NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Are you saying we're holding a gun to your head?! Come on man

No..your pulling the trigger, and assuming that the person will thank you for it.I really don't see how we're pulling any trigger... what we do will neither harm them or make them worse off if they decline.

You are performing a ritual in the name of a dead person of another faith.
Your pulling a religious trigger.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

And you keep using YOUR same argument- that it's NOT really being forced on them, because the souls can "choose".

But what if someone doesn't believe that the souls CAN choose? And, even if one were to believe that the soul CAN choose, what effect does that have on the fact that the rite is performed, ANYWAY? I don't believe that you guys are going to have an effect on my soul if you baptize me, for instance. I see the CEREMONY ITSELF as offensive.

... And how exactly can you get around that, if I may ask?What? Are you serious? What if someone doesn't believe what mormons believe? Well, then, uhh, you don't have to CARE what we believe, because apparently it will have no affect on you.

and what if the person has no family? do you go ahead and assume the person accepted your ritual?

Why, such, as for instance, HOLOCAUST victims? :shock: :wink: :cry:What, you're going to decide their fate for them? That seems like a much greater insult to them.

In the afterlife, they think "Oh, hey, that mormon's gonna give me a choice... wait a second, Qahjoh says I can't have that choice!"

Or what if I'm in the afterlife, serving my lord Anubis, and your fake, unwanted baptising causes Him to be offended and throw me out? Ever think of that?

*sigh* seriously, I'm outta here, this is useless.

and what if the person has no family? do you go ahead and assume the person accepted your ritual?

Why, such, as for instance, HOLOCAUST victims? :shock: :wink: :cry:What, you're going to decide their fate for them? That seems like a much greater insult to them.

In the afterlife, they think "Oh, hey, that mormon's gonna give me a choice... wait a second, Qahjoh says I can't have that choice!"

You forget, though, that you're looking at this through the prism of Mormon doctrine. Several other faiths believe that a person's religion does not determine their later "reward".

And forgive me if I happen to think that it is indeed more proper or respectful to let a person's family or community act on their behalf in terms of spiritual matters rather than total strangers. That's MY bias, and I freely admit to it.

I, too, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And giving someone an opportunity is not an injustice to them.

YOUR OPINION! :evil: Name one other situation where giving someone an oppurtunity is an injustice.

As someone else already pointed out- not everyone sees "conversion" as an opportunity. The Inquisition comes to mind.

This is not a conversion. That is up to the person, up to whether or not they accept it.

*sigh* seriously, I'm outta here, this is useless.

What?
You havent left yet?

*sigh* seriously, I'm outta here, this is useless.

Again?

Off course it's useless, you utterly refuse to see our side of the story.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

And you keep using YOUR same argument- that it's NOT really being forced on them, because the souls can "choose".

But what if someone doesn't believe that the souls CAN choose? And, even if one were to believe that the soul CAN choose, what effect does that have on the fact that the rite is performed, ANYWAY? I don't believe that you guys are going to have an effect on my soul if you baptize me, for instance. I see the CEREMONY ITSELF as offensive.

... And how exactly can you get around that, if I may ask?What? Are you serious? What if someone doesn't believe what mormons believe? Well, then, uhh, you don't have to CARE what we believe, because apparently it will have no affect on you.

*slaps head* I JUST SAID I don't care about the effect it may or may have on my soul, I care about the ceremony you're conducting without MY consent. How hard is this?

Aah, changing the stakes eh?I'm not sure I understand.
Throwing this back out there because it seems to have been overlooked...
What if someone was locked up in a closet by his/her parents, who never spoke to him/her (this has actually happened), and s/he died of malnutrition? What do you think should happen to that person's spirit because s/he didn't have an opportunity to accept or decline religion?

*sigh* seriously, I'm outta here, this is useless.

Wow, you've said that almost as many times as you've said, "you're wrong", "you're confused", and "tough".

Maybe I should get a bingo card.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

Aah, changing the stakes eh?I'm not sure I understand.

What I mean is, Raysia puts up a question, a statement so to say, to show that what they're doing is fine.
I challenge that statement by putting up a counter-statement, and so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.No, I'm just offering my own (derivative) question.

Aah, changing the stakes eh?
What if someone was locked up in a closet by his/her parents, who never spoke to him/her (this has actually happened), and s/he died of malnutrition? What do you think should happen to that person's spirit because s/he didn't have an opportunity to accept or decline religion?

Then I can hope that God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, will not act like a jerk and overlook something that was not the person's fault.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.No, I'm just offering my own (derivative) question.

I wasn't referring to your own statement about the kid in the closet.

If it doesnt count if you dont accept it, then why would you offer it to the soul of a Jewish person?
Your faith is based on accepting Jesus.

Do Jewish people believe in Jesus?

No?

Then why would you think they would say yes?

I wasn't referring to your own statement about the kid in the closet.I know. That was an original.
Then why would you think they would say yes?If they're wrong, and find out after they die, maybe they'll say yes.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

Aah, changing the stakes eh?I'm not sure I understand.

What I mean is, Raysia puts up a question, a statement so to say, to show that what they're doing is fine.
I challenge that statement by putting up a counter-statement, and so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.

The original statement might have been flawed because it lacked specificity. All that Hakartopia did was add specificity to a previous statement.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the bottom line is you won't stop because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Thanks for clarifying.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So your arrogantly assuming that it will have no bearing on that soul, or their beliefs?
THATS why these people are so angry about this.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

I honestly don't see the problem. How can something that I do, you don't see, and that doesn't have any effect on you hurt you?

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

That's extremely rude of you, and what if, like I said above, your unwanted baptism gets me thrown out of Heaven?

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

I honestly don't see the problem. How can something that I do, you don't see, and that doesn't have any effect on you hurt you?

The same way that pissing on my grave after I'm dead "hurts" me. Although I see this as more of defacing a grave than anything else. To be honest, the mental picture I get is of someone taking a chisel to a Jewish headstone and carving it into a cross.

Aah, changing the stakes eh?I'm not sure I understand.

What I mean is, Raysia puts up a question, a statement so to say, to show that what they're doing is fine.
I challenge that statement by putting up a counter-statement, and so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.

The original statement might have been flawed because it lacked specificity. All that Nianacio did was add specificity to a previous statement.

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the bottom line is you won't stop because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Thanks for clarifying.

Really, I don't care whether you get angry for no reason as I understand it. I can't help your feelings.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

I honestly don't see the problem. How can something that I do, you don't see, and that doesn't have any effect on you hurt you?

The same way that pissing on my grave after I'm dead hurts me.

Or at the very least your living relatives and friends.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the bottom line is you won't stop because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Thanks for clarifying.

Really, I don't care whether you get angry for no reason as I understand it. I can't help your feelings.

Thats the thing.
You CAN help it.
All you have to do is STOP with the unwanted Baptisms....but you wont do that will you?

Aah, changing the stakes eh?I'm not sure I understand.

What I mean is, Raysia puts up a question, a statement so to say, to show that what they're doing is fine.
I challenge that statement by putting up a counter-statement, and so you change the original statement so my own statement is no longer valid, instead of admitting the original was flawed.

The original statement might have been flawed because it lacked specificity. All that Nianacio did was add specificity to a previous statement.

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?

What do you mean? If you mean that Raysia's original statement was spam then I'd have to disagree because it made the statement while it needed clarifying.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the bottom line is you won't stop because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Thanks for clarifying.

Really, I don't care whether you get angry for no reason as I understand it. I can't help your feelings.

And it's THAT kind of honesty I wish your Church leaders would display in their public relations on this issue. None of that wishy-washy, "We really care that Jews are offended" bullshit. Just fuck-ing SAY that you don't care what we think. At least then we know where you stand.

(Thank you. I mean it.)

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

Um, practicing Mormon rites on unwilling people isn't really "justice, mercy, and righteousness," it's more like self-righteousness. Practicing Mormon rites on people who can't express their desires one way or another (as they're dead), in my opinion, falls into this category.

Not everyone accepts the Gospels as Truth. Jews don't recognize the Christian Bible as canon, using the books of the Torah, and the commentaries of the Talmud, as their primary sources. Muslims view the Koran, not the Bible, as their holy book. Sadly, I am not as well-versed in Eastern religion, but I'm pretty sure most of them don't use the Christian Bible as primary source material.

I'll just say right off that I'm Jewish, to clear anything up that needed it. Having said that, I don't really object to other people believing what they want, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., etc. What I do object to is people trying to impose their religious beliefs on other people who have indicated their non-receptiveness.

I would like to note that I do not wish to be baptized after my death, just to clear matters up. (I also do not wish to die any time soon.)

Just my two cents' worth...

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?

What do you mean? If you mean that Raysia's original statement was spam then I'd have to disagree because it made the statement while it needed clarifying.

The baptising. That's what I mean.

You guys keep using the same argument, that we're forcing something on them, that we're not giving them any choice.

The truth is it is exactly the opposite. We are not forcing anything on them, we are giving them a choice.

Before the ordinance they do not have the opportunity to choose what happens to them. They probably did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Now they have the choice, they can decide what happens to them, they can accept or reject the ordinance. If they accept the ordinance is effective. If not it is as if it never happened.

and yet, you still ignore the fact that many people consider thsi practice offensive.....becuase it is seen as trying to nullify the persons faith.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. That is not the intent, it is not meant to harm the person in any way or the person's faith.

So you'll stop doing it?

No, it won't harm the person or their faith. Your anger doesn't change that.

So, as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, the bottom line is you won't stop because you DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Thanks for clarifying.

Really, I don't care whether you get angry for no reason as I understand it. I can't help your feelings.

Thats the thing.
You CAN help it.
All you have to do is STOP with the unwanted Baptisms....but you wont do that will you?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

I honestly don't see the problem. How can something that I do, you don't see, and that doesn't have any effect on you hurt you?

The same way that pissing on my grave after I'm dead hurts me.

Or at the very least your living relatives and friends.

That was kind of my point. It "may" somehow affect my spirit, but the ones it immediately affects are my family and friends. Of course, the biggest issue in both cases is the fundemental lack of respect it shows TO ME, whether I'm alive or not.

Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.

Thats the thing.
You CAN help it.
All you have to do is STOP with the unwanted Baptisms....but you wont do that will you?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

And did you bother getting their consent?

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?In a way, yes :)

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?In a way, yes :)

And does it involve a pub full of vikings?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?I don't know. That's for them to decide.

Having you or qahjoh decide FOR them would be a MUCH greater insult to the dead, would it not?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?

Or, for that matter, committed atheists (Sartre, Mencken, Marx, Gene Roddenberry), pagans (Leif Ericsson), or Buddhists (Buddha, "Mrs. Buddha"- WTF???)

I mean, really, who has the profound arrogance to think a person that FOUNDED their own religion would really want to convert to another one?

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?IF they found out they were wrong about Christianity, I think they might.

This has been mentioned several times, I believe, it doesn't count if you don't accept it.

The church has three missions: perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead.

This covers everyone who ever has or will live, giving everyone the opportunity to accept it. There are many who simply don't have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, in fact the vast majority. A fundamental belief is that God is perfect. If this is so, he must be fair. In the Bible it says that God is no respector of persons. Thus everyone MUST have the opportunity to accept truth. If someone didn't have a chance to accept the truth in this life they must have an opportunity in the next. John 3:5 states that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a necessary ordinance. Thus it must be performed for everyone. As those who have died do not have a physical body with which to perform baptism they must have a proxy. For God to be just baptism for the dead must occur.

Also, the atonement of Christ was a proxy ordinance. Just as baptism cannot be performed by the benefactor in the case of baptisms for the dead we could not atone for our own sins. Christ died for everyone's sins. If baptism is disrespect the atonement is similarly disrespect as you did not ask for it. But neither one "counts" if you do not accept it, so you do have a say in both matters. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that is not my intent. I only want to explain what I believe is necessary for justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Maybe it wasn't noticed, as quick as this thread's moving.

But the rite is still performed, regardless of whether or not the soul "accepts" it. I don't see how this "the soul can accept or decline" argument applies to the argument raised by those who have a problem with the PHYSICAL ACTION taking place.

I honestly don't see the problem. How can something that I do, you don't see, and that doesn't have any effect on you hurt you?

The same way that pissing on my grave after I'm dead "hurts" me. Although I see this as more of defacing a grave than anything else. To be honest, the mental picture I get is of someone taking a chisel to a Jewish headstone and carving it into a cross.

There's a couple of big differences there. First off, your example is maliciously trying to be disrespectful. Second, I've said this many times, it doesn't count for anything if they don't accept it. Their name is mentioned among a bunch of other words. Their headstone does not become a cross, they are not forced to become Christian.

And as for me not caring whether you get angry, I've said this in other posts, but your anger is not as important as the person for whom the ordinance is taking place. Saying that I don't care that you're angry isn't quite the right way of saying it. I just don't care nearly as much about your choice to be angry at something that is not malicious than I do about the person that the ordinance concerns.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?IF they found out they were wrong about Christianity, I think they might. well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much then

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?IF they found out they were wrong about Christianity, I think they might.

You have to admit that this is a good point.

ca someone answer my statement?

So it's more like a form of spiritual spam then?In a way, yes :)

And does it involve a pub full of vikings?

lol

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?I don't know. That's for them to decide.

Having you or qahjoh decide FOR them would be a MUCH greater insult to the dead, would it not?

And why do YOU get to decide that performing the rite is "no big deal" to the dead?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?I don't know. That's for them to decide.

Having you or qahjoh decide FOR them would be a MUCH greater insult to the dead, would it not?

No,.....it ISNT up to them becuase you take the choice away from them and peform it anyway dont you?

and if it WERE up to me..I would choose to respect hat person faith enough to let his own religious communtity to worry about his afterlife.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?

Well, I wouldn't. I already converted once, and, quite frankly, the idea of someone converting me to something else would make me feel like my money at the foreign exchange when I went overseas.

None of my Jewish friends would likely be happy about receiving a Christian baptism, either.

ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?
Here's The Echosides's.
Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.

You honestly think that any Jewish person would welcome a Christian Baptism?IF they found out they were wrong about Christianity, I think they might.

You have to admit that this is a good point.

Not necessarily. I'd say it's an intruiging point. The thing to remember is that just because you maybe "discover" that you were wrong is not necessarily going to make you want to convert post-mortem. If rabbi X held rabbi Y in great esteem and hated Gentile Z, and it turns out rabbi X went to Hell because he was wrong about Jesus while Gentile Z went to Heaven because of his belief in him as Lord, isn't it plausible rabbi Y would choose Hell to be with rabbi X, rather than spend eternity in Heaven with Gentile Z?

As Twain said, "Go to Heaven for the climate; Hell for the company." It doesn't strike me as necessarily implausible that people that were willing to die for their faith would be willing to go to Hell for it, too.

Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.

Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.

Thats the thing.
You CAN help it.
All you have to do is STOP with the unwanted Baptisms....but you wont do that will you?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

And did you bother getting their consent?

If they didn't consent it doesn't count. As far as the physical act goes, as I've said, it's their name mentioned among a bunch of other words it they don't like it. If they do it's a baptism. The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

I don't think it's good for people to be getting angry about it but that's always their choice. The good that comes of it is greater than the harm people do themselves through it.

The thing to remember is that just because you maybe "discover" that you were wrong is not necessarily going to make you want to convert post-mortem.Indeed. I said "I think they might" purposely.
(The original post did not use italics.)

Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.Well, techinically it's not against the commandments if God commanded us to do it :P kinda... ya'know... overrides

Thats the thing.
You CAN help it.
All you have to do is STOP with the unwanted Baptisms....but you wont do that will you?

They aren't necessarily unwanted. YOU don't want them, but the only person that matters is the person that the baptisms are being done for.

And did you bother getting their consent?

If they didn't consent it doesn't count. As far as the physical act goes, as I've said, it's their name mentioned among a bunch of other words it they don't like it. If they do it's a baptism. The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

You could use the same justification for desecrating a tombstone. "It's just a rock, a meaningless symbol, etc..." Indeed, the ACT of desecration is ALWAYS symbolic.

And yet, if you discovered someone had desecrated one of your family members' graves, I doubt you would react to it in this way.

Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.Well, techinically it's not against the commandments if God commanded us to do it :P kinda... ya'know... overrides

Jews could say the same thing. Do you realize how many commandments revolve around "thou shalt not do as the Gentiles do"?

The ceremonies are occult by definition and thusly to be shunned.

The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

Then why bother at all?

No Jewish person is likely to want a Christian Baptism.

But nevertheless....you do it anyway.

The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

Then why bother at all?

No Jewish person is likely to want a Christian Baptism.

But nevertheless....you do it anyway.

Correction: No Jew who DIDN'T ALREADY seek out a baptism in life is likely to want one.

(Included because there are obviously plenty of Jews who do convert to other religions, particularly Christianity.)

I like how no one is willing to touch my challenge as to y Mormon scripture is translated in a dead dialect for a living world

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The ceremonies are occult by definition and thusly to be shunned.I just quickly looked up occult, and it seems many okay things could be called occult. (I'm not trying to argue with the dictionary (I'm not actually trying to argue at all), it was just something I found interesting.)
Reposting these two apparently overlooked bits...

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
The thing to remember is that just because you maybe "discover" that you were wrong is not necessarily going to make you want to convert post-mortem.Indeed. I said "I think they might" purposely.
(The original post did not use italics.)

The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

Then why bother at all?

No Jewish person is likely to want a Christian Baptism.

But nevertheless....you do it anyway.Why bother at all? What if you, in the afterlife, for some crazy reason you can't think of now, wanted to convert to mormonism... but you can't, because one of your family members told us not to baptize you.

If we're right, and you go to hell, then you're screwed.

All we're doing is giving you the OPTION

The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

Then why bother at all?

No Jewish person is likely to want a Christian Baptism.

But nevertheless....you do it anyway.

Correction: No Jew who DIDN'T ALREADY seek out a baptism in life is likely to want one.

(Included because there are obviously plenty of Jews who do convert to other religions, particularly Christianity.)

I stand corrected.

such as?

The entire ordinance is symbolic and a meaningless symbol=nothing. If you don't believe it it is nothing for you.

Then why bother at all?

No Jewish person is likely to want a Christian Baptism.

But nevertheless....you do it anyway.Why bother at all? What if you, in the afterlife, for some crazy reason you can't think of now, wanted to convert to mormonism... but you can't, because one of your family members told us not to baptize you.

If we're right, and you go to hell, then you're screwed.

All we're doing is giving you the OPTION


Ok....this is all hypothetical conjecture based io=on the opinion, that the persons already established faith is wrong.

If I...were to perform the "change this persons religion, becuase it is clearly mistaken" ceremony..even though the LDS CLEARLY hated it....
Would you complain?

Backwoods, let's go with that for a moment, and break this down to the core.

If we're right, and you go to hell or whatever, then you'll at least have the choice to change the scenery.

If we're wrong, then we're just crazy mormons dunking people in water in the names of dead people.

If I...were to perform the "change this persons religion, becuase it is clearly mistaken" ceremony..even though the LDS CLEARLY hated it....
Would you complain?Listen. We are not changing their religion. We are simply giving them the option TO change their religion.

We have said this 200 times in this thread, yet you still act as though we are converting them.

If the book of Mormon was divinely inspired, WHY IS IT IN JAMES ERA ENGLISH?! Seems to me that the 'founder' didn't cover his bases when he BS'd his way into making up a new God.

Backwoods, let's go with that for a moment, and break this down to the core.

If we're right, and you go to hell or whatever, then you'll at least have the choice to change the scenery.

If we're wrong, then we're just crazy mormons dunking people in water in the names of dead people.


Indeed, lets go with this....

The point of what these people object to....and listen carefully....

IT DOESNT MATTER if your wrong or not....it is DISRESPECTFUL to that person faith...

Do you understand?

If the book of Mormon was divinely inspired, WHY IS IT IN JAMES ERA ENGLISH?! Seems to me that the 'founder' didn't cover his bases when he BS'd his way into making up a new God.Formal language still translates into formal old-fashioned english.. especially in 1820.

If I...were to perform the "change this persons religion, becuase it is clearly mistaken" ceremony..even though the LDS CLEARLY hated it....
Would you complain?Listen. We are not changing their religion. We are simply giving them the option TO change their religion.

We have said this 200 times in this thread, yet you still act as though we are converting them.

And you still act as if you're deaf.

... Didn't you say you were "out of here", like, 5 pages ago?

If I...were to perform the "change this persons religion, becuase it is clearly mistaken" ceremony..even though the LDS CLEARLY hated it....
Would you complain?Listen. We are not changing their religion. We are simply giving them the option TO change their religion.

We have said this 200 times in this thread, yet you still act as though we are converting them.

If you are offering to "give them another option"..THEN YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO YOUR FAITH.

Backwoods, let's go with that for a moment, and break this down to the core.

If we're right, and you go to hell or whatever, then you'll at least have the choice to change the scenery.

If we're wrong, then we're just crazy mormons dunking people in water in the names of dead people.


Indeed, lets go with this....

The point of what these people object to....and listen carefully....

IT DOESNT MATTER if your wrong or not....it is DISRESPECTFUL to that person faith...

Do you understand?almost every religion in the world can be said to do something disrespectful to another faith... why pick on us?

Catholics say everyone else is going to hell, and they are damned for eternity.
Protestants say catholics and mormons are going to hell, and are damned for eternity.
Mormons say that everyone not mormon is going to hell, but they can still have a choice to convert to mormonism in the afterlife.

Are we seriously the most offensive ones out there?

No; formal language in the 19th century did not mirror that of the middle ages. also, scripture was very rarely written in formal language to begin with. Also, scripture is meant to enlighten the people, not confound them. Why would scripture meant to shed light on a supposedly bastardized and ruined faith present itself in a comical imitation of James Era English? I'm sorry, but the book of Mormon destroys the sytax of old english

If I...were to perform the "change this persons religion, becuase it is clearly mistaken" ceremony..even though the LDS CLEARLY hated it....
Would you complain?Listen. We are not changing their religion. We are simply giving them the option TO change their religion.

We have said this 200 times in this thread, yet you still act as though we are converting them.

If you are offering to "give them another option"..THEN YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO YOUR FAITH.attempting to, but not forcing.

It's nothing worse than me knocking on your door wearing a name tag and holding a book of mormon ;)

also, very few Protestant groups feel Catholics are hell bound
very few Catholics feel Protestants are damned-- both feel the the other is dogmatically flawed. Mormons, I'm sad to say, are condemned because they blaspheme the word and the nature of Jehovah

No; formal language in the 19th century did not mirror that of the middle ages. also, scripture was very rarely written in formal language to begin with. Also, scripture is meant to enlighten the people, not confound them. Why would scripture meant to shed light on a supposedly bastardized and ruined faith present itself in a comical imitation of James Era English? I'm sorry, but the book of Mormon destroys the sytax of old englishWe still use that syntax today. We still use formal english when talking to God.

Why wouldn't God use formal english when talking to us?

For some reason, talking to god as "you" just seems disrespectful.

also, very few Protestant groups feel Catholics are hell bound
very few Catholics feel Protestants are damned-- both feel the the other is dogmatically flawed. Mormons, I'm sad to say, are condemned because they blaspheme the word and the nature of Jehovahbut now you're getting off topic.

Incidentally, here's a list of just a few people I PERSONALLY looked up in the LDS' IGI database. (As I understand it, an entry in the IGI indicates that a baptism was performed in this person's name. If there is more than one entry, that indicates this person was baptized more than once.)

Some of these may have since been removed. I noticed that many famous Jews' names were taken out, although their families are still there, indicating that the families were likely baptized as a unit, and only that famous person's name has been taken out. (Albert Einstein only appears once, for instance, but there are 15 records for each of his parents.)

Just take a look at this list, and realize this is just a TINY fraction of people that have, at least in MY mind, been violated.


Famous Baptized Jews

-Rashi (Sholomo Itshaki)

-Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague- 2 records

-Israel Zangwill- 2 records

-Alfred Dreyfus- 3 records

-Baal Shem Tov (Israel Ben Eliezer)- 2 records

-Mordechai Anielewicz

-Albert Einstein

-Shalom Aleichem (Shimon OR Solomon OR Simon Rabinowitz)- 3 records

-Chaim Weizmann (Charles Weizmann)

-Rabbi Yitzhak Meir Alter; First Gerer Rebbe (Itzhak Meyer Alter)- 2 records

-Rabbi Judah-Aryeh-Leib Alter; Second Gerer Rebbe (Leib Alter)- 2 records

-Rabbi Abraham Mordecai Alter; “Imrei Emet”- Ger dynasty

-Rabbi Haim Halberstam (“Divrei Chaim”; Sanzer Rebbe; ancestor of Bobover and Klausenberger Rebbes)- at least 1 record

-Rabbi Joshua Falk (Jacob Joshua or P’ne Jesusch Ben Zebi or Hirsch Heschel)- 2 records

-Rabbi Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik (the first)

-Gilda Radner

-Irving Howe

-Hank Greenberg

-Samuel Bronfman

-Irving Berlin


(Jewish) relatives of Famous Jews:


-Moses Schiff (Father of Jacob Schiff)


-Zeev-Dov Begin (Father of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin; Holocaust victim)- 6 records

-Chassia (Mother of Menachem Begin; Holocaust victim)- 4 records

-Herzl Begin (Brother of Menachem Begin; Holocaust victim)- 4 records

-Rachel Begin (Sister of Menachem Begin; Holocaust survivor)- 2 records


-Dora Shapiro (wife of Sholom Aleichem)

-Irving Rabinowitz (son of Sholom Aleichem)


-Ephraim Freud (Great-grandfather of Sigmund Freud)- 1 record

-Schlomo Solomon Freud (Grandfather of Sigmund Freud)- 3 records

-Pessel Peppi Hofmann (Grandmother of Sigmund Freud)- 3 records

-Jacob Nathansohn (Grandfather of Sigmund Freud)- 3 records

-Sarah Willenz (Grandmother of Sigmund Freud)- 3 records

-Amalia Amalie Malka Nathansohn (Mother of Sigmund Freud)- 1 record

-Emanuel Freud (Half-brother of Sigmund Freud)- 1 record

-Phillip Freud (Half-brother of Sigmund Freud)- 2 records

-Julius Freud (Brother of Sigmund Freud)- 2 records

-Anna Freud (Sister of Sigmund Freud)- 2 records

-Rosa Freud (Sister of Sigmund Freud; Holocaust victim)- 4 records

-Marie Mitzi Freud (Sister of Sigmund Freud; Holocaust victim)- 6 records

-Adolfine Freud (Sister of Sigmund Freud; Holocaust victim)- 2 records

-Paula Freud (Sister of Sigmund Freud; Holocaust victim)- 4 records

-Alexander Freud (Brother of Sigmund Freud)- 2 records

-Sabine Schreiber (Wife of Alexander Freud)- 1 record


-Ruppert Einstein (Great-grandfather of Albert Einstein)- 3 records

-Rebekka Obernauer (Great-grandmother of Albert Einstein)- 8 records

-Abraham Einstein (Grandfather of Albert Einstein)- 6 records

-Helene Moos (Grandmother of Albert Einstein)- 10 records

-Jakob Einstein (Uncle of Albert Einstein)- 2 records

-Hermann Einstein (Father of Albert Einstein)- 15 records

-Pauline Koch (Mother of Albert Einstein)- 15 records

-Maja Einstein (Sister of Albert Einstein)- 3 records


Others:

-Jean-Paul Sartre (atheist)

-Henry Louis Mencken (atheist)

-Leif Ericsson (Norse Pagan)

-Ernest Henry Shackleton

-Sir Oliver Cromwell

-Gene Roddenberry (atheist)

-Samuel Clemens

-Arthur Conan Doyle

-Genghis Khan

-James Joyce

-Vlad Dracul II

-Alphonse Capone

-Karl Marx (atheist)

-George Bernard Shaw (atheist)

-William Shakespeare

-Buddha (Founder of Buddhism)

-Pope Pius VIII (Francesco Xaverio Castiglione)- 3 records

-Pope Gregory XVI (Bartolomeo Alberto Cappellari)- 3 records

-Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti)- 7 records

-Pope Pius X (Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto)

-Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi

-Joseph Patrick Kennedy- 4 records

-Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald- 4 records

-Robert Francis Kennedy- 2 records

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.

-Ibn Abdul-Aziz Saud (Saudi King; Wahabbi Muslim)

-George Washington- 22 records

-Benjamin Franklin- 30 records

-Malcolm Little (Malcolm X)- 2 records

-Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire; Famous Atheist)- 15 records, one of which identifies him AS Voltaire.

-Christopher Marlowe (Atheist)- 12 records

-John Calvin (Founder of Calvinism)- 12 records

-Martin Luther (Founder of Lutheranism)- 21 records

-Ulrich Zwingli (Founder of Anabaptism)- 8 records (1 marriage record)

-William Penn (Famous Quaker)- at least 4 records

-Roger Williams (Famous “Rebel” Puritan Preacher known for his defense of religious freedom)- [b]well over 20 records

-Thomas Paine (Famous Deist/Quaker)- 6 records; probably more

-James Madison (Freethinker)- over 20 records

-Francis Albert Sinatra- 2 records

-Martin Luther King, Jr.- 6 records

Backwoods, let's go with that for a moment, and break this down to the core.

If we're right, and you go to hell or whatever, then you'll at least have the choice to change the scenery.

If we're wrong, then we're just crazy mormons dunking people in water in the names of dead people.


Indeed, lets go with this....

The point of what these people object to....and listen carefully....

IT DOESNT MATTER if your wrong or not....it is DISRESPECTFUL to that person faith...

Do you understand?almost every religion in the world can be said to do something disrespectful to another faith... why pick on us?

Catholics say everyone else is going to hell, and they are damned for eternity.
Protestants say catholics and mormons are going to hell, and are damned for eternity.
Mormons say that everyone not mormon is going to hell, but they can still have a choice to convert to mormonism in the afterlife.

Are we seriously the most offensive ones out there?


[quote]almost every religion in the world can be said to do something disrespectful to another faith... why pick on us?/quote]

answer the question!

As for Catholics, and others.....they dont perform baptisms in an attempt to indoctrinate the souls of the dead do they?

Maybe THATS why people consider it offensive?

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?
Here's The Echosides's.
Greetings, true believers!
Thought I'd shed some light as to why Jews and Christians (as to whcih I, being a Messianic Jew, belong to both) are in such a fit regarding the proxy baptism of the deceased. First, it is commanded through-out the old and new testament (and may I add, throughout the "Quad" I have discovered) that witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult must be shunned at all costs. Now, 'Proxy Baptism' in definition is an occult practice as it deals with citizens of the spirit world.
Next, Death and the released spirit are things to be respected-- by placing another soul in its place (as Messiah did) you seem to say "LOOK! I'm Jesus!" That is another sin-- Blasphemy.
also, in looking at the explaination that 1 of the missions of LDS is 'perfecting the saints'... I have 1 question.. how may man perfect what Jehovah has transformed into his holy child? You can't improve perfection.
Finally, why is it that the plates of Mormon were (quiet illiteratly as far as syntax goes) translated into Archaic King James Era English for a modern world? seems rather fishy.
Can't wait for an answer.

First of all, the New Testament also refers to Proxy baptism. 1 Corinthians 15:29 starts "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all." This could mean one of two things, either that there is no ressurection and proxy baptism is dumb, or Paul was using present-day practices to show the people that there is a ressurection. In context it becomes clear that Paul was showing that there is a ressurection as verses 21-22 read "For since by man came death by man came also the ressurection of the dead. For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Dealing with citizens of the spirit world is not the definition of occult practices. In the Bible it is essentially anything using the power of Satan to act. Often this is associated with interactions with the spirit world, yet nowhere in scripture is one defined as all-inclusive of the other. Baptism for the dead is done by the priesthood, the power from Christ to act in His name.

Being a proxy and doing for another what they can't is not being Christ. Again it is acting with Christ's authority to do his work. It is annalagous to the atonement only in the facts that the person for whom the work is performed cannot prevent the physical action and in that they can't do it for themselves.

Perfecting the saints means helping members of the church to progress. Saints is used in this sense throughout scripture, not just the Bible. The church is not an organization of people that are perfect and follow Christ all the time. That is a purpose of the church, to help people become that way.

The Book of Mormon was translated in the early 1800's. If you read many of the Revolutionary War era manuscripts the language is similar to that of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not strictly follow the Elizabethan English either. Though I have read the Book of Mormon quite a bit Elizabethan English still has many elements that are foreign to me. The Book of Mormon is not in modern English, but the English that was present at the time of its translation. It exists in whatsoever terms show the meaning of what was written by Nephite prophets.

Well, it's 11:30 my time and I've got to get up at 5:00 tomorrow. I'm sorry I can't stay longer, while you may disagree with me I hope you will see sincerity in my words. It has been said that we do not wish to destroy what you know, but that we hope that you will keep whatsoever is good in your beliefs and we will see if it can be added to. I hope you will take all my words as such, a person honestly believing that his knowledge of the gospel has done him good, believing that this knowledge as truth may do anyone such good, and trying to do you good be teaching you this knowledge.

Raysia, please keep the attitude of service. Sometimes you do get too angry to maintain it.

God wouldn't use formal language speaking to us or vice versa because that is not what he disires. he has merely wanted fellowship with man since the dawn of time. also, messiah bridges the gap. Thats why the priesthood is obsolete and all believers are saints redeemed by GOD alone)

they babtized buddah? WTF are they thinking? do they want people to hate them or what?

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Assuming you mormons are right about the whole baptise the dead thing... how can you know that God appreciates you sending him all these people.

I mean, don't you think Hitler probably deserves burning in hell for all etertnity? As much as anyone else on thie planet does anyway. So if you baptize him... and he accepts, you just sent him to heaven.

If I was God I might be a little peeved at you guys handing all these backdoor passes.

Assuming you mormons are right about the whole baptise the dead thing... how can you know that God appreciates you sending him all these people.

I mean, don't you think Hitler probably deserves burning in hell for all etertnity? As much as anyone else on thie planet does anyway. So if you baptize him... and he accepts, you just sent him to heaven.

If I was God I might be a little peeved at you guys handing all these backdoor passes.

Well I would assume God would still have the final say about it. :p

Backwoods, let's go with that for a moment, and break this down to the core.

If we're right, and you go to hell or whatever, then you'll at least have the choice to change the scenery.

If we're wrong, then we're just crazy mormons dunking people in water in the names of dead people.


Indeed, lets go with this....

The point of what these people object to....and listen carefully....

IT DOESNT MATTER if your wrong or not....it is DISRESPECTFUL to that person faith...

Do you understand?almost every religion in the world can be said to do something disrespectful to another faith... why pick on us?

Catholics say everyone else is going to hell, and they are damned for eternity.
Protestants say catholics and mormons are going to hell, and are damned for eternity.
Mormons say that everyone not mormon is going to hell, but they can still have a choice to convert to mormonism in the afterlife.

Are we seriously the most offensive ones out there?

You're repeating yourself... again. I'll give you the response I gave you last time:

I don't care what you SAY- it's what you DO that matters to me. You can rail about how hellbound we are till you get blue in the face- but leave us OUT of your ceremonies. That's where the violation (or at least, from our perspective, the FEELING of violation) comes in.

I pity the lost sheep following the false God conceived my LDS. I condemn their faith but not their people. I pray they cast aside their wicked beliefs and adolatrous ideals and necromaniacal practices and find the true light.

Forget the Mormon glow stick--its light will soon run out and leave your path darkened.

'Til another day-- Excelsior!
S. Gein

And yet, if you discovered someone had desecrated one of your family members' graves, I doubt you would react to it in this way.

this calls for direct action. i say we all go to a mormon cemetery and symbolically make them all wiccans or something. we'll have a big ceremony right there at the cemetery. and then the wiccans can claim them all as members, just like the mormons do now. it'll be great.

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.

In repsonse To QahJoh's list:

I have no idea why those people would be done more than once. It was pre-internet though, so communication of records probably would not have been that great. That is really weird though.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

But you saying they can't have that choice is the real insult.

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.That wouild be utterly rediculous and unrelated. but on the other hand, if someone pretended they were JFK while having a little fun with their wife, would that be disrespectful to JFK? :P Totally unrelated to the topic, but it counters the absurdity of your example :P

In repsonse To QahJoh's list:

I have no idea why those people would be done more than once. It was pre-internet though, so communication of records probably would not have been that great. That is really weird though.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

But you saying they can't have that choice is the real insult.

And why, pray tell, should I be expected accept YOUR opinion on what constitutes an insult when you won't accept mine? :lol:

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.That wouild be utterly rediculous and unrelated. but on the other hand, if someone pretended they were JFK while having a little fun with their wife, would that be disrespectful to JFK? :P Totally unrelated to the topic, but it counters the absurdity of your example :P

How is it absurd? It's the same principle. You believe people have to go through rite X in order to even have the OPTION of going to Heaven. Other people see rite X as offensive, you tell them tough shit.

I see my example as being quite accurate. Feel free to argue otherwise.

In repsonse To QahJoh's list:

I have no idea why those people would be done more than once. It was pre-internet though, so communication of records probably would not have been that great. That is really weird though.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

But you saying they can't have that choice is the real insult.

And why, pray tell, should I be expected accept YOUR opinion on what constitutes an insult when you won't accept mine? :lol:Because your opinion makes no sense? All you have done is analogize it to rape and grave-pissing, which is totally off-base

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?

In repsonse To QahJoh's list:

I have no idea why those people would be done more than once. It was pre-internet though, so communication of records probably would not have been that great. That is really weird though.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

But you saying they can't have that choice is the real insult.

And why, pray tell, should I be expected accept YOUR opinion on what constitutes an insult when you won't accept mine? :lol:Because your opinion makes no sense? All you have done is analogize it to rape and grave-pissing, which is totally off-base

In YOUR opinion. Which leads us back to my previous post.

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.That wouild be utterly rediculous and unrelated. but on the other hand, if someone pretended they were JFK while having a little fun with their wife, would that be disrespectful to JFK? :P Totally unrelated to the topic, but it counters the absurdity of your example :P

How is it absurd? It's the same principle. You believe people have to go through rite X in order to even have the OPTION of going to Heaven. Other people see rite X as offensive, you tell them tough shit.

I see my example as being quite accurate. Feel free to argue otherwise.For one thing, the actions you describe require physical contact with the dead body, which is not only unanimously disrespectful, but also illegal.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?I do. If you're right, and all you have to do is accept christ and you're saved, then what does it matter?

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.

And similarly, in my example, if the "corpse orgy" folks are wrong, well, they're just a bunch of nuts who humped Raysia's dead grandma, and broadcast it on the Net.

Raysia, where's your spirit of tolerance? :roll:

Hakartopia, was the embalming question for Raysia or me?
I'm leaving for now. I'll look at the thread again later if it's not too much longer.

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.no, you just told me I'm catholic. That's different than telling me I can BECOME catholic.

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.That wouild be utterly rediculous and unrelated. but on the other hand, if someone pretended they were JFK while having a little fun with their wife, would that be disrespectful to JFK? :P Totally unrelated to the topic, but it counters the absurdity of your example :P

How is it absurd? It's the same principle. You believe people have to go through rite X in order to even have the OPTION of going to Heaven. Other people see rite X as offensive, you tell them tough shit.

I see my example as being quite accurate. Feel free to argue otherwise.For one thing, the actions you describe require physical contact with the dead body, which is not only unanimously disrespectful, but also illegal.



Spritual or Physical...whats the difference?
The intent is the same!

well they'd be dead, doesnt matter much thenIf they also find out they get to accept the baptism, I think it does.
ca someone answer my statement?

or mine for that matter?This one?
And did you bother getting their consent?

No, the one about Anubis.


While on the subject of Anubis, how would you feel if I dug up your mothers body and enbalmed it, because I believe that's the only way into Heaven?
If I'm right, she goes to Heaven. If I'm wrong, I'm just some nutcase doing weird things, right?

Or if you believed that the only way for someone's spirit to get to Heaven was to have an orgy with their corpse, film it, and broadcast it on the Internet. Same principle.

Please, Raysia, do tell us how you'd feel about that.That wouild be utterly rediculous and unrelated. but on the other hand, if someone pretended they were JFK while having a little fun with their wife, would that be disrespectful to JFK? :P Totally unrelated to the topic, but it counters the absurdity of your example :P

How is it absurd? It's the same principle. You believe people have to go through rite X in order to even have the OPTION of going to Heaven. Other people see rite X as offensive, you tell them tough shit.

I see my example as being quite accurate. Feel free to argue otherwise.For one thing, the actions you describe require physical contact with the dead body, which is not only unanimously disrespectful, but also illegal.

OH! So THAT'S "unanimously" disrespectful, eh? According to WHO? To YOU. But not to THEM. THEY say, "it's not disrespectful, YOU just don't understand. You're wrong. You're spiritually unenlightened. We're helping them, blah blah blah. Oh, and we don't care what you think."

It's the same damn thing. Wake up.

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.no, you just told me I'm catholic. That's different than telling me I can BECOME catholic.

No, there's no difference. When you Mormons baptize someone living, are they then a Mormon? Or do they have the choice to be a Mormon after being baptized.

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.no, you just told me I'm catholic. That's different than telling me I can BECOME catholic.

No no no, you're just *considered* to be a Catholic, and only by them. Don't pay them any attention.

Hakartopia, was the embalming question for Raysia or me?

Whomever feels like answering it.

For one thing, the actions you describe require physical contact with the dead body, which is not only unanimously disrespectful, but also illegal.

And your actions require contact with my soul, which is a whole lot more disrespectful!

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?I do. If you're right, and all you have to do is accept christ and you're saved, then what does it matter?

Your ignoring the point and you KNOW it Raysia.

The whole point is........these peoples faith HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS.
These people would NOT accept a christian baptism, while in life...what makes you think thast they would in Death?

Why would you be so presumptious to assume that they would have any intention of changing thier minds?

What makes you think that there is NO chance that these people arent ALREADY in heaven?

Why do these keep taking place against the wishes of that persons religious community?

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.no, you just told me I'm catholic. That's different than telling me I can BECOME catholic.

No, there's no difference. When you Mormons baptize someone living, are they then a Mormon? Or do they have the choice to be a Mormon after being baptized.That's different. You can not baptize by proxy if the person is still alive. If they are alive, they make the choice themselves. If they are dead, we perform the ceremony in their stead, and they choose whether to accept it or tell us to bugger off.

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?I do. If you're right, and all you have to do is accept christ and you're saved, then what does it matter?

Your ignoring the point and you KNOW it Raysia.

The whole point is........these peoples faith HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS.
These people would NOT accept a christian baptism, while in life...what makes you think thast they would in Death?

Why would you be so presumptious to assume that they would have any intention of changing thier minds?

What makes you think that there is NO chance that these people arent ALREADY in heaven?

Why do these keep taking place against the wishes of that persons religious community?What makes you think you know what the people in the afterlife want? You're going to decide their fate for them?

Raysia, I would just like to tell you that, in the spirit of good will, this morning at Church, we held a special Easter baptism ceremony, where we baptized every Mormon, past and present, by proxy. Just to let you know, you're all considered Catholics too.You forcibly converted me to your religion? Well that's completely different! Now I'm offended!

I didn't forcibly convert you to anything. I've just given you the option of being a Catholic, say, if you died tomorrow before you had the chance on your own to convert to Catholicism. Think about it this way. If we're right, we just guaranteed your place in heaven. If we're wrong, we're just a bunch of nuts with a bucket of water.no, you just told me I'm catholic. That's different than telling me I can BECOME catholic.

No, there's no difference. When you Mormons baptize someone living, are they then a Mormon? Or do they have the choice to be a Mormon after being baptized.That's different. You can not baptize by proxy if the person is still alive. If they are alive, they make the choice themselves. If they are dead, we perform the ceremony in their stead, and they choose whether to accept it or tell us to bugger off.

You didn't even begin to attempt to maybe sort of try to answer my question.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?I do. If you're right, and all you have to do is accept christ and you're saved, then what does it matter?

Your ignoring the point and you KNOW it Raysia.

The whole point is........these peoples faith HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS.
These people would NOT accept a christian baptism, while in life...what makes you think thast they would in Death?

Why would you be so presumptious to assume that they would have any intention of changing thier minds?

What makes you think that there is NO chance that these people arent ALREADY in heaven?

Why do these keep taking place against the wishes of that persons religious community?What makes you think you know what the people in the afterlife want? You're going to decide their fate for them?

Answer the questions!

Or is it that you cannot form a sound arguement against superior logic?

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Which is exactly what the corpse orgy people could say... :roll:

So tell me, Raysia, is that "cool" with you? Should I go get a shovel?

answer the questions!

Or is it that you cannot form a sound arguement against superior logic?I'm sorry, I thought I did. Ask one specific question please, and I promise you I'll answer it.

Either way, they still have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they decline it, it never happened. It's that simple.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?I do. If you're right, and all you have to do is accept christ and you're saved, then what does it matter?

Your ignoring the point and you KNOW it Raysia.

The whole point is........these peoples faith HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS.
These people would NOT accept a christian baptism, while in life...what makes you think thast they would in Death?

Why would you be so presumptious to assume that they would have any intention of changing thier minds?

What makes you think that there is NO chance that these people arent ALREADY in heaven?

Why do these keep taking place against the wishes of that persons religious community?What makes you think you know what the people in the afterlife want? You're going to decide their fate for them?

It's no more arrogant than YOU thinking YOU have the right to perform ceremonies NO ONE asked for! Would you like me to circumcize you in your sleep?

answer the questions!

Or is it that you cannot form a sound arguement against superior logic?I'm sorry, I thought I did. Ask one specific question please, and I promise you I'll answer it.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration?

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Which is exactly what the corpse orgy people could say... :roll:

So tell me, Raysia, is that "cool" with you? Should I go get a shovel?

You know, your example is way to extreme. I like mine better. It's just as offensive, but in the same way that the Mormons' actions are offensive, as opposed to necrophilia, which is a whole different kind of offensive.

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Which is exactly what the corpse orgy people could say... :roll:

So tell me, Raysia, is that "cool" with you? Should I go get a shovel?Oh come on.

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Which is exactly what the corpse orgy people could say... :roll:

So tell me, Raysia, is that "cool" with you? Should I go get a shovel?

You know, your example is way to extreme. I like mine better. It's just as offensive, but in the same way that the Mormons' actions are offensive, as opposed to necrophilia, which is a whole different kind of offensive.

I think my example is just fine. It's meant to be extreme. I want to know how Raysia would feel if he was in that position. Mere "grave desecration" apparently wasn't enough to get a reaction.

Look, its one thing to push your religion on others; but to 'force' people to be baptized when we have no clue if they are living or not is just disrespectful, you wanna boost your numbers, go ask LIVING PEOPLE who can respond. =/we're not forcing them to be baptized. Baptism requires a convenant. If they refuse to take that covenant, then the baptism is moot, void, worthless, and basically never happened.

Which is exactly what the corpse orgy people could say... :roll:

So tell me, Raysia, is that "cool" with you? Should I go get a shovel?Oh come on.

As I said before; feel free to argue how it's different. You find X offensive, the people performing X don't- and they don't care that you do. Seems pretty sound to me.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for? because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for? because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

Well, MY general impression is that I've been talking to a brick wall. Or rather, several.

I'm giving myself another... let's say... 10 minutes... to waste on this. And... Go.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for? because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

Well, MY general impression is that I've been talking to a brick wall. Or rather, several.

I'm giving myself another... let's say... 10 minutes... to waste on this. And... Go.Yeah, you've been talking to a brick wall, and I've been trying to tell an 5 year old kid why Ghengis Khan invaded Russia...

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

We are getting no where.

I suggest we drop this subject.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.


No...your ignoring the faith of these people by using your own religious ceremonioes in place of thier own.
Jews for example, in a Christian Baptism......

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?
because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

No. Baptism is only required in CHRISTIAN ceremonies...not all of them....thus....my comment about other peoples religious beliefs.

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?[/quote]

I see you using the same old lines over and over...but not addessing anything other than the fact that these practices will continue even though it is angering the Jewish(and others) community.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.


No...your ignoring the faith of these people by using your own religious ceremonioes in place of thier own.
Jews for example, in a Christian Baptism......*sigh* You are seriously not listening to a thing I am saying. It replaces nothing. If they decline it, it never happenned. But that is for them to decide.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?
because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

No. Baptism is only required in CHRISTIAN ceremonies...not all of them....thus....my comment about other peoples religious beliefs.Umm... so what, you have this view that every religion is right, and everyone will have the afterlife they believed in on earth?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

I see you using the same old lines over and over...but not addessing anything other than the fact that these practices will continue even though it is angering the Jewish(and others) community.And I still don't see why people are getting so angry. To me, it seems like they are angry because they don't know what's going on. Please, tell me specifically why you would be angry, knowing what you know now about proxy baptisms.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for? because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

Well, MY general impression is that I've been talking to a brick wall. Or rather, several.

I'm giving myself another... let's say... 10 minutes... to waste on this. And... Go.Yeah, you've been talking to a brick wall, and I've been trying to tell an 5 year old kid why Ghengis Khan invaded Russia...

Care to explain that?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.

my views on this mormon babtisim nonsense, "well people arent joining our religion while they're alive, so lets make them when they're dead so they dont have a choice! brilliant!"

And I still don't see why people are getting so angry. To me, it seems like they are angry because they don't know what's going on. Please, tell me specifically why you would be angry, knowing what you know now about proxy baptisms.

Think back to my corpse orgy example.

RAYSIA, YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE IF I GET DELETED FOR THIS, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT JACKASS WHO WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

RAYSIA, YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE IF I GET DELETED FOR THIS, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT JACKASS WHO WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE.calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

RAYSIA, YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE IF I GET DELETED FOR THIS, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT JACKASS WHO WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE.[/size]

He has an opinion. He's entitled to it. And we're entitled to disagree with him.

Forgive me if I don't see the above as being very productive.

And again...I ask you why you refuse to take anyone elses religious views into consideration? Like what? If they want to be catholic in the next life, then they can be catholic. If they want to be atheist, then they can be atheist. All we're doing is giving the option to change.


No...your ignoring the faith of these people by using your own religious ceremonioes in place of thier own.
Jews for example, in a Christian Baptism......*sigh* You are seriously not listening to a thing I am saying. It replaces nothing. If they decline it, it never happenned. But that is for them to decide.

Why do you assume that these peoples salvation hasnt already been accounted for?
because everyone requires baptism for salvation, and baptisms performed by those without priesthood authority are void, according to our beliefs. I discussed priesthood authority with you in another thread.

No. Baptism is only required in CHRISTIAN ceremonies...not all of them....thus....my comment about other peoples religious beliefs.Umm... so what, you have this view that every religion is right, and everyone will have the afterlife they believed in on earth?

Why do you not understand, nor address, the anger that many mnay people feel about this situation?...what do you think we're talking about here?

I see you using the same old lines over and over...but not addessing anything other than the fact that these practices will continue even though it is angering the Jewish(and others) community.And I still don't see why people are getting so angry. To me, it seems like they are angry because they don't know what's going on. Please, tell me specifically why you would be angry, knowing what you know now about proxy baptisms.


By performing a religious ceremony in my name that is contrary to my beliefs...it is effectively attempting to invalidate my beliefs.

This is why its offensive...why cant you understand that?

It doesnt matter what the end result is.....the mere fact that the ceremony takes place....is enough.

RAYSIA, YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE IF I GET DELETED FOR THIS, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT JACKASS WHO WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE. i like you man, please dont go away :cry:

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself. Think about this. Einstein's parents have been baptized FIFTEEN times.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then? i wonder if they've babtized anyone in my family? link please?

Think about this. Einstein's parents have been baptized FIFTEEN times.Like I said, By accident.

RAYSIA, YOU ARE WRONG! YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE IF I GET DELETED FOR THIS, YOU ARE AN IGNORANT JACKASS WHO WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT COMING FROM THE OTHER SIDE.[/size]

He has an opinion. He's entitled to it. And we're entitled to disagree with him.

Forgive me if I don't see the above as being very productive.

You're forgiven. It wasn't really meant to be productive, obviously.

And I still don't see why people are getting so angry. To me, it seems like they are angry because they don't know what's going on. Please, tell me specifically why you would be angry, knowing what you know now about proxy baptisms.

is it really that hard to see that what you guys are doing is seen as a symbolic spiritual violation of a dead person and their faith?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then? i wonder if they've babtized anyone in my family? link please?

familysearch.org. Click on "International Genealogy Index". And prepare to be pissed.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

If I baptized your entire deceased family tree into the Church of Satan, how would you react?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to equate physical laws of space/time with spiritual laws of space/time?

It's not like a rape. it's like a movie. You don't like something, you edit it out.

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The other thing I understand (and which you don't seem willing to cop to, although another Mormon poster was) is that you guys just plain don't give a shit what we think. Because if you did, you would stop.

Good luck trying to explain THAT away.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

If I baptized your entire deceased family tree into the Church of Satan, how would you react?I'd be mad and offended.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to.

For pete's sake, how many times have I said this now? i think My post count has gone up 200 just in this thread!

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The other thing I understand (and which you don't seem willing to cop to, although another Mormon poster was) is that you guys just plain don't give a shit what we think. Because if you did, you would stop.

Good luck trying to explain THAT away.You're right.

I don't care what you think. I care what the guy I'm baptizing thinks.

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to equate physical laws of space/time with spiritual laws of space/time?

It's not like a rape. it's like a movie. You don't like something, you edit it out.

I am saying you ARE performing a physical action. A ceremony IS an action. Sorry if you don't understand that.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

If I baptized your entire deceased family tree into the Church of Satan, how would you react?I'd be mad and offended.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to.

For pete's sake, how many times have I said this now? i think My post count has gone up 200 just in this thread!

What are you doing, then, if not baptizing dead people into your religion?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The other thing I understand (and which you don't seem willing to cop to, although another Mormon poster was) is that you guys just plain don't give a shit what we think. Because if you did, you would stop.

Good luck trying to explain THAT away.You're right.

I don't care what you think. I care what the guy I'm baptizing thinks.

Thanks for your honesty. It's appreciated. Although the baptisms (and your spiritual chauvanism) aren't.

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.


Read this until you undertand it.

when this ritual is done...it is an attempt to offer the person "a chance to enter your vision of Heaven" Yes?

This implies....THAT THE PERSONS FAITH....and thier vision of heaven, and beliefs...are wrong, and you are right.

THAT is disrespectful to that person, and thier faith...

Do you understand?

holy fucking shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to equate physical laws of space/time with spiritual laws of space/time?

It's not like a rape. it's like a movie. You don't like something, you edit it out.

I am saying you ARE performing a physical action. A ceremony IS an action. Sorry if you don't understand that.Yes. I am doing a physical action on myself, which has spiritual effects on someone who has no body.

In the afterlife, there are different laws of physics.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)

Please accept my condolences. This infofile might be of some assistance, perhaps you can contact the person they mention and ask them to remove the name (although obviously, that DOESN'T make up for the action itself).

http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

If I baptized your entire deceased family tree into the Church of Satan, how would you react?I'd be mad and offended.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to.

For pete's sake, how many times have I said this now? i think My post count has gone up 200 just in this thread!

What are you doing, then, if not baptizing dead people into your religion?I'm going to say this one more time... no I'll say it 10 more times:

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to equate physical laws of space/time with spiritual laws of space/time?

It's not like a rape. it's like a movie. You don't like something, you edit it out.

I am saying you ARE performing a physical action. A ceremony IS an action. Sorry if you don't understand that.Yes. I am doing a physical action on myself, which has spiritual effects on someone who has no body.

In the afterlife, there are different laws of physics.

A physical action in SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME. You are co-opting THEIR identity, and are being baptized as a stand-in FOR THEM.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it?

where is the link for the list?

calm down... I'm listening to you guys, you just don't like my response...

Why don't we like the idea of our dead ancestors being baptized by your church then?Because you think we're converting them to mormonism, and effectively saying that their beliefs don't matter.

Entirely untrue.

If I baptized your entire deceased family tree into the Church of Satan, how would you react?I'd be mad and offended.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to.

For pete's sake, how many times have I said this now? i think My post count has gone up 200 just in this thread!

What are you doing, then, if not baptizing dead people into your religion?I'm going to say this one more time... no I'll say it 10 more times:

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

And I'll give you just ONE rebuttal.

But you're STILL BAPTIZING. Period.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)

Please accept my condolences. This infofile might be of some assistance, perhaps you can contact the person they mention and ask them to remove the name (although obviously, that DOESN'T make up for the action itself).

http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html is there some kind of legal action i can take?

I'm not understanding you, and you're not understanding me.

I understand you perfectly. That's what makes me so angry.Really. Then, if you understand me, what exactly is being forced upon them, that they can not nullify with a simple 'no thanks' 'screw you' or 'bugger off'?

The rite itself.wrong. The rite itself can be nullified.

Wrong. Whether you nullify it later or not, the rite has already taken place. That's like saying you can "nullify" a rape, or any other offensive physical act.I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to equate physical laws of space/time with spiritual laws of space/time?

It's not like a rape. it's like a movie. You don't like something, you edit it out.

I am saying you ARE performing a physical action. A ceremony IS an action. Sorry if you don't understand that.Yes. I am doing a physical action on myself, which has spiritual effects on someone who has no body.

In the afterlife, there are different laws of physics.

A physical action in SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME. You are co-opting THEIR identity, and are being baptized as a stand-in FOR THEM.Yes. now, say it all together. I get baptized in someone's name. They choose to accept it or not. If they decline, then it is as if it never happened.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it?

Who the hell are YOU? What gives YOU the RIGHT???

:evil: :cry:

where is the link for the list?

What list?

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it?

Who the hell are YOU?

:evil:I'm not. All I'm doing is allowing them to make that choice for themselves. Sheesh

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it?

Who the hell are YOU?

:evil:I'm not. All I'm doing is allowing them to make that choice for themselves. Sheesh

Wrong.

You are performing the ritual with, or without the permission of that person.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it?

Who the hell are YOU?

:evil:I'm not. All I'm doing is allowing them to make that choice for themselves. Sheesh

And who gets to choose if the baptism TAKES PLACE?

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it? ok, i am trying to be calm. i will say this once. he cant choose because hes fucking dead!!! and my family are NOT mormons. and the idea that you people would babtize my dead realatives is compleatly and utterly unforgiveable, you know a phone call would have been nice asking permission. but i guess you dont care do you?

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

valia said his great grandfather was baptised, where did he get the info from?

From the previously posted infofile:

I. Search the International Genealogical Index ("the IGI")
The information comes from submissions by their membership 1, 2 , and it is not always accurate. As you search the IGI you may be surprised to find the names of your parents, of your grandparents, and of your great-grandparents, those who have bequeathed to you all you are of body and mind. If you feel a special connection to those who have gone before you and an increased responsibility to those who will follow, you will insist on removal of their names from the baptismal lists.
Click here to begin your search.

II. Request Removal Of Inappropriate Names
We were informed that some who have discovered their relative's names in the IGI and reported the inappropriate submission, have had the names removed. E-mail specific requests for name removal to Stephen Kendall: KendallSK@LDSChurch.org Request that names be removed from the IGI, the Ordinance Index, and all other LDS records with misleading information about your family members.

Alternate address:
Stephen Kendall
Church and Family History Department
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
35 North West Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150-3400

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it? ok, i am trying to be calm. i will say this once. he cant choose because hes f--- dead!!! and my family are NOT mormons. and the idea that you people would babtize my dead realatives is compleatly and utterly unforgiveable, you know a phone call would have been nice asking permission. but i guess you dont care do you?You do not believe in an afterlife. We do.

If you do not believe in an afterlife, then why do you care if we do?

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

valia said his great grandfather was baptised, where did he get the info from?

Familysearch.org, under "International Genealogy Index".

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims, and if it seemed like they were going to KEEP doing it- which is essentially what I'm hearing they intend to do.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).THEN
WRITE
THEM
A
FREAKING
LETTER.

I already gave you the address, twice.

I even gave you the frikkin phone number.

holy f--- shit. i dont believe it, they babtized my dead grandfather. this is unacceptable (im not kidding either, i am very angry)what is unacceptable? And who are you to decide whether it is acceptable? When does your grandfather get to choose to accept it? ok, i am trying to be calm. i will say this once. he cant choose because hes f--- dead!!! and my family are NOT mormons. and the idea that you people would babtize my dead realatives is compleatly and utterly unforgiveable, you know a phone call would have been nice asking permission. but i guess you dont care do you?You do not believe in an afterlife. We do.

If you do not believe in an afterlife, then why do you care if we do? well im undecided of the moment, but the rest of my family does, in fact, they're methodist christians. and im not quite sure how my dad will take the news when i call him tommorow. also, why would you even do that? its disrespectful to the dead. but its like im talking to a brick wall, so i dont know why i bother

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).THEN
WRITE
THEM
A
FREAKING
LETTER.

I already gave you the address, twice.

I even gave you the frikkin phone number.

Had you read a post I made at the top of this page, you'd see I already have it. Email, too.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims, and if it seemed like they were going to KEEP doing it- which is essentially what I'm hearing they intend to do.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).

Are we sure that that's the correct website? Raysia, is familysearch.org the correct website? Because it doesn't mention anything about that being a database for people that they've proxy baptized.

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).THEN
WRITE
THEM
A
FREAKING
LETTER.

I already gave you the address, twice.

I even gave you the frikkin phone number.

Had you read a post I made at the top of this page, you'd see I already have it. Email, too.then what's the big deal?

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims, and if it seemed like they were going to KEEP doing it- which is essentially what I'm hearing they intend to do.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).

Are we sure that that's the correct website? Raysia, is familysearch.org the correct website? Because it doesn't mention anything about that being a database for people that they've proxy baptized. http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

Me: Your entire family tree is now baptized into the Church of Satan.

How is that different?

I just checked the site.

Thankfully, none of my family showed up on it.

Same here. There might be people on that list that I'm related to, but I don't know it.

As of yet, none of my relatives have showed up. If they did, I honestly don't know what I'd do; I'd be furious, particularly if they were Holocaust victims, and if it seemed like they were going to KEEP doing it- which is essentially what I'm hearing they intend to do.

I'm seriously surprised that no Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims have attacked Mormons over this (note that I am not advocating this).

Are we sure that that's the correct website? Raysia, is familysearch.org the correct website? Because it doesn't mention anything about that being a database for people that they've proxy baptized.

According to the Jewishgen info file:

Recently, Chaim Freedman of Israel, who was born in Australia, discovered that many of the most distinguished Australian rabbis and Jewish leaders of the past were listed in the IGI, indicating that posthumous baptisms were performed on them.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

Once again...you fail to realize....

YOU CANNOT "forget this ever happened"...its DONE.....once performed you cant "take it back!"

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

Me: Your entire family tree is now baptized into the Church of Satan.

How is that different?Umm... now you're making even less sense.

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

Once again...you fail to realize....

YOU CANNOT "forget this ever happened"...its DONE.....once performed you cant "take it back!"Really... you know this? You know how the mind of a dead guy works?

Another infuriating detail, again from the Infofile:

It has been discovered that yet another major Jewish work has been used by the Mormon Church for posthumous baptisms. Most deceased persons identified in Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern's book, First American Jewish Families--some 30,000 persons--have been discovered in the International Genealogical Index (IGI). The IGI is a database of some 250 million people for whom some Mormon ordinance, usually posthumous baptism, has been performed. First American Jewish Families identifies more than 35,000 people who are descendants of the earliest Jewish immigrants to the United States. Rabbi Stern is considered by many to [be] the father of contemporary Jewish genealogy.

So not only are they baptizing Jews, they're using Jewish sources to get the information.

Cute. :roll:

But we're not baptizing you into our religion. All we are doing is giving you the option to convert.

I'm confused. Maybe you should enlighten me.

You are offering proxy baptisms to deceased people, correct? I am offering proxy baptisms to deceased people. If you don't take the covenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of your religion, right? If you don't take the convenant that goes along with being baptized, you don't actually become a member of my religion. People are free to decline your "invitation", right? People are free to decline my "invitation". Yet you would be offended if I did this to your ancestors. Why would you be offended if I did this to your ancestors?you didn't say that. Your words were that I am now a member of the church of satan. Big symantical difference there... big one.

No, my words were now you are considered a Catholic. By us. The Catholic Church. That was a different example, by the way. Why don't you go back and read the example that I'm actually talking about now?OK, now you're still talking about something different.

You: You're baptized, you are now a member

Us: You're now baptized, you can either: Become a member, or forget this ever happened.

Once again...you fail to realize....

YOU CANNOT "forget this ever happened"...its DONE.....once performed you cant "take it back!"Really... you know this? You know how the mind of a dead guy works?

No MORE OR LESS than YOU

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?

your ten minutes are up. We have gotten nowhere.

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.

Umm... now you're making even less sense.

Yes, actually, I realize that. Let me rephrase. Ignore all the other examples I've given in the past.

My church, the Church of Matt is Great, is now performing proxy baptisms of all deceased, ever. The way these proxy baptisms work is members of the Church of Matt is Great stand in for the deceased and take the baptismal vows for the deceased. Now, without performing the covenant, the deceased are not technically in my Church, but they can posthumously take the covenant and become a member, if they so desire. That way, if they get to the afterlife and find out that my Church's view on the God, namely, that I am God, and only those who have accepted me as the Lord and Savior can enter heaven, is correct, they will be able to take said convenant and get into heaven. I have performed this ritual in the name of all your deceased relatives, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and even Jesus Christ. How do you feel about this?

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please?

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy? well it seems the lds has it out for my family, cause i just looked again and my grandma's name showed up too! wtf is wrong with these people? TAR thank for starting this so i could find out what the mormons were doing to my dead relatives! there should be legal action about this! i am angry!

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.


How can I be sure?

Do you have an e-mail address for the Church Raysia?

I have to know.

Umm... now you're making even less sense.

Yes, actually, I realize that. Let me rephrase. Ignore all the other examples I've given in the past.

My church, the Church of Matt is Great, is now performing proxy baptisms of all deceased, ever. The way these proxy baptisms work is members of the Church of Matt is Great stand in for the deceased and take the baptismal vows for the deceased. Now, without performing the covenant, the deceased are not technically in my Church, but they can posthumously take the covenant and become a member, if they so desire. That way, if they get to the afterlife and find out that my Church's view on the God, namely, that I am God, and only those who have accepted me as the Lord and Savior can enter heaven, is correct, they will be able to take said convenant and get into heaven. I have performed this ritual in the name of all your deceased relatives, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and even Jesus Christ. How do you feel about this?In that case, I wouldn't be offended. I would think you were a lunatic.

But, if in the afterlife, I find out you're right, then I'll thank you :P

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy? well it seems the lds has it out for my family, cause i just looked again and my grandma's name showed up too! wtf is wrong with these people? TAR thank for starting this so i could find out what the mormons were doing to my dead relatives! there should be legal action about this! i am angry!you know what? You have relatives.

Chances are, one of them is mormon, and did it themselves.

Take it up with them.

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy? well it seems the lds has it out for my family, cause i just looked again and my grandma's name showed up too! wtf is wrong with these people? TAR thank for starting this so i could find out what the mormons were doing to my dead relatives! there should be legal action about this! i am angry!you know what? You have relatives.

Chances are, one of them is mormon, and did it themselves.

Take it up with them. bullshit, i come from a very small family (less than 34 people) and i knew my grandparents very well, and they were not mormons, but methodists. so wouldnt you agree i have a right to be angry?

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?

Yeah, I searched that second link and found about 50 of my relatives.

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not?

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy? well it seems the lds has it out for my family, cause i just looked again and my grandma's name showed up too! wtf is wrong with these people? TAR thank for starting this so i could find out what the mormons were doing to my dead relatives! there should be legal action about this! i am angry!you know what? You have relatives.

Chances are, one of them is mormon, and did it themselves.

Take it up with them. bullshit, i come from a very small family (less than 34 people) and i knew my grandparents very well, and they were not mormons, but methodists. so wouldnt you agree i have a right to be angry?You always have the right to be angry

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

No, I think a few more times would be good.

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

His name comes up in the search.....what Im asking is does this mean it DID take place?

If you dont know.....do you know of an e-MAIL address where I can inquire?

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

His name comes up in the search.....what Im asking is does this mean it DID take place?

If you dont know.....do you know of an e-MAIL address where I can inquire?Oh, whoops, my bad.

No, that list means nothing, upon further examination.

All that is is genealogical information, desipite what Qahjoh said when he posted it

If you go to a local stake center and use their database, you might find something.

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

His name comes up in the search.....what Im asking is does this mean it DID take place?

If you dont know.....do you know of an e-MAIL address where I can inquire?

If it's there, it means they already performed the rite, or are planning to soon. If it says the document was submitted several years ago, you can be almost sure it's been done.

Raysia....how can I find out for sure if this was done in my grandfathers name or not? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp

Have I posted the link enough? :)

His name comes up in the search.....what Im asking is does this mean it DID take place?

If you dont know.....do you know of an e-MAIL address where I can inquire?Oh, whoops, my bad.

No, that list means nothing, upon further examination.

All that is is genealogical information, desipite what Qahjoh said when he posted it

Really? It was my impression that the OTHER databased were "just" genealogical information".

Can you give us a link, please?

I don't want to have freaked anyone out needlessly, Raysia, so if you can post something from an official LDS site, I'd greatly appreciate it.

If it's there, it means they already performed the rite, or are planning to soon. If it says the document was submitted several years ago, you can be almost sure it's been done.Wrong. if it's there, that means somebody submitted the name for use in a pedigree chart to find their ancestors.

That's all it means.

I don't want to have freaked anyone out needlessly, Raysia, so if you can post something from an official LDS site, I'd greatly appreciate it.That is the official geneaology research site.

But it is not full-access.

To get full-access, go to a stake center and ask for the geneaology computers.

I don't want to have freaked anyone out needlessly, Raysia, so if you can post something from an official LDS site, I'd greatly appreciate it.That is the official geneaology research site.

But it is not full-access.

To get full-access, go to a stake center and ask for the geneaology computers.

That's not what I asked. I want to know if you can post anything that explicitly says whether or not an entry in the IGI indicates that a baptism was performed or not.

If it's there, it means they already performed the rite, or are planning to soon. If it says the document was submitted several years ago, you can be almost sure it's been done.Wrong. if it's there, that means somebody submitted the name for use in a pedigree chart to find their ancestors.

That's all it means.

Not according to this woman, who identifies herself as a Mormon:

http://www.livgenmi.com/fhcigi.htm

First, though, it would be helpful to understand what the Mormons (or LDS, as we call ourselves) are doing with the IGI. This huge database was designed to keep track of “temple work” undertaken on behalf of deceased persons. Temple “ordinances” are performed by living church members as proxies for the deceased: baptism for the dead (c.f. I Corinthians 15:29), the endowment (a sort of course of instruction) and the sealing of married couples and of children to parents (c.f. Matthew 16:19). Mormons believe that many persons who have died are waiting for these ordinances; others may yet decide to accept them. Since [b]it is an index to temple work[b], and since many members of the church do not (or in the past could not) check to see whether work has been done, many temple ordinances are unnecessarily repeated. This explains why there are multiple entries for the same person.

To me, this sounds like "An entry in the IGI means a proxy baptism".

Am I misunderstanding her?

I don't want to have freaked anyone out needlessly, Raysia, so if you can post something from an official LDS site, I'd greatly appreciate it.That is the official geneaology research site.

But it is not full-access.

To get full-access, go to a stake center and ask for the geneaology computers.

That's not what I asked. I want to know if you can post anything that explicitly says whether or not an entry in the IGI indicates that a baptism was performed or not.It would say so.

It would have a whole bunch more dates, including:

baptism
confirmed
ordained to aaronic priesthood
ordained to melkezadik priesthood
endowed
married

All that.

As it has none of those, it is not a church records site, merely what it says it is... a geneaology research site.

EDIT: If it DOES say that stuff somewhere, I missed it

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.aspThanks

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.aspThankswrong link, I apologize.

Hmm.

According to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/genealogy,

The Mormons practice baptism for the dead, an ordinance where baptism is performed on living people for and on behalf of those who have died. They believe in this manner they may assist their deceased relatives gain postmortem entrance into the church. In the last century, they engaged on a large scale program of copying all available records that would be useful for genealogy, microfilming them and constructing an index, the International Genealogical Index (IGI). The IGI contains all the ancestral records that their followers had compiled.

If this is correct, then it would suggest that the IGI includes proxy baptism records, but that a mere entry in it shouldn't be taken as proof that person X was indeed baptised by the LDS.

Does that sound accurate, Raysia?

Hmm.

According to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/genealogy,

The Mormons practice baptism for the dead, an ordinance where baptism is performed on living people for and on behalf of those who have died. They believe in this manner they may assist their deceased relatives gain postmortem entrance into the church. In the last century, they engaged on a large scale program of copying all available records that would be useful for genealogy, microfilming them and constructing an index, the International Genealogical Index (IGI). The IGI contains all the ancestral records that their followers had compiled.

If this is correct, then it would suggest that the IGI includes proxy baptism records, but that a mere entry in it shouldn't be taken as proof that person X was indeed baptised by the LDS.

Does that sound accurate, Raysia?Umm, yes, it includes them... we're working on creating a database including everyone who has ever lived... we include everyone... so yeah, those who had proxy baptisms done would be on there, but so would everybody else.

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.aspThankswrong link, I apologize.Uh, ok. Then what is the right one?

It would say so.

It would have a whole bunch more dates, including:

baptism
confirmed
ordained to aaronic priesthood
ordained to melkezadik priesthood
endowed
married

All that.

As it has none of those, it is not a church records site, merely what it says it is... a geneaology research site.

EDIT: If it DOES say that stuff somewhere, I missed it

Sorry, I found it (believe me, I wish I hadn't.) :cry:

I think this is pretty straightforward:

http://261.byu.edu/familysearch.html

The International Genealogical Index (IGI): The IGI contains several hundred million deceased individuals extracted from vital records or submitted by LDS church members, all of whom have had their temple work done.

So, Raysia, the only thing left to determine is, is "temple work" proxy baptisms, or can it mean other stuff, too? As of right now, I'm thinking I was right. If this is not the case, I'd REALLY like to know.

Wait...

MY grandfathers name appeared on this site when I searched THAT link...

Does THIS mean that He, too, was baptised by proxy?possibly.I know it's alreayd been posted, but could you show me the link please? http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.aspThankswrong link, I apologize.Uh, ok. Then what is the right one?I do not believe it is on the internet.

Such church records are classified.

You might be able to access it if you go to a church stake center and use their computers there.

It would say so.

It would have a whole bunch more dates, including:

baptism
confirmed
ordained to aaronic priesthood
ordained to melkezadik priesthood
endowed
married

All that.

As it has none of those, it is not a church records site, merely what it says it is... a geneaology research site.

EDIT: If it DOES say that stuff somewhere, I missed it

Sorry, I found it (believe me, I wish I hadn't.) :cry:

I think this is pretty straightforward:

http://261.byu.edu/familysearch.html

The International Genealogical Index (IGI): The IGI contains several hundred million deceased individuals extracted from vital records or submitted by LDS church members, all of whom have had their temple work done.

So, Raysia, the only thing left to determine is, is "temple work" proxy baptisms, or can it mean other stuff, too? As of right now, I'm thinking I was right. If this is not the case, I'd REALLY like to know.then, I stand re-corrected :)

It would say so.

It would have a whole bunch more dates, including:

baptism
confirmed
ordained to aaronic priesthood
ordained to melkezadik priesthood
endowed
married

All that.

As it has none of those, it is not a church records site, merely what it says it is... a geneaology research site.

EDIT: If it DOES say that stuff somewhere, I missed it

Sorry, I found it (believe me, I wish I hadn't.) :cry:

I think this is pretty straightforward:

http://261.byu.edu/familysearch.html

The International Genealogical Index (IGI): The IGI contains several hundred million deceased individuals extracted from vital records or submitted by LDS church members, all of whom have had their temple work done.

So, Raysia, the only thing left to determine is, is "temple work" proxy baptisms, or can it mean other stuff, too? As of right now, I'm thinking I was right. If this is not the case, I'd REALLY like to know.

Or wait, maybe it means that it's EITHER extracted from vital records, OR submitted by church members, and that it's the SUBMISSIONS which involved "temple work"?

AAAGGGHHHH! :shock:

Raysia, can you please do us a favor and ask one of your church elders if an entry in the IGI indicates a proxy baptism took place? I REALLY don't want to be accusing you guys of having baptized specific people if I can't prove it.

Raysia, can you please do us a favor and ask one of your church elders? I REALLY don't want to be accusing you guys of having baptized specific people if I can't prove it.Sure. (Of course, I am an elder, but I know what you mean :P)

But I don't think it matters in this topic very much... let's assume that everyone who has not specifically objected has been baptized.

Raysia, can you please do us a favor and ask one of your church elders? I REALLY don't want to be accusing you guys of having baptized specific people if I can't prove it.Sure. (Of course, I am an elder, but I know what you mean :P)

But I don't think it matters in this topic very much... let's assume that everyone who has not specifically objected has been baptized.

It may not matter specifically in terms of "should we do it; we don't want you to do it", etc, but it's very important to me, as well as to other people trying to find if relatives, etc, were in fact baptized. And, again, I don't want to accuse you guys of doing specific things you haven't done (although I know that you have certainly been engaging in the general practice :wink: )

Raysia, can you please do us a favor and ask one of your church elders? I REALLY don't want to be accusing you guys of having baptized specific people if I can't prove it.Sure. (Of course, I am an elder, but I know what you mean :P)

But I don't think it matters in this topic very much... let's assume that everyone who has not specifically objected has been baptized.

It may not matter specifically in terms of "should we do it; we don't want you to do it", etc, but it's very important to me, as well as to other people trying to find if relatives, etc, were in fact baptized. And, again, I don't want to accuse you guys of doing specific things you haven't done (although I know that you have certainly been engaging in the general practice :wink: )like I said... holocaust victims are not baptized unless a family member requests. That was the original point, was it not?