Dear Mormons (and people of all religious stripes),

Please take the following lesson from all of this. Your religion is and should be private, like having a large penis:

*Don't whip it out in public
*Stop trying to shove down peoples throats
*And for god sake, stop trying to use it on dead people.

So endeth the lesson.

fireclown: I'm not sure that this is helping anything.

On the one hand, it certainly doesn't improve civility in our public discourse. On the other hand, it will help both publicize and point out the absurdity of the Mormons' practice. Most people don't know about it and many would, I think, be offended to hear that their relative got posthumously baptized in a religion they didn't believe in. (Many Jews are pretty pissed, that's for sure.)

CatfoodSpork: I don't see why people who are not Mormons care. Since I don't believe their stupid religion, why should I believe their baptisms have any effect on anything?

I mean, yeah, it affects my opinion of Mormons, but it's not like that had a long way down to fall.

If I make up my own religion where anyone I look at is autoconverted (according to the tenets of CatfoodSporkism) that doesn't mean they will REALLY be stuck all eternity in CatfoodSporkism-Hell.

A high-profile member of CatfoodSporkism isn't running for President while his church disregards the religious preferences of others.

Breathe Laugh Twitch: They quietly did Hitler back in 1981.
The posthumous baptizing has an Interesting implication. Baptism wipes all of your sins clean, right? And if you are not baptized while alive, they will baptize you after your death, right?
Therefore, under NO circumstances should you allow Mormons to baptize you while alive. If they do so, then all your sins will thereafter accumulate, and you'll have trouble getting in to heaven. Whereas if you avoid baptism, then after death you're a shoo-in to heaven because "You are not accountable for your sins, because you were not baptized to receive the guidance of the Holy Ghost blah blah blah..."
Ask the Mormon missionaries about this some time, if you want to see a major head explosion. "Hey guys, every time you convert and baptize someone, you make it possible for them to go to hell. Leave them alone and they'll go to heaven."

A similar paradox works for most of the missionaries.
Ask them "So if I never heard of Jesus or your religion, what would happen to me when I died?"
"Then you would be judged on your actions." (otherwise they'd have to admit that good people would go to hell just for being born in the "wrong" place without missionaries.")
"OK, so without you, good people would go to heaven and bad people would go to hell."
"Right."
"So you're actually having a negative effect. Now that you've told people, some bad people are going to get forgiven for their bad actions and go to heaven, and some good people are going to not believe while still doing good things, and then go to hell. So you're actually making the situation worse the more people you tell."
"Herp a derpa derp."

But religion isn't logical, is it.

CatfoodSpork: I don't see why people who are not Mormons care. Since I don't believe their stupid religion, why should I believe their baptisms have any effect on anything?

I would *hate* for Mormons to think that my grandparents were suddenly a part of their stupid religion. I don't have to believe in their idiocy to find it extremely disrespectful and distasteful of them to lay a claim on my deceased family members like that.

Serious question: If you don't believe it is real thing, why do you care? If you do believe it is real... doesn't that make them right?

Claim all my ancestors are gay, mormon egyptians with red hear... who gives a rat's ass?

Prance in a circle in your living room and claim the entire world is where god's gas meets the devil's lighter for all I care. If it makes you happy, do it.

"oh yea? well YOUR ancestor is a stupid poo poo head"
"is not!"
"is too times infinity forever"

who is the jackass? EVERONE!

fireclown: I'm not sure that this is helping anything.

What does it hurt? It's an internet joke.

gerrymander: It is only immature and intolerant.

So is baptizing the dead.

Is intolerance of intolerance a bad thing?

Non-evil Monkey: You know, I don't get this obsession with Mormon posthumous baptisms. True, it's an unusual practice, but it boils down to them formally acknowledging someone outside the faith is worthy of salvation. I don't see how that's somehow horribly disrespectful.

So you wouldn't have a problem with Satanists performing a ritual on your ancestor's grave to recruit them for the army of hell?

How is this any different from calling someone a f--got?

The implication from this is is that being gay is something terrible, a stigma which people have been working very hard to fight for the last 50 years or so (openly, at any rate...)

The My Little Pony Killer: I would *hate* for Mormons to think that my grandparents were suddenly a part of their stupid religion. I don't have to believe in their idiocy to find it extremely disrespectful and distasteful of them to lay a claim on my deceased family members like that.

That's not how Mormons believe it works. The baptizing only presents the dead spirit with a choice of accepting Jesus and everything. They don't believe the baptizing automatically makes the baptized a Mormon.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

My Grandma was converted to Mormon when she was a little girl (by her step father). When she grew up, she quit Mormonism. She was expelled from the church and her name struck from their big book o' baptized. However, her Mormon relatives saw fit to include her offspring (i.e. us) into their book. I don't subscribe to their brand of weirdness, so I'm not losing sleep over it.

I think that getting your panties in a wad over this is comparable to throwing a fit over a "witch" casting spells on you when you don't believe in magic. It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.

This is great. A branch of my family is Mormon, and a few years back they sent a copy of their bible to everyone in the family, as well as a notice that they would baptize all of us upon our death unless we opted out. The rage that erupted made family reunions a bit awkward.

Damn cultists.

I don't see why people who are not Mormons care. Since I don't believe their stupid religion, why should I believe their baptisms have any effect on anything?

I mean, yeah, it affects my opinion of Mormons, but it's not like that had a long way down to fall.

If I make up my own religion where anyone I look at is autoconverted (according to the tenets of CatfoodSporkism) that doesn't mean they will REALLY be stuck all eternity in CatfoodSporkism-Hell.

Joseph Smith, you have now been converted. Fabulously.

How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

PsiChick: No. It's not. It's petty and unethical. They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

Their beliefs are silly. They deserve to be mocked.

treesloth: johnny queso: To kill the metaphor, by applying their brand to someone else's flock.

Are you saying that the people for whom this is done are then counted as LDS?

When it serves the LDS' needs, yes. And when it doesn't, no. Like all religion they make the rules as they go along to suit their needs.
It seems very disingenuous to me to play the what's-the-big-deal-we're-just-asking card, when it is apparently important enough for them to keep doing after they have promised to stop.

treesloth: johnny queso: It basically amounts to sheep rustling.

How?

To kill the metaphor, by applying their brand to someone else's flock.

Sticky Hands: Which would be all of them....

Preaching to the choir on this one. Can I get an "amen", brother?

But really, this is kinda my point. Mormonism is a very young religion, so there's a lot of opportunity to do a 180 here and not have to save a whole lot of face over it. Is there honestly anyone here who feels that this posthumous baptism thing has more charm than- oh say, the dead people who helped vote Bush into his second term?

And as I was trying to point out earlier with the fellow who said they were okay with satanists posthumously-conscripting their great grandparents so long as they didn't "desecrate the dead"- and on the basis that they were "logical" people and didn't give a wet slap one way or the other- they still apparently hold onto some decidedly irrational, illogical and unempirical ideas about what is "proper treatment" when it comes to dead people.

Really, your odds that people (living people) are going to somehow take this as complimentary is pretty damn low.

Sticky Hands: The rational comes from a single passage in the King James Version of the NT

That's not rational, that's faith. Interesting, maybe. Novel, certainly. But still faith.

It was actually one of the very first concepts that began to bother me in the years I spent as a Catholic... which was around age 8 or so.

At CCD I'd ask questions like: "Wait, so you mean to tell me that there are other people in this world who have been 'doing it wrong' all this time- many of them from well before our faith even existed- who are irrevocably consigned to hell because of just that?"

I quit at age 12. Decided at that point that- if this was the sort of thing our God was really concerned with- then he was a prick and I wanted nothing to do with His heaven.

I've never looked back and I never will.

Hey, you know what I do if I click a link on the internet and am offended/not amused? I click the "back" button and go on with my life.

I thought this was hilarious. Immature and petty, yes, but so am I. ;-)

OhLuverly: Theaetetus: OhLuverly: Theaetetus: Theaetetus:
Actually, reverse citation found.
Here's a screenshot of the record for Anne Frank (new window)
Apparently, they are not "not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them".

Ok just going off that link... if she died in 1945 and was baptized in 2012 it isn't hard to deduce she wasn't a member of the church but was done posthumously. That still does not answer the original question I know and as I said I'll actually work on getting documentation if you really want it.

Furthermore, this highlights the real problem with this practice... All it takes is for those dates to be omitted, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming Anne Frank was Mormon. And, give it a hundred years or more when records may be destroyed or lost, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming that the majority of victims in the Holocaust were Mormons.

Similarly, it may cause problems for any Jews who descend from these false Mormon-converts, since, for many Orthodox or Conservative Jews, a matrilineal break means that they're not really Jewish.

I understand the controversy, and yes that is a very real and very serious issue with the system. IIRC members are recorded differently but as I said I am not a member so I do not have access to the database to actually do a comparison of member vs posthumous profiles. You are correct in the fact that simply omitting dates can totally screw the whole thing up to give a skewed view of history and that would in fact be a travesty one I hope never occurs in their records or any recorded history. That is simply an issue with recorded history in general and not exclusive to one particular group of records. The most I can offer right now is to say this is (in my opinion) not some nefarious plot to convert all the masses against their will or to make it look as such, but to simply give everyone the chance to reach the highest levels of glory available to them.

It's designed so they can keep claiming to be the fastest growing religion. Pretty easy to swell your ranks with people who can't say no. But just keep apologizing away... I'm sure they appreciate it.

Non-evil Monkey: You know, I don't get this obsession with Mormon posthumous baptisms. True, it's an unusual practice, but it boils down to them formally acknowledging someone outside the faith is worthy of salvation. I don't see how that's somehow horribly disrespectful.

I might not believe that such baptisms are someone required for someone outside Mormonism to attain salvation. But I understand why they do it, and know they mean no harm by it. If a Mormon ever told me they were going to baptize my after I die, I'd probably consider it an honor that they viewed me as worthy of salvation, even if I don't believe in the actual power of posthumous baptisms.

They baptized Hitler. Your argument is invalid.

PsiChick: So we attach a fine or something. This still isn't the best course of action.

Yes it is. Pointing and laughing does work.

PsiChick: namegoeshere: PsiChick: They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

Mormons doing this is mocking the beliefs of every religious non-mormon they've baptized.

Yes. That is wrong. To retaliate in kind is also wrong. Especially since we have a secular interest in stopping it...

Sometimes responding in kind is the only means of demonstrating the idiocy and offensiveness of the original action.

People have been asking them nicely to knock this shiat off for a very long time. They haven't listened yet.

PsiChick: They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

Mormons doing this is mocking the beliefs of every religious non-mormon they've baptized.

Crotchrocket Slim: It's not like Mormonism isn't already the target of fairly undeserved scorn in US society.

Then why actively seek to invite the deserved variety?

PsiChick: The point of being moral isn't to live down to history. It's to move beyond it and be good people despite it.

Ah, the Historian's Fallacy. Love seeing that trotted out.

The Mormons are doing something they know causes emotional distress and harm. Should we turn a blind eye to that? They KNOW what they are doing is hurting people and they continue to do it. Is it moral to do nothing?

This is, as said above, satire. That's about the least that could be done. My point is that wars have been fought for less than this. So what do you suggest? Telling the victims to "get over it"?

PsiChick: vrax: PsiChick: Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

Yeah, I really thought this was funny...up until I actually thought about it.

No. It's not. It's petty and unethical. They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

/Damnit, it was funny.

Just because someone sincerely believes something does mean that it is somehow above mockery. If you sincerely believe the entire Xenu mythology from Scientology you probably deserve to be mocked and mocked again.

No, it actually does. Sitting someone down and explaining things kindly to them is fine, but mocking people for deeply held beliefs is nothing more than being a dick. I mean, how would you feel if one of those Xenu-believers was mocking you for believing the obviously-false nonsense of atheism\Christianity\whatever? Sure, you probably would just mock them back, but this isn't first grade, and we're all better than that.

Oh, I'm all for being very respectful if and when appropriate. However, make your beliefs public, as so many have an impossible time not doing, and you open yourself to whatever may come. I would really love to see your calm, kind, conversation rebuking Xenu, though. If I publicly declared that I worship the all powerful Pony and have magically converted everyone into little prancing pony apostles, I would expect to hear about it, especially from Farkers.

gerrymander: This is neither appropriate nor funny. It is only immature and intolerant. Just stop.

No, this is satire and completely appropriate.

Satire is holding a slightly twisted mirror up to life to get the audience to reflect on things that people are complacent about, that go unnoticed, or are otherwise taken for granted. Satire need not be funny to be valid and effective. Humor is often used "to make the pill go down easier" but is not required. The Supreme Court has even ruled that failed attempts at humorous satire are still protected speech.

In this case, the Mormon church is offering the deceased what they view as a better way of afterlife, completely ignorant of how insulting and offending this is to the families that know how repulsive this would be to their dearly departed. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with being gay. I wouldn't say it's better that being straight, but how could giving dead people the option be a bad thing. This satire has the potential to open people's eyes as to how mortally offensive their good intentions can be and perhaps they'll stop. Failing that, maybe third parties will be less likely to support institutionalized insensitivity.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

PsiChick: They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.
No, actually, mocking stupid beliefs is pretty much a time honored tradition and one way to make idiots stop believing something stupid. The other, of course, involves physical violence, and wars have been fought over much less than what the Mormons are doing here. They're getting off pretty lightly if all they get is some mocking. A few hundred years ago, they would have likely been killed by people who believe their sky wizard's traditions are better.

"Because it's my religion" isn't a magic cloak that makes everything you do o.k., by the way.

kibblesnbits: Why is this considered so offensive?

I keep thinking that if this were some indigenous people, say, the Cherokee, incorporating your loved one into their symbolic tribe so they can rest in peace, it wouldn't be such a problem. It might even be considered cool. So why not Mormons too? Whether you believe anything close or not it's a harmless sign of respect.

Being honorarily included in a Native American tribe doesn't mean being honorarily included into their religion, and NA's don't do this to the dead they've never met or had no contact with. That is an honor one earns, whereas posthumous baptism is done without any consideration to those who would object to this treatment. I seriously doubt a tribe would even offer to induct someone into it who they know would turn it down.

Also, your failure to see what it is so offensive to others doesn't detract from how much it does offend others. Personally I don't see how any religious organization can regard this practice as anything other than something that will wreck their ability to recruit new members who actually want to be included in the church.

You're also forgetting that many are very invested in not being perceived as being religious or even affiliated with the Mormon church, and despite your feelings on the subject their reasons are valid to them, and when it comes to other peoples' lives you much accept those reasons.

gerrymander: You can't claim the high ground from the gutter.

You assume I'd want to.

Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is bullshiat.

OhLuverly: Theaetetus: OhLuverly: Theaetetus: Theaetetus:
Actually, reverse citation found.
Here's a screenshot of the record for Anne Frank (new window)
Apparently, they are not "not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them".

Ok just going off that link... if she died in 1945 and was baptized in 2012 it isn't hard to deduce she wasn't a member of the church but was done posthumously. That still does not answer the original question I know and as I said I'll actually work on getting documentation if you really want it.

Furthermore, this highlights the real problem with this practice... All it takes is for those dates to be omitted, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming Anne Frank was Mormon. And, give it a hundred years or more when records may be destroyed or lost, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming that the majority of victims in the Holocaust were Mormons.

Similarly, it may cause problems for any Jews who descend from these false Mormon-converts, since, for many Orthodox or Conservative Jews, a matrilineal break means that they're not really Jewish.

I understand the controversy, and yes that is a very real and very serious issue with the system. IIRC members are recorded differently but as I said I am not a member so I do not have access to the database to actually do a comparison of member vs posthumous profiles. You are correct in the fact that simply omitting dates can totally screw the whole thing up to give a skewed view of history and that would in fact be a travesty one I hope never occurs in their records or any recorded history. That is simply an issue with recorded history in general and not exclusive to one particular group of records. The most I can offer right now is to say this is (in my opinion) not some nefarious plot to convert all the masses against their will or to make it look as such, but to simply give everyone the chance to reach the highest levels of glory available to them.

Based on the fact that they don't seem to be doing this to Muslims, but do keep targeting Holocaust victims, I'm going to have to disagree with your estimation that it's to give everyone such a chance. Rather, it starts to look much more like an attempt to rewrite history, something I would not put above a "religious" organization as blatantly political as the LDS church.

OhLuverly: Theaetetus: Theaetetus:
Actually, reverse citation found.
Here's a screenshot of the record for Anne Frank (new window)
Apparently, they are not "not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them".

Ok just going off that link... if she died in 1945 and was baptized in 2012 it isn't hard to deduce she wasn't a member of the church but was done posthumously. That still does not answer the original question I know and as I said I'll actually work on getting documentation if you really want it.

Furthermore, this highlights the real problem with this practice... All it takes is for those dates to be omitted, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming Anne Frank was Mormon. And, give it a hundred years or more when records may be destroyed or lost, and suddenly the Mormons are claiming that the majority of victims in the Holocaust were Mormons.

Similarly, it may cause problems for any Jews who descend from these false Mormon-converts, since, for many Orthodox or Conservative Jews, a matrilineal break means that they're not really Jewish.

Yes, it's an absurd but well-intentioned ritual that doesn't actually accomplish anything, and people probably shouldn't let themselves get too worked up about it.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why that means there's something wrong with satirizing it.

It's funny. It doesn't need to have any other point.

Rashnu: culebra: Rashnu: well-intentioned

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Be that as it may, enacting a ceremony which you believe offers a non-coercive, post-death second chance at redemption hardly rises to that truism at least in my book. I kind of want them to do one for me. What's the downside?

I think I'll start a religion where we can just say "So-and-so is now a member of our faith."

Then, I can walk up and say "Hey, Rashnu, guess what? 'HAMINA-HAMINA.' You're now a member of the Church of Firefly. Don't bother to thank me - just another day of saving people against their will. Oh, and you can't renounce it - it's permanent."

Now, imagine doing this to someone who is a fervent believer in whatever religion they choose.

If nothing else, it's just farking disrespectful.

stonelotus: yequalsy: Many Jews are pretty pissed, that's for sure.

yeah, um... isn't that kinda like their "thing" to be offended by everything?

posthumous baptism should only offend someone if they believe it works.

OK, how about saying "hey, those people who were murdered en masse for their religion, we'll make it all better by converting them to a different religion so they won't also have to suffer in the afterlife"

Can you really not see how deeply offensive this is? Are you trolling or stupid?

Rashnu: What's the downside?

There really is none. It's no more or less silly than many other religious rituals performed around the world on a daily basis, which are also mocked relentlessly.

However, were I a member of another religious creed I might find it terribly offensive. If Mormons have the right to perform this ritual, do not religious people of other creeds have the right to be offended by it, or even protest it?

gerrymander: And somewhere, there's an outspoken anti-gay social conservative who will now have even more evidence that allowing homosexuality was the first step in a slippery slope: "See? First it was legal gay sex, then gay marriage. Now they want to defile the dead!"

This is neither appropriate nor funny. It is only immature and intolerant. Just stop.

No it isn't. It's pointing out the offensive behaviour of a religious sect. Weird religious conservatives have never needed a reason for their hatred btw.

I assume this really goes no further than my keyboard, but wouldn't be nice if it compiled a list somewhere on the internet where people could go to actually see the names of their dead relatives. Might make them re-think this whole damn mess.

You know, I don't get this obsession with Mormon posthumous baptisms. True, it's an unusual practice, but it boils down to them formally acknowledging someone outside the faith is worthy of salvation. I don't see how that's somehow horribly disrespectful.

I might not believe that such baptisms are someone required for someone outside Mormonism to attain salvation. But I understand why they do it, and know they mean no harm by it. If a Mormon ever told me they were going to baptize my after I die, I'd probably consider it an honor that they viewed me as worthy of salvation, even if I don't believe in the actual power of posthumous baptisms.

gerrymander: This is neither appropriate nor funny. It is only immature and intolerant. Just stop.



You know it's hot.

Wow, some seriously constricted assholes in this thread. Learn to laugh.

I decided to fudge the targeting parameters and aimed it at Fred Phelps.

I fall squarely in the "This is stupid but really funny" camp.

OhLuverly: "Posthumous baptism does not make you Mormon anymore than missionaries knocking on your door make you Mormon. That's all posthumous baptism is. Mormon's believe that you are given a chance after you die to again accept the gospel, however baptism is a physical requirement to continue on. So you can basically be chillin' at the pearly gates but can't go past even if you accept the gospel because you weren't baptized however someone can be baptized for you in proxy in this situation. It gives people the chance to accept the gospel and go on if they so choose in the afterlife.(You still have a choice, you can choose to stay exactly where you are if you want) The names are recorded on the rolls so hypothetically they are only done once (system needs work.) They however are not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them. Just like the missionaries record people they talk to. It basically boils down to Mormons want everyone to be able to go to heaven. They want everyone to know God and Christ and be in their presence and they are willing to suffer the social outrage and name calling to achieve this goal for others."

Post this all you want but it doesn't seem to be doing anything to change the public perception that this is a ghoulish ritual. If people want to be uncomfortable with this, let them.

gerrymander: And somewhere, there's an outspoken anti-gay social conservative who will now have even more evidence that allowing homosexuality was the first step in a slippery slope: "See? First it was legal gay sex, then gay marriage. Now they want to defile the dead!"

This is neither appropriate nor funny. It is only immature and intolerant. Just stop.

natmar_76: The My Little Pony Killer: It's still offensive that they would even think to do such a thing. It's not their choice to make, and they need to focus on their own damn families and people who have already *willingly* accepted their brand of lunacy.

From their point of view it's a very kind and caring act. They believe they're offering souls a way out of purgatory and into heaven, if they would like it.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Mormons and Mormonism, but this isn't one of them.

The fact that they see it as kind and caring is what makes it so damn offensive.

It's creepy at best and totally intolerant of what anyone else believes at worst.

natmar_76: The My Little Pony Killer: I would *hate* for Mormons to think that my grandparents were suddenly a part of their stupid religion. I don't have to believe in their idiocy to find it extremely disrespectful and distasteful of them to lay a claim on my deceased family members like that.

That's not how Mormons believe it works. The baptizing only presents the dead spirit with a choice of accepting Jesus and everything. They don't believe the baptizing automatically makes the baptized a Mormon.

Except they record their names as mormon and declare they are mormon. They declared Ben Franklin was a mormon before mormonism even existed! It's historical revisionism, even on a PERSONAL level and it should stop.

This is incredibly stupid.

Also, hilarious.

natmar_76: The My Little Pony Killer: I would *hate* for Mormons to think that my grandparents were suddenly a part of their stupid religion. I don't have to believe in their idiocy to find it extremely disrespectful and distasteful of them to lay a claim on my deceased family members like that.

That's not how Mormons believe it works. The baptizing only presents the dead spirit with a choice of accepting Jesus and everything. They don't believe the baptizing automatically makes the baptized a Mormon.

It's still offensive that they would even think to do such a thing. It's not their choice to make, and they need to focus on their own damn families and people who have already *willingly* accepted their brand of lunacy.

I'm not sure that this is helping anything.

OhLuverly: johnny queso: OhLuverly: johnny queso: OhLuverly: johnny queso: then again, if it is acknowledged by all that anne frank was erroneously baptized and added to the database why has she not been expunged?

My best guess would because once done it's done. These are ordances with God there aren't any take backs?

then if you know it's incredibly offensive to the loved ones of the people who weren't asked if they'd like to have it done, your system needs to suck much less than this one does. like death penalty thoroughness.
unless of course the entire vetting process is just lip service to quell the Jew uprising, and in reality you are out to claim as many as you can, regardless. which is both dickish and self serving.

Mmmmmk

so basically, sorry anne you're a mormon now. bureaucratic oversight.

The horse is dead, you can stop now.

god needs to buy some white out.

OhLuverly: johnny queso: OhLuverly: johnny queso: then again, if it is acknowledged by all that anne frank was erroneously baptized and added to the database why has she not been expunged?

My best guess would because once done it's done. These are ordances with God there aren't any take backs?

then if you know it's incredibly offensive to the loved ones of the people who weren't asked if they'd like to have it done, your system needs to suck much less than this one does. like death penalty thoroughness.
unless of course the entire vetting process is just lip service to quell the Jew uprising, and in reality you are out to claim as many as you can, regardless. which is both dickish and self serving.

Mmmmmk

so basically, sorry anne you're a mormon now. bureaucratic oversight.

OhLuverly: johnny queso: then again, if it is acknowledged by all that anne frank was erroneously baptized and added to the database why has she not been expunged?

My best guess would because once done it's done. These are ordances with God there aren't any take backs?

then if you know it's incredibly offensive to the loved ones of the people who weren't asked if they'd like to have it done, your system needs to suck much less than this one does. like death penalty thoroughness.
unless of course the entire vetting process is just lip service to quell the Jew uprising, and in reality you are out to claim as many as you can, regardless. which is both dickish and self serving.

Theaetetus: treesloth: And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.

Except that the record does not state that it was a "baptism for the dead done on behalf of a non-LDS person," it merely states that it was a baptism. You're right that the date of death precedes the date of baptism, but to find that data, you need to investigate each and every record. A list of names included in the records of LDS members would include Anne Frank along with many Jewish people.

And, as you admitted in the last thread on this topic, all it would take is for those in-depth records to be lost, and suddenly it would not be clear from the list of names that Anne Frank was not LDS. Rather, such list would appear to definitively show that Anne Frank was Mormon.

But that mistake would never happen. Sure we let 260,000 names slip through the cracks, but that's a simple, unavoidable mistake. mixing up or leaving a date or two off of the records. that would take a truly colossal oversight on someones part. never going to happen.

also, if her baptism was admittedly done against policy, why is anne frank still listed?

treesloth: Morpheses: Oh, a mormon apologist. How cute.

Morpheses: Or a "just asking questions" troll, could be either one.

Not a troll, but there's no way to prove that one way or the other. I can say that I've been pretty consistent in this and other threads on the topic. I really do want to understand people's views and how they arrive at their conclusions, but I know that's not for everyone.

Theaetetus: ... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.

Why do you characterize it as "post hoc"? The analogy may be somewhat recent, but the doctrine it tries to explain has been pretty consistent from the beginning.

And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.

Fair enough. You know, I do live in Utah and talk to missionaries on a fairly regular basis, as well as getting the daily mormon stories in all the local newspapers. My opinion is not an uninformed one.

cgraves67: Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

My Grandma was converted to Mormon when she was a little girl (by her step father). When she grew up, she quit Mormonism. She was expelled from the church and her name struck from their big book o' baptized. However, her Mormon relatives saw fit to include her offspring (i.e. us) into their book. I don't subscribe to their brand of weirdness, so I'm not losing sleep over it.

I think that getting your panties in a wad over this is comparable to throwing a fit over a "witch" casting spells on you when you don't believe in magic. It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.

Except your local witch isn't getting involved in state and national politics, and spending millions of tax-exempt dollars attempting to strip civil rights from your gay friends and relatives.

treesloth: johnny queso: ... self-serving...

I can't address dickishness as it is a matter of personal judgment, but how is vicarious baptism for the dead self-serving for an LDS church member, or the church as a whole?

Or a "just asking questions" troll, could be either one.

treesloth: Morpheses: That is my belief, yes. If you talk to any missionary coming back from anywhere other than Africa or South America, they tell you people just don't buy the myth any more. They are considering shutting down European missions. So where are the new members coming from? Dead Jews, apparently.

In fact, I have spoken to missionaries from European missions. They're doing fine, it seems. But, as evidence goes, it's hearsay, anecdotal and certainly doesn't support the conclusions you claim. I'm afraid a lot more (and higher-quality) evidence would be necessary in order to successfully support your idea.

PsiChick: The first amendment does apply, but not if there's a secular interest involved--i.e. preserving history\stopping a biatchfight between two religions. That's also why cults get slammed so often--your religious rights can and will be suspended once secular interests take over.

Let's suppose that's the case. What history is being altered and is in need of preservation?

Oh, a mormon apologist. How cute.

Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm

You are right. People are either unwilling to understand or are desperate to hate

... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.

treesloth: johnny queso: Can you prove to me that they haven't yet or wont in the future? Tomorrow or 50 years from now?

Of course not, but shifting the burden of proof by requiring absurd levels of evidence by proving a negative certainly falls short of supporting your point.

However, my fundamental question is answered. Thank you.

PsiChick: However, even if all they're doing is altering their own records, preventing a biatchfight between two religions is a secular interest as well, so we can agree on that.

No, I don't agree with that, at least not to the end that you originally presented. But, as with Mr. Cheese, my question is answered.

Thing is, the unwashed masses are not allowed into their inner sanctum. Without full access to their records one can not know what devious uses these lists are being put.

treesloth: johnny queso: When it serves the LDS' needs, yes. And when it doesn't, no. Like all religion they make the rules as they go along to suit their needs.

Can you specify a time when the people in question have been counted as LDS by the Church?

Can you prove to me that they haven't yet or wont in the future? Tomorrow or 50 years from now?

treesloth: johnny queso: ... self-serving...

I can't address dickishness as it is a matter of personal judgment, but how is vicarious baptism for the dead self-serving for an LDS church member, or the church as a whole?

It basically amounts to sheep rustling.

There is very little that the LDS, or any church, does that isn't self serving.

Dr. Whoof: Or another way...you can't even get away from those annoying farkers knocking on your door by dying?

Heh, nice!

Curious: cgraves67: It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.

see some of the other comments. it's the blatant disrespect for other peoples beliefs that bothers us.

But this is Fark

We have blanket immunity to poke fun at all risible beliefs

Aeon Rising: Enough people have said often enough that is an offer like knocking on someone's door and asking if they are interested and not a 'conversion', that those who continue almost have to be trolls or pushing agendas

Taking your metaphor then it could be considered that living your entire life not as a Mormon would be like hanging a "No solicitors" on your spiritual door and the missionaries ignoring your wishes and proselytizing to you anyway. It's not being considerate, it's being self-serving and dickish.

Aeon Rising: Enough people have said often enough that is an offer like knocking on someone's door and asking if they are interested and not a 'conversion', that those who continue almost have to be trolls or pushing agendas

Or perhaps they realize that this "innocent" practice causes emotional pain and outrage to the still living relatives.

Or another way...you can't even get away from those annoying farkers knocking on your door by dying?

DarwiOdrade: iamcthulhu: Anne Frank has now been posthumously converted back to gay, so it's all good.

Anne Frank was gay?

There are passages in her diary that imply it, yes, so much so that her diary has been censored for "promoting homosexuality."

PsiChick: Yes. That is wrong. To retaliate in kind is also wrong. Especially since we have a secular interest in stopping it...

You are well meaning. I respect that.

You are, however, wrong.

Legally they are protected by the 1st Amendment. You simply will never win that fight.

So here's your (legal) choices: 1) ask them nicely to stop, which people have been doing for years and hasn't worked; 2) ignore them, which won't stop them at all but at least you can feel moral about it, I guess; 3) mock them and use satire to show how big of assholes they are being.

I'll go with 3.

Dr. Whoof: You're thinking of Amelia Earhart. Anne Frank was a (sweet) transvestite from Transylvania.

Maybe the rain is really to blame.

Saborlas: "Jesus Christ"

*click*

/problem, theists?

Ever notice what a sausage fest The Last Supper was? It doesn't seem like Jesus of Nazareth was all that in to women.

If you entered him in there, he's probably straight now, you jerk. Look what you've done.

Backwards Cornfield Races: Tell me I'm not the only one that tries to get the neighborhood mormons to drink with me. I came pretty close last time

It's not hard if you get them on a one-to-one basis. It's only a problem when there are other mormons around.

PsiChick: They're also trying to alter the official religion stated of the Holocaust victims everywhere, not just their personal lists.

Also 100%, completely, and in every way, wrong.

James!: CatfoodSpork: I don't see why people who are not Mormons care. Since I don't believe their stupid religion, why should I believe their baptisms have any effect on anything?

I mean, yeah, it affects my opinion of Mormons, but it's not like that had a long way down to fall.

If I make up my own religion where anyone I look at is autoconverted (according to the tenets of CatfoodSporkism) that doesn't mean they will REALLY be stuck all eternity in CatfoodSporkism-Hell.

It's ghoulish and disrespectful of the dead.

THIS

PsiChick: So we attach a fine or something

Lol, how would that work, exactly?

namegoeshere: People have been asking them nicely to knock this shiat off for a very long time. They haven't listened yet.

And not so nicely. They agreed in 1995 to stop doing it for Jews, period. Not sure if that was a court case or some sort of contract.

PsiChick: Sure. But this is a bit beyond just words--this is a tit-for-tat gesture which achieves nothing other than mocking something they're clearly considering important. I'd just settle for enforcing the 'no converting Holocaust victims' with a nice hefty fine.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

PsiChick: No, it actually does. Sitting someone down and explaining things kindly to them is fine, but mocking people for deeply held beliefs is nothing more than being a dick. I mean, how would you feel if one of those Xenu-believers was mocking you for believing the obviously-false nonsense of atheism\Christianity\whatever? Sure, you probably would just mock them back, but this isn't first grade, and we're all better than that.

The entire history of humanity says you're wrong. See also: The Crusades.

LadyBelgara: OhLuverly: quoted from the other thread on this subject because it seems to apply here as well

"Posthumous conscription does not make you a soldier in Satan's army anymore than Satanists knocking on your door make you a soldier in Satan's army. That's all posthumous conscription is. Satanists believe that you are given a chance after you die to again accept the unholy power of Satan, however conscription is a physical requirement to continue on. So you can basically be chillin' at the pearly gates but can't go past even if you accept the forked tongue kiss of His Infernal Majesty because you weren't conscripted however someone can be conscripted for you in proxy in this situation. It gives people the chance to accept Lucifer's malevolent enema and go on if they so choose in the afterlife.(You still have a choice, you can choose to stay exactly where you are if you want) The names are recorded in the Necronomicon so hypothetically they are only done once (system needs work.) They however are not recorded as being Satanists, simply that the offer was made to them. Just like the Satanists record people they curse. It basically boils down to Satanists want everyone to be able to go to war with heaven. They want everyone to know God and Christ are the eternal enemy and be in their presence when Lucifer smites them with his pitchfork, and they are willing to suffer the social outrage and name calling to achieve this goal for others."

...I weep for humanity that people actually believe this.

Just felt the need to make those edits. Reads like a sequel to Good Omens now.

OhLuverly: quoted from the other thread on this subject because it seems to apply here as well

"Posthumous baptism does not make you Mormon anymore than missionaries knocking on your door make you Mormon. That's all posthumous baptism is. Mormon's believe that you are given a chance after you die to again accept the gospel, however baptism is a physical requirement to continue on. So you can basically be chillin' at the pearly gates but can't go past even if you accept the gospel because you weren't baptized however someone can be baptized for you in proxy in this situation. It gives people the chance to accept the gospel and go on if they so choose in the afterlife.(You still have a choice, you can choose to stay exactly where you are if you want) The names are recorded on the rolls so hypothetically they are only done once (system needs work.) They however are not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them. Just like the missionaries record people they talk to. It basically boils down to Mormons want everyone to be able to go to heaven. They want everyone to know God and Christ and be in their presence and they are willing to suffer the social outrage and name calling to achieve this goal for others."

...I weep for humanity that people actually believe this.

meanmutton: And it will affect them exactly as much as their post-death "baptism" will affect Helen Keller.

You *do* know that this is a joke, right? No one actually believes they are turning dead Mormons gay with this website...

PsiChick: Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

Yeah, I really thought this was funny...up until I actually thought about it.

No. It's not. It's petty and unethical. They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

/Damnit, it was funny.

Just because someone sincerely believes something does mean that it is somehow above mockery. If you sincerely believe the entire Xenu mythology from Scientology you probably deserve to be mocked and mocked again.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

Yeah, I really thought this was funny...up until I actually thought about it.

No. It's not. It's petty and unethical. They sincerely believe this, and mocking those beliefs is wrong.

/Damnit, it was funny.

Sticky Hands: *sigh*

No they are not making the dead part of their religion.
And it doesn't let a person slip by after a lifetime of sin.
That not how it works, and that's not how they see it.

it's more like this:

The great beyond is a fantastic place, lots of cool things to do. Within this fantastic place, are some places that are even more awesome. However, these places require a tie. The only way to get a tie is making one at the tie factory. Everyone is supposed to make their own tie before they get into the great beyond. However, as luck would have it, a lot of people never get a chance to make that choice. They may die young, or maybe there were not any tie stores in their part of the world, or maybe they had a bolo, and they were happy with it, and no one ever told them that they looked like a tool. Anyway, once a person is dead, they can't make a tie (I don't know why they can't make a tie.... just can't once you die) So live people make ties for them. If the dead person is hip enough to get in the door (all theses places have bouncers who will check if to see if these folks are cool) then that person can pick up a tie made special for them. If they don't want to go in, they don't have to take the tie.

Why can't you just borrow a tie at the door? I mean, WTF?! Dress codes are so stupid anyway!

Eeesh, talk about some boring-ass people in this thread! Gay converter iz srs bzns!

"Your Mormon is: Kenneth Rogers"

I'll be damned if I make Kenny Rogers gay.

natmar_76: The My Little Pony Killer: It's still offensive that they would even think to do such a thing. It's not their choice to make, and they need to focus on their own damn families and people who have already *willingly* accepted their brand of lunacy.

From their point of view it's a very kind and caring act. They believe they're offering souls a way out of purgatory and into heaven, if they would like it.

There are a lot of things I dislike about Mormons and Mormonism, but this isn't one of them.

Those people made a choice while they were alive. They chose to believe something different. And the mormons are choosing to ignore those beliefs because they are so prideful as to think their beliefs are the ONLY correct ones. The intention of doing something good isn't the offensive part. The willful disregard for that person's beliefs in life is the offensive part.

Rashnu: I think crying about Mormon proxy baptisms is idiotic but I'm fine with fighting imaginary fire with imaginary fire. I suspect Mormons will be more equanimous about this than many suddenly are (3+ greenlit aricles?) about their harmless and actually well-intentioned practice.

Truly well intentioned people respect the choices and beliefs of others; this practice does not. Bear in mind I have no practical reason to object to this other than it does really dirty the reputation of the Mormon churches doing this to other people. It doesn't matter why these churches do this, posthumous baptism is intrinsically disrespectful to the baptized, and to the relatives of the baptized.

Bah, it's fun, go be crotchety somewhere else. It won't accomplish anything, but it's fun. (You see, Mormons clearly will not believe this website is calling on any higher power that can actually make their dead loved ones gay, so it won't bother them in the least.)

Rashnu: Theaetetus: Based on the fact that they don't seem to be doing this to Muslims, but do keep targeting Holocaust victims, I'm going to have to disagree with your estimation that it's to give everyone such a chance. Rather, it starts to look much more like an attempt to rewrite history, something I would not put above a "religious" organization as blatantly political as the LDS church.

They've posthumously baptized Hitler, Pope John Paul II and Obama's mother as well. Later generations will surely read of Mormon Hitler's persecution of Mormon's and the damning non-interference of the Mormon Church as well as of America's first Black Mormon President.

History is written by the record keepers. And record keepers with an interest in certain views of history are not immune from destroying specified records or falsifying others.

quisph: I'm still waiting for someone to explain why that means there's something wrong with satirizing it.

You could be waiting a while. Most folk in this thread are still in outrage mode.

Personally I feel it's a brilliant little bit of social-commentary-through-satire. As for the "is nothing sacred?" crowd, well, this was never an original tenet of Mormonism from the get-go as I understand it. It was added later by a church leader.

Anne Frank has now been posthumously converted back to gay, so it's all good.

gerrymander: The My Little Pony Killer: gerrymander: It is only immature and intolerant.

It's only immature when we do it as a joke, not when an entire organization of people do it for serious.

No, it's also immature and intolerant when the Mormons do it.

But feel free to think that descending to their level constitutes a win for your side.

Dr. Whoof: Is intolerance of intolerance a bad thing?

It is if your goal is more tolerance. You can't claim the high ground from the gutter.

Dear FARK, if we're going to vote on posts can we have a stupid one?

Theaetetus: culebra: The names are recorded on the rolls so hypothetically they are only done once (system needs work.) They however are not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them.

[Citation needed]

Specifically, need a citation that the names are recorded differently in the roles than the names of living Mormons.

Actually, reverse citation found.
Here's a screenshot of the record for Anne Frank (new window)
Apparently, they are not "not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them".

Oh. My. God. I wish I'd had this idea six years ago, so when they showed up at my mother's WAKE to ask me if I minded, I could have said, "Only if you don't mind me publically declaring all of youe ancestors posthumously gay."

Please, FSM, please give me the opportunity to use this line some day!

culebra: The names are recorded on the rolls so hypothetically they are only done once (system needs work.) They however are not recorded as being Mormon, simply that the offer was made to them.

[Citation needed]

Specifically, need a citation that the names are recorded differently in the roles than the names of living Mormons.

This baptizing thing also helps them build these family trees with their obsessive love for geneology.

When they run into someone in the lineage that is not Mo, they submit the name to the temple, some kid doing his early temple work (between 8 and 10 yrs) gets dunked in an Oxen shaped pool thing about 20 times, each in the name of some dead person. Keep building the tree.
Work is done, keep moving through the ranks of the dead, finding non Mos... submit names, cycle continues... till EVERYONE is Mormon... at least in name.

cgraves67: Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

My Grandma was converted to Mormon when she was a little girl (by her step father). When she grew up, she quit Mormonism. She was expelled from the church and her name struck from their big book o' baptized. However, her Mormon relatives saw fit to include her offspring (i.e. us) into their book. I don't subscribe to their brand of weirdness, so I'm not losing sleep over it.

I think that getting your panties in a wad over this is comparable to throwing a fit over a "witch" casting spells on you when you don't believe in magic. It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.

Well see there is your problem, religious folk are not logical.

Rashnu: well-intentioned

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

OhLuverly: they are willing to suffer the social outrage and name calling to achieve this goal for others."

Good, because I am still willing to call them creepy and intolerant. What a cocky cult they are.

I think crying about Mormon proxy baptisms is idiotic but I'm fine with fighting imaginary fire with imaginary fire. I suspect Mormons will be more equanimous about this than many suddenly are (3+ greenlit aricles?) about their harmless and actually well-intentioned practice.

StopLurkListen: Mormons posthumously baptizing people makes a mockery of Pascal's Wager.

Don't Mormons WANT people to be religious?

"Screw making choices during my life to ensure a good afterlife ... The Mormons will cover for me"

Yeah, doesn't that disinsentivise actually practicing mormonism? Let's say my sister is Mormon. I don't have to pay the church shiat, follow their rules, respect their deity, be restricted to their alignment and spell source because she's got my back. It's not a smart plan for the church or their magical space god.

gerrymander: It is only immature and intolerant.

It's only immature when we do it as a joke, not when an entire organization of people do it for serious.

Get over yourself.

And somewhere, there's an outspoken anti-gay social conservative who will now have even more evidence that allowing homosexuality was the first step in a slippery slope: "See? First it was legal gay sex, then gay marriage. Now they want to defile the dead!"

This is neither appropriate nor funny. It is only immature and intolerant. Just stop.

Mormons posthumously baptizing people makes a mockery of Pascal's Wager.

Don't Mormons WANT people to be religious?

"Screw making choices during my life to ensure a good afterlife ... The Mormons will cover for me"

Aeon Rising: Serious question: If you don't believe it is real thing, why do you care? If you do believe it is real... doesn't that make them right?

Claim all my ancestors are gay, mormon egyptians with red hear... who gives a rat's ass?

Prance in a circle in your living room and claim the entire world is where god's gas meets the devil's lighter for all I care. If it makes you happy, do it.

"oh yea? well YOUR ancestor is a stupid poo poo head"
"is not!"
"is too times infinity forever"

who is the jackass? EVERONE!


HEY, EVERYBODY! COME TAKE A LOOK! THIS GUY IS BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE!

Well, it is stupid and meaningless, but Goddamn I laughed like hell.

/The 28 wives of Joseph Smith, welcome to lesbianism.
//Have fun, take pictures.

I was going to say something about sinking to the level of an opponent and returning insults in kind being childish and unproductive, but then I remembered I'm on the internet.

croesius: This is great. A branch of my family is Mormon, and a few years back they sent a copy of their bible to everyone in the family, as well as a notice that they would baptize all of us upon our death unless we opted out. The rage that erupted made family reunions a bit awkward.

Damn cultists.

Solution: convert to atheism. Then you can just facepalm a bit at silly religious people doing silly religious things as usual, and not even bother calling them on it unless it actually affects someone.

This is stupid.

/athiest

Well.....guess what I got you, ghost of zombie Reagan?


/thats right, a Pink Feather Boa!

This won't work guys. The magic underwear will save them.

You see? Homosexuality is a choice. Either you choose to be one yourself, or someone else can choose it for you.

And it will affect them exactly as much as their post-death "baptism" will affect Helen Keller.

Can't we find something that actually matters to get butthurt over?

"George Romney"

*click*