to a group of people.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

The def. is one
man
one
woman.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Definition according to whom?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Equally.

Not special, not ghettoized, not anything else but EQUAL.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

That was dicta, not holding.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

They control the dead, and now they want to control anyone who remains living that is not in their cult.

When you read "democracy" in a Mormon context, it means "control of others," not what it meant to the Founders.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Bingo, LowKey.

And they will dump money on anything else or anyone else they don't like. Money that comes from 10% or more I suppose of their parishioners salaries.

They should use that money instead to restore the prairies, repair the fisheries, clean up rivers, clean up pollution, and heal Gaia, our Mother Earth.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Jolley, baby,

You have the freedom to worship a Giant Cucumber, if you want. But keep your BOM away from me (although I have a copy, and I have read it head to tail as well as Pearl of Great Price and D&C)...

Just don't proselytize me or my ancestors. You insult me and you dishonor them. Stop it. Grrrrrr....

Ugh.

The Tim Channel · 6 months ago

Everybody take a deep breath. Assuming this Mormon practice exists (and has been applied to Obama's dead mom), there's no real harm done. It's all a bunch of make believe religious hooey.

The Mormons carry too much other baggage to dwell on such mumbo jumbo. I suppose you might think it will help with the Catholic or Baptist support of homosexuals if you spearhead this debating point?

All I'm saying is let's not start fighting over who has the least offensive imaginary belief system when there are concrete issues of much greater importance to be dealt with. The Mormons are racist and homophobic, and that has REAL consequences in our world.

I'll admit that there might have been a time in my life when polygamy sounded like a good idea, but since the Mormons mostly jettisoned their only attractive selling point, I didn't see a need to hone up on the rest of their pagan rituals.

Enjoy.

LowKey · 6 months ago

You miss the point. Of course it's nonsense. But necro-baptising Omama's mother into a religion whose prophet's taught that she should be killed on the spot for producing a mixed race child is kinda like making MLK Jr. a post-humous member of the KKK.

agitator · 6 months ago

i don't know where you got your info but in all my life i have never heard that one. it is just a your figment of your imagination and whoever told you that. it's ok to tell stories but at least make them factual

gatosgal · 6 months ago

I just hate this nasty habit of Mormons. They shouldn't be doing this without asking permission. Some idiot lifted my entire family tree and "baptized" us! I know it doesn't mean a doggone thing, but it irks me anyway.

Mini Clover · 6 months ago

Well, then according to my religion if i clap my hands three times I can render those posthumous baptisms null and void.

*clap clap clap*

Amazing! :D

pibasola · 6 months ago

Good for you go for it.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I think I will tell everyone about this. Clap, clap, clap and the stinky, icky Mormon cooties leave your dearly beloved.

Good deal. I like this.

Ugh.

johnkerry · 6 months ago

"Stanley"??????????????????????????????

FuzzyandBlue · 6 months ago

John, how exactly does one find out if their own dearly departed family members have been hijacked by these fraudulent baptisms? This infuriates me. How dare they???

LowKey · 6 months ago

www.familysearch.org

If you can find them in the IGI, odds are almost 100 percent that "temple work" has been done for them.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I know it sounds horrible. But the Mormon cult is a fake religion, without any connection to the Divine. Your dearly beloved is SAFE from alleged "temple work". Any Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony and Extreme Unction, the sacraments mocked by LDS Temple Ordinances or whatever will not be tampered with.

Enjoy the photographs, cherish the memories, your loved ones are yours. They do not, and will never, belong to the LDS.

Ugh.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

Let everyman worship how, where, and what they may. Agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

You are saying this makes no difference. That the dead will decide...

See, the dead cannot decide. The living bear the responsibility and the weight of your arrogant actions.

It is the living you insult. The living with the thought that some filthy cult member in a dark basement wearing some weird temple robes and with some secret signs would be saying the name of my dear Granny Sue.

Stop disrespecting the living, much less the dead.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"Agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

Teflon. Nasty, flaking, carcinogenous teflon.

Ugh.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Stop disrespecting our dead relatives then.

FuzzyandBlue · 6 months ago

Lowkey--Thanks so much for the info.
Un-freaking-fortunately, I found my 4 grandparents listed in the IGI. Honestly, I burst into tears upon seeing this. Tears of boiling anger and complete sadness.
How dare they touch my grandparents???
They were all practicing members of the Catholic Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. They must be spinning in their graves.
Who the f-ck asked these freaks to touch my dead? Aren't their enough Osmonds and Romneys breeding like bunnies out there to keep to their temple busy??
I am beyond furious. And I dread telling my parents this info. It will kill my mom to know that these freaks thought they had any right to do such a thing to her parents. The only consolation? My mom's dearly departed sister who unexpectedly died far too young from pancreatic cancer in 1983 at the age of 38 was NOT listed.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Look. When people die, they no longer can defend themselves against Mormon loonies.

Mormons think they are doing the deceased a favour. In fact, they are trying to control others to the greatest extent.

Let me tell you. On my demise, I will send the Mormon Woo-Woo President a spiritual punch in the nose.

Mormons are nuts.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

If you think it is about control, then you are mistaken good sir. Proxy baptism has nothing to do with control. It is all about choice. Mormons believe all deceased persons will either accept or reject the ordinances done on this earth on their behalf. It is quite a simple concept that many here seem to be struggling with.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I am no "good sir". You have gotten me really hopping mad! You claim your nonsense is applicable to all others. Go into your temple. Wear the temple robes. Have fun. But stay away from saying the names of my forebearers. You are rude to do that.

And If there is a spiritual plane, you have a "spiritual" punch in the nose coming at you. If not, no fear, no bloody nose.

(That is soooo funny, as I read, a spiritually bloody nose).

Oh well, leave my family alone.

Ugh.

ObeyTheFist · 6 months ago

Luckily the Mormon church started allowing black people full membership way back in 1979, when Mrs. Obama was still alive. Now she can reap the full benefits of that beneficent change of heart regarding the souls of those marked as unworthy of the priesthood by God.

mimosachan · 6 months ago

Tracy Hall's done a very good job of explaining the mormon viewpoint here. I wanted to explain a couple of things. In the screenshots above, you can see some screenshots from the Pedigree Resource File, which is not a record of temple ordinances, and some from the IGI. If someone is listed in the IGI, it means that temple work has been performed for that person. There's also a newer database which is not open to all mormons yet because it still has some bugs to be worked out. That's called newfamilysearch. When I log into the old Familysearch, signed in as a member of the church, right now, at 4:37 PM PST, Stanley Ann Dunham's still listed in the IGI, as she was above. If I log into newfamilysearch, she is listed there in a family tree with her husbands, and her parents, and a pedigree. There is an icon by her name that indicates her temple ordinances are still pending. So I"m not sure what to make of that. The names of five people who submitted information are there, as well as email addresses for three of them. While I believe that it was wrong of them to submit her name when they weren't related to her, I'm not going to reveal them because I promised not to reveal private info, when I signed up for access to that database. However, if someone goes to a local family history center, asks for the CDs for the Pedigree Resource File, #141, and then searches for Stanley Ann Dunham, you'll probably find out there who submitted that name, at least one of the people who did. Pedigree Resource File comes from individual submissions and usually people include name and contact info.

However, While this is annoying, it's really not a big deal. Mormons only believe that they should give everyone the chance to join the church. They don't believe that baptising someone for the dead is automatically making them a mormon. (I say they since I'm a lapsed mormon.) So there's no sinister motive here. It's seen as an act of charity to give someone the chance to join.

Because of this belief, the church has done a huge amount of work to preserve and make available copies of old documents with family records. I'm a family historian, by hobby, and if it weren't for the church's records, I couldn't have done half of what I've been able to do. For me, knowing that my Lutheran gggranny has been dunked in proxy is a very small price to pay for the vast availability of records from all over the world that are available on microfilm in the US.

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

Actually, Tracy Hall has not explained anything, except maybe to Ab moderators.

Her/His comments have been held, unpublished, because s/he either is not registered with Disqus or her/his email address has not been verified.

So, helpful hint: Check in with each other between shift changes.

mimosachan · 6 months ago

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not any kind of moderator, and I can see his comments, and his photo below.

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

Opps. I owe you an apology, mimosachan. His comments below escaped me. There are many more from him that have been held in moderation for the reason I stated.

mimosachan · 6 months ago

OK, I get what you're saying. I'm new to the site, so wasn't sure what
was going on.

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

Thank you for being gracious.

It has been a busy day here in Moderatorville and I made a mistake.

Please let me know if you would like me to delete all but your original comment.

mimosachan · 6 months ago

Thanks, I think it would be good to just delete everything but the
original. Paula

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yeah, this is pretty much my last observation on this.

Mormon proxy baptism for the dead is better described as:

Mormon-waterboarding of the living who remember their relatives and hate the idea of their family member's name being mentioned by a bunch of people in some dark basement and dressed in long white robes. Seriously. It's like waterboarding.

Ugh.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

...without the drowning sensation. So really it is nothing like it.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

When your ancestor is taken from you, proxy or not, it is like being drowned.

Leave my relatives alone.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

On the other hand.

Let some LDS reader please comment on this:

"I am a son of man, who, in spite of my ability to write, comprehend the Divinity, is still a worm! Yet the worm can still bite you."

Yes, I am a son of man. What does that mean? What am I saying about myself?

Ahhh google it... it means: human.

Ugh.

jolleyrodger · 6 months ago

I'm going to study for my corporations law exam instead.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

You are so sweet. Study hard.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

"corporations law exam..."

People, read that. Control. This young stinker is studying exactly how to control you and your descendants.

Watch him/her. And watch your pockets.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Note, he skated the question. That is what they do. They don't answer. They change topic. These are the ones to be watched...

Ugh.

Bot · 6 months ago

Not well known is that deceased persons must accept the baptism for it to be effective. In other words, they don't become members of the Church of Jesus Christ without their consent.

So, it's just a Puffington Post headline - with no reason for concern. If they accept it, they will have the opportunity to link with their ancestors. If they reject it, the status quo will remain.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Puffington? What next, you gonna say something that rhymes with that?

If I knew my Grannie Mary's name was being said in a funky ceremony in a dark basement by strange people in weird temple robes... I would grieve. There is reason to be concerned. My sis has been in Ancestry.com researching our lineage. And by entering stuff into Ancestry.... we are yielding up the names of our dear ones.

Mormons are sick, meddling puppies.

Ugh.

mirth · 6 months ago

"...in a funky ceremony in a dark basement by strange people in weird temple robes..."

...before her proxy immersion in a humongous font resting (symbolically) on the backs of 12 oxen statues.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm...

gatosgal · 6 months ago

I have news for you. Deceased persons don't accept anything. They're DEAD.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Ultimately, yes. Our conversation is not about that reality, but the continuing grief that might go on in the minds of the living who cannot do anything to stop the names of their loved ones being used in an unholy ceremony meant to rip the loved ones away (at least conceptually) from them. This is the gist.

But, no question, the dead -- by definition -- cannot make decisions or choices. And IF there is a spiritual level, we have no evidence of how they interact with their environment. Clearly, given that decisions and choices are always actions (even thoughts are actions), that is an Earthly thing, not something spirits would do.

Yep this is silly. Hah hah, but Mormon cultists are THE silliest.

Ugh.

antimormon · 6 months ago

I hope Obama goes after them could be crimal prosecution lol
Go OBAMA!!!

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Fool. That can't happen for obvious reasons: It is not a civil crime and he wouldn't, he is a lawyer. You are a tro// or just a dumbo.

Ugh.

WhatTheHellisThis · 6 months ago

Our world is choc-a-bloc full of absolute and total nut-cases.

You dont believe me, take a look around you.
Oh, and read these bloggs.

I know I would never want to be baptised by these Moron people.

Anyway, Religions are all man made, only God is divine!!!
Just as country borders were not drawn by God...........but rather by greedy, crazy, stupid humans.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Only God is Divine, right. And anyone who attempts to describe God in limiting fashion, thus rendering the infinite to finite, is a blasphemer.

Such are Mormons.

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

If there is a God, and I believe there is He has always been a god of ordinances. From the Old Testiment times he has always required faith in his word, sacrifice and committment to his path. He has an eternal perspective and can see our mistakes before we make them. He has perfect clairity of the long term consequences of the path we choose. He calls to us again and again to come away from the things that will bring physical and spiritual death. But most will not listen, because they are lost upon their lusts. (The physical appetites and selfish desires of this world). Yet even then, if there never got a true chance to hear and understand his requests of them, He will again offer truth to them in spirit prision after death. Yet the ordinance of baptism (promise to follow Him) is required to happen in this world. Understanding his plan and performing a proxy baptism for one who has died is spiritual experience and a gift that the spirit who has departed can still choose to accept or reject. There is no coersion and no force to participate in this process. In fact, it requires an interview to ensure that those who participate are living in a moral and faithful manner.

This will be hard to understand to a person who is the servant of their physical appetites. But let me just say that true true freedom and happiness only comes when the appetites are kept within the limits God defines. Those limits allow the spirit and human will to govern and to be strengthened rather then end up the victim of an appetite. That is true freedom. Performing a proxy baptism is an opportunity even after death to find this true freedom.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Oh shut up.

God requires nothing of us in this world. You are making it all up so that your male hierarchy can have control of weak, uneducated and fearful people.

There is nothing to understand about the BOM except that it is a lie, a trite knock-off of bad translations of the Bible and by a man who ultimately was a megalomaniac perv (sleeping with multiple young girls???!!!! Come on, what's that? AND that is historical record!)

Mormons refuse to let their numbers read alternative texts. They consistently go back to the BOM, not the New Testament for inspiration of the historical Jesus. They penalize anyone in their number for speaking outside of the box. Orwell gave a very nice statement of this kind of group think:

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Don't talk to me of freedom, Danny. It is only freedom for you, that you are talking about, freedom to have your way with my Grannie Sue, regardless of what I think or want. You call it freedom for me, but ONLY if I agree with you, but then that is slavery to a unitary mind set.

Mormons = ??? ;-)

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

There is a string of vile thought running through your comments, yet you feel you are closer to the truth? Those who demean and destroy anything are not under Gods influence. God defines roles of men and women. There is no dominance in the Mormon theology only service. People are weak and their weakness may show at times, but you wouldn't cut down a tree because of one rotten apple. You can't really find any true principles of god, until you do your best to remove vile thought and influence. I hope you can...

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Listen, your religion is a cult based in male authoritarianism.

I push back with the same force as Jesus kicking out the sellers from the temple.

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

I am not Christ, so I will let it rest at that.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Christ never existed. Jesus, a human being, did.

I can push back with the same force as Jesus did when he turned over the tables and freed the dovies.

Christ is the figment of the imagination of Paul, of Joe Smith. I do not believe in "the Christ" because that is the way of faith without works.

Take a little James 2:14-26:

Faith and Deeds: What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Temple works are no such deeds when they offend me or my family. The writer, James: "You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" He finishes "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

Selectively believing parts of Christs gospel is that building a home without a roof or walls. There is a big picture and an overall purpose, without that understanding you can make words from any book mean anything you want them to...

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I meet vile with vile. Next?

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

Yes, that is what Jesus taught....if they slap you, you had better slap them back! Oh wait, I think it is turn the other cheek......

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

So I should just lay back, and take it from you as you do what you want.

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore... That's when the trap springs shut.

No, Mormon Blog-Minder. While I understand non-violence, I respect the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto, the Native Americans at Wounded Knee and the GLBT people fighting back at the Stonewall, and other similar minded warriors against bigots.

Bigots like Mormons.

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

Jesus, the most perfect person on earth, who did the most to deserve praise and protection was reviled, abused and murdered for us. He is the one who said turn the other cheek. God is the one who will bring justice. However, we should stand for truth when we find it, and we should be willing to defend it. Any harm or abuse of men, women or children is wrong. However, there are precepts which infect society and seek to cripple truth and happiness. People who build on a foundation of corrupting principles must understand thier error for their benefit and societies. In many ways they bring their own consequences. The nature of the devil is to convince others that he doesn't exist and that little matters, then when they harm their spirit and body by poor choices he jumps on thier head and reinforces how worthless they are, as he seeks to drag them down to hell. That infectious path will always be the same when the choices are not based on true principles. We do ourselves and society a service when we can dinstinguish between pain we bring on ourselves and pain that others impose. When we can't distinguish well between the two, we become easy to offend because inside we already are condeming ourselves.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Final Theological statement.

God is outside of history, beyond time, since, of course, as we all know, he is infinite and therefore has an omnipresence. Always was, always is, and always will be (says my Catechism) = Omnipresent.

For those who are baptized as babies by some strange cult, say, the Mormon one, and who go through their young lives believing the cruel and mind-numbing dogma of that group, there comes a time when they interact with others, see other realities and make an evaluation. They CAN choose in time to reject or accept before they die, because decisions and choices are actions that are part of this Earthly life. We don't have any evidence or artifacts of spiritual decisions. Period, BOM is an Earthly creation that makes claims of the spiritual realm.

So, for those who are baptized after they die, and word gets back to their families, the grief is felt in the historical present in the minds of their family members. No assertion of choice or decision in the spiritual realm can quell the grief.

You are hurting the living, Mormons. Jesus said to you that that is a sin. You are therefore sinning against God, regardless what that nut Joe Smith wrote down, based on his delusions after putting his nose in a hat and receiving mercury poisoning.

If you want to do this, then shut up and don't publish it. It's not going to affect the dead. But it affects the living if you blab it about on web sites and street corners in Nauvoo. Cut the crap. Leave people alone. Stop trying to control the world.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

AMERICAblog News posted this description of a sacred and personal Mormon practice. They PUBLISHED it. The only Mormon publishing here is an effort to respond.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Sacred? Give me a break. You are interfering with other people's lives. Stop it.

Personal? You bet. My Grannie Sue's name is personal, and you keep your mitts off it.

Silly Mormon cult.

Ugh.

DaninMissouri · 6 months ago

I agree that this should not have happened without a living family members concent. That is the policy of the mormon church. The practice is very personal yet HBO and others mock it and publish it, yet cry foul when the church practices a real constitutional right of free speech. This isn't Mornon interferience is it an anti-mormon biased agenda...created because those living in the dark do not want the lights turned on.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Ach, now this is a free speech argument.

Nothing like the argument of control. Control of the dead, and in your hearts, control of the rest of Humanity and God's creation by your evil cult.

Nah. Here's some truth:

"Ordinances are performed for the dead in the belief that those who have died *without going through the rituals necessary for salvation and exaltation* must still have the opportunity to have these ordinances performed."
--http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm

Which rituals? Yours? Anybody's? None of your business. Keep away from my family and me, Mormons.

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

It looks like you mean free speech of Mormons to defend themselves. UncleBucky seems to think you are invoking free speech for using peoples names in proxy ordinances.

LowKey · 6 months ago

they did no such thing. They merely published the record of it, not a descrition of it. A description of it would be:

http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

If anyone is caused grief the blame must be placed on those misrepresenting what Mormons believe and do.

If you want to know what a group believes or does you should ask a member of the group, not an enemy of the group.

This is common sense. The only escape from it is to suggest that the group is saying and doing one thing, but that it is a lie and they are actually saying and doing another.

There is no sense in that at all.

LowKey · 6 months ago

If you want to know the truth about Enron you should only listen to what Ken Lay has to say about it, not the people who exposed the financial fraud that it was. Visiting hours are wednesday from 1-4

If you want to know the truth about a MLM scam you should only listen to the people who are trying to con you into signing up so they can rip you off.

If you are buying a car you should never read consumer reports, Car and Driver or Edmunds, you should only listen to the car salesman.

Riiiight.

Listen son, I just happen to know more about mormonism than you do, m'kay? If you want to learn something just ask, but don't insult me by saying I am misrepresenting things just because I tell the truth and it makes you uncomfortable.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

You are absolutely right. I completely agree that your standard should be applied to criminals, especially fraud. That's not what we are talking about. The standard that saves us from this is "by their fruits ye shall know them". Mormons deserve the respect they earn by demonstrating who they are in life. They are not criminals.

So. Back to the subject. It is common sense that the person who believes a thing can better explain it than those who don't.

In this situation people are drumming up hysteria against a group with a bunch of straw-dog arguments that simply are not true.

You said people are being hurt. People are being hurt by these straw-dog assertions.

I am responding here to LowKey that says he happens to know more about Mormonism than me. I am asserting that LowKey is not the best source of what Latter-day Saints actually believe and do. For example, we have a quote in this blog earlier where LowKey suggests that early LDS prophets taught some should be "Put to death on the spot". I hope there is an audience out there. LowKey is an example of an "enemy of a group", in this case Mormonism, where the enemy should not be trusted to accurately explain the beliefs of the group.

LowKey · 6 months ago

I do know more than you Keith. For one thing I know that Brigham Young was a prophet of the LDS church, probably the most famous outside of mormonism because BYU is named after him and because he did not lie about how many wives he had like Joseph Smith did.

And here is something I also know Keith: That you could have looked up whether or not an LDS prophet actually said that people should be put to death on the spot for race-mixing in about 10 seconds just by googling it. Yet you willfully chose to remain ignorant. And then come on here and commit a monumental fail. Son, when you are at the bottom of a hole, and you can't reach the top, you best stop digging.

Brigham Young said: ""Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

And no it is not common sense that someone who is living in a delusion bubble about mormonism can explain it better that someone on the outside of that delusion bubble. Especially compared to someone like me, who has experienced life on the inside and the outside of the delusion.

Your "by their fuits ye shall know them" argument is the nail in the coffin demonstrating the only thing you know about mormonism are the myths they taught you in Sunday School.

Middle aged men having sex with 14 year old children. Warren Jeffs did not make his doctrine up, Joseph Smith himself had sex with at least two 14 year old girls.

"Prophets" conning their followers out of their hard earned money by setting up an illegal bank then fleeing the state before being convicted of bank fraud in abstentia.

Committing multiple acts of treason by starting two civil wars and calling out a private militia in an attempt to stop a criminal prosection.

The mass murder of 125 pioneers, men women, and children, who were murdered by mormon priesthood holders after surrendering their weapons on the promise that they could go on through Utah if they let the mormons steal their belongings.

I could go for days Keith, because I know mormon history. But I won't, I will finish by pointing out that mormons spent over 20 million dollars last year to strip Californians of their equal rights.

So go ahead and call me your enemy if you like Keith, because if you think pedophilia, sexual abuse, murder, homophobia and racism are good things, I don't really care to be your friend.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

If Brigham Young ever did teach Mormons to hate or punish race-mixing he sure didn't do a very good job.

There is no trace of it in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).

If you are an enemy to Mormons, then being Christians they are taught to just accept you anyway. All I am saying is that the audience out there reading, and I hope there is, will notice that such enemies are not good sources for what Mormons believe and do.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Can someone translate this into English for me?

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Enemies of Mormons are not a good source for what Mormons believe.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Who is talking about what mormons believe?

We are discussing mormonism and their racsist history son. Not how Mormons think that they can become a god and have hundreds of goddess wives and make their own planet to rule.


Keith, your mom said it's past your bedtime, get off the computer, you have school tomorrow!!!

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Baptisms for the dead are just a symbolic gesture that we remember and love the deceased and welcome them into our faith.

We understand that they have the same freedom in death as they had in life whether to accept or acknowledge our gesture.

Consider the last chapter in the Bible, Malachi 4:

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

(skip 2-4)

5 ¶ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

We offer this gesture of symbolic baptism to demonstrate that our hearts are turned to our fathers.

And in the effort, we create a record of our ancestors and believe that the entire earthly family will be linked together after death. It seems that most religions believe that in some way or another.

LowKey · 6 months ago

But you neglect the elephant in the room. Your religion is racist. Had Ms. Dunham, an atheist, decided to become mormon when she married Barack's father, they would not have been allowed to be married in an LDS temple like a white couple would have. When Barack turned 12 he would not have been allowed to be ordained a deacon like all his fellow ward members. And now a racist religion, which would have discriminated against her had she been a member while alive, perform a posthumous baptism on her?

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

That's changing the subject.

But first things first. This effort to study all family links throughout the entire world and to develop an accurate database as well as perform these ordinances is the opposite of racism.

If we want to put together a discussion about Mormonism and the Priesthood, that might be interesting but it might also be a very different audience.

Most people in this blog have been talking about baptism for the dead. You are right to notice that I am bringing up linking families together which is done in a later ordinance we call Temple Marriage. Baptism wasn't restricted by receiving the Priesthood but Temple Marriage was.

Latter-day Saints accept the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron and their authority along with the House of Israel being a chosen people, in the same way that Christ did in the New Testament. He didn't destroy the Law and the Prophets, he fulfilled them. There was a time when the Priesthood was limited to a few. We are thrilled that those times are past.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

We? Look, folks. Another Mormon blog-minder.

Schtum.

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

What in the world are you talking about with "blog-minder"? Isn't there some assumption that there is an audience out there that actually reads some of this? Or do the few of you that are churning out insults consider yourselves having some control of truth and reality? It isn't a discussion if you can't allow people to defend themselves.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Speaking as someone who has hundreds of mormon friends and relatives, you need to STOP "defending."

You are making mormons look far worse than they really are.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Didn't this start with me quoting Malachi and saying Mormons are trying to link the entire human family together by strengthening the relationships between the living and the dead (read Genealogy)? We didn't get to discuss that much.

Sorry you are so upset about Mormons. You really shouldn't be.

LowKey · 6 months ago

If you quoted scripture at me I didn't read it, I am just not interested in superstition. Only in reality.

You think I should approve of 38 year old men having sex with 14 year old girls like Joseph Smith did?

You think I should approve of mass murder of unarmed men, women, and children?

I am sorry you approve of despicably evil things like that (as long as it is mormons doing it). You really shouldn't approve of mass murder you know, even if it was mromon priesthoodholders and you are one too.

In fact, if you are serious about what you are posting here, I hope you never grow up and have kids.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

I am completely serious about Mormon doctrine and history and you defame it. Your solution is that I stop defending it.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Let's get this straight.

To sum up: I tell the truth, you lie, and you accuse me of lying.

Time and time again in this thread you have accused me of lying, yet offer nothing that I said that was even mistaken, let alone a lie. I have been 100 percent accurate in everything I posted, you have been wrong in almost everything you have said. You have monumetally failed.

Then you call me a liar, I prove that it is in fact you who are lying by posting quotes from actual mormon prophets from mormon published sources saying exactly what I claimed they said.

And then you accuse me of lying again.

Why?

To anyone still reading this thread, I know it's off the front page now, so not that many probably, please do not judge all mormons by the actions of Keith. They may be messed up, they may lie more than most people (ther is a reason Utah is the fraud capital of the US), they may be racists and bigots who hate gays, but most of them are not as messed up as Keith is, please don't think they are all like this.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

I said that you are an enemy of the Mormon church and therefore are not a credible source for what Mormons believe and do.

LowKey · 6 months ago

That didn't sound like an apology for lying about me Keith. Sorry you are not man enough to admit it or to stop the lies. I am sorry you feel the need to attack mormons who tell the truth about the religion.

I see you have edited this post to remove your implicit claim that you know more than me about genealogy and temple work.

Have you ever been to the temple Keith? I have. have you done proxy endowments? I have.

Have you been doing geneaology for the past 35 years keith? I have.

Time and time again in this thread I have demonstrated 1) that I am always correct whenever you claim I am not and 2) whenever I point out something you say that is incorrect you try and change the subject.

Keith, you are at the bottom of a whole you dug. Do you want a hand getting out?

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Let's get out of this right column squeeze.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Defending a house of cards based on a lie that the BOM relates historical fact? YEeechhhh!

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

No, pal. But ask your supervisor behind you to see if you are using the right strategy to silence me.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

NO, that's spot on.

Trying to control others is one of the hallmarks of racism.

Mormons = racists, sexists, and colonialists...

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

How is the fact that a racist religion baptised the dead mother of our first black president changing the subject? That is the subject. That is why this baptism and endowment is even more disrespectful to the dead and to the living than your typical mormon dead dunking.

Mormon prophets have taught that people like Ms. Dunham, who produce mixed race children, should be put to death on the spot.

Wouldn't you see it as disrespectful to make Dr. Martin Luther King an honorary member of the KKK?

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Wow. Put to death on the spot.
How can anybody respond to that.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Come on, you can do better than that.

You could say, but we don't teach that doctrine anymore.

;-P

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

These has the feel of a filibuster. Are you attempting to chase people away from the blog by just splatting out insults?

This is the most absurd statement. The idea that anyone has taught mixed race people should be put to death. I suggest that LowKey has lost all credibility on this blog by suggesting such a thing.

LowKey · 6 months ago

As I mention in the other post, you could have found out what I said was accurate by spending 10 seconds googling it. That you willfully chose not to is telling.

Brigham Young said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Even if Brigham Young did try to teach this it sure didn't stick. And it doesn't fit with other strong principles that do exist. For example, punishments from LDS authorities can only rise to loss of membership, never any physical punishment.

So it is very reasonable to ignore such quotes as not credible.

LowKey · 6 months ago

You tell lies about me, I prove you wrong, and then you ignore a direct quote and say it is reasonable to deny reality.

Riiiight.

You don't know anything about mormon history son, you gotta stop pretending that you do. What you know are myths. Just because mormon punishments today involve only emotional abuse does not mean they were not physical in the past. Murders and castrations were used as punishments during the Brigham Young era.

And I told YOU that mormon prophets no longer teach that white women who have sex with black men should be killed.

But the point is that this is the church that someone necro-baptised Obama's mother into.

Your nonsensical ramblings still ignore the question. Would you think it disrespectful if the KKK made Martin Luther King Jr. an honorary member of the KKK tomorrow? And what sane person wouldn't find that outrageous? And any sane person would find post-humously baptizing the mother of our first black president into such a racist organization that they didn't even let blacks hold the priesthood until 1978.

The fact that the mormon church is less racist today than it was in the past cannot change the salient fact that it is racist and its disrespectful to baptize someone who lived their life free of racism and mothered two mixed race children into such a racist church.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

So doncha think that Brigham was kinda wrong here? And then on other "dogma" do you think that maybe the whole thing is a house of cards, where one lie is supported by another and another all the way back to a hat full of mercury fumes? Huh?

BS. I have to say it. BS.

Leave the cult and be Free, Freeeeeeeeee!

Ugh.

LowKey · 6 months ago

Oh and try and not make shit up and claim I said it too, that would be nice. Brigham Young did not teach that the children should be put to death, nor did I ever say he did. He taught that the adults who have "relations" together should be put to death. We really don't know if he thought the kids should be put to death or not cause he didn't mention them.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

Bruce R. McConkie an apostle, says it best : “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.” In other words LowKey, get over it, we have, and move on.

LowKey · 6 months ago

In other words, Mormons do not apologize for their racism, instead they command the world to forget that they perpetrated such despicable acts and tell the world that it does not matter how racist they have been.

Earth to choose the wrong, Burce McKonkie does not control me, or the world. It matters not if he orders people to forget about something that occurred, it still occurred.

And if he implicitly admits that Brigham Young was leading the LDS church astray back in the day, it just makes the claim to be lead by Jesus Christ who speaks to living prophets even more loony.

Gordo Hinckley (Mormon prophet and in charge of the church basically from the 80s til a year ago), when asked by a reporter if he thought the priesthood ban was wrong said "No I don't think it was wrong." In a differnt interview when being asked about it by Mike Wallace he said:

"It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history."

You CTW, share the arrogance of this littlle man. "No our racism was not wrong and shut up about it." To go so far as to denigrate balcks even further by calling the racist acts against them "flecks of history" really puts the mormon attitude toward blacks in its most accurate light.

And that is why the act of necro-baptizing the mother of our first president into such an unrepentantly racist organization is so disrespectful.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Move on. That is typical from a Mormon blog-minder. "Nothing to see here, move on... move on..." as he kicks the dust under the porch and throws away the evidence.

And what was allegedly ended with African-Americans has now been continued on GLBT/LGBT people. And when we finally best you bigots on that one, there will be someone/something else on which your icky cult will base its moral superiority.

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Sorry. You were referring to the parents. Either way, any suggestion that there were LDS prophets condoning putting people to death as a punishment is absurd.

mirth · 6 months ago

Ahem...Brigham Young, Mountain Meadow Massacre.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

Yes, yes, we all know that Mountain Meadows massacre were committed by bad Mormons, nobody is denying that, but Brigham Young sent a letter telling those same people to leave those travelers alone. The full details of those events did not come out for many years and it eventually lead to the execution of one of the instigators. Brigham Young cooperated fully with the government until the United States finally decided to stop pursuing the case. There is a memorial marker presented by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley who was the 15th president of the church that remembers that tragic day. The church has not shun from it, but those guilty of it are all dead now and it’s unfair to keep condemning the rest of us for something we had absolutely no control over. Are you going to keep bringing up to the state of Missouri that it use to be legal to kill a Mormon there too or wouldn’t that make as good of sport?

LowKey · 6 months ago

More mormon lies. No it was not legal to kill mormons in Missouri. And I bet you did not know that it was Sidney Rigdon who threatened non-mormons with extermination if they didn't let the mormons take their land away.

And yes, Brigham Young was smart enought to fabricate a cover-up letter to send so that he could avoid prosecution for the mass murder by his priesthood holding followers. Part of the smear campaign against the victims and the Indians the mormons tried to blame for the genocide for a hundred or so years.

YOU cannot have it both ways Keith. YOU brought up Mountain Meadows when you claimed that mormons should be judged by the fruits of their actions. The fruits of mormonism include the robbery of the richest wagon train to ever cross through Utah by a group that needed money to fight an impending treasonous war against the US. They got the money. Several million dollars into todays currency. The war was averted. And Brigham Young and the Southern Utah mormons split the loot and kidnapped the few surviving children who the murdering priesthood holders thought would be too young to remember. (They were wrong).

You asked me to judge mormons by their fruits, then you say don't judge mormons by their fruits. You tell me I should support such actions, then tell me you don't support such actions. Well that is good to finally hear Keith, up intil know you have said that these kinds of things were good.

How about 38 year old men having sex with 14 year old girls? Are you finally willing to say that such actions are wrong?

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Oh wait. You sincerely are not interested in what Mormons actually believe. Mormons (read I) completely reject that Brigham Young had anything to do with either. What what is this blog about? What you believe, or what Mormons believe?

mirth · 6 months ago

*smile*

Yes, Keith, we gather here at AMERICAblog to learn Mormon beliefs.

We anxiously wait for you and your co-workers to show up and teach us.

Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely thrilled when I read how you "reject" Young's involvement in such as the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

Now I can put such stuff as history out of my mind.

Say, could you teach us about Blood Atonement?

And what does Pay Lay Ale mean? I'm a little fuzzy on that one.

Please, Keith. Teach us the gospel!

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

There is absolutely no proof that Brigham Young sanctioned what happened at Mountain Meadows, mirth, absolutely none. To the contrary we have this statement from Wilford Woodruff” Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth.”

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

We gather around an article that attempts to ridicule Mormons surrounded by a filibuster by enemies of the Mormon faith.
Their attempt is to try to deny reasoned responses (i.e. my description of Malachi 4), and to flood out any Mormon that tries to state their beliefs.

mirth · 6 months ago

Oops.

Me withanother accidental Like for your comment.

What have uou been denied, Keith?

"Poor
Poor
Pitiful
Me"

LowKey · 6 months ago

You calling it absurd doesn't change reality. It certainly was obscene.

But the reality is that they did. Do some research on Blood atonement.

They have these things called books Keith. Perhaps you should read a book or three about mormon history before opsting again.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

MMmmm, Keith, what's the matter with a filibuster? Don't you have the oysters for it?

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

A filibuster drives away any audience, anyone else that might read this. It floods the page with so much contenton that fairminded people are inclined to turn away.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

Excuse me LowKey, but the church never approved of lynching or encourage violence against blacks, so comparing Mormons to the KKK is ridiculous.

LowKey · 6 months ago

I will not excuse you or your lies or your illogical comments.

The Mormon church explicitly encouraged violence against blacks, and several blacks were kllled as a result. I refuse to be responsible for your lack of knowledge about mormon history.

But even if Brigham Young had not ordered the deaths of black men for having sex with white women, the analogy would still be a fit. Mormons are a racist organization, the KKK is a racist organization. The KKK, like the mormons, no longer overtly acts out in murdering black people. The KKK, like the mormon religion, still has in its core doctrine, dogma that insists that blacks are inferior.

Have you never read Pearl of great Price my ignorant friend? I have. It is mormon doctrine that blacks are cursed by "god."

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yes, and a lot of people were cursed in that treatise of hate and bigotry.

Peace.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I can honestly say that nobody really knows why blacks were not allowed to receive the priesthood until 1978. There is a lot of speculation, but nothing official. I voice it as my personal opinion that perhaps the Lord thought the world was not ready yet. This much I do know. The Church has always been against slavery since it was formed in 1830 and never had segregated congregations. The Church also supported equal civil rights for many years before 1978. Blacks’ receiving the priesthood was according to revelation, or in other words, God’s will, not societies, and therefore only God knows why it took so long.

LowKey · 6 months ago

As both a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and someone who isn't going to lie to you, I can honestly say that anyone with a brain, and I got one, can say that the reason blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the LDS church until 1978 was because the leaders of that church were racists.

I also know that in 1852, when the USA told the people of the newly created territory of Utah that they could choose wheter to be a slave territory or a free territory, that Brigham Young ordered the state legislature to vote to make it a slave territory. SO mister Choose the wrong is lying to you.

It is true, that Joseph Smith wanted to do away with slavery. He wanted to buy all the slaves from their owners and ship them all back to Africa. Not as despicable os brigham Young perhaps, but still racist.

The church had segregated congregations even in my lifetime, so stop lying choose the wrong.

You do a great disservice to civil rights organizations when you lie about mormon's fighting for civil rights. It is like you are shitting on what they did, trying to claim that racist mormons should get credit for what real civil rights fighters did while mormons were fighting AGAINST civil rights.

An official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the
handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."
- William E. Berrett's "The Church and the Negroid People," pp. 16-17

Mormons believe that blacks are inferior and not worthy of equality in the mromon religion because of their superstitious mumbo jumbo about how they were not valient enough "before they were born."

Sick.


And you think that Obama's atheist mother, who was not a racist, isn't being disrespected by being necro-baptised into a racist organization?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Respect to you, Lowkey! :)

I am not a member of the LDS. I could never be anymore, just as I could never believe in any of the nonsense in the BOM, from the mouth of any Jehovah's Witness, or from the Ex Cathedra mouth of Pope Ratzinger.

But you spoke well, and I could have a decent conversation with you, even as a member of the LDS. In fact, as I wrote previously, I have met some LDS in professional situations and they acted well. I don't know about their religious beliefs, however, but I do know a lot more of yours, and I appreciate it.

Peace.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Easy. The founder and his group were racists and bigots, who only believed in the goodness of white males with property, money and power. These things showed that such a white male was blessed by their god (not Mine!).

Equal civil rights... parse that, please... Missing something? Women, people of colour other than blacks, GLBT/LGBT people, non-Mormons (whupps, dear!) and non-Christians?

It took long because the Mormons wanted it so. 1863 meant nothing to them. 1865 meant nothing also, since they were on their way to found a theocracy in Deseret. Even 1965 was just a pothole on their way to domination. Finally 1968 (Stonewall) was a minor irritation to Mormon dogma.

You shouldn't have even posted, bub.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Malachi is the last chapter in the Bible?

Oooo someone does not know his/her Bible.
* Old Testament (Genesis to Machabees)
* New Testament (Mark to Paul, not incl. Revelation)

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

Right. I meant Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament.
Interesting about Machabees. Must be a different version than the one I use.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

The one you use was horribly redacted in the 19th and 20th centuries. You say it is KJV but parts are missing.

The Bible I have is the New English Bible with the Apochrypha. It's nice enough for doing research -- AND it's more readable than KJV, and surely more accurate.

Wanna tussle on what should and should not be in it? Meet me at the corner of Clark and Diversey, Chicago. (Hah!) Note my other quotes of texts from Qumran, Nag Hammadi, etc. collections? They are closer chronologically and a damned sight more accurate than anything in the BOM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price (Book of Moses? Book of Abraham? Those are from a traveling carney show!)

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

OMG! I read a description of the development of the Book of Abraham! "The Book of Abraham papyri were never reviewed by trained scholars in the 19th century, and they were thought lost in the Great Chicago Fire." Hahahaha! Good deal, glad Mrs. O'Leary could help you out there! Later some fragments of the papyri were found:

"JSP I, Lines 1 - 3 ...the prophet of Amonrasontêr, prophet [?] of Mîn Bull-of-his-Mother, prophet [?] of Khons the Governor...Hôr, justified, son of the holder of the same titles, master of secrets, and purifier of the gods Osorwêr, justified [?]...Tikhebyt, justified. May your ba live among them. and may you be buried in the West..."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

Compare texts:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caractors_large.jpg

Whatta fool be Joey Smith! Oh, I just laughed out loud, as much as I did when I read the little play read during Temple Ordinances.

You really believe that stuff? Dear me.

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

I have to ask UncleBucky, and tell me the truth. Have you even read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price in their entirety?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yes. I had a hot drink and a bowl of popcorn, a REAL New English Bible with the Apocrypha for comparison, and a KJV to see the obvious stylistic plagiarism. I also had an online ref to the first edition of the BOM, where I could see some HEAVY redacting in the current version. Hah.

I laughed a lot. The Jesus in the BOM is more like someone's angry dad than the Messenger of the God of Love.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Hmph, gonna quote KJV to me... ok... take this:

Malachi 4 - The Day of the LORD
1 "Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them...

Sounds more like an asteroid hitting the Earth, the Sun going nova, or the Andromeda Galaxy making mush out of the Milky Way Galaxy in a few billion years. Burn like a furnace. And by that time, we had better sort out our relationship with others, with Gaia, our Mother Earth, and with the rest of creation. How we sort that out is becoming clear:

Stop trying to dominate, to control the Earth, its bounty of life and other human beings. Control always results in ruin. Domination of resources means you won't allow anything to exist on its own terms, Mormon.

Proxy baptism is ultimately the control of others. First the dead, they are easy to control they are DEAD, they are ballistic. Next, however, is what we are fighting against the Mormons about. Control of living, control of resources, and control of the Earth itself. They want to control others so that there are no other ways of living, no other ways of belief, and no other ways of co-existing. Proposition 8 fits into that, control of the media by ownership, etc. Next comes the Constitution and the eradication of the USA and the UN.

Mormons = Little Napoleons wanting to Attack Moscow!

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

You didn't comment on the "not root or a branch will be left to them". If we don't maintain some connections with our ancestors we are without roots, and they without us are without branches. Latter-day Saints have invested real time and effort into preserving and publishing the records that help us to maintain those relationships. Then maybe we won't have to worry so much about the burning part of the reference.

Control is terrible. You're right. Mormons believe that Satan was cast into the earth because he wanted to control in contrast to Jehovah who wanted us to be free. So you're logic is going backwards suggesting that Mormons are into control. Their most fundamental doctrine teaches the opposite.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Gee, how are you ever going to trace the branches back to Lucy?

I knew my grandparents, all three of them. The grandmother died from a miscarriage. I never knew her. Their forebearers are known, but were not particularly stellar people. I choose to forget them, except any genetic information that could help me skip out on an illness.

Now. You say you have to do this: "If we don't maintain some connections with our ancestors we are without roots, and they without us are without branches."

HUH? Jesus never said this. He may be given credit to this one way or another, but this is from a strange little book written by several authors who lived around 500-400 BCE. It is looked at as a prophesy, but really, we cannot tell the future. God's Universe does not allow for time travel.

So, if your President writes a directive to jump off a cliff, are you gonna jump? That is really what you are telling me.

No. The Bible is not written by God. It is only evidence that someone wrote those words down and that many others redacted them for centuries and centuries.

You don't have to do it. You were told by some person you trust without doing your due diligence to undertake the control of others. Ancestry.com does provide a platform for genealogists, but if indeed that info is being co-opted to speak my Grannie Sue's name in some scary ceremony in a dark basement, I'm agin it.

Ugh.

ctrandrm · 6 months ago

You have absolutely no proof that the Bible does not contain the words of God except for your word only UncleBucky. Why is your word of so much more worth than millions of people who disagree with you?

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Crikey, I missed this!

Actually, it goes the other way around. I only have proof that the Bible was written down by some guys and that others have redacted it over the centuries. I never said anything about containing anything. But in scientific parlance, there is no such thing as proof of the spiritual realm, since by definition it cannot be tested. My word is not what I offer, you silly goose. I am referring to almost a century now of Biblical Scholarship dealing with the linguistic, socio-cultural and manuscript evidence secured so far.

Apparently, you may not realize that the earliest manuscripts of Mark, the first gospel, go only until 16:8. Later manuscripts append a text that is somewhat parallel to Matthew and Luke. That, to me, is an example of the evidence that someone wrote it down, copied it and then later someone redacted the text.

Thus:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark16-B.JPG
"Mark ends at 16:8 in 4th century Codex Vaticanus"

International Standard Version (©2008)
"So they left the tomb and ran away, overwhelmed by shock and astonishment. They didn't say a thing to anyone, because they were afraid.
--according to Mark"

There you have it. Scholarship & science rather than blind faith in some charlatan who breathed mercury vapours from a hat.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Hmmm... Jehovah? Wanted us to be free? How free were the Canaanites from the Israelites? How free were the people of Jericho from them? How free were the Samaritans from the returning Israelites? How free were the Arians from the Catholics of Theodosius? How free were the Cathars from the Catholics of Innocent (haha) III? How free were the Jews and Muslims from the Spanish Inquisition (Not the...)? How free were the citizens of Constantinople from the Latin Catholic invaders? How free were the Jews of the Diaspora in Europe and Russia at the hands of Christian rulers? How free were the Arabs in Palestine from the Crusaders? How free were the Huguenots from Catholic death squads? How free were the people of Europe from the religious wars of the 15-19th centuries? How free were the natives of every non-European land that suffered so-called Christian missionaries? How free were the Native Americans from the viruses, bacteria and other bugs carried by the invaders? How free were the Caribs, Arawaks, Quechua, Aymara, Mayan, Aztecs, Athabaskans, Plains Indians, Forest Indians, Coastal Indians from Columbus, Cortez, Pizarro, and their Catholic camp followers? How free were the Cavaliers from the ire of the Puritans? How free were the forcibly-immigrated Africans from the Christians who used them as mules? How free were the Native Americans settled into reservation, stripped of their culture, and made to speak English by Christian missionaries? How free were Negros after the Civil War, when Christians told them they could not have equal rights? How free were GLBT/LGBT people from Catholics and Christians for millenia killing them for who they were? How free were Asians when Christians in the US told them they could never become citizens, vote or marry a person of the majority race (Asian women were not permitted at first to immigrate)? How free were women in this country when they were told they could not vote? How free were Latinos when Christians told them they could not become citizens and vote until they lost their culture, spoke English and acted "white"? How free were Jews, Roma, GLBT, Jehovah-Witnesses, Quakers, and Catholic dissenters from the hands of so-called Fascist followers of "Christ" killed by Jews? How free are people in the Mormon Cult from speaking their mind outside of the core beliefs? How free are Mormon women from acting on their own, secure in their own skills and accomplishments away from their domineering husbands/owners? How free are Mormon GLBT/LGBT from being who they are without being intimidated, hurt and cut off by their (hah) loving families?

What kind of freedom has all that been at the service of God? At the obedience of the words of Jesus?

Question: IF Mormons are Catholics/Christians on steroids, THEN what kind of world could you expect if the Mormon mindset became the majority?

Answer: Nothing different than all those horrible pogroms, massacres, murders, and forcible assemblies into ghettos and killing fields by Christians over the ages since 392 CE. Jesus would never have sanctioned this. Never.

Answer: God must not be getting his point across through the Christians. Funny thing, Buddhists get it. Ba'hai's get it. Native Americans get it. Muslims get it. Unitarians get it. Quakers get it, and they are not regarded well by the rest of Christendom, and not at all by Mormons. No. All Christians seem to do to non-Christians is try to convert them at the point of a sword. And Mormons, when they get that sword (critical mass) will do the same thing. Example:

Mountain Meadows massacre
Mark Twain wrote of the butchery in "Roughing It".

It has happened at Mountain Meadows.

It will surely happen again at Mormon hands. Don't turn your backs on them.

Ugh.

antimormon · 6 months ago

planet x theory too will pass by 2012 causing world ending devestation

threadmonitor · 6 months ago

Note to those who write comments, but your comments don't show up

Until you have registered with Disqus and until you have verified your email address with Disqus, your comments will not appear on the threads.

www.disqus.com

facebook-500906873 · 6 months ago

Reach your own conclusions? Huh? What does that even mean?

They baptize EVERYONE. Your grandmother, too. Everyone you've ever known or will ever know. It's meaningless, just like all religion.

I really have no idea why this is important to anyone. I guess it's sad for people who care, but if you're dead, why would you care? You're gone. That's the end. Big deal.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Friend.

When it goes beyond baptism of the dead (and it will, if you compare every colonialist religion like the Mormons), your descendants' blood will be risked if you ignore this "meaningless" cultic rite.

They are as crazy as Kim Il Jung, nutty as Pol Pot, and determined as Joe McCarthy.

It is not the end. It is only the beginning.

How old are you? Will you be here in 2050 or even 2075? After New York City and Washington are flooded over and the capital is relocated towards the center of the continent, maybe Salt Lake City?

How old are you? Will you be here to see closer to their goal of domination of the USA? Hm?

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Well. And I thought this thread went dead. NOPE! Out of their dark basements, in their magic underwear, with their magic white clothes, come the Mormon blog-minders!!!!

So. We are told we should not worry. They will do with our relatives what they want. It may not matter. It is not our business. It is just something they do.

Can you imagine it? There is this ordinance done in a dark basement where there is this pool of water supported by a number of naked yaks (or something).

Your relative's name is handed to a member muttering some ritualistic protocol. Your relative's name. Clara Zielinski, Bart Weisman, Musa Ibrahim, Kurt Powers, Bertha Levi (are these real or is it memorex?).

Imagine. The name of the person you put on a birthday card, holiday present or love letter. Now that same name is being used in a ritual that the perpetrators say is good for you, and good for your relative. WTF?

http://www.exmormon.org/

Mormons, leave my forebearers alone. Doing that, you stop minding my business, and mind your own. My business is not your business.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I have a t-shirt. It says in big letters:

J E S U S

Then in small letters:

Protect me from your zealous followers.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Could I wear this t-shirt in SLC or... in Temple Square?

I bet they would call out the dogs... (as in Simpsons)

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I am in Temple Square, in SLC, right smack near the Holy Temple. OK? Every day I'm on the sidewalk, moving up and down the block. I have a small bottle of water. I look down and say some words. I sprinkle the air, the sidewalk and the adjacent building.

The water is distilled water. the bottle is plastic. The water is 22'C, or room temperature. I touch nothing. I speak to no one. I look at no one in the eyes.

I am an Anglo-Catholic, and I believe in converting the heathen (not heaven) and the apostates (not old prostates!). But all I do is sprinkle water around, in the hope that this sacred water will change the will of the locals and attract them to my way of thinking.

How many think that the LDS will persuade the cops to book me?

Hahahaha!

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

I have heard that there were several people that submitted Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's deceased mother, to a Genealogical database.
Is it possible that any of these submissions indicated the birthplace of President Obama?
That might give us a clue about what they are doing.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

I have to ask why this is important. I know it was directed at John... Know this:

Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii, USA.

Unless the idea here is that it could be another Stanley Ann Dunham related to another Barack Hussein Obama.

Wow. I have a really funny name, I have to spell it every time. But in every database, I am unique. As unique as a Stanley Ann or a Barack Obama. The US President and his mother have just as unique names. I don't think birth place (haha) would change any of that. Seems like an irrelevant question, unless we are going for that old story about Barack's being born outside the States.... :o))

Ugh.

KeithInSouthernVirginia · 6 months ago

If the people that submitted the information entered anything about Obama being born outside of the US, that might indicate some political motivation for putting it into the system.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yes. Correct. And submitted during the Summer of 2008, those persons sinned against Jesus.

1. They lied.
2. They attempted to harm someone to further their own sense of well being.
3. They misused a tool supposedly meant for good.

And then, if so, what does the LDS Cult say? What does their stake President say? What do they say in apology? What do they do to reverse this mean act?

Sadly, I don't think that the LDS Hierarchy will do anything about it, because it appears they are not happy with an Obama admin (he's BLACK, you know!!!) And he might appoint either another WOMAN to the Supremes, or he is making motions to try to nominate a GLBT person (GAY!!! Horrors!) or a Latino (BROWN!!! Horrors!).

Now, as I write I have just received a book I was waiting for. The one that Chavez gave to Obama recently (funny, he gave a Spanish copy, which was a good trick of counter-penetrating his culture over to ours, bravo!), Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. If there were a Latino on the Supremes, even a straight, female, latina on the court, if she had some background in the abuse given to minorities by the white, male, authoritarian majority (of which Mormon men have often given to minorities over the decades), then I would feel pretty good.

Keith, you gonna read that critically? Or will you ever read Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"?

Related to the Ann Dunham and Proposition 8 discussions here, why, if Mormons are so wrapped up in Jesus, do they not follow his mandates (I mean the ones in the Lord's Prayer, Beatitudes, Parables, etc., and not the nonsense foisted on hopeful and fearful people in the BOM)?

Why do Mormons act against Jesus? Huh?

Thank you, Keith, for hanging in there.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yes. Let's get this straight (that's funny, but I digress). Revenge vs. Equal Force. Some of the Mormon blog-minders want to try to conflate the two.

1. Revenge is a way of getting back. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And of course, Jesus said, "turn the other cheek." La la la... Remember, in relatively adjacent attributions, Jesus said, "I bring you a sword!", so I dunno. But revenge is really more like the Hatfields and the McCoys, where they take one member out of the other side, suffer another death, and then take out another. Revenge is like a positive feedback loop.

2. Equal force. Self-defense: Spartacus, Jesus, Luther, Battle of Little Bighorn, Warsaw Ghetto, von Stauffenberg, March on Selma, MLK's and RFK's rhetoric, Stonewall, AmericaBlog, UncleBucky... So the intention is to raise the defence, reduce the effect of the disturbance and thereby restore balance. More Mormon blog-minder activity, equal force. In essense, a negative feedback loop. Not negative in terms of attitude, simply pushing back against a cult of bullies.

See? Equal force is like: First time, shame on me. Second time, though, shame on the Mormons, a) for whichever Mormon does what they do, and b) for rank and file Mormons looking the other way, shame on YOU.

This is way beyond Second time, Mormon blog-minders.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Christian writings based on the foundation of Jesus (Joshua, Jeshua, Iza) often relate this concept: God is love, God loves you, and “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16), a famous hymn, BTW. Now. It doesn't limit love. It doesn't have small print that you have to read really fast in 9 seconds. All it says is: "God is love...".

OK. Go to the LDS Scriptures (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/), search for the phrase "God is love." And what do you find? No BOM, no Pearl of Great Price, and certainly not D&C. The only text is not even Mormon, it is the Gospel of John the Evangelist (two verses). No where in BOM is "God is Love" found.

What can we learn from this? Joe Smith seems to have forgotten this little kernel of truth in Early Christian literature, and seems to have instead said that WE must love God (not the reverse), which sounds a lot like the situation where a mother tells her kids to love their father, regardless of his anger and vengeance, in spite of the fact that the father treats the kids like military recruits.

Search for "Jesus is love," not in quotes, and the first BOM verse that pops up is:

Moro. 7:48: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen."

Wow! This is interesting. You have to pray that God will love you (i.e., God's love is not unconditional, I guess). If you are not Mormon, sorry, no love. Eeek! Not even kitties? Not even doggies? I thought God loved all creatures, no matter if they were predators, prey, etc. And we are not even human! We have to pray to God that we become "Sons of God" (Aramaic, messenger of God), and we have to pray that we will be pure like Jesus? Gosh, I thought we were all equal. Nope, not according to the BOM, the first verse that pops up (after a scad of New Testament etc. entries).

Clearly, Joe Smith had his head up another hat. Not the same one, I guess, as John the Evangelist...

Why?

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Ooooo. The Mormon blog-minders have stopped posting.

Stay tuned.

Ugh.

UncleBucky · 6 months ago

Yep. That's it. There was a general communiqué from SLC to the LDS about LSD (leaving sinking discussions).

It's over. Stake president says drag the shortcuts into the recycle bin (shhhh LDSers do NOT use Macs, since everyone knows that Macs are a sign of being g.a.y.).

Ugh.

GimmeABreak · 6 months ago

This is, like so many other cult practices, a crock of you-know-what. Necro-dunking???? Come on people. My brother, who married a Mo and now considers himself a TBM (true blue Mormon) had my father necro-dunked. What really ticks me off is that my father was an active deacon in the church of his choice - The Disciples of Christ Church - until the day he died. He had a mind of his own and chose NOT to convert to Mormonism. So my brother decides that after my father has already passed and therefore has NO say in the matter, to Necro-Dunk. I think my sister and I will build a fire in a 50-gallon drum, dance around it wearing feathers and call it a "Reversal Necro-Dunking" ceremony. It would mean as much as Necro-Dunking someone after they have already gone to HEAVEN, not some never heard of planet.

lucypryor · 4 months ago

You all have to much free time!!!!

LeeLee · 4 months ago

Wow! if you don't believe it to be true or even effective and you think it's a lot of, shall I quote, "you-know-what." Then does it really matter? I mean, why get your panties all in a bunch for something you don't even believe is true? Obama's mom, maybe elvis, maybe MJ... Maybe it's their way of paying their respects and could be considered the same as say; putting flowers on a grave or donating $$ to a charity on someone's behalf. However, if you DO think it's a true practice, then why are you even saying it's a bad practice, when you think it's true too? You should be over there helping them git-r-dun.

Jaynee_Doe · 4 months ago

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' (Mormons) policy that only family members may submit request for proxy baptism is very new. Prior to the holocaust victims' families' anger about it, the Church allowed anyone to submit a name and the ordinance was performed.

This new policy is violated often, and even if someone, usually family, discovers and protests the ordinance, in reality the proxy baptism is considered completed and valid by the Mormon Church.

This is because 1) there is no "ordinance" to undo the proxy baptism, and 2) the Church considers its rituals above the laws and rules of man, so no one can tell them what to do about it. They won't admit these in public, but they are facts.

President Obama met with the "prophet" of the Mormon Church today. I doubt the subject will come up, but I can't help thinking it will be an elephant in the room.

Jaynee

lucypryor · 4 months ago

It’s all about what you believe, what I don’t understand is why it’s such a big deal. No she does not became a Mormon now and have no choice. Yes she can say no thanks, if she should choose to. The LDS church is a strong believer of freewill and would never take that from someone dead or alive.

janonda · 3 months ago

Can you imagine how much good the Mormon people could actually do here and now on the planet if all their time wasn't living in the past and the future? Living right here, right now, in such a way that our people and the planet are sustained - right here - right now. Way too much work going on for souls who have moved on and have no need for the work being done supposedly on their behalf. It's very very sad to me.

rocketmanchoro · 3 months ago

I'm glad to say that I agree with you to a point, living in the present is an incredibly vital and important practice that seems to be a hard thing for many. However I disagree with the idea that the "Mormon people" don't do this. First of all the "Mormon people" consist of one of the most diverse and spread out groups of people in the world and so to make any sort of generalization of what sort of "people they are is usually not, in my opinion of course, a flawed concept. However, I'm guessing that's not the point you were making.

I imagine you were referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' beliefs. Here also I would disagree that those beliefs are of a nature that "[lives] in the past and the future." The mere fact that the ordinance of Baptism is being performed for those who have passed away in an of itself shows the belief that life does go on beyond the grave and that actions both in this life and the next have a baring on such post-mortal existence. This is not being stuck in the past, this is showing a firm belief that the present is the most important time available to us and thus the opportune time for us to show our love for our brothers and sisters, for we are all sons and daughters of God.

As for being affixed with the future, yes it is true that acting NOW for the sake of FUTURE beneft, such as striving to live worthily or studying the word of God in the scriptures, is an important and sustaining belief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However this is no stranger than my attempts as a student to prepare myself to enter the working world upon graduation (perhaps you could even tell I am a student by my occasional grammatical and spelling errors). True my eyes are upon the post-present horizon, but that does not mean that my life is not being lived in the present. It is such with the beliefs of the LDS church as I have come to understand it.

The only question that seems to go unanswered causing such sadness in your statement is are such ordinances necessary to the dead as well as the living? Or in other words, is there some blessing or benefit that is afforded those that are living in this earth through baptism into the LDS church that can be extended to those who have passed on? The belief of the LDS church is that the answer is yes.

Again I agree wholeheartedly with your insightful ovbservation of the importance of living in the present for it is a wonderful time. However, I would say rejoice, for there are many, INCLUDING those who follow the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who hold such a way of life close to their hearts.

robertjefferson · 1 week ago

A very fair comment. The LDS church has an outstanding record of didsater relief. Their organization and supplies during the tsunami and New Orleans flooding was highky commended by the authoeiites in charge. This is hardly "living in the past." One might also observe that LDS baptisms are valid contingent on the baptised deat accepting the baptism through their own agency "free will". John you need to get off all this hateful Mormom baashing---it demeans you