Until/unless it ceases and desists once and for all in its posthumous cult ritual of baptisms for the dead.

From its founding pedophilic sex and power hungry cult leaders, to present day Mormon apologists, isn't it about time it stop the insidious practice of proxy baptisms for the dead?

It will do it for as long as it can get away with it.

Until a court of law intervenes to stop it. This is a case that would go all the way to the Supreme Court were someone to bring a class action lawsuit for those who have the legal standing to bring it on.

The civil rights of the living are at stake. Why should ex-Mormons have to live with the certainty and understanding that despite our best efforts to remove our names once and for all from the records of TSCC, that in death we have zero say in the church using our former church records to perform temple rituals on us after we're dead and gone?

That is the violation of my civil rights in the here and now, is having to live with that certainty that there is no escaping the cult in life or in death.

What about others? Are you as outraged as a former Mormon and a current Jew is about this god awful practice?

We shouldn't have to be Anne Frank to get them to stop, in other words. And she's been dead dunked at least nine times by internal cult records that have gone public. It should be a universal cease and desist order because it's as outrageous to the sensibilities of others, not only for Holocaust victims of the Shoah.

False advertising!

I thought sex, sex and whores, were the subject of this thread!

Yes, I am outraged to have recently learned that my parents now have it written in their will that my brother (who formally resigned a few years back) will be baptized post-humously by one of the grandkids. He doesn’t even know. It’s infuriating!

writing it into a person's Will doesn't make it happen;

I could write 'World Peace' into my Will (I didn't, but it's an idea!), but that wouldn't make it happen!


IF (they) made the disbursement of $ contingent on that... That would be gross.

It's a strange thing to put in a will. Assuming my brother lives a long life, he will outlive them by 20 or so years. Who will be looking at their will that long after they die? It just illustrates how controlling they are. They want to call the shots even after they are dead. I must tell my brother to put in his will that no Mormon is allowed to baptize him after he dies. :-D

bluebutterfly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I am outraged to have recently learned that
> my parents now have it written in their will that
> my brother (who formally resigned a few years
> back) will be baptized post-humously by one of the
> grandkids. He doesn’t even know. It’s
> infuriating!

That would be infuriating. This is exactly my premise. It should be a non issue once a former member leaves the cult, and makes their wishes known.

It violates the civil rights of the living *and* the deceased.

the policies & procedures of tscc include:


Ignoring - minimizing hurtful choices/actions of members; if someone has positioned themselves as a 'faithful member', it's as though they can Do No Wrong... Often at the expense of 'Family Values' & Honesty.

A violation of your civil rights? In which way is this violation of your civil rights?

Can you explain please and especially how someone would take this
to the supreme court? Have religions now used the court system
to change or challenge their religious practices? Isn't this against our constitution?

This is an astonishing claim.The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2018 01:49PM by saucie.

It's not. It may offend her sensibilities, but it not offending her civil rights. A lot more people, with a lot more money, influence and lawyers have addressed this with the church. Never once did "violation of civil rights" enter the picture. Amyjo has an emotional right to be angry, but nowhere near a legal one.

I'm not that outraged about the LDS Church doing baptisms for the dead. They do a lot of other stuff to living people and that is far, far worse!

It's both wrong. But when you are living you can vote with your feet!

When you are deceased there can be no dissent!

That's why the church aka cult is a harlot. It pulls a fast and cheap move on the most defenseless - ie, our souls - the disembodied and voiceless.

It is desecrating to the memory of loved ones passed on to deal with further aggrandizement from TSCC aka CULT.

You say the living can vote with their feet... How do you know the dead can't vote with their wings?

Is there any indication, as far as you're aware, that a dead person has complained about necro-dunking?

I'm complaining for them. For all my Jewish ancestors, and any other ex-Mos or non-Mos that don't want their memory to be desecrated with a posthumous baptism.

It violates their memory, period.

"Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promised in 1995 to stop including Holocaust victims in its ritual, the church admitted last week that Anne Frank had been “baptized” in a Mormon church in the Dominican Republic. On Wednesday, The Boston Globe reported that Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal who was kidnapped and killed by terrorists in Pakistan in early 2002, was baptized last June in Twin Falls, Idaho; Mr. Pearl was Jewish.

Also on Wednesday, the church released a letter reiterating its policy that “without exception, church members must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names from unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims.”

In proxy baptism, a living Mormon immerses himself or herself in a baptismal font on behalf of a dead person. A church spokesman, Michael Otterson, said Friday that the ritual was done in the spirit of love, and that people’s souls were free not to become Mormons....

Church policy is that people baptize only their own dead relatives, hence the baptism of Anne Frank and Mr. Pearl both violated church policy. According to Mr. Otterson, the Mormon who baptized Anne Frank intentionally misused the church’s Internet-based software.

“With Anne Frank,” Mr. Otterson said, “this person tried to enter the name, found it was rejected, then created a duplicate record and falsified information to submit the record. And our system didn’t catch it.”

He said the perpetrator’s account had been suspended.

Even for the light-hearted Rabbi Waldoks, however, such explanations may be little consolation. Jews do not believe that baptism has any religious significance — it’s just water — but the Mormon practice leaves many Jews feeling disrespected.

“It smacks,” Rabbi Waldoks said, “of a certain sense of proselytism: If you can’t get them while they’re alive, you’ll get them while they’re dead.”

Photo

Daniel Pearl, a reporter slain in 2002, had also been baptized. Credit Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Laura A. Baum, an Ohio rabbi who runs OurJewishCommunity.org, an online community, said that even though proxy baptism did not actually accomplish anything, it still had the power to offend.

“It’s important to say that in some ways it’s meaningless,” Rabbi Baum said. “But it’s also religiously arrogant. I think words matter. Their doing their rituals could be insulting to the families of people whose relatives are being baptized. In the case of people who died during the Holocaust, they were killed because of their religious identity, and now another group is confusing the story.”...

Asher Lopatin, a prominent Orthodox rabbi in Chicago, said that Mormons and Jews alike had to be sensitive to people of other faiths.

“It’s a lot like Palestinians crossing into Israel,” Rabbi Lopatin said. “I used to always say, ‘Look, so they have to wait another hour at the checkpoint, what’s the big deal?’ But the point is it offends them, and you have to take people’s feelings seriously.”

Nobody offered a more succinct version of this point than Rabbi Baum.

“I don’t want to give any credence to anyone who thinks baptizing us matters,” she said. “On the other hand, I don’t think it’s nice.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html

>
> Laura A. Baum, an Ohio rabbi who runs
> OurJewishCommunity.org, an online community,
> said that even though proxy baptism did not
> actually accomplish anything, it still had
> the power to offend.
>

Literally, it is possible to be offended by anything and everything!

Rabbi Baum contends, as does EVERYONE in the RfM community, that "...proxy baptism did not actually accomplish anything..." and then goes on to recognize that the activity is offensive. I won't quarrel with that. Nor would I quarrel with anyone in any faith community being offended by mormonism's declaration that proxy baptisms are offensive, and complaining to the church about it.

What I find offensive (right up there with adult diaper commercials and ads for toe nail clippers) is the call for legal action, taking the case all the way to the supreme court, where if all the lower courts found against her, (based on stare decisis), why would anyone expect SCOTUS to reverse? And the likely issue at SCOTUS would be standing to sue! All that would happen if SCOTUS found for Amyjo is that the case would be sent back to the original court for a trial!

And in the cited instance, with the dead-dunking being done in the Dominican Republic, the church could simply point out that American civil court rulings or findings are not binding outside the United States. Although I do stipulate that the original court might be pissed off and award some sort of damages to a claimant, which the church would then appeal and keep in limbo for as long as they could, like til the second coming.

Again, why is it okay to call a group, 'whore' and post a quote you like, Amyjo, from Rabbi Baum regarding not 'nice' narco-baptism?

"SALT LAKE CITY — Despite strict safeguards and rules, some Mormons have vicariously baptized at least 20 Holocaust victims over the past five years, according to a researcher who gained access to the database with another person's login.

Church leaders swiftly moved to cancel the baptisms and noted the work done to help members understand church policy.

"These ordinances were submitted against church policy and therefore have been invalidated," said Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Helen Radkey, a Universal Life Church minister and former Mormon who rejects the practice of baptism for the dead, found the names of the 20 Holocaust victims as well as the grandparents of celebrities in the system. She said the key problem is the submission of improper names.

"Members are not following the rules," she said. "It's got to be the church's job to find out who these submitters are."

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=46222189&nid=148

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2018 08:32PM by Amyjo.

Although I can certainly see why this is offensive, I have a hard time getting too worked up about it.

Based on the tenor of the quotes by rabbis and Jewish people cited on Rfm, they recognize that the ceremony of submerging someone in water after saying some religious hokum is meaningless.

I think things like this are tricky. You have to respect the wishes of the family members of the deceased, even the ancestors to a certain extent, and yet one can recognize that these kind of activities are nothing. They’re just words and religious ceremony,spoken and acted on by willing participants, in behalf of the dead In Mormon temples.

As a personal aside, I don’t think the dead care about such things, whether because their existence was snuffed out in totality and there is no afterlife, or there is, and the dead have gained an understanding of the universe that transcends mortal concerns like religion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2018 08:30PM by midwestanon.

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although I can certainly see why this is
> offensive, I have a hard time getting too worked
> up about it.

I've been both a Mormon and am Jewish. I see the absurdity of it, but also how offensive it is from a Jewish perspective.

>
> Based on the tenor of the quotes by rabbis and
> Jewish people cited on Rfm, they recognize that
> the ceremony of submerging someone in water after
> saying some religious hokum is meaningless.

From a Mormon perspective it isn't "meaningless" though. It's the difference to them between exaltation and mere existence. The fact that they think they can dictate that to others by means of a cult ritual practice as absurd as it is, is still offensive and wrong to other creeds and faiths.

>
> I think things like this are tricky. You have to
> respect the wishes of the family members of the
> deceased, even the ancestors to a certain extent,
> and yet one can recognize that these kind of
> activities are nothing. They’re just words and
> religious ceremony,spoken and acted on by willing
> participants, in behalf of the dead In Mormon
> temples.
>
> As a personal aside, I don’t think the dead care
> about such things, whether because their existence
> was snuffed out in totality and there is no
> afterlife, or there is, and the dead have gained
> an understanding of the universe that transcends
> mortal concerns like religion.

Your response is transcendental. It is probably the closest thing to the truth we are going to get if there is to be found an "answer."

I remember a time when I was passionate about gathering names and dates from my genealogy to send to the temple for these baptisms. I remember that my Catholic relatives didn't like it. I was kind of hurt when they didn't want to share their genealogy with me. I felt that I was heroic to dig for the family history by myself.

Now, Of course, I understand how those Catholics felt.

On my Protestant side, they didn't mind sharing their genealogy with me. They saw the Mormon baptism by proxy as kind of silly, but they weren't upset by the prospect of it.

I would love to finish tracking my Irish Catholic genealogy using non-Mormon resources. But I am very suspicious of Mormon links to every company, and don't want my work to fall into their hands.

I am angry that the LDS church sold and made a profit from the hard work of common members like I once was. We struggled, sweated, sacrificed our time, energy, and money for something that was supposed to be spiritual, and they get to make a profit from it! Many of us who did this hard work have dropped out of Mormonism, but we don't have any right to our work. We shouldn't so easily have handed that or our tithing over.

It cheapens family history the way TSCC pimps it via the Ancestry sites and keeps vital records from non-members who have need of them (if the cult is in possession of said records.) I found that out first hand trying to obtain a marriage sealing of my great grandparents. The cult wouldn't let me access them or provide a copy. I needed a third party with a temple recommend to go to the history center where the temple record was kept to handwrite it down for me. That is how possessive TSCC is of our family's vital records. You'd think I'd have as much right to that information involving direct ancestors, but TSCC denies access of direct descendants.

My mother was a genealogist from the age of ten on. Years before she converted to Mormonism. After joining TSCC, she submitted many of the names she compiled to have their work done. She remained blindfolded to the day she died of the deceitfulness of the cult.

https://rock101.com/news/3350862/mormon-leaders-encourage-more-ceremonial-baptisms-for-dead-people/

Donald Trump's family was posthumously baptized without being the direct ancestors of Mormon descendants. As were many famous celebrities.

Elie Wiesel was slated for posthumous baptism while he was yet living, along with his already deceased parents. He was morally outraged when he learned of that, rightfully so.

The following is a list of relatives who can baptize others posthumously:

"Immediate family members
Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).
Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
Your own descendants.

Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as your known ancestors.

They only have to be a relative along some sort of collateral line. And there is little rigorous error checking, no requirement of proof of descent. So really you don't even need to be a relative."

This represents to me my Holocaust victim relatives have already been posthumously baptized by my TBM relatives despite TSCC claims to the contrary.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=625838

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until/unless it ceases and desists once and for
> all in its posthumous cult ritual of baptisms for
> the dead.

MORmON founder Pervert Joseph Smith founded his new MORmON "THE" church enterprise / SCAM by simultaneously ripping off AND condemning Formal Traditional Christianity AKA The Roman Catholic Church it's less formal off shoots known as Protestant Christianity.

Smith's action was a lot like making an "anti chocolate, chocolate cake", that is based on decrying the negatives of chocolate cake, and then offering chocolate cake with chocolate chips added to it in order to make up for the deficiencies of regular chocolate cake, instead of regular chocolate cake.

With that in mind, it is hardly a wonder that current MORmONISM ended up basically being the Utah Version of the Catholic church.

With that in mind, MORmONISM ALWAYS WAS A WHORE in the very context used by MORmONISM to condemn Traditional Christianity as utterly corrupt.

With that in mind, MORmONISM WILL CONTINUE to be a "WHORE", Unless or Until MORmONISM is no longer recognizable in any way as MORmONISM, practically regardless of what ever MORmONISM is doing relative to their performing their STUPID baptisms (and unmentionable secret hand shakes, that MORmONS even did for Jesus Himself at one time) for dead people.

I am all for taking shots at MORmONISM. I am all for broad allowance of what ever an individual wants to say on their own behalf.

Even so, your premise statement (rather gratuitously) uses rather egregious false/ faulty logic.

Better efforts are more effective and more desirable.

TSCC doesn't bother to apply its rules/principles/ or even its (claimed) values consistently; instead it leaves nearly all 'enforcement' to local leaders, who often favor select members over 'doubters' & those who w/don't fit the mold.

Some leaders have voiced the 'Big Tent' opinion/appeal, but that doesn't have much effect either.

hahahhahahahahahahahahaha.

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amyjo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Until/unless it ceases and desists once and for
> > all in its posthumous cult ritual of baptisms
> for
> > the dead.
>
> MORmON founder Pervert Joseph Smith founded his
> new MORmON "THE" church enterprise / SCAM by
> simultaneously ripping off AND condemning Formal
> Traditional Christianity AKA The Roman Catholic
> Church it's less formal off shoots known as
> Protestant Christianity.
>
> Smith's action was a lot like making an "anti
> chocolate, chocolate cake", that is based on
> decrying the negatives of chocolate cake, and
> then offering chocolate cake with chocolate chips
> added to it in order to make up for the
> deficiencies of regular chocolate cake, instead of
> regular chocolate cake.
>
> With that in mind, it is hardly a wonder that
> current MORmONISM ended up basically being the
> Utah Version of the Catholic church.
>
> With that in mind, MORmONISM ALWAYS WAS A WHORE in
> the very context used by MORmONISM to condemn
> Traditional Christianity as utterly corrupt.
>
> With that in mind, MORmONISM WILL CONTINUE to be a
> "WHORE", Unless or Until MORmONISM is no longer
> recognizable in any way as MORmONISM, practically
> regardless of what ever MORmONISM is doing
> relative to their performing their STUPID baptisms
> (and unmentionable secret hand shakes, that
> MORmONS even did for Jesus Himself at one time)
> for dead people.
>
> I am all for taking shots at MORmONISM. I am all
> for broad allowance of what ever an individual
> wants to say on their own behalf.
>
> Even so, your premise statement (rather
> gratuitously) uses rather egregious false/ faulty
> logic.
>
> Better efforts are more effective and more
> desirable.

I agree there has not been a lawsuit "to date" to force the issue of baptisms for the dead. But ALL law is based on precedent. There IS NO other precedent in the law for this besides Mormonism. Because no one has brought a case doesn't mean one can't be brought.

Although I feel a bit like Tom Phillips wanting to take on the cult in the UK when he tried bringing a lawsuit. It would take a class action I believe to try to raise the issue of proxy baptisms in the court. To bring a case in federal court you need legal standing. Who would be better to meet that criteria than a group of aggrieved ex-TBM's and their families who have zero desire to be baptized after we're gone from this earth? Why shouldn't our wishes in life governing our religious preference also be honored in death? It may be just a piece of paper to some; to me it's significant in my everafter happy place.

If as ex-Mormons we were able to bring about that change, it would be worthwhile for ourselves and our posterity.

That's my two cents. It would be a long haul but it is possible.

Mormons can still have their religion. They just wouldn't get the right to practice it on unwitting or unwilling host subjects.

If you're serious about it, I don't believe that it would take a class action. One sole plaintiff, like yourself, could file for an injunction, asking the court for an order that the mormons be enjoined from dead-dunking you a year after your demise. I can see the church demurring to the complaint based on the notion that dead people can't enforce court orders, meaning simply that if they did dead-dunk you, no one but you has the standing to return to court to complain about the violation of the court order.

It's well settled that wills cannot control what people do with the money they receive as a bequeath. You can write in your will, "I leave ten million dollars to Sidney, except that it is forfeit if he buys a Pontiac." The courts don't let dead people control their heirs from the grave, except in cases involving fee tailed property.

But yeah, you could probably get an injunction forbidding the church to dead dunk you, especially if the church realized that fighting it was pointless, because the time would come when they could dead dunk you and no one could say boo.

At least that's how I see it, based on having read some comic books about a super lawyer named Sinqua Non.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TSCC doesn't bother to apply its rules/principles/
> or even its (claimed) values consistently; instead
> it leaves nearly all 'enforcement' to local
> leaders, who often favor select members over
> 'doubters' & those who w/don't fit the mold.
>
> Some leaders have voiced the 'Big Tent'
> opinion/appeal, but that doesn't have much effect
> either.

There has been a dumbing down of church members to retain them in the mold that serves Mormondum best. The "doubt your doubts" mantra could not be more specific than this, from the top down.