I like the practice of holding a single person responsible for everything their religion does. 

I mean I flew out of JFK the other day.  How can you name an airport after a guy responsible for raping a bunch of boys, and then covering it up?

See!?!?  Its easy to do.

Bigotry against Mormons by liberals will increase as the election gets closer. Anything for Obama.

“In an apparent fit of rage against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow took to Twitter to tell him to “stick that in your magic underwear” for supporting the idea that society ought to concern itself with the large numbers of children born outside of wedlock.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/02/24/nyt-columnist-tells-mormon-romney-stick-your-magic-underwear#ixzz1nJ7f6seG

Blow’s comments are *interesting* considering he supported obama back in 2008 for discussing the same thing. 

http://t.co/nNX8tupN

Blow obviously knows nothing about the statistics on single parent households/fatherless households. 

He’s a bigot and a hypocrite.

HAHA And the Evangelicals will now be the protectors of Mormons?  This is too much..Who is the whore of Babylon now? HAHA

Your reaction to this story is very revealing about what a talking points-spouting troll you are. This piece is about how the Mormon church is posthumously converting the dead against their lifetime wishes — including your beloved Romneys, who did it to Mitt’s father in law. And yet your instant reaction to this abhorrent practice is to try and spin this against the Obamas.

Your slime only reflects badly on you, creep.

I don’t think they are holding Mitt responsible, they just want to make sure he doesn’t agree with it.

This is a disgusting, despicable practice. It defames and degrades the Holocaust victims and it proclaims in huge-faced, bold font the Mormon belief that Judaism is an inherently flawed means of approaching God. It is as if these people conducting the faux baptisms are putting on jack boots and  leading these freed souls back into captivity.

Why, when the voices of the victims has asked time-and-time again that this practice been stopped, do these people persist in this unwelcomed, objectionable and slanderous activity.

We learned last year that my Mother, a devout Roman Catholic her entire life, who died Christ week 2009, had been “baptized” in such a manner. Yet, her entire life, the Church taught her, as all mainline Christian church have long taught and still teach, that Mormon baptism is not efficacious, not being based upon a proclamation of the Trinity. Roman Catholkics share with all mainline Christian denominations the joyful refrain, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism”. It is the fundamental source of our unity as brothers and sisters in Christ. My sisters were outraged, whilst I was deeply, deeply saddened. Entreaties not to do this again are treated with an arrogance, sanctimony and a callousness that is essentially a defilement.

Presumably, you took this deviation from the hugely important question before us because you endorse this hideous practice? Or, is it because you recognize the justifiable indignation of the victims of this hideous practice and can’t defend it? I’d like an answer, because you took a serious matter, a hurtful matter, and trivialized it. The victims are not the bigots. Rather, this is a profound bigotry of those who engage in the frightful practice.

Presumably, you took this deviation from the hugely important
question before us because you endorse this hideous practice? Or, is it
because you recognize the justifiable indignation of the victims of this
hideous practice and can’t defend it? I’d like an answer, because you
took a serious matter, a hurtful matter, and trivialized it. The victims
are not the bigots. Rather, this is a profound bigotry of those who
engage in the frightful practice.
Edit Reply

I remember the good ole’ days, when they just hated Catholics, Jews, Muslims…

You’re absolutely correct in this. This is not an ideological matter. It is a fundamental wrong that transcends ideology. Efforts to make it ideological as a couple of earlier posters have are tacky and tawdry.

I think the worst part of this story is that they did it to Ann’s father, a devout Atheist. They KNEW him, knew his wishes.  

Man, I wish they did this with Christianity, with my consent of course.  That way, I could do whatever I wanted, never go to Church, or accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.  Then poof, enter those pearly gates after my death.  But make it quick, no lollygagging around for a year, who knows what the waiting room smells like in Purgatory.

So, how do you feel about a Muslim President?

yea, nothing says *serious matter* like a skit on Comedy Central. “I” trivialized a serious matter? Not Colbert, huh? But me? *eyeroll*

“Mormons believe the posthumous baptism rite has no effect unless the deceased soul accepts it.”

If I thought Mormons were actually affecting dead Jewish and Catholic souls by doing this, I would probably care, a little…. But I don’t.

If you think this changes someone’s, a dead person’s, faith/beliefs, you must not have much faith in the strength of your own faith, actions and beliefs.

Not sure if you saw this, but still waiting for your reply:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/meghan-mccain-tells-rachel-maddow-occupy-vagina-law-will-penetrate-beyond-politics/#comment-446924542

We saw the vile hateful misogynistic comment you approved of in that thread, the one attacking me. Spare me your holier than thou attitude. You are a ugly hate monger, and you proved it, without doubt, when you approved of that comment.  You have no right to ask anything from me.

btw, I have as much respect of christianity  as mormonism. But that’s because I’m humanist.

“Unfortunately for Mitt, this controversy just seems like it will not die,” Colbert observed. “And if it did, the Mormons would’ve posthumously baptized it!”

The media and Colbert linked this story to Romney… Why? 
They certainly didn’t do it to *help* Romney. They did it to spin for Obama. It isn’t about the Mormons baptizing anyone, it’s about Politics, and hurting Romney. 

If you can’t see that, and the numerous negative stories about Mormon’s, that is not Glove’s fault.

Another diversion from the discussion of this defilement. Not that anyone is surprised.

Light doesn’t always penetrate darkness.

You are dismissed.

 I don’t think it’s ‘religious bigotry’ when you denounce a church for disrespecting holocaust victims by not honoring their faith in Judaism, especially since their faith is why they were so needlessly murdered.

What I think makes this an extremely disturbing practice is that the Mormon Church is presuming they can take away the one thing from Holocaust victims that the Nazis could not: their faith.

I addressed the discussion. You are the one attempting diversion because I am right, and you, yet again, are wrong.

They did it to spin for Obama?

— That’s a big ole heap of paranoia there.

It isn’t about the Mormons baptizing anyone?

— Really? That’s not a matter of legitimate concern? Wiesel is being frivolous?

Everyone is attacking Mormonism as a political tactic against Willard?

— Really? It couldn’t be that Willard’s campaign has had the effect of shedding light on an institution which has long eschewed light? That the route is not Romney to Mormonism instead of Mormonism to Romney? How very silly and myopic.

I do not think anyone is holding a single person responsible for everything their religion does, but then it is rare to have an actual former Bishop, and blood relative of the prophet, running for office. Not to worry, before it is over, of course, the Mormon church will be vetted. Just like Jeremiah Wright, but it will not be Obama or his people who encourage that, but the Santorum crowd who do not believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith. Ironically, that is really what Mitt Needs because far too many people are currently scarred off by the chatter in the back of the room on this. Having Mitt put his religion into a reasonable perspective for people will help him.

That’s reasonable, and, in fact, it’s been a very long battle which predates Willard’s rise to political prominence.

Why would I care what a guy (or gal) believes?   

“Mormons believe the posthumous baptism rite has no effect unless the deceased soul accepts it.”

Do you honestly think it has any affect? What do you think happens after a dead person is baptized as a Mormon? 

im an ex mormon. i want to clarify that the practise of baptising for the dead by proxy does not mean those people it is done for become mormons. mormons believe that these people will decide to accept that baptism or not in the next life. mormons believe that it is nessesary for the work to be physically performed here on earth. it happens for all persons dead and not only to jewish persons.

i do however understand completely why relatives of the deceased are upset that this is happening. i would likely feel the same.

it is an interesting discussion on rights of religion and the rights to use persons names. generally the names given to be baptised come from mormons who are related to those names. mormons have faith in their version of what happens after death and therefore believe the work they are doing is being done in love.

from an outsiders view the process probably seems very strange. from an ex mormons view i think the process is a little crazy. but thats because i no longer believe. i think most religions have a few quirky ideas.

im not defending mormonism. just wanting to inform so a better argument can take place. when facts are wrong the believers generally ignore your reasoning and argument.

I don’t think he’s blaming the practice on Romney. I think he’s asking Romney use his status as a high profile member of the church. If I were being harassed by the church of Scientology I would probably try to get Tom Cruise to condemn these practices. Don’t forget that this man is on the Mormon list of people to posthumously baptize. He’s probably quite offended by this practice.

I could care less about what happens to an abstract entity that may or may not exist.  I’m upset about the fact that they are disrespecting the beliefs of people who have died, especially in the case of Holocaust victims who died specifically because of their faith in Judaism.

For all the so called love conservatives claim to have for Israel, they really don’t care about the feelings of the Jews at all do they? Mormons are posthumously baptizing holocaust victims. These are people who were treated as subhuman by the Nazis for their culture & faith. They were treated brutally, put into slavery and death because they preserved their Jewish ways. What the Mormon church is doing is a complete slap in the face of all those who were willing to die for their religion & culture. This isn’t bigotry towards Mormonism. We’re just telling the Mormon church to have some respect for others. Is it bigoted to tell Westboro Baptist to stop protesting funerals?

I don’t think this is about the souls of dead Jews as much as it is a slap in the face of the Jews who died in order to preserve their culture & faith. They have the right to do it, but it’s actually quite inconsiderate & disrespectful to the memories of those who fell victim to Hitler’s reign of terror.

How many posthumous conversions have the Obamas been involved in?

I rest my case.

One of the leading republican candidates, santorum, claims that Mormonism is not a Christian faith. Tell me what that has to do with liberals? Sure, Mitt’s religion will be vetted, by the same people on the right who enjoyed vetting Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Obama or liberals. Though, I admit we will enjoy watching it happen since what is good for the gander is good for the goose, too.

Exactly. That is the key point. Thank you very much for expressing it so succinctly. It is a matter of faith for the faithful, and it ought to be a matter of principle for all. It is like unto urinating on a tombstone. It does nothing to harm the deceased, but it is a gross defilement.

Why was the sound byte of Jerimiah Wright Obama’s fault? Romney has spent more time in the Mormon Church than Obama did at Trinity. Obama addressed the comments made by Wright. Why can’t Romney address the posthumous baptisms of holocaust victims which many Jews find offensive?

According to Mormon theology, baptism is essential for salvation and the practice of baptizing the dead merely offers that option to that person, it doesn’t make them Mormon or members of the church. ..
The LDS Church website also says,
…Some have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed the names of deceased persons are being added to the membership records of the Church. This is not the case.

 First I have to ask, how do you offer an option to a dead person?

Secondly, to reiterate, I could care less about any possible metaphysical ramifications.  I care because it is horrifically disrespectful to the deceased, regardless if they are added to the church’s membership records or not.

I think you missed the point… I am saying this is about politics, with the intent to damage Romney. 

And there have been undeniably bigoted stories about Mormonism since Romney has taken center stage. If Romney were not Mormon, I am pretty sure this ~200 year old practice wouldn’t be front page news right now. He talked about the practice in 2007. Some Jewish people have complained for 18 years. There was some agreement in 1995 and 2010 to stop. A couple of years ago Wiesel hadn’t ever even heard of the practice. Yet, now, it is *big news*. It’s obvious why. (I don’t even care that it is, per se, I just think it is obvious why it is.)

The Wright soundbites weren’t Obama’s fault. His choice to stay in that church for 20 years was. 

According to the Mormon’s “baptism is essential for salvation and the practice of baptizing the dead merely offers that option to that person, it doesn’t make them Mormon or members of the church. Mormons believe the posthumous baptism rite has no effect unless the deceased soul accepts it.”

I don’t think Romney dictates the practices of the Mormon Church, just as Obama doesn’t dictate the practices of the Christian Church. 

If the Mormon Church was damning these souls to hell, and saying they deserved what they got, that their chickens came home to roost, and Romney stayed in the church, I would take issue with that. But that isn’t what they are doing…if anything, sounds like they are double checking, making sure anyone who wasn’t saved, is, if they want to be.

According to the Mormon’s “baptism is essential for salvation and the practice of baptizing the dead merely offers that option to that person, it doesn’t make them Mormon or members of the church. Mormons believe the posthumous baptism rite has no effect unless the deceased soul accepts it.”

If the Mormon Church was damning these souls to hell, and saying they deserved what they got, that their chickens came home to roost, and Romney stayed in the church, I would take issue with that. 
But that isn’t what they are doing…is it? if anything, sounds like they are double checking, making sure anyone who wasn’t saved, is, if they want to be. Jews definitely have the right to tell them to stop, and not do it to their family members.

In the Name of All That is Holy, Woman, the baptized Anne Frank. Again. Anne Frank!  By the accounts we have, Anne Frank and her family were faithful adherents to Judaism, and it bothers you not in the least that we have a group within a church in the US that says the faith to which you clung in your time of trial and tribulation is not worthy. Do you not grasp the principle? Do partisanship and ideology trump faith and principle for you in this matter? This is wrong. It is every bit as wrong as forced conversions at the time of the Inquisition. All Americans, faithful or not, should be outraged by this.

I don’t know, but he did sit in a church where the minister said *God damn america* and that we got what was coming to us, on 9/11. 

Honestly, I prefer someone who offers to save a soul than one who wishes God to damn it. 

I understand the Mormon sentiment behind it but the Jewish community has made it clear that they find this practice to be very offensive to their own religion. I would equate this to someone taking a dump in your lawn because it’s good fertilizer. Although they may have good intentions, I think most people would prefer that they stop.

It’s not a gross defilement any more than Catholic cousins praying my late father and mother out of purgatory was that.

I find both the doctrine of purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead to be heretical to Biblical teaching and I firmly KNOW that no need pray my dear father into the presence of God.

However, I know too that Catholics do this with the very best of intentions according to the benefits that their faith ascribes to these practices.

It is THOSE good intentions that trump any doctrinal or personal feelings and that warm my heart.

Do try to consider that.  Even in the midst of a Mormon running against a Democratic president.

My dear, only living beings, perhaps only living humans, have souls. Corporate entities including nation states do not.

i understand why people are upset. i even get uncomfortable when religious groups pray for me or bless me in some way (because im a sinner). but the most significant discussion should be concerning what rights religious groups have regarding the use of names living or dead in any kind of ordinance, blessing, or ceremony. religious freedom? personal rights?

I thought conservatives were supposed to be staunch defenders of freedom of speech. How did Wright’s words — even if they were inflammatory — in any way harm the country?

(And you could just as easily point to Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin’s pastor, who made similarly offensive comments about America bringing on its “punishment.”)

The fact is that Romney’s father in law was a lifelong atheist. He wanted no part of religion and thought it was hogwash. Why would the Romney family trash his memory this way by imposing on him the one thing he loathed in his lifetime? It doesn’t speak well of them. And that’s why I do believe it’s a fair issue. Not a huge issue, but an issue nonetheless, as it speaks to their zealotry.

how do you baptize a dead person who isn’t even there?

“I care because it is horrifically disrespectful to the deceased, regardless if they are added to the church’s membership records or not.” 

How is it disrespectful to offer some soul or spirit or whatever, an option to be *saved* if they hadn’t been, or wanted to be? They aren’t there. Their bodies aren’t there. 

I could be doing this in my living room, for all they know. I could be poking pins in a voodoo doll too….  

“For Mormons, baptizing the dead solves a big theological problem: How do billions of people who never had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ — including those who lived before Jesus walked the earth — receive salvation? By baptizing the dead, a practice known as posthumous proxy baptism, Mormons believe they are giving every person who ever lived the chance at everlasting life. That includes Muslims, Hindus, atheists, pagans, whoever.
“Mormons believe that there is a place the dead go where they are in ‘spirit prison’ and where they have the chance to accept the Christian baptism,” says Richard Bushman, a Mormon scholar at Columbia University. “But it’s a duty to actually perform Christian ordinance of baptism, so Mormons seek out every last person who ever lived and baptize them.

The LDS says it does not know how many deceased have been baptized. Experts say the number is in the millions.”
Read more: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/30475505/detail.html#ixzz1nJocxlTp 

“they have the right to accept or reject the ordinance in the afterlife, and thus the chance to ascend to the highest levels in the afterlife, depending on what they decide.”

If you don’t even believe in the Mormon beliefs, does it matter? Like I said, I support the right to tell them to not do your family member, and they should only do people who submit names. But it sounds like, to me, they are trying to save (unsaved) souls, not harm them.

As a man of the cloth, I forgive the viciousness displayed by the liberal sheep of the flock. They cannot help it any more than they can halt the turning of the Earth or the changing of the seasons. So I say to all the heathen Obamaites:

Go forth and multiply with yourself.

According to the first post it’s not  an act of conversion, which is a relevant detail. That would mean they are not taking away their faith.

It still seems pretty wacky to me, and if it’s being done without express permission from family members I think that’s a bad call, but family members don’t always agree. One might give permission while others object.

 ”If you don’t even believe in the Mormon beliefs, does it matter? Like I
said, I support the right to tell them to not do your family member, and
they should only do people who submit names. But it sounds like, to me,
they are trying to save (unsaved) souls, not harm them.”

Yes, it absolutely does matter.  As I said, over and over, I don’t care about what happens to some abstract entity that may or may not exist.  Their intentions are irrelevant.  The very fact that they are using the names of the deceased in a ritual of a religion of which the deceased did not believe or belong to is the height of disrespect.  It is especially disrespectful to those that were killed because of their faith.  Even if it is the deceased’s family, it’s disrespectful.  The Romneys should be ashamed that they did that to Ann’s Atheist father. 

“”they have the right to accept or reject the ordinance in the afterlife,
and thus the chance to ascend to the highest levels in the afterlife,
depending on what they decide.”"

This is the biggest cop-out I’ve heard in some time.

“I thought conservatives were supposed to be staunch defenders of freedom of speech. How did Wright’s words — even if they were inflammatory — in any way harm the country? ”
Did I say he didn’t have the right to say those things?

How did his wish that God damn American cause harm? Hmmm. the same way the Mormon baptisms are harmful… 

I said I prefer someone who wishes to save souls, then one who damns them. 

That said, I do think Wrights comments, some of them, were harmful:

He lied about Tuskegee.  

He lied that the “government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”

Keeping fear, divisiveness and hatred alive. “white people lie” “We (the US) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

I’d say those are harmful comments.

In order for something to be funny, there must be elements of truth.
Colbert strikes out again.

1-Mormons don’t “Convert” anybody. They merely do an age old ritual, that even his own Catholic Church, engaged in for hundreds of years. 1 Corinthians 15:29.

LDS believe those who have passed on will have their “Free Will” to accept or reject a baptism by proxy.
(And if you think it’s all Baloney, then so what?).

2-If one wants to look at being forced to “Convert” to a particular Faith, need we look any further than Colbert’s own Catholic Baptism….As a BABY?      Where is the Free Will for the baby in that exercise?

3- As for Circumcision?….Sorry funnyman, Latter Day Saints have already had that done too….

4-How does doing anything in the “Name of a Dead Person” violate their will?

Well Stevie, looks like you need to do better research before rolling out your canned laughter.

John 3:5
1 Corinthinans 15:29

’nuff said

A few comments made by Wright and taken out of context for the expressed purpose of trying to make Obama guilty by association.  Politics. 

After spending decades courting the the religious right with little regard for what they were saying or doing,conservatives made the choice to make religion an issue with Obama.  Now they are reaping the benefits of that decision.

I agree that it’s only Romney’s political aspirations that brings this front and center but it isn’t just the liberals doing it. There are more than a few conservative Christians that don’t consider Mormonism to be Christian and look at it as some kind of cult.
Personally I think it’s good that absurd traditions get a good public airing, no matter what religion they belong to. It’s good for society in general.

I agree that the evidence indicates that Baptism of the dead is not a conversion and that will be the major misunderstanding. Still, it seems this is being done with little consideration for the wishes of the departed. Romney’s father in law was an outspoken atheist I believe. If this is being done without the approval of a fairly significant family member I find it pretty disrespectful, but ultimately harmless. 

 Honestly, if my family disrespected my beliefs so much as to do this to me, I’d haunt the crap out of them.

 Except it appears it isn’t a conversion at all , so your case kinda crumbles on that point.

ColbertConservativeCollapse
I understand the Mormon sentiment behind it but the Jewish community has made it clear that they find this practice to be very offensive to their own religion. I would equate this to someone taking a dump in your lawn because it’s good fertilizer. Although they may have good intentions, I think most people would prefer that they stop.
***
No, I think it’s more like someone who thinks about pooping on your lawn, and mimes the action in their own living room. 

It seems that, even in death, you are not safe from proselytizers. 

Mormons CANNOT “convert the dead against their lifetime wishes” even if they rerouted the Jordan River into the Mormon Tabernacle.

What Mormons DO do is to follow their religious dictates with the best of intentions.

What YOU do is to try and gin this up into some ghastly outrage when it’s very likely that you’ve never met a religious practice that you didn’t consider to be sheer hocum in the first place.

No one is buying your feigned moral outrage, you can stop trying to sell it now.

 In context , God dam America only means that we will pay for our sins as a nation , which is not an outlandish or unusual Christian doctrine at all. The same for American’s chickens coming home to roost. Several people, including a GOP candidate have said pretty much the same thing.

What I find reprehensible about how Wright was portrayed was the incredible consistent and intentional dishonesty in misrepresenting a man’s life work by selecting what suits your political agenda and replaying it over and over. IMO, just choosing and using those kind of tactics reveals more about the users character than it does about Wright.

rrk: 
My dear, only living beings, perhaps only living humans, have souls. Corporate entities including nation states do not.
***

well, I know you don’t have a soul, and the jury is out on whether you are even human, but I think most people in America consider their country a nation of living beings.

How does anyone with an IQ above 80, believe in this nonsense?

They’re not taking away their Fatih.
They are not converted to Mormonism.
They are not now members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

It’s an “ancient” ritual 1 Cor. 15:29

And if it’s all hooey to you, then forget it.
You can say a prayer or concvert me to anythng you like when I’m gone.
 If I think it’s silly, then so what, if it floats your boat, have at it.
Grow up people.

John 3:5
1 Corinthians 15:29

That’s why!

1st Amendment
Read it!

Oh, the ole controversy that “just won’t die” because the media is resurrecting it everyday game.

That’s right up there with “the question that won’t go away” (because we keep asking it)…

I doubt that 20% of the public knew about Mormon posthumous baptism  before they were told that they should be offended by it.

No one likes mimes.

I think there is a huge difference between a Church that codemns everyone to Hell, versus a Church that loves all Gods Children and sees us all as liter spiritual brothers and sisters eminating from the same God. 

And thus by turning their hearts to their Fathers (see Malachi)  then wants them to have the blessings of Heaven (John 3:5), and also wants them to have the saving ordinances
required (1 Corinthians 15:29).

Now if you thnk it’s all nonsense, that’s fine. All releigions seem odd to outsiders. But for you to compare the two Chruchs,one filled with hate and antoehr filled with Love is ignoarnat beyond belief.

You shuld ccheck your analogies more closely.

“This is the biggest cop-out I’ve heard in some time.”

Well, that’s why they say they do it.

One of the things I found to be silly in born again Christianity was the idea of 11th hour salvation. If Hitler accepted Jesus as Savior just before his death all was forgiven, but Gandhi went to hell for being a Hindu.

I wondered if 11th hour damnation was also a possibility. You’ve been a devout Christian your whole life, accepted Jesus as Lord, then one day you’re driving down the road, in kind of a bad mood, someone cuts you off and just before the fatal accident occurs you yell, “You stupid SOB” at them.  

 It is an ancient PAGAN ritual.
http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

Everything you have posted screams 
Spare me your holier than thou attitude.

In the end you are more likely to be incorrect as to who has the right outlook on the after life.   I hope a boat doesn’t show up looking for some Vikings.

They’re not baptised a Mormon.
Get it , got it, good.

true dat.

I’ve never heard of it. Up until a couple of years ago, Wiesel had never heard of it. And I am sure the millions of dead people who had it done to them didn’t know it either.It’s about politics and hurting Romney.  

I do find the list to be bizarre. Where does that come from? You would think the Mormon church would respect the faith and wishes of someone still living who says, under no circumstances do I want you to do that.

IMO, they shouldn’t be doing it at all unless a family member requests it. Then you’re preforming a ritual for that family member. That I would understand, even though the practice itself is as silly as religious rituals can be.

What’s being defiled?
Seriously, think with your head and not your emotions.
Say a prayer for me when I’m gone, my respone, thanks man..
Do a mumbo jumbo routine for me, finen have at it.

If I don’t believe it or it is not legitimate to God in the hereafter, then I will still come away with only this fact………..

That you thought enough of me to care.
Thanks much.

Last week, this same Mormon practice of baptism for the dead found its way into news reports because someone violated church policy and submitted for baptism the names of some Jewish Holocaust victims to whom they were not related. That improper action sparked a good deal of misunderstanding about this sacred belief.
First, no one can force acceptance of a religious rite on others after they have died – the very concept of abridging personal agency is anathema to Mormons. In other words, in no way does this practice forcibly “convert” a deceased person to Mormonism. Secondly, Jewish Holocaust victims have been specifically excluded by the church itself from temple baptisms unless there is a direct-line relationship between the Latter-day Saint submitter and the deceased person – a rare occurrence where the Holocaust is concerned. The policy itself is a highly significant and unprecedented gesture of respect to those who gave their lives in the Holocaust.
I am thankful for the Jewish rabbis who understand the situation well and spoke up promptly to help defuse a sensitive situation. With more than 14 million members around the globe, the Church is no more able to guarantee compliance of every member with its policies than other worldwide faiths are able to guarantee theirs.

CosmosDanCollapse
A few comments made by Wright and taken out of context for the expressed purpose of trying to make Obama guilty by association.  Politics.  After spending decades courting the the religious right with little regard for what they were saying or doing,conservatives made the choice to make religion an issue with Obama.  Now they are reaping the benefits of that decision. 
*** 
As I said elsewhere, I do believe some of Wrights comments were harmful. And there were definitely inflammatory comments. Obama *used* Wright to further his political career (see Richard Wolffe interview, and even Obama’s own comments). He pandered, and got caught with his pants down.
Obama made religion an issue – a central part of his campaign, in certain areas – and the Left turned a blind eye to it, regardless of how they went after Conservatives for their religious beliefs. 
Also, as I said, I do see a difference between offering salvation, or damning America, or promoting lies from the pulpit. The dead people baptism is part of Mormonism, and is a ~200 years old practice. I don’t think lying that the govt. created HIV and infected black men with syphilis, and yelling God Damn America is part of Christianity…?
But, again, my original comment, in reply to someone, was that this is about politics. Hurting Romney.

Looking logically at an illogical situation, IF the dead can accept or reject baptism, THEN why can they not choose to be baptized by another dead person, or by God himself?

Where is the need to be baptized while alive if it can be done while dead? Where is the fear that God will not accept you unless you have become Christian (any form of Christian) while alive?

In my opinion, the entire concept is one of fear, not love, and I choose to reject any religion that denies access to heaven because they have not gone through some sacred ritual of formal recognition created by that religion.

As for this Mormon practice, it must be a way to make themselves feel better about belonging to a faith (Christian or Muslim) that condemns all non-believers to an afterlife of misery. 

It’s a bit more nuanced and complex than your examples assume.

However, just to make your day, there most certainly is scripture where Jesus uses the parable of keeping your lamp lit at all times while you await the return of the bridegroom.

Frankly, your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill in this speaks to YOUR zealotry.

It’s that the organization fully supports the actions, and that Romney fully supports the organization. This isn’t a separatist group.

You are correct sir. That combined with bigotry against mormons by republicans will doom him in the fall.

And never forget that there are enemies of the LDS Church who purposefully access the database and add controversial names just to embarrass the Chruch.They then supposedly disover them and go public.

It’s a shell game which pepole have been palying for years.

Catholics practiced for 1200 years.

nuff said? nice one.

i understand why mormons believe in baptisims for the dead. i grew up mormon.

those passages dont make any difference for non believers. as ive said the real discussion is about the rights of religion in the privacy of their own spaces and their rights to use names of persons living or dead to perform religious acts within their private spaces. i think that discussion is more significant in this case than trying to push theology.

CosmosDanCollapse
In context , God dam America only means that we will pay for our sins as a nation
***
I said: How did his wish that God damn American cause harm? Hmmm. the same way the Mormon baptisms are harmful… 
I don’t think God set out to damn America because Wright said that. I do think Wright made harmful irresponsible lies/comments, some of which:
He lied about Tuskegee.  He lied that the “government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”Keeping fear, divisiveness and hatred alive. “white people lie” “We (the US) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.” 
As for:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” 
To me, he perpetuates division. Keeps *hatred* alive. I think that is harmful. 
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cgod-damn-america%E2%80%9D-sermon/ 

ColbertConservative
No one likes mimes.
** 
True dat.

According to Westboro, they’re saving America by upholding passages from Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. Bottom line is that the people they’re doing this to are greatly offended by these actions.

I agree, if they’re going to do such things they should at least ask for the consent of holocaust survivors or their surviving relatives. To do otherwise is greatly disrespectful.

I agree with you completely.
However, historical context is also important for those who think this is a uniquely LDS doctrine.
The 1st Amendment is forgotten by some, to be sure.

You lack a basic understanding of the bible.  Jesus Christ himself was baptized while he was on earth.  If baptism was able to be performed after death, then saying that man must be born of the water and spirt to enter into the kingdom of God is redundant.  Also, if you actually research it, you will find that the Mormon definition of Heaven and Hell is not condemning non-believers to an afterlife of misery.  But rewarding each person to a degree of glory.  One of the many errors that Dr. Stephen Colbert made in his Mormon bit.

If your comment made any sense, I would try to address it.

I wonder if Colbert would have the balls to do a conversion to Islam? Probably not. Too pc, afraid of the backlash from the prez

you’re right, i will go fix it.

 sarainitaly

True dat?
It does not make you sound hip, and it’s so teenage 2003.

I can understand that. Religion makes people do funny things. For someone to baptize an avowed atheist seems pretty disrespectful, but if you’re convinced it’s necessary for their soul I get it.

As I said, I’m glad to get all these arcane beliefs and rituals into the public discourse. It may help religion grow up a little.

“Honest, it didn’t seem so silly when we were the only ones talking about it.”

Next on the hate list,….Wiccans. As soon as someone who is openly Wiccan runs for office. 

True dat?
It does not make you sound hip, and it’s so teenage 2003***
Relax baby, I’m just playin’. 
No need to cry over something so silly.

 I have heard of the various levels. I get the idea.
As for being born “of the water,” what do women say shortly before giving birth?
“Oh! My water broke!”
Sorry if you find that offensive. I know you mean a different kind of water. Holy water, priest or preacher, and all that pagan inspired stuff.

 That doesn’t actually answer the question.

some of your points are valid but this issue isnt all about theology. its about the natural urge for people to want to protect and control the identity of themselves and loved ones. understanding mormon ideology might help correct a few misconceptions but many will still be offended. would you mind your name being used in the ceremonies of other religions? no matter the intention? but even if you dont like it what rights do you have or should have? if any? its complicated.

Do you understand that it is against Church Policy to baptize Holocaust survivors unless there is a direct familial line.  Which is indeed extremely rare.  Someone violated church policy and performed the rite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/what-baptism-for-the-dead-means-to-mormons/2012/02/23/gIQA2sIaVR_blog.html

yeah you guys all know what bigots us liberals are…

face it, so far the only ones attacking Romney’s religion are his fellow GOPretenders to his pre-ordained throne…in their well-practiced dog whistle way

Hey folks! Can you guess which church said this to George Romney: “the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro”. I’ll give you a cookie if you get it right!

BTW, someone said something in the order of Romney using his status as a high profile member of the church to do something about this. Ha! What did Papa Romney do with this?

teenage 2003 is back in fashion. obviously you dont read hipster magazines

I eventually became bored reading the majority of this debate.  Most of it sounded like, “blah blah blah, my belief is better than yours”, etc on every level. 

Whatever the apparent “good” intentions, if a particular group of people don’t want something done to their friends and relatives after they’ve died, then they have the right to ask the people doing it to stop & they should stop because they’ve been asked to by the living people representing the deceased, and if they don’t then they’re disrespecting the wishes of the living … regardless of each and every one of your personal perspectives on the soul, spirituality, religion, afterlife etc.

I’ve purposefully avoided using the noun descriptions because it seems people have confused them with taking a secular side thus most of the responses here identify the innate moral bigotry of the person writing it.

Alternately, why don’t we stop pussyfooting around moral and ethical obligations altogether and start using all newly deceased dead bodies for scientific research or fuel?

Not at all. Have at it.

And remember, these are not living people.
You may also want to know that there is a 95 year rule.
Meaning, no names are to even be entered on the data base, until one has been dead for 95 years. Unless, the permission of a Spouse or Children has been granted.

Understand also, that people, who are not loyal LDS,  are hacking the system and adding these controversial names, intentionally. With the sole purpose of upsetting people and riling up anger towards the LDS Church..

The datbase has billions of names and thousands of conrtibutors. Sometimes knucklheads break the rules and cause mischief. This is also by design.

Remember also, the LDS Family History Library is a valuable resource available to the whole World to trace their Family History/Trees.  Free of charge.

No just someone, churches in Arizona, Idaho, and Utah all committed these posthumous baptisms of holocaust survivors. It’s not an isolated incident. It’s widespread throughout the church in spite of its stated policies.

It seems to me reading your comments here sara, your point of view is a bit off base.  Considering Colbert is a comedian and satirist… could be he simply was making light of the ridiculous… even if you can’t see it.

As far as Rev. Wright, rather than so quickly condemn Rev. Wright with your own reactionary bigotry, could you not have possibly bothered to hear other arguments that might have been a bit more rational in light of the Reverend’s statements that were clearly taken out of context for political purposes which obviously worked on you?  Are you aware that he fought for this country in Vietnam and came back to a country that still treated him a second class citizen.  Now we have come a long ways from his days growing up in the 60′s but you would be ignorant to not believe their is still is a white supremacy problem in this country.  And I don’t mean the kind wearing white hoods.  I honestly don’t think Rev. Wright’s comments were meant for “all the white folk.”  Just for those it applies to.   

And his statements about us dropping the nukes on Japan, the amount of people we have killed around the world in the name of  U.S. righteousness and imperialism – is it not true?  As an American do you equate acknowledging the sins of our own country as un-American?  How else are we to grow if we don’t acknowledge our own mistakes as a country?

Is it possible that you made a hateful judgement on Rev. Wright based upon the incendiary commentary from the media, specifically from the right (Fox News)?  How is that not “keeping fear, divisiveness and hatred alive?” 

Take the time to study it more deeply.
You have some misconceptions.

go to
LDS.Org or Mormon.Org

im aware of church policy regarding baptisms for the dead and this was one of the issues i raised in one of my previous posts. the issue is that the church should control the policies more effectively if it wishes to abide by the agreements the church made with jewish leaders. there are many ways the system can be improved and better secured. i do think some human errors will be made and those need to be considered by ouside groups. but there are way too many errors. multiple baptisms/ non relatives/ historical figures/ no permissions/ wrong names

Well, if JFK were alive today and tried to deflect the problem away from the Church for the rape and torture of children in the same manner that Rick Santorum did I would agree.  Unfortunately most law enforcement in this country as well as the political leaders have been silent on holding the leadership of the Catholic Church responsible for their crimes of covering up and enabling these rapists. 

It is ironic however that Rick, and others, want to hold Obama responsible for going to a church where the Preacher did nothing more than exercising free speech.

Actually Colbert mentioned the different glories in this bit, so I guess that’s your error rather than his.

A lot of Christians don’t believe 1 Tim:5 refers to the ceremony of baptism , but then again, there’s a lot Christians don’t agree on about Christianity. 

If I heard the clip correctly several hundred thousands Jews have been  have been baptized by the LDS, including Anne Frank a number of times.

I’m wondering if this is a practice that has changed with time as other Mormon practices have.

Don’t worry I use true dat except without the “e”.

I know this is off topic but I kind of wonder what it would be like to intern at the Colbert Report

I can’t believe “true dat” took over the tone of this conversation. Why?

Please link to where his said God Damn America.  And even if he did, is that worse than what the Mormans are doing or what the Catholic Church has done and is still doing?  Free speech vs. rape and torture and converting dead people, which is worse? 

I’m pretty familiar with the NT and have my own ideas on what Jesus actually taught as opposed to the doctrine and traditions of men taught by the multitude of Christian denominations.
I realize it’s more nuanced but IMO the concept of salvation as taught by born again Christianity, doesn’t make sense or jibe with the concept of a just and benevolent deity.

 I am not ant-Mormon. I am more like anti- organized religion in general. I think the rituals of baptism, “eating the flesh and drinking the blood,” and other practices are inventions of man, not God.

Don’t worry about the grief you’re getting for “true dat”. I usually use Snoop talk when I’m dunk at the bar and I also think I’m cool when I do it. I’ve also grown fond of Lin-isms. It was nice chatting though. Enjoyd sharing perspectives. Really liked what you said about mimes. Although I can’t stand mimes, it was actually a pretty good point.

i agree that some comments made on the show were not accurate. but a theological argument is difficult considering the amount of ways scripture can be interpreted.

regarding your comments of baptism….

if baptism cannot be performed after death, what happens to those who died on earth without any record? there are millions of people we will never know of and therefore cannot be baptised by proxy. how do you reconsile your comment with mormon doctrine that allows the dead to accept the true gospel and inherit the celestial kingdom of god if they have not had a chance?

The quotes your are attributing to Rev. Wright were not his, he was quoting Ambassador Peck who made those statements. 

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

Quite true.

You don’t seriously think this defilement, this condescension, this on-gong slander is a molehill. That surprises me coming from you or coming from any Presbyterian. Not from your soul mate am I surprised, but you have more substance, depth, compassion of historical perspective. Did you misstate?

Well, as long as the Holocaust victims don’t know they’re being victimized yet again, all is well.

Well now, I see things have gotten off to a rousing chorus of bipartisan pleasantry here, so I guess I can move on to somewhere else. Be proud gk123 – & know that the laws of physics require that information never dies, so your brain up in your ass comment is forever yours!

Slander and defilement are the best of intentions?

Don’t do it. It’s propaganda, and you’ll get spammed.

i agree that arguing about theological beliefs will not solve the problem. i think the issue has alot to do with rights. your opinion that others should have the right to stop the mormon church from using the names of their relatives is shared by many but it is not illegal for the church to use the names. your opinion is just your moral view. a proper discussion on moral obligations and rights will help determine what laws should be applied, created, or removed. religious freedom makes this issue complicated.

There’s the ole compliment as vehicle to gouge someone else, that we know all and love…

If anyone was a walking illustration of the difference between the terms giving and bestowing, it’s you. You might bestow for an ulterior reason. You NEVER give.

You’re turning yourself into a pretzel with this.

If an atheist, an agnostic, or someone just mad at God, were seriously ill and said, “Don’t you pray for me! Don’t you dare pray for me!”, if you still beseeched the Lord anyway on their behalf, do you really think that a disrespect?

No they’re not. You need to cut those things out and leave the Mormons to their religious rituals.

Vicarious Work by Proxy for the Dead

Stephen Colbert is free to do anything he wishes with respect to those who are dead, as long he does not damage their graves or the property they left behind.  They in turn are free to accept or reject his efforts.

As a believing, active member of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon), I am sorry that a few of our members, either
through ignorance or over-zealousness, transferred Holocaust victim names from
basic religion-neutral genealogical databases into an LDS temple data system
that led to these individuals being baptized by proxy. The Church is trying to
stop these Holocaust-related information transfers. I hope that those who spot
such mistakes will bring them to the Church’s attention with kindness and
understanding.

The Church, out of sensitivity to the feelings of friends or
relatives, has agreed not to perform temple work for those who were victims of
the Holocaust.  It is unfortunate when
such actions happen but the Church cannot realistically catch all of these
transitions, thousands of which are made every day. One would think that those
doing genealogy would recognize names like “Wiesenthal” and “Anne
Frank” and not transfer them, but there are probably a number of Mormons
who have never heard these names.

I lived in Israel for a year and had good Jewish -Israeli
friends. I love these people. I consider you and them to be relatives since I
am a descendent of Joseph, a brother of Judah (the ancestor of the Jews).

The Church, by moving names (other than at this time Holocaust
survivors) to a temple database, is simply extending the invitation to those
who have passed away to become a part of the Kingdom of God in the eternities as
we see it. These deceased persons are free to accept or reject what is offered.
As a social scientist it occurs to me that none of us can know, nor can we now
measure scientifically, what those who are dead feel at present about religion.
Since we don’t know how they feel now, we need to respect their right to decide
for themselves what they accept and what they reject. Given free agency none of
those living can rightfully compel anyone, living or dead, to do anything. The
choice is theirs.

If this invitation by the Church doesn’t actually have the
power to transcend the veil of death into the life after this one and is not
approved of God, then it is a waste of our time and money. If, as we believe,
this invitation is valid in the sight of God and those deceased have the
God-given choice to accept or reject it, then it is even more important to let
them to decide for themselves what they will do.

I am not an official spokesperson for the Church but would
welcome anyone who has questions on this matter to contact the Church or if
they wish even contact me.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

That’s because grace doesn’t jib with justice by the nature of it being grace.

Why do you call it a defilement? 
Is it any worse than the Cahtolica having a mass, especially for the dead person in order that they may be cleansed before God?
And what is wrong with praying for the dead?

Maybe when Colbert’s mother passes on, we can all do a baptism for her, since he was raised such a dumb atheist, she may need a few prayers….

With all due respect, your time might be better spent working with other Mormons to at long last end this terrible defilement, than in offering up rather hollow defenses.

So, does that mean the Jews want all prayers and masses offered up to God for the souls of all the holocaust be annulled. Then so be it, we ask God to remove any grace He may have afforded them through prayers and masses… Amen!

I have difficulty with your reply because the concept that morals should for some reason have to be enforced by the law seems innately restrictive and contrary to freedom.
.
Morals are a personal thing, and if we have to start legitimizing through law enforcement the the purpose of having morals is lost.  Freedom of expression is right, for many reasons, but also because for one thing, it allows those of us that live by basic morally good ethics naturally, to clearly identify those people that don’t!

Making a decision not to hurt someone, or another persons feelings shouldn’t be something to even have a debate about, it should be a natural part of our humanity because it aids our survival. 

The only real gain out of this debate as far as I can see is that it highlights how far gone these peoples morals have become skewed in favor to enforce their own personal beliefs, along with the vast majority of the commentators who see it as a platform to advertise their own skewed perspectives, most things can be challenged through protest without having to restrict freedom of speech by introducing more restrictive legislation.

Nice deflection, but I’m not running for president. Romney is. And this episode speaks to his character — unfavorably.

For all your prayers may seem to be very real to you, I think you’ll find your arrogance before the seat of the immutable power of the universe is offensive to a lot of people.

He exercised true free speech

They’re *still* practicing; they just can’t seem to get anyfuckingthing right . . .

Baloney. And the more that religious rite is joked about the less success his opponents will have in ginning that up.

Who compiles those statistics ?  I find them to be extremely one-sided.  I don’t believe these people are playing with a full deck.  Starting with Hollywood divorce and remarriage, whites are on a par with African Americans with out of wedlock births.  Ever look at Jerry Springer?  Most of these gals don’t know who the father is.  Moms and Dads are hiding a lot of the others.  How about those runaways who are being pimped on the streets because they are looking for a Father figure.  Let’s put things in perspective.  Let’s start telling the truth.  Blacks are no more promiscuous than whites.  All of us do something wrong, we just don’t want to admit it.

It sure seems like it’s a Church policy that nobody bothers to enforce.  Kinda makes it not a serious policy doesn’t it? similar to catholic clergy objecting to contraceptives.

According to the King James version, you don’t get a second chance.  After death, is the judgement.  Today is the day of Salvation.

For all your prayers may seem to be very real to you, I think you’ll
find your arrogance before the seat of the immutable power of the
universe is offensive to a lot of people. 

P.S. The concept that “God” (or whatever your ‘image’ of the powers to be is) would even consider that statement, or that somehow you consider your prayers to be in some way more important than other peoples is enough to identify you as being so far out touch with reality that you’d be better off not contributing to the human gene pool!

America is not a person.  Many people were saved in that church.

That’s because grace doesn’t jib with justice by the nature of it being grace.

and God works in mysterious ways we cannot understand ..I know.

That doesn’t quite cut it for me. Are you saying where grace is concerned God isn’t just and we shouldn’t expect the supreme deity to be just?

Ultimately the whole idea that the physical death and resurrection of Jesus somehow paid for the sins of everyone past present and future, doesn’t make any sense to me. I think it is a great misunderstanding of what Jesus actually taught and not what I get from his words at all.

That’s what I’m saying. God taking our sins upon himself was not an act of justice.

Will do.

Keeping fear, divisiveness and hatred alive. “white people lie” “We (the
US) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it
more than we believe in God.”

Considering the racism he grew up seeing, how is that wrong. Is it all that different than MLK saying that it’s wrong for people to sit back and do nothing in the face of great injustice?

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

hyperbolic , but is it completely incorrect? The point being that we sometimes highlight the sins of others while ignoring and justifying away our own.

Look. For you this may not be factor in your decision to vote for Romney. Mazel tov. But for me and others who are concerned about the rise of religious fundamentalism, we have every right to consider this without being told that it’s “baloney.” You use your factors, I’ll use mine.

Actually, you have no right not to hear that your considerations are sheer partisan baloney.

ESPECIALLY when you voice this disingenuous tripe on a blogboard.

That’s what I’m saying. God taking our sins upon himself was not an act of justice.

Then I think you also disagree with Christian theology on that point. My understanding was it is exactly because God is just that sins had to be paid for in some way, that way being the death of a sinless Jesus , who then conquered death for all of us.

If grace is the answer then it seems we could just be forgiven without any supreme sacrifice.

Well, we’ll light a candle and petition God not to hold your artifice against you.

Justice is that the guilty pay the price of their wrongs.

It wasn’t justice that caused the innocent Christ to take on that guilt. It is love.

To me, he perpetuates division. Keeps *hatred* alive. I think that is harmful.

If he is then at least half of Christiandom is as well. As I said, the right pursued Christian fundamentalists for decades and didn’t care what they said from the pulpit. More than one conservative preacher said Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for the US being so permissive with homosexuals.

Preaching that there are consequences to sin is not something unique to Wright’s preaching. Personally just teaching that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is going to hell seems pretty damn divisive.
Actually, although far from perfect, Rev Wright overcame a lot to serve others. I listened to one of the sermons in question in full. 45 minutes of talk about love brotherhood, helping others and personal responsibility , and the GOP pulled out a 7 second clip to repeat over and over.
It’s just to easy to judge a man’s life from a few sound clips having not walked in his shoes as a black American living in a very racist America.

Thats a very good question, and the answer lies in the church’s very extensive geneology resources.  It is given that there will not be a perfect geneological record of everyone that has ever lived on earth, but herein lies what I believe to be the mercy of God, that instead of damning everybody that wasn’t baptised while they were on earth, there is an opportunity in place for people to receive the ordinance of baptism.  Mormon doctrine teaches that baptism for the dead will continue after Christ has returned during the millenial reign where much more knowledge will be attainable about geneology.

Don’t bother. (And why the snark? I’ve treated you with respect and dealt with all your points in a frank and non-confrontational way. I don’t understand why you felt the need to get petty.)

Oh, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. I just don’t you seriously here.

No one is questioning that this is only a one time incident.  What i’m saying is that for a worldwide church, you can’t blame the few incidents that is has happened on the church, where they have come out and explicitly reprimanded and even threatened excommunication to those who willfully violate the policy.  Please see the following article for how the church has tried to stop this practice.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765552916/LDS-Church-toughens-stand-against-improper-proxy-name-submissions.html

There is only one church that would proclaim “..the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro” and that church would be The Trinity United Church of Christ.

Any way I’ve got to go get shrimp sauce off my blouse.

We’ll talk more later and I’ll try to attribute more seri… whatever…we’ll talk later.

Unlike you who doesn’t know what the FC you are talking about, except you certainly know how to demonstrate your atheist ignorance.

You are the only piece of Spam in the can on this site.

Knowledge is power and you if can’t discern things for yourself than you are lacking in God’s gift of intelligence.

 Most religious practices are sheer hocum.  But I do not think his outrage is feigned and I think you have a lot of nerve accusing him of that.  It’s incredibly arrogant of you.

Obama made religion an issue – a central part of his campaign, in
certain areas – and the Left turned a blind eye to it, regardless of how
they went after Conservatives for their religious beliefs.

He did? How, by saying he was a Christian and his belief is important to him. How is that different than any other candidate? Frankly I’ll be glad when an agnostic or atheist can run based on reason and principles, but we’re not that gown up yet.

Sorry Sara, look back at previous elections. The GOP has courted all kinds of Conservative Christians and fundamentalists for decades and nobody made it a big issue , until the GOP went after Wright. I remember during that period the son of a Christian fundamentalist recalled how his own father was courted and hailed as a great Christian regardless of all his hateful words.

I’m not comparing Wright to Mormonism. I don’t think Baptism of the Dead is such an outrage. It’s just one more somewhat arcane and bizarre tradition. Religion is full of them. 
My point is that the GOP shouldn’t be complaining about religion being made part of the issue. Personally, I think honest questions about how a person’s religious beliefs might affect their decisions in office are perfectly fair.

The first amendment lets you practice any crackpot religion you want to.  It doesn’t however force you to vote for a follower of any crackpot religion.

Respect for posting under your real name.

I would suggest to you and your fellows to seriously reconsider positions like “deceased persons are free to accept or reject what is offered.” The fact is the persons who are subjected to your religious beliefs have no say in it whatsoever because they are dead.

More than likely you are doing it against the persons own principles and beliefs. That isn´t an invitation. Who gives you the right, just to name an example, to baptize my dead grandfather or me by proxy after I am dead? Exactly. No one.

Let the dead rest in peace. Death is one of the most intimate affairs humans have to deal with and your Church should respect it, instead of intruding into the private sphere of others.

“These deceased persons are free to accept or reject what is offered. As a social scientist it occurs to me that none of us can know, nor can we now measure scientifically, what those who are dead feel at present about religion.”

How … humble? … of you.

Worse than a presumption that the LDS Church has the authority to “baptize” deceased people, of any faith, into your orthodoxy, is the mere notion that ANY of us in our temporal existence can or should counsel those who have passed to a higher, or other, or no, afterlife. Our belief systems define our mortal lives and may, or may not, shape our eternal destiny. But they have no place in that destiny.

If you believe in God, let him handle it. If you don’t, quit dicking around with people.

 Well, for one thing, you could convert dead Mormons to Judaism.

They did it because CONSERVATIVES just can’t help themselves. Romney says he is a conservative, he belongs to a conservative church, and these conservatives are baptizing DEAD people……….Really!!?? You don’t find that a little weird???!!!

Memo to Sara………..religion is one of the biggest hoaxes to be played on human kind……

How, by saying he was a Christian and his belief is important to him.**
His religious brochures, his religious (anti-gay) roadshows, all his talk about how dear Wright was to him. He wrote about it, talked about it, pandered to certain groups using it, gave his black preacheresque sermons, etc. 

I remember all the hoopla over Huckabee and some commercial that he took all kinds of crap for, because of how the lighting looked like a cross, and it was a bookshelf. The Left always got in an uproar when Bush made religiousy comments. They plastered Obama with halos all over magazines. 

They apparently all of a sudden loved it when Pols talked about God… even though they still make comments about religion being fake, or fairy tales, or for idiots, or people who don’t believe in science, etc. But for some reason, Obama is immune to those attacks. You can not deny that, and be honest.

“My point is that the GOP shouldn’t be complaining about religion being made part of the issue.”

Who is complaining? I think people are complaining over bigotry, and the obvious bias in issues mentioned in debates, Left vs. Right. But, the candidates are all out there talking about their own faiths. 

As for this story, the point I made was that it was obvious political (the large amount of coverage), with the intent to damage Romney. 

Dr. Smith says: “The Church, by moving names (other than at this time Holocaust
survivors) to a temple database, is simply extending the invitation to those
who have passed away to become a part of the Kingdom of God in the eternities as
we see it.”

Spot on, brother. I’m sure everyone would like to be conveniently placed in nice and DIVIDED locations IN HEAVEN after death – Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. Just like Earth. Even Dante couldn’t think of this.

Your white sheets are done. You can pick them up at any time, “Terry.”

… said the Klansman.

 Well I suppose the whore of Babylon is far better than someone who babbles on.  Just a play on words.  Seriously agree with you on the Vicor’s statement

I have no doubt that Colbert will be mocking muslims next.  Yeah right.

Oh, well…

Accepting the sincerity of belief, the practice remains offensive.  It is a construct of men presuming to offer “salvation” to those whose mortal lives and beliefs now have passed for judgment (or not, should the religious be kidding themselves) to the next life.

How we have lived and died counts — but it matters not one little bit what the teachings or preachings are of any orthodoxy once we reach the moment of our next destiny.

Defend, if you are so constrained, the accoutrements of temporal faith. But shame on any religion that believes it has authority over those already in the grasp of eternity.

As a Jewish person I find that Colbert using a cigar-cutter to slice a hot-dog as a metaphor for circumcision is MUCH more offensive than Mormons retroactively baptising dead people to (in their view) give them a path to heaven.

Definitely not true.

There is one disputed passage in the bible that makes some think that a small group might have been doing it at one time during the time of Paul. (But it is more commonly thought that the passage refers belief that in baptism we die with Christ and at death we hope to rise with him.) The church has never held that baptism by water was necessary for salvation. There is also baptism by fire and baptism of desire. All those who die without baptism but sought God with a sincere heart and led a good or heroic life will be saved.

It is a crazy invention of Mormons in the late 1800s that they should baptize the dead.  It is a loony practice. They have baptized Pope John Paul II at least nine times that are known. They have baptized Pope Paul VI many times over. (I read somewhere they married him off to a celestial wife. But I need to confirm that as I read it only once.)

Hooray for Stephen Colbert for pointing out the insensitive and insulting practice and showing it for what it is: absolutely crazy.

That was flat out shameful of Colbert.  It wasn’t irreverent it was defamation.  Now when Colbert does a funny segment on Muslim honor killings in the U.S. we’ll call it even.  

And the obscene, wholescale sodomy of vulnerable little boys is the wielding by your clergy of your god’s gift of this power of intelligence . . . ?

That would require courage, something people like ColberT lack.

I having lived all my life (60 yrs) in a mormon belt, as a rare protestant.  Yes, they do ‘baptize for the dead’.  Even your ancestors.  Both male & female are baptized in the name of the LDS church at age 8.  Then they attend ‘mutual’ (sort of like a catechism class – Sort Of) then are ‘called’ to do the honor of baptizing for the dead.  I had always learned that God will see what’s in your heart, if you didn’t know His Word.  I think it’s just to pad their membership roll.  Having been married to an (gasp) LDS man, I learned it’s nearly impossible to get your name removed as a church member.  And no, the mainstream LDS Mormons don’t hold to quite the same beliefs as FLDS or RFLDS polygamists.  They’re still mysoginistic bullies, however.  Just a different perspective put out here.

How’d he get them in the mikvah?

Oh please, write me a Muslim honor killing joke. This should be good.

May your corpse be consecrated into Islam, and Bhuddism, Judaism, or whatever other religion that you are not. Maybe we could “honor” your faith with a pagan burial, or draw a pentagram around your gravesite in a voodoo ceremony. Does that sound good to you? Amen!

Um, every faith thinks every other faith is inherently flawed. It’s kind of definitional. Best to avoid the whole mess and use reason instead.

For all of you Mormon apologists out there who are saying this is okay, there is a parody website out there where you can put the names of dead Mormons into it and make them….. POSTHUMOUSLY GAY!!! Does that offend you? Then stop doing similar things to dead Jews, or anyone else, for that matter.

 So why hasn’t he ever asked the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to do the same?

Why would you find it offensive? That’s pretty much what circumcision is: a barbaric custom in which a defenseless child is held down while old men cut off part of his penis. The parents who are supposed to protect the child from harm are in the meantime having a “celebration”. 

Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17 were shot dead in an honor killing by their father, in Irving, Texas, on New Year’s Day 2008. Their crime, dating non-Muslims. The father fled the country and is still at large. Colbert couldn’t make a joke out of what happens if you date a non-muslim? That could be hilarious.

What is Colbert draws live on a flip chart a picture(s) of Mohamed to show he’s not going to let death threats scare him and he’ll draw Mohamed when and wherever he darn pleases. Now, that would be funny.

Or, he could do a segment on Jihad. What’s funnier then Jihad? How about burning both a Koran and a Bible. A Korbible!

If An American comedian can’t take pot shots at ISLAM, he shouldn’t be defaming peoples faith. Mormons have had a 17 year moratorium on the rite and evidentily someone in AZ who had access to their database stirred this up and the church apologized. But Colbert just wants to make Mormons look as freakish as he can to hurt Mitt Romney and help Obama. Mocking someones religious beliefs can be funny but what Colbert did was hurtful.

Again, when Colbert can mock Islam I’ll think he’s a genius.

 That actually is the policy, and the Church is working to further enforce it. People have to realize that much of this is computer driven with a lot of volunteers working all over the world and submitting names. Obviously the Church must try to eliminate mistakes, but there are people who would fake credentials to keep this controversy going because they enjoy watching the furor.

 The Church has made repeated statements to the contrary and has expressed that several times. Credentials are being denied as offenders are uncovered. However, has anyone bothered to notice that even our most secure government computer systems get hacked? Since all the ordinance ever was intended to do is offer a choice, people should take a deep breath and allow the Church and Jewish officials to work this out.

 Dear royal Emperor,

Anyone with your royal status needn’t be offended by the frightful practice of extending a choice that compels nothing. This entire tempest is over a rite that is meant to extend nothing more than a choice, and if the Jewish idea of the after life is the correct one, there isn’t anyone to make the choice.

 For Terry. Stephen Colbert was raised a Catholic.

 You and Colbert could show real courage and do it to the Muslims.  Or just make fun of the Mormons.  The only thing more cowardly than going after the Mormons would be going after the Amish.  I am sure they are next on Colbert’s hitlist. 

I don’t believe you get the numbers mentioned from pranksters with a computer. 

Yawn. When Colbert ‘lampoons’ the muslim faith, someone wake me up, and let me know. He’s another leftist trying to score cheap political points on a safe target. How brave, and cutting edge. Just like all the others before him. 

Colbert is hilarious, but a couple things should be cleared up here for anyone interested in what Mormons actually believe about baptisms for the dead.
First: the hot tub time machine joke. This ordinance has nothing to do with a belief in even symbolically transporting to the past. It is performed by people in the present, on behalf of those who are dead, and therefore living in spirit, in the present.
Second (and most important): The phrase “against their will” was used many times in the above clip to describe this proxy ordinance. That idea categorically goes against the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Most Christian faiths accept Christ’s example and teaching that the baptismal ordinance is essential for salvation. (“Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” John 3:5)
What of those billions of people who have lived and died, without ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel, let alone receive baptism? It is our belief that everyone will have the opportunity to learn of Christ, in this life or the next, and accept the vicarious ordinance of baptism if and only if they choose to do so. Free will is in fact a core principle in this belief. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ, this is an act of love and service to provide someone in the afterlife with a choice, certainly not an imposition of will or a confirmation that the deceased individual has chosen to accept the ordinance. The LDS church has been very understanding with the Jewish community’s request that these not be performed for holocaust victims, and has taken action to reprimand individuals who have tried to do this anyway. My understanding is that the gentleman who brought in these particular names is no longer allowed to submit any names for temple work. (This ordinance of work for the dead was performed in biblical times, and is referenced in a rhetorical question by Paul in the New Testament. See 1 Cor 15:29)
Third and finally: Colbert says Mormons believe those who accept baptism after this life can only enter the “lowest heaven” while those born into the faith are allowed the Celestial Kingdom. This is completely false. Mormons do believe in degrees of glory, but everyone, including those who accept baptism in the next life, has every opportunity to attain the Celestial Kingdom, or eternal life.
The intent of this response is not to offend anyone, just to clear up some things that were misconstrued about Mormons in the clip, and to give a more accurate representation of what we really believe. Hope this is helpful to someone. Cheers.

from your link

“The new, tougher statement comes in the wake of a tumultuous week”

as I said, it seems like it’s a policy nobody was really enforcing. This comes after other complaints by holocaust survivors and according to the clip, hundreds of thousands of posthumous baptisms and their promise in 95 to take steps to prevent it. 

Posthumously declared gay???  Oh, SAY it isn’t SO!!! I am just SO offended!! 

not.

If I CHOOSE to be gay, that’s my choice. If the dead that we posthumously baptise CHOOSE to accept that baptism, that’s THEIR choice. At least we GIVE them a choice. 

How does vicarious baptism pad our membership? We don’t count dead people as members, not even those who were members. 
If we counted every person we vicariously baptize as a member, we wouldn’t have 14 million members, we’d have 14 billion. 

Well I read many comments on this topic and the only thing I can say is all of this shit is ridiculous.

That would be impossible to do because most gay are atheists and prayers for the souls of the departed, apparently are only effective if they believe in a God…  So Sorry!!!

Wow, that some testimony considering you’re not a Mormon and you ‘Sort Of’ know something about them, but it’s definite that you know they are misogynist and bullies.

 Wouldn’t it be funny if Stephen Colbert Tackles Posthumous Mormon Islamic Baptism Pilgrimage By Converting All The Dead Mormons Muslims To Judaism?

Awww…can you smell the tolerance?

Right now, Colbert is a member of Obama’s Truth Team and he is working diligently to spread lies about his leader’s challanger Romney the future POTUS. He will receive his just reward one day soon I am sure.

Well that was a well thought out ‘prayer’ but what you fail to understand the body is nothing once the soul departs.  We pray for the soul not the body and there is only one creative force, God and the energy of the soul returns to that creative force from which it came…  And may your blessing be returned to you two-fold.Amen!

Don’t know, maybe he isn’t high profile enough. After reading about this issue, I don’t think Romney should tell his church to stop either. It’s really something the church needs to start dealing wih.

 Free Common Sense,

You see, we don’t believe that we end after death. It is not an end, but a transition- the spirit lives on. You might disagree with us on the nature of the after life, but that doesn’t make our view on the matter necessarily incorrect, you know? Because the soul lives on after this life, we believe that it can still learn and grow and act on new knowledge. So, just because a person might die having no desire to be baptized, he might come to regret that decision later. If he does, we believe that the vicarious work we are allowed by God to do for him (or her) will stand in for the baptism he missed on Earth. That is all it is. We are not forcing them to become Mormon against their will- no one could do that. We are not defiling their graves, or their memories.  It might not be political to say it, but we, like pretty much every other religion out there, believe we are the “Correct Church.” We try to be polite about it, but we really do honestly think people would be happier in it then out of it, and that God wants them to join it- that is why we spend so much of our time proselyting (hopefully in not to pushy of a way).

The point is, I don’t see how it is any more offensive to say of a dead person “This person served God well in this life, but he didn’t have the full truth” than it is to say to a living person, “You are doing great, but would you like to have more of God’s truth in your life?” It is not meant as an insult, but as an act of love, and we believe God has asked us to do this service for His departed Children. That (and the fact that your wishes might change after death) is what “gives us that right” you talked about. I am sorry if some living people are offended by it, but we honestly do not think the departed are in any way offended- we know they can’t be harmed by it, at least!

In any case, its late, but I hope I helped explain our beliefs a bit better for you.

It´s not your choice to give. In Christian terms it is also known as deadly sin called pride. 

I don´t see what I got wrong about your beliefs. You feel your beliefs give you license to behave offensive.  They don´t. I don´t mind what anyone´s belief is as long as other people are left alone. That´s where I draw the line for all religions. At least your are honest about the hubris involved. 

I do know enough about this practice in the LDS church, to know they think they are allowing people to get the second level of heaven.  The one thing that is not considered is the disrespect it shows to the family of these people. Colbert in his Colbert fashion demonstrates  how offensive this is to the average person….
Keep it up Stephen

President Obama didn’t sit in the church when Rev. Wright made those comments. He was there for that service.

I think you’re right about that. Thanks.

Yes, I apologize.

By and large I try to treat posters with the same degree of respect that I get in return. I find your posts to be more thoughtful generally and have engaged you with that in mind. It’s not that my feelings were “hurt,” but, rather, I’m surprised when a civil exchange turns unnecessarily snarky. Apology accepted.

I know this has already been posted but anyone who truly wants to understand Baptism for the dead should read it. Nothing is forced on anyone, they have a choice to accept or not. Also, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has banned baptisms of deceased Jews and enforce it when they know its happening, its just impossible to catch every mistake. You may also go to http://www.mormon.org to learn more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/what-baptism-for-the-dead-means-to-mormons/2012/02/23/gIQA2sIaVR_blog.html

 I am sorry you are offended. I don’t understand at all why, but I am sorry you are. And no, we don’t believe it is hubris. If you believe in God (I don’t know you religious persuasion, but I am going to assume you hold to some religion), shouldn’t you believe that your religion is the right one? If you don’t, you should probably change religions.

The thing with our belief is this- If we are wrong we are doing NOTHING to anyone. Not one thing. Nothing we do will affect anyone, if we are wrong. If we are right, it is only to their benefit. It is very similar to praying for a deceased person. They are not becoming Mormon, or being listed as such. That is why I can not understand how you can be offended by this. Like I said, I am sorry  you are, but I don’t understand why. Maybe you can explain it to me?

I did explain it to you, and not only me looking at other comments here. You aren´t understanding the explanation. There´s really no explanation beyond stay out of other people´s personal matters necessary.

Agreed.  Offense could be have been kept at bay with the simple act, or non-act, of ceasing to baptize – upon request.  I could even fathom that benevolence was a part of original intent.  Not now. 
Why this compulsion to baptize?    There’s much more to do for humankind than to pore over the dead..  Someone else’s dead. 

Mormon baptism is theologically invalid, anyway, dead or alive.

If you take the second m out of Mormon, what do you get? Need I say more?