What makes the Mormons "baptizing" dead people worse than baptizing babies?

[ButterflyBlood]

I'd hate to defend the LDS Church in any way but this seems like a silly thing to go after them for when there's loads of ammo against them in their racist, misogynistic and homophobic beliefs as opposed to something that is just strange but harmless.

I was baptized as a baby, without consent, into a church that I want absolutely nothing to do with today. I don't want to be a Catholic any more than I want to be a Mormon. And yet...I'm not either. Splashing water on a baby's forehead doesn't tie them to a church for life and dunking someone pretending to be a dead person in water doesn't change what that dead person was in life. I am not a Catholic, or a Mormon. If I were to die tomorrow, it would be without ever having been a Catholic by choice or in adulthood, or ever a Mormon. For the record I was even rebaptized on my own terms last week, proving how much effect my infant baptism had on me. The Mormons can "baptize" me a hundred times after I die if they'd like and it doesn't change that fact. So if the offense is simply over symbolic acts being performed on someone without their consent, even posthumously, where's the outrage over baptizing babies that can't consent and aren't unlikely to turn against the same church they were baptized in?

And no I wouldn't be bothered at all if I learned they "baptized" any of my late relatives. It has as much effect on anything as if I smeared goat's blood on myself pretending to be Joseph Smith and thus proclaimed Joseph Smith now a Satanist.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. You really don't see the difference?

A baby has no choice, but will eventually make a choice. A dead person has lived her/his life a certain way, and to do something like this is nothing but disrespectful. It may not offend you; fine. However, there are many of us, especially Jews, who find this repulsive and insulting to our people and way of life. It is made even worse when they do it to people who were systematically murdered for their being Jewish, then have someone come along and re-baptize them in another religion!

[Sherman A1]

15. Precisely

It is completely disrespectful of anyone who did not in their life choose to do so.


I would only add that just because they choose to perform whatever absurd little ceremony their religion calls them to do, just don't make it so. Frankly they can "baptize" me all they want now or after I am gone and I cannot see it making just any real difference to me. I simply do not recognize their authority over me or anyone else for that matter.

[cbayer]

25. Excellent point.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. The Catholic Church holds that baptism is like branding that you can't undo

So it doesn't matter if you renounce it or even get rebaptized, you're always Catholic. I find that way way more repulsive than the LDS thing which states that they simply give the dead person a choice in the afterlife.

Of course the Catholic doctrine doesn't hold much weight in reality though it makes elderly Catholics really irritating to me (let me just say I fucking HATE the term "lapsed Catholic" to boot), but of course I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church or the LDS. So both of their actions mean nothing to me no matter what they believe about them and no one who doesn't recognize the authority of either should be bothered either.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. That is not true, and even if it were, it isn't the same.

"Pray away the gay", "pray away the Jew." I find both offensive. I am mystified why you wouldn't especially since you chose your religion. If you don't feel disrespected, that is your choice. It is also our right to be offended by someone disrespecting our religion.

[jberryhill]

33. And most other Christians believe....

...that dead Jews go to Hell or are otherwise eternally dead.

So, you tell me:

What is more "disrespectful":

(a) the majority of Evangelicals believing all dead Jews are burning in a lake of eternal fire; or

(b) Mormons believing they can do dead Jews a favor by offering a proxy baptism (which the dead Jew can accept or reject)?

It is not unusual for a religion to believe it and it alone has a monopoly on absolute truth. What surprises me is when people are surprised by the consequences of that fact.

It is as if, to be "respectful", the believers of various religions are supposed to also believe that there are no consequences to what they believe is the eternal and absolute truth.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. "Converting" dead Jews is way more disrespectful.

It isn't difficult to understand, or least one would think. One is a belief, the other is actually taking action. It is the same as believing gays will go to hell as opposed to trying to convert them. Then again, you might not find either of those things disrepectful either.

[jberryhill]

41. They aren't "converting" them

The Mormon heaven is not populated by people who believe in various religions - not once they get there.

Everyone in the afterlife believes in Mormonism because, well, there they are, right smack dab in Mormon heaven, waiting around for someone on this side to do a baptism for them.

You seem to think that Mormons are supposed to believe their religion is wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. You seem to think Jews are supposed to believe their religion is wrong.

Furthermore, you seem to believe Jews should say nothing, even when offended.

[jberryhill]

51. Just about every danged religion is supposed to believe other religions are wrong

I don't get how Mormons doing this is any more offensive to one group than it is to anyone else.

Of course it is offensive. To everyone. Jews don't have a monopoly on being offended. Every other religious believer is right up there with them on finding things to be offended about.

But you really don't get the point.

Nobody is asking Jews to believe their religion is wrong. If Judaism is correct, then what the Mormons are doing has ZERO EFFECT on anything in the hereafter, and does no harm to anyone whatsoever. None.

If you actually believed that Judaism was correct, then the only response to Mormons mucking around with their secret incantations in their temples is to laugh, if anything.

So, I will put you on the list of "I'm not offended that most Christians think I will burn in hell forever, but offended that there is one Christian group which believes it will improve my afterlife if I'm wrong."

The fundamental proposition of every Christian denomination is that Jews don't understand their own religion.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. No, you don't seem to get the point.

What the LDS is doing is offensive. Whether they think they are right or not is besides the point. You seem to think it is OK to offend Jews, and others. That's your opinion; I don't share it.

[jberryhill]

60. "You seem to think it is OK to offend Jews"

That is not my opinion.

I find all religions to be mutually offensive. The fact that anybody finds any one of them to be more offensive than another is the interesting part.

My opinion is that I really wish religious folks would just quit yammering on about it so often.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. As I suspected.

So your being offended is more important than offense taken by those who may be religious? I am sure there are many who are tired of non-religious yammering on about what they should or shouldn't be offended by.

[jberryhill]

62. It's okay

I just did a ritual to my God which will bring you back in the next life as less high strung person.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. And I will pray for you to create less arrogant posts.

I won't hold out much hope.

[Deep13]

67. In that case the post-mortem conversion is ineffective.

If someone dies Jewish, nothing the Mormons can do will change that.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Who said anything about the effectiveness? The question was about offensiveness.

I don't care if you aren't offended.

[Deep13]

73. Well, the question is if there is a reason to be offended.

For example, I'm a little miffed that you think this is somehow all about you. It is extremely unlikely that you are a holocaust survivor. Anyone can be offended by anything.

So, if Judaism is right, then the Mormons are engaged in a futile gesture. If, OTOH, the Mormons are right, they are actually doing deceased Jews a favor. So, as someone who is not a member of either religion--that is someone who thinks you are both wrong--I have to wonder what the big deal is.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. If people wanted to be baptized Mormon, they would have done it themselves. n/t

[laconicsax]

7. As I understand it, the practice started for the 'benefit' of those who never had the opportunity.

When Christianity started, you had the question of what happens to good people who died before Jesus came around or never heard about him, with arguments over whether they would really go to hell for an accident of history.

LDS comes around and figures out an end-run around the whole thing by making posthumous baptism a thing--now, if someone died before the LDS church was founded or before its message reached an area, they can still go to heaven by being baptized posthumously.

If you look at it from the LDS perspective, it's a wonderfully generous act. No other Christian sect offers someone a second chance to go to heaven after they've died.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. The FSM informs me that all baptized Mormons go straight into the Great Cauldron.

It sucks but thems the rulez.

[jberryhill]

34. But then they died and found out that Mormonism was the correct religion

So, they're kind of stuck, eh?

This whole discussion is premised on the notion that it would be "polite" if Mormons didn't believe their religion was the correct one.

Most religions take it as a given that they are correct about things. I mean, there really isn't much point in saying, "I'm a believer in the religion that doesn't believe its own religion."

So, look at this way.

I'm not a Mormon. You are not a Mormon. If by some cosmic goof, Mormonism is in fact correct, then you get a do-over in the afterlife if some Mormon performs a proxy baptism.

If Mormonism is incorrect, then it doesn't really make a bucket of spit's worth of difference what they do.

[MrSlayer]

3. Your last point was a point I made last week.

Except I used the Norse god Tyr as my example.

However, the difference is that your parents made the descision to baptize you and later on in life you decided not to accept it and chose your own faith path or non faith path as the case may be.

When the Mormans decide to baptize someone posthumously no one in the corpse in question's family has agreed nor has the corpse in question a choice in the matter.

Obviously, it doesn't really mean anything at all but it is extremely arrogant and disrespectful to decide that because said corpse did not believe as they do that somehow they did something wrong in life and are impure.

It's just weird, ridiculous and for people who really believe in a faith other than LDS, insulting.

[jberryhill]

32. How is it "arrogant" for a religion to think they know the truth

That part I just don't get in this continuing recycled discussion.

Here's the dealio - most garden variety religions hold that they have some special insight or are otherwise in possession of some absolute truth.

Yes, there are exceptions.

The LDS church leader is the only person on earth to whom God will actually speak, should he choose to do so.

I just don't see that as any more "arrogant" than any other religion which claims to have a lock on the truth.

One might as well get upset about the innumerable Christian denominations which hold that you either believe that Christ is the only savior and everyone else, including Jews, who does not have faith in that fact goes to Hell, does not pass "Go" and does not collect $200.

So, who is more "arrogant"? The Evangelical who believes that all Jews who died without saving faith in Jesus are irredeemably in Hell or otherwise eternally dead; or Mormons who believe they can give everyone a second chance?

[cbayer]

36. I don't think it is any more arrogant than any religion that says they have

a lock on the truth or that there is only "one way".

They are equally as arrogant.

[MrSlayer]

45. How is it not?

Evangelicals might believe that but they don't go around posthumously baptizing Jews or whatever because they were "wrong" in life.

That is not to defend the Evangelicals, I think they're delusional fools also.

[jberryhill]

52. Okay, so....

You are down with the Evangelicals believing that Jews burn in hell forever and not doing anything about it, but not okay with Mormons believing that people get a do-over in the Mormon afterlife.

That strikes me as odd, but then so do most religious ideas.

Oh, and nobody is supposed to be offended that, in this life, Jews are God's specially chosen people - meaning, everyone else is not.

That's the way religions are.

[MrSlayer]

56. I'm not down with any of it.

All religions are pretty stupid in my opinion. I'm just saying I can understand why what the Mormans do would piss people off.

[MADem]

4. Someone spoke FOR you. Like it or not, the parents who kept you

diapered, powdered, warm, fed and safe spoke for you, because that's how our society works. We don't expect children who cannot speak to make decisions for themselves.

The Jews whose names were "baptized" had no one to speak for them and say "Cut this shit out." It's not too much of a stretch to figure that people who lived and died as Jews were pretty secure in their choice of a religion, and didn't want to become Mormons--after all, that choice was available to them when they were alive, and they didn't choose it.

I like the way Stephen Colbert made all the dead Mormons "baptized" Jews--by snipping a hotdog with a cigar cutter! They roundly deserve to be mocked.

[laconicsax]

5. Better question is how it's worse than circumcising an infant.

Literally tearing and cutting the genitals of an infant is supposed to be ok, but secretly performing a symbolic ritual in a dead person's name is the worst?

Talk about misplaced priorities.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. An even better question is why you would respond with a red herring and strawman?

[laconicsax]

11. Not a red herring.

The argument in the OP is that a corpse can no more give permission than an infant, and since infant baptism is ok, than why not posthumous baptism.

I simply traded one routine religious ceremony for another.

The fallacy you're looking for isn't red herring, but false equivalence and it's only a false equivalence if you regard infant circumcision as fundamentally different from baptism and if that's the case, then infant circumcision should be reexamined without consideration for its function as an innocent ritual.

After all, if infant circumcision and infant baptism are both innocent rituals, then they may be used interchangeably in discussion. If they are so different as to render such a comparison invalid, then any like comparison made for the purpose of defending either practice must also be invalid.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Nope. Red herring.

A red herring is a clue or piece of information which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue

On edit: You do know that not all circumcisions are religiously orientented, right?

[laconicsax]

42. You must have a very narrow view of the issue.

So narrow, in fact, that it excludes the issue itself. You're offended by one meaningless ritual but not another.

Before edit: Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that infant circumcision is a routine practice. That fact doesn't change anything.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. You are so burdened with logical fallacies as to miss the point.

You are seemingly offended by one ritual but not another, eventhough one ritual isn't always religious (thus your pointless red herring). The fact you think it doesn't change anything simply demonstrates a narrow-minded perspective on the issue of disrespecting Jews.

[laconicsax]

57. I hate to break it to you...

Mormons don't just posthumously baptize Jews. Your entire argument that the issue of posthumous baptism is one of antisemitism is a distraction.

Now what's the term for that again? Oh, yes, I remember--a red herring.

The issue, as given by the OP, is how the baptism of a corpse is any worse than the baptism of an infant. I suggested that a more pertinent question is why it's perceived as worse than the circumcision of an infant. I explained how infant baptism and infant circumcision, both being routine practices are interchangeable, but you've yet to demonstrate your argument that the discussion is one of antisemitism as being anything other than the result of the knee-jerk application of your own prejudices.

BTW: Am I to understand that you aren't offended by the ritual and routine genital mutilation of infants? The main thrust of your antisemitism red herring seems to be that disrespecting Jews is far worse than tearing and cutting the genital flesh of infants and to compare the two in any way is folly.

[Behind the Aegis]

59. Hate to break it to you....

...but the reason I went with Jews is because of YOU and your obsession with ritual circumcision, though Muslims do it too. Also, disrespecting Jews isn't anti-Semitism. So your stupid strawman just went up in flames.

You presented a red herring and are still trying to get me to taste it. Sorry, I don't like herring, red or otherwise.

I am not offened by brises nor am I offended by your propaganda and your comtinued use of red herrings.

[laconicsax]

66. I never singled out Jews, and readily admitted that non-Jews circumcise.

There goes your defensive, "it's your fault" explanation for why you got so fixated on Judaism.

I'm horrified that you aren't offended by infant genital mutilation. Do you even know how infant circumcision works? The foreskin is fused to the glans and has to be torn away--the penis is literally skinned before the foreskin can be cut away.

[Behind the Aegis]

68. Playing the victim? Whatever.

I am bemused by your repeated propaganda, but it has become boring. I don't see circumcision as mutliation, mainly because it isn't. Apparently you are the one who doesn't know how it si done or aren't familiar the word "mutilation." You should look it up. I think your brand of propaganda is pigish, disgusting, and not meant to be productive, but rather to induce shame and pity. I am horrified you keep ranting on about mutilation. You have a bone, so to speak, to pick and will use any opportunity to spread your disgusting brand of propaganda.

[laconicsax]

70. If you have a factual response to what I've posted, by all means let's have it.

While I'm not fond of semantic arguments, mutilation is precisely appropriate.
[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.3077em 0.3077em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]mu·ti·late - verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3077em 0.3077em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. 
I would say that skinning an infant's penis to remove and discard the foreskin is consistent with definition #1. Remember, on an infant, the foreskin is fused to the glans.

[Behind the Aegis]

71. Red herring distraction is over. I am no longer amused by your hateful propaganda.

[laconicsax]

72. I'm sorry you regard basic biology as "hateful propaganda."

I imagine it's because everything I've posted is factually correct that you've chosen to simply label it "hateful propaganda" rather than address the content.

[Silent3]

20. Especially if done while breastfeeding in public at Olive Garden...

...using a pit bull.

[Kurmudgeon]

6. Worse thing about it is it's done without the permission of the participants.

I was baptized in the Episcopal church, later went thru confirmation as a teen.
As an adult I went thru a full immersion baptism in a Baptist church. That was my choice.
That doesn't disallow the baptism I went thru earlier when younger.
However, the 1st one was done at the behest of my parents, the later one I opted for.
What bothers me about this Mormon baptism is that no one responsible for the baptized, either the person themselves or a representative, is giving permission!
I normally have nothing against the Mormons, they believe differently than I, but so do a lot of people.
However, This just seems fraudulent.

[laconicsax]

8. Which is different from infant baptism, how?

An infant can no more give its permission regarding baptism than a corpse.

[Kurmudgeon]

16. Because parents/legal guardians make all decisions for an infant and/or child.

I'll say odds are fairly good that if a corpse has parents, they are gone too or would be highly offended if asked.
There may be circumstances where authority may intercede for the child, but even then that is only when it's proven the parents either have either misused of neglected their authority in the protection of their child.
Once the child is no longer a minor, then it can make it's own choices.

[ButterflyBlood]

28. The Catholic view that their baptism gives them control for life still makes it offensive to me

It's like an arranged marriage in that sense, doesn't matter if they are the legal guardian. The other churches that baptize babies that do so I don't find it offensive, just kind of silly and unnecessary like the LDS practice. But the Catholic church saying "If one of our priests splashed water on you as a baby we are entitled to make all your decisions for life!" is way worse than the Mormons saying "If someone pretends to be you after you die and gets dunked you get a choice to accept our church in the afterlife". I don't agree with either one obviously so neither bothers me too much, but it's clear which one to me is a more offensive statement.

[laconicsax]

44. Swing and a miss.

Neither infants nor corpses are capable of making decisions for themselves.

The content of your response completely fails to address this point.

[jberryhill]

35. So is Voodoo

I just wrote your user name down on a piece of paper and stuck it with a pin.

Did you feel it?

[Igel]

38. There is no participant.

If nobody told the dead guy's family they'd be none the wiser. Neither would the dead guy.

People keep saying the corpse didn't give its permission. The corpse isn't involved, even if there is one. Somebody is being dunked in some ritual that the deceased would have found pointless in the name of the deceased and the only "participation" of the "corpse" or deceased is that his name was used. Assuming they got the name right.

It's a reaction to perceived oppression, an overreaction of people sensitized to such things. It's not just Jews--it's everybody else that's not Mormon. The Mormons should just not tell anybody--except that they alter their records, records that are publicly accessible.

Easy solution to that. Just don't use their records.

[TheWraith]

10. There is a long and bloody history of forced baptism/conversion for Jews.

"Forced" as in "renounce your religion, become Christian/Muslim, or we'll murder you and all your family." This has happened probably hundreds of times over the last ~1700 years.

Posthumous baptisms for Jews is kind of like asking what's so offensive about dressing up and roleplaying that you're a member of the SS, complete with pantomime shoving people into ovens. No, technically you're not "harming" any physical living human beings. That doesn't mean it's not incredibly offensive in every other way.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. "This has happened probably hundreds of times?"

Try thousands.

Or millions.

Forced conversion has a long, unfortunate, bloody history.

[Ilsa]

13. As one person said, "We were

Murdered in unspeable ways for being, for remaining Jewish. Not the LDS wants to take that away from us."

Yes, it's a terribly offensive thing to do, IMO.

[Warpy]

14. They're both unethical, IMO

At least the Catholics were trying to keep babies out of Limbo, but there is no more Limbo, dead babies go to heaven. That would seem to knock the stuffing out of the church's position on abortion as well as infant baptism, but I don't run it and they don't listen to me.

Baptizing the already baptized or people who followed other faiths or no faith at all is totally unethical. Mormons need to get a grip and realize if people wanted to be Mormon, they'd have come in under their own power and converted.

I don't believe a word of it so it doesn't matter to me but I can understand why it would feel like assault to believers.

Shame on them.

[bowens43]

17. no difference. it's a silly , ridiculous piece of nonsense.

all religions and religious practices are equally silly.

[unblock]

18. were you baptized without consent of the family?

our society values consent, but, recognizing that babies can't consent, transfers that consent to the parents or guardians.

it would be horrible and offensive to baptize a baby without parental consent, but i rather suspect parental consent is given in the overwhelming majority of baby baptisms. so it's rather facile to complain about lack of consent from the baby -- are you going to complain about having been force-fed and imprisoned as well? of course not. consent doesn't really apply for a baby, except as given by the parents or guardians.

baptizing the dead isn't offensive to the dead, it's offensive to the family who did not give consent. no different really than pissing on a grave or otherwise dishonoring or insulting a lost relative for non-religious reasons.

[MarkCharles]

21. A better question might be:...

Does the act and concept of baptism serve those that are baptized or serve the agency and people that do the baptizing?

Seems like an argument could be made that it always serves those that do the baptizing more than anyone else.

Well, what do you know? Another religious custom and set of beliefs meant to perpetuate the religion by marking people in certain spiritual, (mystical?) ways !! Like putting a stamp on one's driver's license, it prescribes what those that are baptized should believe, where they can safely to, how far off the main road and for how long they can stray without feeling guilty about straying.

Of course, for those that are living after baptism, they can always trade in one for another, much like moving from state to state and getting a new driver's license. As for baptizing dead people, it's sort of like closing the barn door after the horse ran away, neither acts serve any purpose whatsoever.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. Maybe almost always, but not ALWAYS

I was baptized about two weeks ago and I chose to do so myself. Neither person who dunked me pressured me or even talked to me about it until I signed up. It was completely my decision, unlike having water splashed on my head as a baby.

[cbayer]

27. And there are denominations that don't baptize until you are a teen (I was raised in one).

The whole point was to make sure you had some understanding of what it meant and exercised free will in deciding to proceed.

[ButterflyBlood]

47. Yep, that's the church I go to now

We didn't baptize any babies during that service, just held a dedication ceremony. Everyone else baptized that day was also an adult.

[jeepnstein]

29. Good for you!

I don't see how the act of Baptism is of any value unless the person being baptized understands and consents to the act.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. Yep I came to that understanding as well

The pastor of my current church has even stated that if someone baptized as a baby is OK with that he won't pressure them to be baptized again, but I decided that I did want to do this for myself.

[WingDinger]

23. So you are OK with them fucking with your soul?

I went to an evangelical church a girlfriend wanted me to see. They wanted parents to slip oil soaked rags under their pillows to get satan behind them. They spoke gibberish without interpretation. Cursed the witches that inhabitted the back row. On and on. I giggled nervously. An elder pointed at me. And told me he wanted to speak a word from God to me, Dont leave. After the service, I said, I dont buy your superior stance, and now, what do you want to tell me. He said God is going to kill me and soon. And I will go to hell.


Religion gets real dark when they start having their way with people without their consent. Dont you think they are sticking pins in voodoo depictions of their enemies? If they can save souls posthumously, why not daamn souls, while you are at it?

Stay the fuck away from my soul, or you gonna get burned.

[Igel]

40. Got no soul.

Or so I've been told. I'm white.

Then again, I honestly believe that I don't have a soul that'll keep on ticking after my heart stops. So baptizing me posthumously has all the effect on me of there being a a wrong note in a performance of Beethoven's 9th symphony played in 1890 in Berlin by some long-disbanded orchestra.

[jberryhill]

53. That last sentence is a winner

It's really a "tree falls in the forest" kind of thing, really.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

30. It shows a complete lack of respect for other's beliefs and choices.

Take the example of Romney's father-in-law. His daughter and her whole family were Mormons. He had the choice to become Mormon at any time in his life, and he chose not to. Then, after he died, they decided for him that he was actually a Mormon. It shows a complete lack of respect for his wishes. They couldn't control him in life, so now they have attempted to control some small aspect of him in death. And you can't even argue, as with all those Holocaust victims, that maybe they really wanted to be Mormon and were never given the choice. He had the choice, and the chose not to be Mormon. They know that he didn't want to be Mormon, and they decided not to respect his choice.

This goes much deeper than some completely meaningless and stupid water-sprinkling ceremony. This is an attempt to control every aspect of an individual's life, even from beyond the grave, despite known objections. This is an attempt to exclude every contrary religious idea or tradition other than their own. This is an attempt to always have their way, to always control an individual's public and private life, to never allow any kind of objection or dissension or difference. This is the supposition, and action on the belief, that nobody else matters.

And it does matter very much to me that my ancestors remain unmolested by this cult. They are my ancestors as much as anybody else's, so why shouldn't I shouldn't I get equal say in what religion they are? I should be equally able to assert my religious views onto them (which are: they're dead, and can't defend themselves from your machinations, so leave them the hell alone.)

[jberryhill]

43. Yes, well, God doesn't respect different religions either

"Respecting other religions" is not a godly attribute in most major religions.

Did Jehovah tell the Israelites to "respect" the religions of the Canaanites?

Heck no!

[ChadwickHenryWard]

64. Some people think that's an unusual criticism.

I usually offer Jesus's rigid rejection of other religions as evidence against his perfect morality, but others seem to think that is a deeply silly criticism of somebody who is God. But why should god, or a perfectly moral mortal, be held to a lower standard than any normal mortal man? We expect a much more nuanced view of multiculturalism from each other today, which means we must reject the kind of bigotry god displays in the Bible.

As for the LDS, it's their teaching that all people, living and dead, will someday be Mormon. This is God's work, and other people don't get a say in that.

[iris27]

31. Because they don't *just* baptize the dead -- after the baptism, the person is entered into the LDS

geneaological records as a Mormon. Depending on what other data about someone's life survives, this may be the only place where anything about their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof is recorded. I don't know about you, but the idea of them attempting to lie about my history in that manner is infuriating.

Now the Lutherans who baptized me when I was a month old conducted no such geneaological dishonesty. In fact, they even took me off the church member list a couple years after I stopped attending, so they could save money by not printing up tithing envelopes for me.

Edited to add: So I guess LDS baptism of infants is nearly as bad as LDS posthumous baptism, because I'm sure they enter the babies into their geneaology at that point as well. Except there's something extra creepy and dishonest about doing it to someone that you KNOW followed (and maybe was killed for) another faith, or lacked belief altogether. When it's done to LDS babies of LDS parents, there's (sadly) a good chance that most of them will end up embracing Mormon beliefs themselves.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. LDS don't baptize babies

They're one of the denominations that believe no one should be baptized until they are old enough to understand what it means.

And the LDS position on that registry isn't "these people are Mormons" but rather "these people are being given the choice in the afterlife to become Mormons". That means some of the baby-baptizing denominations are quite a bit more offensive since they don't even recognize this choice, the Lutherans who baptized you might, but the Catholic church does not. Their position is "We baptized you so you are our's for life and if you don't associate with us ever that just means you're "lapsed" or "non-practicing" ". This might bother me if I put any stock in the Catholic church's authority whatsoever, but I do as much as I do with the LDS. I am just as Catholic as I am LDS, and Romney's dead father-in-law is just as LDS as I am.

[iris27]

54. Ok, I didn't know they don't do infant baptism.

But I do know, unless the sources I have heard this from are wrong, that the way posthumously baptized folks are recorded in their enormous geneaological record is not any different from the way lifelong Mormons are recorded.

This is different from the baptism registry, and, yes, they defend the baptism practice itself as "person X is being given the choice in the afterlife to become a Mormon."

But regardless of what choice the deceased supposedly makes (because how would they know?), once the ceremony is completed, the deceased IS recorded, here on Earth, in the largest set of geneaological records in existence, as a Mormon.

Edited to add: And the Catholics are not doing this. They are not maintaining huge databases of documents, often relied upon by folks outside their religion, just because of the sheer amount of data they've collected, and they are not listing you as a Catholic in those databases. To me, that's the difference. As an atheist, I didn't really have an opinion on the issue, because I don't think there is an afterlife for their actions to impact in any way...until I learned about this other part of it.

[ButterflyBlood]

65. The database is supposed to be private though

It's almost like they know not everyone would take this well, so they keep it private. But then it gets leaked which is causing the issue. It's not like they're mentioning these people as "famous Mormons" on their official site or something.

There isn't some master database of all Catholics that has my name I'll grant, but it's still on baptismal records in the church it was done and confirmation records at that church. My mom agreed to remove my name from the family listing (ironically my family doesn't even go there anymore and my mom has all but converted to Lutheranism), but I don't even live there anymore. According to their views I should've transferred to another parish, which I obviously have not. But I'm still listed on those records with no notification I am no longer a part of them unlike what the Lutherans did for you. Up until fairly recently it was possible to get such a notification, but no more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church If I cared enough I would've done so, but of course I put no stock in their authority anyway, and it's not like they even have my current address.

Now according to their view this means I'm still a Catholic bound by their rules. If I'm not attending Mass every week (haven't in almost ten years) I'm in violation though they don't care what others not baptized Catholic do. It's a huge problem I ate a pepperoni pizza yesterday on a Friday, no issue for anyone not baptized that way. It's one thing to insist on these rules for actual members but every person ever baptized as such is quite a bit different.

Worst of all is the view that I can only be married in a Catholic church to have it be valid (unless I have specific permission from a priest.) I obviously will not be, so they hold any marriage I'll ever have is invalid. You know how offensive it is when conservatives scream about how same sex marriages are not valid and false abominations? Well the Catholic church is going one step further, they're not only holding that view toward all same sex marriages or even remarriages of divorced people but non-Catholic marriages involving anyone baptized. THAT is quite offensive. And to make matters worse they used to heavily encourage friends and family members invited not to attend these "invalid weddings". This is no longer done but it's just considered "a matter of conscience", essentially meaning that they're holding that refusing to attend on those grounds is actually something that should at least be considered. I can't imagine any Lutheran minister (my dad's side of the family is Lutheran by the way so I was somewhat raised in that as well, and that's actually the church I culturally identify as) telling parents they should even think about not attending their son or daughter's wedding because it's not in a Lutheran church.

Holding a huge private database of dead people they believe they've given a choice to doesn't come close. Strange? Sure. A little creepy? No doubt. Offensive? I'll save my outrage for other things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. In denominations that baptize infants, the

emphasis is on what God does as a gift to the child and on the community welcoming the child.

In denominations that baptize only adults, the emphasis is on the adult making a decision to be/remain a Christian.

However, in the denominations that baptize infants, confirmation serves the function of making a commitment as an adult.

[Nihil]

75. Nothing other than the thickness of one's skin.

Storm in a teacup.

(Like most allegedly "religious" debates for that matter.)

[Vehl]

76. Its like claiming an African American ancestor is not African American anymore, but White

We all know that being African American, or White does not mean anything, however, if one group keeps on claiming "Whites are better than African americans", and "only those who profess to be White go to heaven"; there will be outrage. Now add the hypothetical situation where this aforementioned group starts including African Americans who have passed away into their "White" list.

Replace White in the above context with Mormons and African Americans with non-Christians/Mormons and you would see how a lot of people will be very offended.

I dont have any problem people claiming that Christianity is the "only way" to heaven/whatever/etc etc, I dont really have much issues about people claiming that non-Christians go to hell either.....tolerance is part and parcel of the tradition I've been brought up in, where I could be an Atheist and still be a Hindu, like Millions of other Hindus like me and before me. However, I do take an issue with people claiming my ancestors as their own, especially so when their views are markedly different from mine/that of my ancestors.

This entire thing reeks of ignorance and arrogance..no wonder the Jewish people have raised this issue with the Mormons as well.
I'm sure you can see how this whole practice is incredibly offensive to people.


Btw, have the Mormons converted (posthumously) Hitler yet? if not whats the holdup?


ps: I often just ignore these morons who try to waylay me on the roadside with the "good message", I dont bother to even reply to their statements; however I do draw a line when they start bringing in my own family/relatives into this. As they say, "your freedom ends, where my nose begins"