Revenge for Posthumous Mormon Baptisms?

[chiccy]

How so? Exactly how is forcing someone to violate a tenant of their religion worse than stripping them of that religion and throwing it in the garbage after they're dead?

That's why I specified "spiritually" and am only focusing on that issue (chiccy opened the door by claiming that the tattooing was extra horrible because of the spiritual implications, while ignoring the spiritual implications of the baptisms)

My main point has always been that there are no spiritual implications of the posthumous Mormon baptism. Are there for the Mormons? Yeah, I guess. Are there for you or your dead kin? Not in the slightest. There wouldn't be if they did it when you were alive, either.

"Stripping them of that religion and throwing it in the garbage after they're dead" is bullshit. The only way that is accurate is if you believe in what the Mormons think they are doing. I don't. Do you?

[DarkAnts]

[Beeks]

I personally find the practice offensive. I am going to send the mormon a legal document telling them that they are under no circumstance to baptize me after I am dead. If they do it anyway then I will have my next of kin sue the church. Baptism is a choice. I have the choice to tell them to not do their fucked up service on me after I am dead.

Edit to fix quotes

[valsa]

My main point has always been that there are no spiritual implications of the posthumous Mormon baptism. Are there for the Mormons? Yeah, I guess. Are there for you or your dead kin? Not in the slightest. There wouldn't be if they did it when you were alive, either.

"Stripping them of that religion and throwing it in the garbage after they're dead" is bullshit. The only way that is accurate is if you believe in what the Mormons think they are doing. I don't. Do you?

No, but I also don't believe in what the Jewish faith thinks about tattooing either. You can't have it both ways- either the beliefs of both the Mormon and Jewish faiths have validity or neither do. There's no practical difference.

[chiccy]

No, but I also don't believe in what the Jewish faith thinks about tattooing either. You can't have it both ways- either the beliefs of both the Mormon and Jewish faiths have validity or neither do. There's no practical difference.

The difference is that in one case the person's spiritual beliefs (not to mention selfhood, humanity, etc.) are being directly subverted. The person is being forced into something that his own faith perceives as a sin. In the other case, no such transgression of one's own faith is imposed--unless there is a law in your faith that says "Thou shalt not be proxy-baptized by a Mormon." Or a belief in your faith that proxy-baptism by a Mormon is in fact doctrinally valid and implicates the baptized (not only according to Mormons, but also vis-à-vis the baptized's own faith). I've never heard of such a faith, if there is one.

[DarkAnts]

The difference is that in one case the person's spiritual beliefs (not to mention selfhood, humanity, etc.) are being directly subverted. The person is being forced into something that his own faith perceives as a sin. In the other case, no such transgression of one's own faith is imposed--unless there is a law in your faith that says "Thou shalt not be proxy-baptized by a Mormon." Or a belief in your faith that proxy-baptism by a Mormon is in fact doctrinally valid and implicates the baptized (not only according to Mormons, but also vis-à-vis the baptized's own faith). I've never heard of such a faith, if there is one.

They are both equally offensive. The point of the website is to show that. If the mormons dont like us making their founding cult fathers gay then they should stop baptisms of the dead.

[chiccy]

They are both equally offensive. The point of the website is to show that. If the mormons dont like us making their founding cult fathers gay then they should stop baptisms of the dead.

What is equally offensive to what?

[DarkAnts]

What is equally offensive to what?

The baptisms of the dead for jewish people are just as offensive or more offensive then the website alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com. I personally find baptisms of the dead to be more offensive because its an actual religious ceremony. The website is pure satire. There is no actual ceremony involved. There is no religious basis for the website or anything that actually says it works. Mormons believe that baptisms for the dead work. That belief is part of what makes it so offensive. They are trying to force their belief on people after they die. They disregard how that person felt about the decision in life. They are being disrespectful of the dead person and their personal beliefs.

[chiccy]

The baptisms of the dead for jewish people are just as offensive or more offensive then the website alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com.

:lol:

Obviously, I agree, but your comment is neither here nor there. We were talking about how posthumous baptism compares to concentration camp tattoos, which is quite a different question.

[DarkAnts]

:lol:

Obviously, I agree, but your comment is neither here nor there. We were talking about how posthumous baptism compares to concentration camp tattoos, which is quite a different question.

Case of RTST (Read the stinking thread) :oops:

[chiccy]

Case of RTST (Read the stinking thread) :oops:

Ahh, I thought you were telling me to Read the Stinking Thread until I saw the text of your emoticon. No worries. I don't think alldeadmoremonsarenowgay is offensive; I think it's hilarious.

[DarkAnts]

Ahh, I thought you were telling me to Read the Stinking Thread until I saw the text of your emoticon. No worries. I don't think alldeadmoremonsarenowgay is offensive; I think it's hilarious.

Yes, it was directed at me. I skimmed the thread but did not read it all the way through.

I have spent some time today turning all of the presidents of the mormon church gay. I have also turned some of the churches founding fathers gay. It brings me a perverted sense of satisfaction.

[Conuly]

Just to interrupt here, I thought Mormons thought that baptism of the dead gave the dead folks the option to convert in the afterlife, not that it forced them to do so.

Which doesn't make it less offensive, but I guess it's a little different from "Yup, we baptized Voltaire posthumously, now he's a Mormon!" because Voltaire could be sitting there in Hell, palling around with the Devil and laughing it up at those silly Mormons according to them... right? They think it works, but that doesn't mean that it's instantaneous and automatic... right? (Although when you think about it, this *still* fails to solve the problem of "What about good people who just never learned about Jesus and being a member of our religion?" because the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have left no records of their presence. So it's offensive to non-Mormons AND pointless, even if it "works".)

[valsa]

The difference is that in one case the person's spiritual beliefs (not to mention selfhood, humanity, etc.) are being directly subverted. The person is being forced into something that his own faith perceives as a sin. In the other case, no such transgression of one's own faith is imposed--unless there is a law in your faith that says "Thou shalt not be proxy-baptized by a Mormon." Or a belief in your faith that proxy-baptism by a Mormon is in fact doctrinally valid and implicates the baptized (not only according to Mormons, but also vis-à-vis the baptized's own faith). I've never heard of such a faith, if there is one.

So you’re saying you can do anything to a person without their permission and, as long as it’s not specifically prohibited by their religion (and even if it pretty much flies in the face of their religion itself), it’s not spiritually disrespectful? Bullshit. Although I can’t wait until the Mormons start marrying dead Christian guys to bunches of dead women (and adding those marriages into the family genealogies)

[Patsy]

I find the question of whether the baptisms are actually effective interesting. Chiccy, wasn't it you who originally said you thought the baptisms were more forgivable because they stemmed from beliefs sincerely held by the Mormons? In their mind, they are doing something far more altering than forcible tattooing someone.

[Guest Anonymous]

Wait...I don't quite understand. If you don't subscribe to Mormon beliefs how is it offensive for them to perform posthumous baptistms or other rituals on them since the person in question is dead? Or are we talking about Mormon rituals being performed on the living? I'm not Mormon or Jewish, so could somebody please explain this to me? This thread is a little confusing.

NOTE: This isn't Geniebelle being an asshole...I truly don't understand and want to learn.

[pomology]

Wait...I don't quite understand. If you don't subscribe to Mormon beliefs how is it offensive for them to perform posthumous baptistms or other rituals on them since the person in question is dead? Or are we talking about Mormon rituals being performed on the living? I'm not Mormon or Jewish, so could somebody please explain this to me? This thread is a little confusing.

NOTE: This isn't Geniebelle being an asshole...I truly don't understand and want to learn.

My issue isn't them being dunked in water and someone saying "I baptized you in the name of blah blah blah" Like, whatever. They're dead and I don't think the Mormon mumbo jumbo does anything

What I think is offensive is the fact that they then add the person's name to their membership rolls and claim that they are Mormon.

[Guest Anonymous]

I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing it up. I know they are put on the IGI, but I didn't know about membership rolls, or are they both the same thing?

[DistantStar]

I don't think they add them to any membership rolls; if they did, they'd have waaaaaaay more people than they claim -- and they already claim way more people than are really members aside from on paper.

It's just flat-out rude. I don't think it has the slightest bearing on anything that actually happens except somebody getting wet, but it's disrespectful and rude.

[Beeks]

My issue isn't them being dunked in water and someone saying "I baptized you in the name of blah blah blah" Like, whatever. They're dead and I don't think the Mormon mumbo jumbo does anything

What I think is offensive is the fact that they then add the person's name to their membership rolls and claim that they are Mormon.

Do they really do this though? My understanding was that the baptism just gave a person the option to convert to Mormonism in the afterlife, so wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous to add that person to the membership rolls without knowing whether or not they accepted the baptism?

We need a missionary to come talk to us, ha!

[pomology]

Do they really do this though? My understanding was that the baptism just gave a person the option to convert to Mormonism in the afterlife, so wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous to add that person to the membership rolls without knowing whether or not they accepted the baptism?

We need a missionary to come talk to us, ha!

Hm, I believe I may have misunderstood. Nonetheless, the fact that they use the names of Holocaust victims in their database (especially people like Anne Frank who had no descendants) is still pretty horrifying.

[Rachel333]

No, they don't add deceased people to their membership rolls. I'd be curious to see what the records actually say, because I really doubt that they claim they're Mormon now; I'd imagine it just says what ordinances the dead people have had done for them.

[chiccy]

My issue isn't them being dunked in water and someone saying "I baptized you in the name of blah blah blah" Like, whatever. They're dead and I don't think the Mormon mumbo jumbo does anything

Amen. Agree they shouldn't add them to the membership rolls, though; that's misleading.

[chiccy]

So you’re saying you can do anything to a person without their permission and, as long as it’s not specifically prohibited by their religion (and even if it pretty much flies in the face of their religion itself), it’s not spiritually disrespectful? Bullshit. Although I can’t wait until the Mormons start marrying dead Christian guys to bunches of dead women (and adding those marriages into the family genealogies)

I have said before that I do think it's spiritually disrespectful and in bad taste. However, I don't think it's nearly as spiritually disrespectful or generally abhorrent as tattooing someone's wrist in a death camp. As for "doing anything to a person without their permission," that's quite a leap from what I was saying.

The Mormons should totes start marrying dead people into plural marriages. It would be hilarious. I would say I don't think it's far off, but they'll probably have an issue with the fact that these marriages can't be consummated (although maybe the rules are different for so-called "celestial marriages.") I wouldn't put it past them.

[Elle]

What I think it stupid is them believing that their little plays will somehow make dead people accept god, especially people who died Christian.

What they really should do is ONLY "baptize" people by request.

It takes more than being baptized to truly be a member of a religion anyway and to get into whatever each religion believes is heaven.