Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt's Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism After He Died

?????

Umm, so what?

To do that to someone after their death without their consent is to insult their memory and what they stood for during their life.

That's true. On the other hand, they're dead. Dead people don't give a damn.

Because they are dead.

Hurm, what we do know is that the man died an atheist, not believing in any religious doctrine. If we take him at his word, he believed he would be nothing but dead.

Out of respect for that, his dying belief ... or lack of it ... should lead us to respect his way, and not question whether he "gives a damn" or not. He didn't when he was alive, so it is quite inappropriate for us to second-guess that when he is dead.

I can make unsupported assertions too. And if you don't believe me, you'll burn in hell for all eternity.

Yeah, that was pretty funny....

Surely, this HAS to be illegal!

Why would it be illegal ? Please explain !!!!

Why is it illegal to have sex with a corpse? Corpse may not care, but corpse still cannot consent. This is the same concept. This is performing actions upon the corpse that the corpse cannot consent to.

Why is it illegal to have sex with a corpse? Corpse may not care, but corpse still cannot consent. This is the same concept. This is performing actions upon the corpse that the corpse cannot consent to.

Pssst the man had been DEAD and in the GROUND for over a year when the ceremony was preformed ... And....

The "corpse" was in Michigan in a casket in a grave... while the ceremony was held in Utah ....

So just how is this doing anything to the "corpse" ? What... if I say a prayer over the grave of an atheist might I be arrested for molesting a corpse? Sorry just Ridiculous !

You really might want to get just a few facts before you let your fingers do the walking on your keyboard!! In the future .....

If that's their belief ... So be it! We are America and we do allow for freedom of religion!

This is true - but there's nothing protecting their religion from criticism.

A weak argument. Both are degrading to the memory of the person that used to be that corpse.

I wonder if perhaps you'd be ok with someone changing your religion after your death.

This is true - but there's nothing protecting their religion from criticism.

Criticize all you want ... But it bears nothing on Romney's fitness to be president... So why bother!

A weak argument. Both are degrading to the memory of the person that used to be that corpse.

" A weak argument" ....Really ? The memory of that person? Memory, To whom ? Being it was his family that did it, I would say their memory of their father, is the MEMORY THAT MATTERS MOST! Not yours or mine...

I wonder if perhaps you'd be ok with someone changing your religion after your death.

Three things...

1. I am dead I don't care !

2. If I as this man didn't believe in religion ...it couldn't be changed...

3. Again ...I am dead ... so it matters not IF I AM OK WITH IT !!!!!

Again ...I am dead ... so it matters not IF I AM OK WITH IT !!!!!

So I take it you support necrophilia? Victimless crime and all that?

I take it you haven't written a last will then.

So I take it you support necrophilia? Victimless crime and all that?

Typical .... I bet every Liberal that reads this ridiculous reply will be proud of you... Only a liberal could confuse and COMPARE ...a religious ceremony conducted hundreds of miles from the actual corpse that is in a casket in a grave ... with necrophilia....

And as far as my "support" for necrophilia.... I guess I support in only one way... That anyone that would ask me that question ...even after I am dead ..CAN KISS MY ASS !!!!

I take it you haven't written a last will then.

Of course I have... And what does that have to do with this subject? Do you think I have something in there that says " under no circumstances can my family conduct a religious ceremony a year after I am dead in a ceremony that doesn't even include my body being present hundreds of miles from my grave ??

You do understand this ceremony did not have anything to do with anything physical in this world ! Mr Davis's body was not involved...was not present was hundreds of miles away buried in a grave ....

This was a ceremony about spiritual things...

You have a problem with it ...Fine I understand that ... You don't seem to know why you have a problem with it, being you have attacked the practice from many different angles ... But you are entitled to you beliefs and feeling...

But so are these people... And they are what matters ... Not you or me ...

If you don't believe in God .... As an atheist does not ...Explain to me how this matters? For an atheist this was just a foolish ritual that has no meaning ... To A True Atheist this ceremony shouldn't IMO bother them because they would believe it was a lot to do about NOTHING.... Words just words.... If a believer prays for an atheist an atheist blows it off as a waste of words... So whats the difference here?

An atheist would believe that this Baptism and Sealing was just a waste of time... And had no effect at all on the dead atheist Mr. Davis. He could neither be harmed not insulted because upon his death ... there is NOTHING !

Kozakura you and Abby seem to have the biggest problem with this issue... I don't know your position on God or a God ... Abby made her position clear in her # 7 ...

Why would an atheist care what happens in this world after their death?

For an atheist death is the ultimate end.... There is nothing more ! And being they do not believe in a God I m interested Why it matters what a believer might say or do on your behave after your dead... Your belief system says it doesn't matter... So why does it ? One might think an Atheist would almost find it amusing that believers would waste their time, with their "silly" belief in something that doesn't exist!

I as a believer can't understand the mind set of a non-believer...

If you truly do not care what happens after you die, then why do you have a will?

If you truly do not care what happens after you die, then why do you have a will?

Distribution of assets... And to take the responsibility for decision off the shoulders of my children...

A will is all about who gets what of your earthly possessions... Earthly Legal things, my Will has nothing to do with spiritual things.

Kozakura... I am a Believer, So my beliefs are with me, my soul and my God... and have nothing to do with anything that will happen in this world after I am gone.... You see I don't care if the entire Mormon Church to include the entire Tabernacle Choir decides to baptize me ... it makes no difference to me...

My soul and my God .... No one on earth will have no power over me....Only my God and me !

Which I guess why this discussion has intrigued me so... You seem to believe that the Mormons have some power over this Atheist.... That could only be possible if he in fact DOES HAVE A SOUL !

So I ask you a question... If you do not believe that a human has a Soul and there is life after death....

What does it matter to you that a few family members held a private ceremony that based on your belief system MEANS NOTHING ...since they were just words uttered into space ???

It was private, you would not know of it now if someone had not dug it up as something to attack Romney with... There was no shame brought to this man Mr Davis... His memory was not tarnished... No one knew but family ... Until Now when those that truly didn't care about Mr Davis made the CHOICE to exploit this for what they thought would be their political advantage!

You want to blame someone ... Blame those people !!!!

Jim44,

a religious ceremony conducted hundreds of miles from the actual corpse that is in a casket in a grave ... with necrophilia

Why are they different? You are the one that was putting in bold and all caps that it doesn't matter after you are dead. Why does what happens to your body matter after you aren't in it anymore?

It sure sounds like a giant mound of BS to state repeatedly and loudly that you won't care about anything because you are dead, and then flip-flop and say that after you are dead it matters if someone touches your body. Only a conservative would throw such a tantrum about their own hypocrisy.

Only a conservative would throw such a tantrum about their own hypocrisy.

And only a Progressive could draw a parallel between sex with a corpse and a religious ceremony conducted hundreds of miles away while the corpse has already been buried for over a year ... So there is Zero physical contact with said corpse...

Its really hard to make the case for necrophilia when the corpse is hundreds of miles away buried in the ground...Is it not?

Yet you still lamely keep trying ... Necrophilia is a crime...Prayer is not (at least not yet) illegal... They can pray anything they wish and you have no right to stop them...

And only a Progressive would concern themselves with the feeling of a dead body even when they claim there is no God and once someone is dead they are just DEAD and could have no feelings...

Only a Progressive would argue a point that they have no vested interest in such as ....

Should or should not a religious family be allowed to hold a ceremony not even on the body but about the soul of a long dead relative.... from hundreds of miles from the actual burial site... Being they have no belief in a Soul... What harm could be done?

It seems you argue for the sake of arguing ..... If the dead have no soul...The ceremony could not possibly do any harm... Yet you object ....

And you argue on .......

Its really hard to make the case for necrophilia when the corpse is hundreds of miles away buried in the ground...Is it not?

No, it's easy and based on one thing. It's just a bunch of dead cells. If your religious, it's irrelevant because the soul should have left the body for it's eternal resting place. If you are not religious, the consciousness left when the body died. For both the only value in the body is as the most closely tied physical token of the person that is gone. It is a physical reminder of who the person used to be. So defiling the body is defiling the person you connect it to.

Necrophilia is a crime...Prayer is not

Legality is the only way you know how to measure morality? Do you find it morally acceptable to perform satanic rituals overthe graves of devout Christians 15 minutes after the burial ceremony while the grieving family is still there?

themselves with the feeling of a dead body even when they claim there is no God and once someone is dead they are just DEAD and could have no feelings

Actually, I find necrophilia quite immoral. Because it is insulting to who the individual was. Just like conversion after death is insulting in the same fashion.

Should or should not a religious family be allowed to hold a ceremony

Fine, pray for his soul. But you don't get to claim him as a part of your religion if he lived to his last moments denying that religion. That's immoral.

Only a Progressive

I noticed you bringing this up a lot in this response. Keep in mind I only called your response "conservative" because you posted the asinine labeling in #6.8.

If the dead have no soul...The ceremony could not possibly do any harm...

Are you really of the belief that the soul is stuck in a rotting carcass until final judgement day? That's depressing. Otherwise, his soul isn't in the body anyways so a little necrophilia won't do any harm.

Legality is the only way you know how to measure morality? Do you find it morally acceptable to perform satanic rituals overthe graves of devout Christians 15 minutes after the burial ceremony while the grieving family is still there?

Other than the doing it in the presence of the family.. Which I would find offense to their feeling, which has nothing to do with the feeling of the dead !!! I have no problem with it because the soul has departed and the satanic prayer is a waste of breath....

All of which is totally irrelevant to this situation...

Actually, I find necrophilia quite immoral

I also and quite disgusting to even think about....But , yet again since in this situation there actually not a corpse necrophilia is not relevant as I have said many times!!!

Fine, pray for his soul. But you don't get to claim him as a part of your religion if he lived to his last moments denying that religion.

What does it matter what anyone "claims" .... If you believe in God ... The soul of every human is between them and their God... nothing earthly man can do will effect that ...It is beyond the mortal world and that which is not Gods will... Means nothing, but empty words!

I noticed you bringing this up a lot in this response. Keep in mind I only called your response "conservative" because you posted the asinine labeling in #6.8.

OK I deserve that one !!!

Are you really of the belief that the soul is stuck in a rotting carcass until final judgement day? That's depressing. Otherwise, his soul isn't in the body anyways so a little necrophilia won't do any harm.

Ah NO ...But an Atheist would not believe there ever existed a soul within the man... to be "stuck" in the body...now would they? And as for a "little necrophilia" not harming anything.... Honestly I suppose your right on one level as it pertains to the soul of the person.... But as we have both agreed it's not only NASTY but immoral to defile a dead body... How ever should you choose to fantasize about it ( your choice, I'll pass) I don't think that's Illegal..I think its the actual physical contact with the body that crosses the legal line... Which again makes necrophilia not relevant to this situation...

Personally, since I will be cremated... Should you wish to play with my ashes ..You, here by have my permission... And I will insure to add a codicil to my Will giving you that authority ..(smiles)

I have no problem with it because the soul has departed and the satanic prayer is a waste of breath....

All of which is totally irrelevant to this situation...

That's pretty hilarious. To an atheist a satanic prayer is equivalent to a Mormon prayer, so the only difference is proximity to the body. Not only is it not "irrelevant" it is practically identical.

I also and quite disgusting to even think about

Agreed. Which is why I used it as an example.

=====================================

But maybe the problem in our exchange is with perspective. What makes you who you are? Is it your liver? your Kidney? Your genitalia?

Are you simply your body, or are you the consciousness/soul that inhabits it?

Thus the body is just a vessel. Once you are done with it, the body is worth far less than that which has left it. To violate the principles that soul/consciousness lived by is far more demeaning, far more morally disgusting, then the violation of the vessel it used to inhabit. That isn't to say that violation of the vessel is not immoral, because it is an insult to the soul/consciousness that used to inhabit it.

But it's just a dead body, only valuable because of what it used to contain. And to violate the principles of the soul/consciousness now that it is unable to resist is far more immoral than violating the body that it no long uses.

Or are you really going to insist that the body left behind is more important than the memories, ideas, and principles of that which is no longer residing within it?

And that is why necrophilia is relevant. The legality of the immoral act is irrelevant, as we are discussing morality, not legality.

I am sorry dakaiser

I am having a hard time following your logic on this subject.... Please allow me !!!

Since when the ceremony that we are discussing was performed not even in the presence of the dead persons body... Which as we have confirmed had been buried for over a year and was hundreds of miles away!

How do you make the connection between the religious ceremony and the defiling of a corpse? I can't make that leap!

A religious ceremony conducted about the eternal soul of another ... Is just words, IMHO.. That persons soul is between them and their God..No one else! Be they Mormons or Satan worshipers.... Their words mean nothing again IMO ! Am I clear on that?

And as for my thoughts on the body left behind ...Did you miss the part about my having my body cremated upon my death ? Kind of answers all that doesn't it?

I hope this clears up my position....

OK then, I will try a different way.

Did you miss the part about my having my body cremated

The body is nothing after death. You can burn it to ashes and it doesn't matter. Throw the ashes to the wind, whatever. Dump them out to sea, bury them, dump them out by the beach and they hit Lebowski in the face. The remains are irrelevant. The soul/consciousness is all that is relevant, and that's gone.

So. Since you clearly see it that way, that the physical body is irrelevant after death, what difference does it make what is done with it? The dead body doesn't know the difference between being burned or being molested by some pervert. It doesn't care, it has no soul/consciousness. The only ones who care are those that feel that body is a physical symbol of the person. They don't want you molesting their symbol of a loved one any more than a Christian want's you to throw feces at a statue of Jesus.

And that is the point. It's just a symbol of the person that is gone. A necrophiliac is violating the symbol of the person that is gone. But converting a person after their death is violating the concept of that person.

==================================

Necrophilia is like burning a Bible, the symbol of the person/idea. Sure, it's a bad thing to do, but it's just a symbol and the actual person/idea will live on unchanged in the hearts of those who cherish it.

The conversion like changing what is taught in the Bible, lieing about the ideas/principles. Sure, some people might like the changed version better, but it's a defilement of the actual idea/principle. Everyone who accepts those changes is rejecting a part of that original idea/principle.

when a group tries to manipulate your thinking after you are dead and buried

Explain how someone that is dead and buried can have their "thinking" "manipulated" !!!!! they are DEAD !

Nobody really knows what happens to your consciousness after you die. However, it is revoltingly disrespectful to dishonor one's reputation after they die, by altering the historical record to show them as something that they were not.

Nobody really knows what happens to your consciousness after you die. However, it is revoltingly disrespectful to dishonor one's reputation after they die, by altering the historical record to show them as something that they were not.

This right here. It's more about respect than anything.

Oh ... and it's a slap in his atheist face. I wonder how his Mormon family would feel about other family members disgracing them after they die by holding a ceremony to declare them atheists, and then placing their names on the offical list of atheists. Apparently the Golden Rule is not a central tenet of Mormonism.

HAHAHA What happens in this world natters not ... to those that are dead and exist in another World ....

I wonder how his Mormon family would feel about other family members disgracing them after they die by holding a ceremony to declare them atheists, and then placing their names on the offical list of atheists.

I can tell you how I'd feel. You can do it after I'm dead, or you can do it today. It means nothing to me.

On second thought, that's not quite true.

I'd actually find it quite amusing. Please send me a copy of the Official Atheists List with my name on it. I promise to frame it and hang it in my office.

Thanks for the explanation of the thinking behind this practice, Rigbee.

You're welcome, Carloz. The Church just wants everyone to have a chance. We truly mean no disrespect, although I know it can be misinterpreted as such.

Sorry, there's no list ... we don't organize. However, you missed my point. I didn't mean how would YOU feel if they did this to you after you died, I meant how would your devoutly religious (living) family feel if others were to change historical record and claim you as an atheist after you die. According to the article, the man was devoutly atheist. Adding his name to the registry of Mormons is about as disrespectful as adding his name to a list of communist sympathizers. He wouldn't want it there, but it's not what he would have wanted that they care about. There is no Golden Rule in Mormonism.

Sorry, there's no list

I was just referring to the "official list" you mentioned.

He wouldn't want it there, but it's not what he would have wanted that they care about.

We care deeply about what he wants. That's one of the reasons we build temples.

We don't know what he wants now. Everyone should have the opportunity to change their mind. If he still doesn't believe in God, as I said, it's as if the ordinance never occured.

Start "rebaptizing" Christians to Mormonism or Islam after they die and see how everyone feels about it. I have a feeling they won't be quite as happy about it.

No. I would prefer his family would wake up to the reality that their belief system, which is just one of hundreds or thousands of other alternative belief systems, should not be imposed on others. Are you a christian? How about if I convert your legacy to being a Muslim after you die, when you have no say in the matter?

How about if I convert your legacy to being a Muslim after you die, when you have no say in the matter?

And ...How would I know that you did that ? Or how would it harm me, being I am Dead and I have no knowledge of your actions ?

And what if they are right and I was wrong? I now get the benefit of their actions... but if I were right and they are wrong ...NOTHING HAPPENS ..Right?

So I am kind of as the dead guy in a no lose situation .... Right?

My point if I don't know what they did there can be no harm to me! Let it go folks !

How about if I convert your legacy to being a Muslim after you die, when you have no say in the matter?

Well, the whole idea is that I do have a say in the matter. You can't convert me. All you can do is make the offer.

And I imagine I would say, "That was very thoughtful of you, but no thanks." Kind of like if I'm on a diet and someone offers me a cupcake.

And what if they are right and I was wrong? I now get the benefit of their actions... but if I were right and they are wrong ...NOTHING HAPPENS ..Right?

So I am kind of as the dead guy in a no lose situation .... Right?

If the deceased individual in question subscribed to Pascal's Gambit, they would have been religious in the first place.

That said, what if the deceased in question believed ardently in Hinduism but is posthumously baptised. Would the poor soul be denied a chance at moksha? That seems rather cruel. If your first impression is that the soul would actually be saved, reverse it and posthumously convert a Christian to Hinduism.

Regardless, revising a deceased person's life does not honor the person's memory any more than denying the Holocaust honors the deaths it caused. The dead might not be in a position to care, but the living should.

Well put, Richard.

It appears that Jim and Rigbee are just taking an apologist stance to one of the most cowardly, disrespectful and selfish acts this GOP candidate has ever engaged in. Such impressive traits for a POTUS.

That said, what if the deceased in question believed ardently in Hinduism but is posthumously baptised. Would the poor soul be denied a chance at moksha?

No, and I can't believe I have to keep saying this.

Earthly ordinances do not overrule free will. They make it possible for someone to change their mind, should they choose to do so.

The dead might not be in a position to care,

We believe that they are, which is why we do the work for them.

It appears that Jim and Rigbee are just taking an apologist stance

Appearances can be deceiving.

Let me ask you all a question. If I got baptised in your name, would you call yourself a Mormon? Would you all of a sudden start attending Latter-day Saint services on Sunday? I'm pretty sure the answer to all those questions is "No."

That's because you have free will. You have agency. You have the freedom to choose.

That doesn't change when you die.

What does change, is that your spirit is separated from your body. A spirit can't be baptised. So, should you get to the Great Beyond and discover that you were mistaken in your beliefs, it's too late. You can't be baptised, which is the first step to salvation.

Baptism by proxy, which is mentioned in the New Testament, gives that person the opportunity to change their mind. It doesn't force the change, it just makes it possible, where that possibility would not otherwise exist.

We do it out of love, because we want everyone to have a chance to be eternally happy.

I know many of you refuse to understand, and I accept that. This is my belief. This is how I live. And, as is the case with baptism by proxy, you can take it or leave it. I can't explain it any more simply than that.

We do it out of love, because we want everyone to have a chance to be eternally happy.

Because, obviously, LDS is the one true, correct religion. Stop it already. Before you know it, this stupid ideology will catch on with every other religion, and before you know it they will have one more thing to kill each other over. How do you suppose Islamists would react to having their dead covertly baptised into other religions? It is cowardly and extremely unbecoming to not respect ones wishes, and let their legacy live on how they intended for it to live on.

A spirit can't be baptised. So, should you get to the Great Beyond and discover that you were mistaken in your beliefs, it's too late.

Baptism by proxy, which is mentioned in the New Testament, gives that person the opportunity to change their mind. It doesn't force the change, it just makes it possible, where that possibility would not otherwise exist.

Perhaps we're beating this one to death, but this doesn't make sense to me.

Take a Hindu, posthumously baptised. The Hindu, by your statement, is still Hindu in death. If the baptism cannot change this, the goal is Christian salvation, and it's too late for the dead to change their mind, what is the point?

I fail to see how a posthumous baptism can affect what, by your statement, cannot be changed.

On the flip side - from an earthly perspective - a posthumous baptism for someone known to be ardently opposed to the religion (Christianity, in this case) strikes me as counter to what the person stood for and an insult to their memory.

I imagine that, from your perspective, the act is a caring one. I have trouble getting past the summary dismissal of who the person actually was.

I've read some posts calling for laws against this practice - I'm not sure I can get behind that. I have a knee-jerk resistance to laws meant to regulate religious behavior, and there are some concerns in which the government simply should not be involved, moral or not.

It appears that Jim and Rigbee are just taking an apologist stance to one of the most cowardly, disrespectful and selfish acts this GOP candidate has ever engaged in. Such impressive traits for a POTUS.

Really? Future... How about we talk this through OK .... A little at a time...

It appears that Jim and Rigbee are just taking an apologist stance to one of the most cowardly, disrespectful and selfish acts this GOP candidate has ever engaged in.

Please demonstrate where I have even mentioned the "GOP candidate" in any of my posts... in a apologetic way !!! I mentioned his wife and her brothers converted, and that being a Mormon should not be relevant to him being fit to be president... Now Prove your point!

Then provide my words where I apologise for his actions... And right after that provide any proof that Mitt Romney had ANY INVOLVEMENT in the religious ceremony we are discussing ... And as for this part of your comment...

one of the most cowardly, disrespectful and selfish acts

I am not a member of the LDS, but I still believe in America and in freedom of religion ... So personally I find those words used against any religion Offensive ...The difference between you and I ... I respect your right to do it.... I kind of think your comment might be seen by some to characterize your comment also but will leave that for others to determine! for themselves...

It really appears that Future History... Has taken it upon them self to write a History of events that either have not occurred or have not been proved to have occurred!

How about before you make an accusation you provide some proof of what you claim ?

Such impressive traits for a POTUS.

Ahhh Again just what actual involvement did he have in this ceremony? Please provide the proof!

If you are unable to answer these things ... Do us all a favor and Don't make this a Future History that YOU WRITE ABOUT .... Because you have no facts to support anything you say!

... being a Mormon should not be relevant to him being fit to be president... Now Prove your point!

I was being specific about the TOPIC of the article, not the fact that he is a Mormon, genius. Unless all Mormons regularly engage in cult-like rituals where they baptise dead people in order to covertly steal them from other religions, I should thnk that the fact that he is a Mormon should not factor into whether he is fit to be POTUS. However, after reading the following link, I'm really not so sure anymore.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153945/is_mitt_romney%27s_candidacy_part_of_%27the_eternal_plan%27_of_the_mormon_church_?page=entire

... provide any proof that Mitt Romney had ANY INVOLVEMENT in the religious ceremony we are discussing

From the article:

But it's an exceedingly odd way for the Romney family to honor the memory of a man who was committed, for his entire life, to the notion that organized religion is a fraud.

So, are you suggesting that this occurred without consulting Mitt? Really? Mitt is one of the most exalted Mormons in the history of LDS, yet his immediate family, all of whom were converts of his doing, decided to not include him in this bizarre ritual? Nice try. To think that Mitt was unaware of what was going on is beyond naive, and akin to sticking your head in the sand.

o think that Mitt was unaware of what was going on is beyond naive, and akin to sticking your head in the sand.

And to put words into my mouth is afin to ________— well fill in the blank.... I said...

And right after that provide any proof that Mitt Romney had ANY INVOLVEMENT in the religious ceremony we are discussing .

No where did I say he had no knowledge.... But for you to assume things ...

No where did I say he was not included in the ceremony... But you say I did...

You seem to take liberty with anything you want... You fill in the blanks to make a History that fits your agenda not the facts as they are presented.... You have no problem degenerating others with comments such as ..

yet his immediate family, all of whom were converts of his doing

Demonstrates you lack of knowledge of any religion.... No one is "converted" to a religion they make a conscious choice to convert or to join.... I can't make you any religion you can only become of a religion by your choice....

not include him in this bizarre ritual

Is any religious ceremony not a "bizarre ritual to you ? And just who are you to make that decision ? You seem to spend most of your time passing judgment on others ... rather than being excepting of those that you don't agree with you ridicule and demonize them...

beyond naive, and akin to sticking your head in the sand.

No I just don't pass judgment with out facts.... I don't claim to be the Future History....

I wait for things to actually happen before it is history.... But you seem to not need facts and can predict the future so you get to write the History in advance!

Enjoy !

Oh a personal attack, sometimes a tag is just a tag. For example my tag is Japanese in origin, however I've made absolutely zero claim that I am Japanese.

OH come on a personal attack? Really ..... Report me if you think that constitutes a personal attack.... Using a tag that suggests something and commenting on it in a civil and non- aggressive way is now a "personal attack"

As I said Go for it FLAG IT TAG IT AND REPORT ME !

That's not up to me, sure you were being disrespectful, but I'm not the one you were disrespecting in this instance.

No one is "converted" to a religion

From the article:

But when Mitt began seeing Davies' daughter Ann, the Romney family launched a concerted effort to convert not only Ann but her entire family to Mormonism. And they were wildly successful: Within a year of meeting Ann, Mitt and his father had converted all three of Edward Davies' children. Days before she died in 1993, Ann Romney's mother asked to be converted as well. Edward Davies was the only member of his clan whose soul the Romneys never claimed for their church.

I'm just using the same language as the author. Do you really think that their "conscious choice to convert" (as you describe it) was not influenced by Mitt? And when the one elder simply refused to convert consciously, they did it for him while he was permanently unconscious. End of story.

Is any religious ceremony not a "bizarre ritual to you?

Frankly, you got me there. Guilty as charged. Mock cannibalism, an eternal lake of fire, heaven that doesn't involve most things that we on earth would require to consider it "fun", babies not being allowed into heaven unless a certain person sprkinkles water on their head, church songs that drone on and on without a beat, poor people living and starving in the streets while hideously expensive temples are built to honor a god that does nothing to save those who starve, real history that involves women being burned at the stake because someone told the church that they think the women might be witches, the needless spread of AIDS in poor countries who have been denied the use of condoms for religious reasons, the irony of little boys being raped by priests, the setbacks to the medical field incurred by condemnation of stem cell research based on religious arguments, charlatains that claim god told them he deliberately caused specific natural disasters, southern baptists standing on corners picketing funerals of dead soldiers because god hates fags ... it is bizarre, no doubt.

But you seem to not need facts and can predict the future so you get to write the History in advance!

If history is any indication, religion is hardly a plausible path to peace and prosperity. You may choose to wait and witness how it futher destroys humanity, but I would rather lay a more promising path to Future History, by pointing out the probable outcome of the current path.

Perhaps we're beating this one to death, but this doesn't make sense to me.

Take a Hindu, posthumously baptised. The Hindu, by your statement, is still Hindu in death. If the baptism cannot change this, the goal is Christian salvation, and it's too late for the dead to change their mind, what is the point?

I'll be happy to take another whack at it, since you seem genuinely interested. The whole point is that it's not to late for the dead to change their mind, but it is too late to be baptised, since they no longer have a body. That's the whole reason for baptism by proxy.

Mitt is one of the most exalted Mormons in the history of LDS

Mitt was a bishop. In Utah, you can't swing a cat without hitting three or four Bishops. He also served as a Stake President, which, while slightly less ubiquitous than a Bishop, certainly can't be considered "exalted". They are as much administrative positions as anything else. My apologies to any Bishops or Stake Presidents who may be reading this. :-D

I'm just using the same language as the author.

Perhaps a more impartial source would be beneficial.

Mitt was a bishop. In Utah, you can't swing a cat without hitting three or four Bishops. He also served as a Stake President, which, while slightly less ubiquitous than a Bishop, certainly can't be considered "exalted".

A quote from the article I mentioned above in #11.11:

the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C.”

As a front runner for the GOP nomination, in a country whose Mormon adherents embrace the quote above, do you really think he is not considered "exalted" at this point? Even during his days at BYU he was idolized as the offspring of a political leader and held up on a pedestal by his peers. His family considered him a miracle and had great expectations for him.

We do it out of love, because we want everyone to have a chance to be eternally happy

Love for the religion, not the individual.
By your comments, you seem to hold religion above respect for your fellow humans, which is very disconcerting.
You remind me why I'm happy to be an atheist.

I must have missed something. Tag? What are you talking about?

Tag = A persons chosen identity on the site. Personal attack by Jim at Future copy/pasted below. Targeting Futures name and labeling him in a negative fashion.

No I just don't pass judgment with out facts.... I don't claim to be the Future History....

I wait for things to actually happen before it is history.... But you seem to not need facts and can predict the future so you get to write the History in advance!

I'll be happy to take another whack at it, since you seem genuinely interested. The whole point is that it's not to late for the dead to change their mind, but it is too late to be baptised, since they no longer have a body. That's the whole reason for baptism by proxy.

I'm always interested in learning something new and exploring different perspectives.

So, to clarify my understanding, once a posthumous baptism is performed on an atheist, the deceased is no longer considered an atheist, correct? Or is the option for the spirit to convert simply made available, but the spirit is still atheist until/unless it chooses to convert? If the former, is such a classification not presumptuous? The spirit might instead spend eternity at the edge of Dante's inferno.

Let's take another tack - I was baptised when I was a baby (had no say in the matter). I consider myself agnostic. I do not live by the Bible, or any other religious text. I recognize no savior and no God. If I were to die tomorrow and take my turn at judgment, could I simply say, "Oh, you're real! Hallelujah!" and take my place in Heaven? That seems somewhat counterintuitive to church teachings.

How would the posthumous baptism of an atheist be different?

I take it that you consider the living memory of the deceased second to its potential afterlife, so you would not consider my concerns about honoring the actual life of the deceased as it was lived relevant?

As a front runner for the GOP nomination, in a country whose Mormon adherents embrace the quote above, do you really think he is not considered "exalted" at this point?

I, and most members of the LDS Church, would not consider any human being exalted. I've never heard of Michael Moody, and he certainly doesn't speak for the Church.

Love for the religion, not the individual.

If you had read and understood my previous comments, you would understand how very untrue that statement is.

So, to clarify my understanding, once a posthumous baptism is performed on an atheist, the deceased is no longer considered an atheist, correct? Or is the option for the spirit to convert simply made available, but the spirit is still atheist until/unless it chooses to convert?

The latter. As I've said far too many times in this thread, we believe free will is paramount.

If I were to die tomorrow and take my turn at judgment, could I simply say, "Oh, you're real! Hallelujah!" and take my place in Heaven? That seems somewhat counterintuitive to church teachings.

That's a great question. We believe that, in the afterlife, learning and progression continue to take place, and will until the final judgement. If a person decides to take advantage of baptism by proxy, they will have ample time to do whatever else they may need to do so that they can spend eternity in a place where they'll be happy. And if not taking advantage of the baptism makes them happy, that works as well. :-)

The latter. As I've said far too many times in this thread, we believe free will is paramount.

I don't ask to be annoying, I just want to clarify the point to ask another question. I realize you can't necessarily speak for the Romney family, but should this mean that Edward Davies is not, in fact, baptised as a Mormon? In point of fact, he might have been baptised, but his religion, or non-existence thereof, cannot be claimed by anyone but Davies. Therefore the Romney family cannot, in fact, claim him as Mormon (contrary to the article). Is that a correct interpretation in your view?

That's a great question. We believe that, in the afterlife, learning and progression continue to take place, and will until the final judgement. If a person decides to take advantage of baptism by proxy, they will have ample time to do whatever else they may need to do so that they can spend eternity in a place where they'll be happy.

This has got to be the most fascinating thing I've read all day. This flies directly in the face of everything I knew of any established religion. It would tend to suggest that the teachings of the Church are irrelevant beyond the actual baptism, because salvation is available on the fly post-mortem by any soul faced suddenly with the reality. It tends to undermine the value of faith, does it not?

I don't think what Jim wrote was a CoH violation, and I don't think the Newsvine moderators would think so either.

I agree. I chose a moniker that is difficult to mock. So far the best attempt was a childish one - future historectomy. It's kind of hard to take offense at something that makes no sense. Thus far I have found that it isn't possible to substantially insult combining the concepts of future and history.

From 12.0 (I moved it back to keep the thread consistent):

I'm not sure I'd go that far. We are judged by the choices we make. Someone who has never been exposed to the gospel, I believe, will have an easier time in the next life than someone who did have a chance, but chose to ignore it.

Could be. Of course, Davies was most definitely exposed to gospel. I have to wonder, though, how much this is adjusting the rules to fit our sense of indignation. The very thought that those people who spent their lives devoted to faith could be treated no better in death than those who consciously rejected it is understandably galling.

I have no objection to the concept of salvation via baptism per se. It is a religious tradition, and as such my inclination is to give it a fair bit of latitude. That said, I think that when an individual has made their wishes known, it is incumbent upon the living to respect those wishes in death, regardless of religious or philosophical traditions. I have a great deal of difficulty with this particular baptism for this reason.

You might be right, and the soul of Davies will suddenly benefit from choices not previously available. I don't know, and in a secular sense, neither does anyone else. The fact that he obviously consciously rejected religion (including Mormonism) and baptism, is a pretty clear indication that he was willing to accept whatever might lie in store for him, and I think the honorable option would be to respect that decision, even if doing so would be contrary to Church doctrine (and yes, I understand the difficult position that would be for the Romney family). That Davies was no longer in a position to object seems to me a weak justification.

Not to backtrack too far, but you said earlier (11.17) that baptism is not possible for a corpse. How is "baptism by proxy" an exception?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I am generally unfamiliar with the LDS church, so this is fascinating to me.

Not to backtrack too far, but you said earlier (11.17) that baptism is not possible for a corpse. How is "baptism by proxy" an exception?

In a baptism by proxy, a living individual is actually, physically baptised in the name of another individual.

And, while there are certainly people who have made their beliefs very clear when on this earthly plane, if there is something beyond this life, and they experience it, it may cause them to rethink their previous stand on the issue.

The very thought that those people who spent their lives devoted to faith could be treated no better in death than those who consciously rejected it is understandably galling.

I believe that, when all is said and done, we will come to know that God has treated us fairly.

Fair enough. I'm not sure there's anywhere else we can take this, but I appreciate the discussion.

In matters of religion, irreconciliable differences of perspective seem unfortunately common.

No doubt. I appreciate being able to express my beliefs in a civil conversation.

Tell ya what, FH.

Grab a few of your closest friends, perform an un-baptism on Mitt's father-in-law, tell everybody he's an atheist again, and we'll call it a day.

Ok. Can you give me the contact information on the person responsible for keeping an official list of LDS members? Lol.

Done. However, I couldn't find the right form ... so Davies is now officially a Buddhist. I feel much better now.

Davies is now officially a Buddhist

Sounds like a fair compromise to me.

Done. However, I couldn't find the right form ... so Davies is now officially a Buddhist. I feel much better now.

That made me laugh. My co-workers are going to wonder what I'm up to.

I doubt it does any more justice to Davies memory, but oh well.

That made me laugh.

Me too!
(even the dog looked at me very strangely)
*giggle*

This is where I come down as well. One's perspective might be at odds with the surviving peers, but the least the living can do is acknowledge the true memory of the dead.

I find whitewashing for the purpose of one's own peace of mind incredibly disrespectful. If you're uncomfortable with the person's legacy, consider how much better off you are: they're dead.

I don't necessarily think that I'm better off than those who have passed on. They're just in a different place, doing a different work.