Posthumous Mormon Conversions are a Pretty Good Deal

Jewdar is pleased to announce that the Jewish people no longer face any problems. That, at least, is the conclusion we draw from Elie Wiesel’s comments last week that Mitt Romney “morally…must respond” to news that some members of the Mormon Church did a posthumous baptism of Simon Wiesenthal. For those unaware, the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that one can be posthumously saved from eternal damnation; all they need is for a living Mormon to conduct a proxy baptism of the dead, whose soul will then be given the opportunity of remaining in hell or entering the Kingdom of Heaven (we presume most choose the latter). They’ve been doing this for years, but got into a bit of trouble years back when it turned out that they were baptizing Jews who’d died in the Holocaust. The Church had promised to stop baptizing deceased Jews, but a furor arose last week when it turned out that some Mormons, on their own initiative, had baptized Simon Wiesenthal. Which brings us to Elie Wiesel’s comments.

Now let’s say, first of all, that Jewdar couldn’t care less about posthumous baptism. In fact, we’ll go even further and say that as far as we’re concerned, any Mormon who wants to posthumously baptize us is free to do so. If, as we presume, the LDS are wrong, our soul will be untouched, and if they are right, then we get to go to heaven, which sounds like a pretty good deal on our part. But we strongly object to the notion that Mitt Romney needs to say anything on the subject. Romney is a Mormon; some other Mormons did something which some people think is wrong. At what point does a member of a particular religious community–even a prominent member–need to respond to every misdeed on the part of another member of that group? Joe Lieberman, for example, is the nation’s most prominent Sabbath-observing Jewish politician; I don’t recall anybody expecting that he needs to answer for the misdeeds of haredim in Beit Shemesh (and can’t help but feel that if he were called upon to do so, Elie Wiesel would be among those decrying it). Romney is a jackass, but we firmly support his right to be his own jackass, and not to be held accountable for the jackassery (real or imagined) of others.

Jewdar’s mother, however, offered an interesting possibility. Wiesel and Wiesenthal were longtime rivals, both for their differing ideas of how the Holocaust should be memorialized as well as for the status of “most prominent survivor.” Given this rivalry, Jewdar’s mother couldn’t help but wondering if this was Wiesel’s last little dig at his rival, denying him that last chance at salvation. We have an image of Wiesenthal about to enter the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter stops him and says “We’re sorry, Mr. Wiesenthal, but Elie Wiesel had them annul your baptism.” Wiesenthal drops to his knees, looks to the heavens (which in this case is straight ahead, not up) and shouts “Wieseellllllllllllllllllll!”
 
At any rate, if we’ve reached the point where we have nothing else to worry about other than the baptism of Jews who are far past the point of caring, we must be doing okay.

What do you think?

About The Author

jewdar

The Tel Aviv-born, Milwaukee-bred Jewdar has a bachelors' from the University of Wisconsin, a Masters from NYU, and an Honorable Discharge from the US Army, where he spent two years as an infantryman in the 101st Airborne Division. He's the co-author of "The Big Book of Jewish Conspiracies", the Humor Editor of Heeb Magazine, and a watcher of TV. Smarter than most funny people, funnier than most smart people, he lives on the Lower East Side with his wife and two sons.

42 Responses

  1. Jimmy Pineapple

    I find this article to be refreshingly sensible. Fundamental to Mormonisms is a love for the Jewish people (above and beyond the love that we would like to think we have for all people). This deep rooted appreciation is what makes this baptismal quandry so interesting. On the one hand, we are particularly eager to satisfy any request made by the Jewish people (and for the most part, we do), on the other hand we really want to help you in any way we can and see proxy baptisms as an optimal way to accomplish that.
    While I recognize that this ordinance can be seen as offensive, I agree with your logic. If we are wrong, it is little more than unwanted attention, if we are right then its a bit of a freebee.

    Reply
  2. Roger Ekins

    Hear, hear! If the Jewish people think enough of me and my posterity to perform some sort of salvific ritual on behalf of my deceased Mormon father, go for it! I’d be flattered that you thought enough of him to make the effort. And as suggested by “Jewdar,” what would we have to lose? Of course if you dug him up or took out a full page ad in Heeb, proclaiming his conversion to Judaism, I’d doubtless take offense. But a simple, quiet ritual on his behalf? Mazel tov to my father!

    Reply
  3. Fred Smith

    The reason Romney should address this directly is that he, himself, has participated in posthumous baptisms in the past.
    If my very Jewish ancestors have now been baptized by these people, they owe me an explanation of how they determined it was ok for them to use my ancestors names in their ridiculous rituals, and why I should find that acceptable.
    They can put their own folks through whatever baptisms they like, but they cannot claim my Jewish ancestors as theirs.

    Reply
  4. Roger Ekins

    Fred, Jewdar is absolutely correct: an individual member of an organization, regardless of how prominent that individual might be, should not be expected to speak officially for that organization unless that authority has been delegated to him or her. In any event, what part of the “Mormon” Church’s official position/apology on this is not clear? Moreover has it even occurred to you that those few individuals who keep finding a way to circumvent Church policy may, in fact, be doing so specifically to embarrass the church–possibly working in collusion with the ex-communicated woman who keeps “discovering” these breeches in policy?

    Following is the latest official pronouncement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this issue:

    The Church keeps its word and is absolutely firm in its commitment to not accept the names of Holocaust victims for proxy baptism.

    “It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place.

    While no system is foolproof in preventing the handful of individuals who are determined to falsify submissions we are committed to taking action against individual abusers by suspending the submitter’s access privileges. We will also consider whether other Church disciplinary action should be taken.”

    Reply
    • Fred Smith

      Roger, while I speak under correction, I believe they have also baptized Ghandi and others – i.e. a complete and utter disregard for others.
      This is consistant with the Mormon Church – if you recall, they funded Proposition 8 in California to impose their theology upon the State.
      A religion that wishes to impose their theology upon my family, is not one that I will hold up with any respect.

      Reply
  5. Jimmy Pineapple

    Fred, I am afraid I must correct you once again. The Mormons never baptized Ghandi, someone may have been baptized as a proxy for Ghandi. However, it’s up to God to decide if this baptism is valid, and it’s up to Ghandi to choose to accept it.
    In response to your second objection, do religious organizations have the right to support politcal policies that are consistent with their beliefs? It seems logical that all parties should be allowed a voice on these important issues.

    Reply
  6. jewdar
    Jewdar

    1. Mitt Romney’s participation in baptisms is irrelevant; the issue at hand isn’t posthumous baptisms, it’s posthumous Jewish baptisms.
    2. The dead are the dead. My father was a Jew; in that regard, he was opposed to being a Mormon. My father was also a Democrat; in that regard, he was opposed to being a republicn, or a tsarist. My father was a zionist; in that regard, he was opposed to being a citizen of a Palestinian Arab state. Is posthumously baptizing him any worse than posthumously registering him as a republican, posthumously crowning him Tsar of the All the Russias, or posthumously making him a citizen of the a Palestinian Arab state, presuming one is eventually founded? The dead have no “chosen religious views;” they are dead. If you misrepresent what my father stood for when he was alive, I would take issue. If you want to offer my father the Russian throne or Palestinian citizenship after his death, more power to you. Especially because of course, you are not saying he is a Mormon, or a tsarist, or a Palestinian–you are simply offering his soul the choice. What reasonable objection is there to this. Again, if you reject Mormonism, this is completely meaningless. If you accept the possibility that they may be right, you’re covering your bases. So either my father’s soul is completely unaffected, or–should he choose to make use of the opportunity–it’s guaranteed eternal salvation. Either way, hard to see the harm that’s been done.

    Reply
  7. Raymond Takashi Swenson

    You are definitely smarter than most funny people, not to mention most news reporters!

    By the way, the correct Mormon theology is this: Mormons believe that heaven is divided into three degrees, and that people will enter them after their resurrection. Like many other Christians, Mormons believe that the First Resurrection will occur when the Messiah (we believe this is Jesus Christ) comes to earth to reign in glory. This will include (a) Mormons (meaning those who ACCEPT being baptized by the Mormons) who will then reside in the highest level of heaven, AND (b) ALL good people, including Christians AND JEWS and Hindus like Gandhi, etc., who will reside in the second level of heaven, which will fulfill all of their expectations for that state. After an additional thousand years, those people who were felony level offenders, who will have been suffering for their crimes for that millennium, will finally be resurrected, and having paid for their sins, will be paroled to a lower level of heaven, where they will finally live and behave as decent citizens. Mormons, in short, do not believe that anyone will suffer eternally in hell. In particular, Mormons do NOT believe that Jews and others who have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah will be condemned to eternal suffering for the “sin” of “living while Jewish.”

    From the Mormon viewpoint, your Father will have the same happy eternal reward as Pope John Paul II.

    Contrast this with the official teaching of many Christian denominations, who condemn your father, and all Jews who died in the Holocaust, to suffer eternally in hell, NOT because they committed evil, but merely because they did not join the right Christian “club”. For many Christians, including most Southern Baptists, Mormons will be in hell along with the Jews. And there will be no way to end our joint suffering, from the Baptist viewpoint.

    Now I should note that the survey of American beliefs summarized in the book American Grace found that even most Baptists believe that good people of ALL faiths will be able to go to heaven. For Mormons, 100% believe that, in agreement with their official doctrine. But every one of the 65% or so of Baptists who believe it are rebelling against the teachings of their church! When Evangelical ministers were told of this result, they said “We have failed in our teaching mission!”

    If Jews are not bothered by the bulk of Christian churches, which condemn all Jews to hell, why should they be upset at Mormons, who believe ALL good Jews will be saved in heaven even WITHOUT baptism?

    Reply
  8. jewdar
    jewdar

    Oh, one question though–let’s say you guys are right, and my soul chooses to get baptized–can my soul still be “Jewdar,” or would I have to change that? Let’s face it, “Mormondar” is definitely lacking, and don’t get me started on “LatterDaySaintDar.” That could be a dealbreaker.

    Reply
  9. Jettboy

    Can your soul still be Jewdar? Considering that Mormons think that Jews are of the Chosen People and Gentiles who convert are adopted into one of the Jewish Tribes, I would say yes on that answer. On the other hand, the Book of Revelations does state that the saved will adopt a new name, so everyone’s will be changed. The Soul has and always will be considered yours for the individual is eternal; having existed in the past, existing now, and to exist forever.

    Reply
  10. Larry Chandler

    Jewdar said: “What reasonable objection is there to this. Again, if you reject Mormonism, this is completely meaningless. If you accept the possibility that they may be right, you’re covering your bases.”

    But supposing that heaven is only available to those who have not converted or accepted baptism? Or that it is available only to Catholics or Southern Baptists? So you haven’t covered all your bases. Especially if God said “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, especially Mormons.”

    Reply
  11. Bill

    I was interested to learn that St Peter is the Gatekeeper at the Jewish view of Heaven, too, and not just the Christian view. The Major and Minor Prophets were/are busy with other things?

    Reply
  12. Larry Chandler

    Bill, where did you read that St. Peter is the Gatekeeper at the Jewish view of Heaven? I’m not disagreeing here, but never heard this before.

    Reply
  13. jewdar
    Jewdar

    Misunderstanding of what I’d written; but in my scenario, Wiesenthal was specifically going to Mormon heaven.

    As far as your earlier post, Larry, you can’t cover all your bases, but accepting that you want to cover as many as possible, and that the other denominations of Christianity don’t have posthumous conversions, I’ll stick with living as a Jew in this world and being posthumously baptized, thereby giving my soul the opportunity (if the mormons are right) to go to super mormon heaven in the world to come. Since I’m not going to leave Judaism in this world, that’s the best I can do. But hey, if the Baptists or Catholics want to start posthumous baptisms, I’ll take it into consideration.

    Reply
    • Larry Chandler

      But, Jewdar, what if the Mormons are totally wrong, and being posthumously baptized means now you are going to spend eternity in hell (i.e., Utah)?

      This argument is, of course, idiotic. But people who have passed on should be left alone. No one knows (this includes Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and others) what happens after we die. But it is disrespectful of their memory to posthumously baptize or do anything else. Most people insist that burial grounds are sacred. Why would altering the bodies of the deceased be worse than altering the souls? The bodies of those who died are no longer needed and they can’t complain anyway. So how about building a strip club on top of a cemetery. Let’s see how far that gets.

      Reply
  14. Roger Ekins

    If the Baptists and Catholics really start reading the New Testament, they just might take up the practice: 1 Corinthians: 29–“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” Why indeed! No one would expect Jews to read the N.T. But Baptists and Catholics? Probably a good idea.

    Reply
  15. Jeff

    @Jimmy Pineapple: “Fundamental to Mormonisms is a love for the Jewish people”

    Then why do you refer to us as “Gentiles”?

    Reply
  16. John Smith

    That’s OK, last night Stephen Colbert posthumously converted all dead Mormon’s to Judaism.

    Reply
  17. Jeff

    “For those unaware, the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that one can be posthumously saved from eternal damnation; all they need is for a living Mormon to conduct a proxy baptism of the dead, whose soul will then be given the opportunity of remaining in hell or entering the Kingdom of Heaven (we presume most choose the latter).”

    I don’t really understand the push for posthumous baptism. My understanding, confirmed by the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Plan_of_salvation ), is that the souls of nonbelievers aren’t in hell, but in a temporary holding place. They’re visited by “spirits from Paradise”, who offer them the teachings of Jesus and are given the opportunity to accept or reject them. Even if they reject them, they’ll end up in the lowest of the Mormons’ three heavens; only a very few, the most wicked, will go to hell.

    Meanwhile, Colbert has our collective back: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/02/late-night-stephen-colbert-converts-dead-mormons-to-judaism.html

    Reply
  18. jewdar
    jewdar

    Larry, the corpses in the cemetery are tangible. They would actually desecrating the physical resting place of the dead. With the proxy baptism, they are either doing nothing to the dead (if they are wrong), or they are giving the dead the option of achieving salvation. You keep missing the point. The Mormons aren’t in fact converting anything; they are baptizing a proxy. If they are correct, then the soul of the dead has the option of accepting that baptism, and advancing on to Mormon heaven. They are not saying “this person is now a Mormon.” they are simply saying this soul has the option of becoming a Mormon if he so desires. From that perspective, they could say that my father’s soul has the option of becoming a schnauzer, or Edward G. Robinson. If somebody came to me and said “We’ve conducted a ceremony that allows your father’s soul, should it so to desire, to become Edward G. Robinson,” why should I care?

    Reply
  19. Roger Ekins

    Which brings us to the REAL issue here: has Edward G. Robinson been vicariously baptized since his demise and if so, did he accept it? (Sorry, Mormons don’t posthumously baptize schnauzers. No need. They believe all animals are resurrected and “saved” without any such ordinance required, but that brings up an entirely new thread, doesn’t it? Let’s NOT go there!) Jewdar: THANK YOU for “getting it” so clearly! It’s refreshing to find a non-Mormon who truly sees this for what it is.

    Reply
  20. Ilene

    I do not want to be baptized by Mormons or anybody else, in this lifetime or after I am dead. Nor do I want my family members to be given this rite. What can I do to stop this from happening ?

    Reply
    • Jeff

      “What can I do to stop this from happening ?”

      Well, you could convert now and preempt them!

      Reply
    • Larry Chandler

      Ilene, your relatives should decide for themselves if they want it or not. It’s your decision for yourself only. There’s really nothing you can do to stop this from happening, except to realize that it’s simply a bunch of hooey. Who would want to go to Mormon heaven anyway? Not only would you not have any friends, since you’d be living on your own planet, but the food will be just terrible as it is in Utah and you won’t be able to have a drink to relieve the endless boredom of eternity there.

      Of course this wouldn’t be an issue at all if the LDS Church had respect for other religions.

      Reply
  21. Roger Ekins

    In this life, Ilene, the answer is easy: don’t listen to the Mormon missionaries. (If you do, you run the danger of changing your mind, because they have a pretty cool message!) As far as the next life, the same advice holds true: if some angelic missionary types show up in your little corner of wherever you are and offer to teach you about the “true Gospel of Jesus Christ,” plug your ears and don’t listen. That way, any vicarious baptism that may have been performed on your behalf won’t have any efficacy whatsoever. Either way, you wouldn’t be baptized unless and until you accepted that baptism and in no way would you show up on any list as a “Mormon.” As to your family members, isn’t that ultimately up to them??? Aside from Jewish holocaust survivors (and we’ve unfortunately seen how easy it is to circumvent that restriction) there is no “do not baptize” list kept by the Mormon Church. Their plan, between now and the end of the “millenium” (Christ’s second reign on earth) is to afford everyone the OPTION of accepting or rejecting vicarious baptism. But don’t worry: if you don’t want to be baptized you will not be. Simple as that!

    Reply
  22. IAmLDS

    From Jeff: “I don’t really understand the push for posthumous baptism.”

    Simple explanation:
    The LDS believe that baptism is a mortal ordinance. That is – it has to be done in a mortal state. This is perfectly exemplified by Jesus – who is believed to be without sin – having been baptized while mortal.

    The LDS also believe in eternal progression. That is, your spiritual growth is not limited to your mortal existence. Your spirit existed and progressed before you were born and will continue to exist and progress after you die. Therefore, your mortal existence is merely a “stage” of this growing process.

    Okay, in all other Christian denominations who require baptism, you either go to hell if you’re not baptized, or you still go to heaven according to your good deeds on earth. In the first situation, heaven becomes a very narrow window in which the good life you led on earth is worthless if you’re not baptized because you’ll still end up in hell. It doesn’t jive with the description that God is merciful. In the second situation, baptism becomes an elective – there’s no need for one to be baptized because you can still enter heaven without it anyway as long as you live a good life.

    The LDS practice of posthumous baptisms is more consistent with Christ’s teachings in which baptism is required while mortal and God is merciful. If you lived a good life in the mountains of the Himalayas and has never heard of the name Jesus Christ, you can still fulfill the requirement of baptism by proxy in your spiritual progression after death.

    Hope this helps.

    Reply
  23. Jeff

    “Hope this helps.”

    It doesn’t help at all. I am well aware of everything you’ve just said, yet my question remains. If “spiritual progression” is a hallmark of your belief system – then why the insistence upon posthumous baptism? You’re going to “progress”, anyway.

    Reply
    • Iamlds

      Hi Jeff,

      Yes, you’ll progress anyway, but the level of your progression will not be to its full potential.

      Let’s use a super simplistic illustration. Say you’re trying to become a lawyer. To get to post-grad school to study to become a lawyer, you need to have had completed a Pre-Law Degree. So you complete everything you knew you needed to do to get that Pre-law diploma. Unfortunately, you didn’t know that there is a class that you needed to complete all the requirements. So you didn’t get to go to law school, instead you became a paralegal.

      Now, you’re doing paralegal work, the class you needed was something you learned from experience as a paralegal. A teacher in your undergrad school decides you can fulfill that requirement by just testing out and the teacher gives you a grade and you get a diploma to go to law school. So you have the option of accepting that diploma and get a higher degree or reject the offer because you decided you don’t want to go to law school, you just want to be a paralegal.

      Make sense?

      Reply
      • Jeff

        “Make sense?”

        Seriously? Do you actually expect us to say that it does?

        Do you really believe that God is subject to these limitations? “I’d like to give you a higher position, but I can’t because you didn’t fill out the proper forms.”

        You think God is like the DMV?

  24. Larry Chandler

    @IAMLDS: Non-Christians have the option to be baptized during their lifetimes. If they choose not to do it, who are you (& others) to make that decision for them now that they have passed? This may or may not have an impact on the afterlife (if it exists), but it is or can be offensive to their surviving relatives. When you pass, would it be ok if I published a story on how you were a serial killer and child molester? You can’t be punished for it and sent to jail, you’re dead. But your reputation could suffer and it would hurt your survivors. I have no right to do it. Neither does the LDS (or other) church.

    Reply
  25. Iamlds

    Larry, sure, they have an option to get baptized in this lifetime, but first they have to know about it. I mean you had the option because you knew about it. But even then, I’m not sure if you really learned about it or you just went by what people say on the internet. But millions of people die without having ever heard of what this baptism is all about.

    Application for posthumous baptism in the LDS church is normally done by surviving relatives. That is why LDS people are very diligent in Family History. You really can’t just go through the obituaries and submit a name. That is strongly discouraged. I have 2 sets of grandparents. My family is devout Catholic (Filipinos). I’m the only LDS in my family. None of my grandparents have been posthumously baptized because the surviving patriarchs on both sides of my family objected to it.

    About the child molester… This is not equivalent. Posthumous baptism doesn’t make you a Mormon nor does it signify that we think you’re a Mormon now or that the label Mormon can be applied to you in any way shape or form. And no, you can’t be counted as one even if your surviving relatives say Hurray! It really doesn’t mean anything to anybody who is living. And it wouldn’t mean anything to the dead unless he chooses to make it mean something.

    Reply
  26. IAMLDS

    OH, Larry! I have the perfect illustration!

    I’m now, as I write, holding one of those credit card offers in my hand that I got from the mail. 0% interest for 6 months even! And it just occurred to me – this is the perfect illustration!

    Posthumous baptism is just like receiving one of those credit card offers in the mail! Somebody at Citibank had to have pulled my name from somewhere – somebody authorized to give them my name and address, hopefully – and write me up a credit card offer. Now, my receiving that offer in the mail does not in any way associate me with Citibank, nor does it give me any money or credit or anything of that sort. None of my relatives is affected/impacted/name besmirched by my receipt of that offer in any way shape or form.

    Now, if I sign this here line, then yes, I get to be part of the big business of Citibank and if Occupy Wall Street ever targets Citibank card holders with their protests, then that would be my name right there on that there card.

    Now, this has got to make sense now.

    Reply
  27. Larry Chandler

    @IAMLDS: If the family of the deceased requests baptism or responds affirmatively to a request by the church to baptize the deceased, then yes, it would be ok. But that isn’t how the church has been operating. It performed baptisms by merely looking up people and deciding they needed it. As far as it not meaning anything to the living, you have to ask them first. You do not know this. The surviving family has to tell you what the meaning is or isn’t.

    As far as my (or anyone) not knowing what baptism is, that’s the way it is. It’s not up to you or anyone else to make a determination based upon what you think I know or do not know. That is my choice, whether to be baptized or not, or whether to know about it or not. You have no rights whatsoever when it comes to me.

    As far as comparing this to receiving a credit card offer, this comparison demeans you, really. It is not the same. If I have Chase bank, and my son or mother or 2nd cousin twice removed receives an offer from Citibank, that’s up to them. It’s irrelevant. If someone in my family wants to change his religion, that is up to him (though it would be nice, but voluntary, if he chose to discuss that with us). But if he is deceased, it is not up to you to make that call. You say that the deceased can simply say no, but in my view, he is not there for you to ask. All rights revert to the survivors, and you must ask us first.

    Now you can say that is not true, but that is my religious belief. And you are trampling on it. You may be convinced that the LDS Church contains all truth, but it is not my view. And you must respect my view.

    It sometimes is difficult to understand another religion. I’m not talking about scripture here. Scripture, beliefs, bishops, clergy all influence not just the “facts” but how we interpret life, afterlife, and good and evil. But even if we do not understand another’s religion, we must respect what they say about it, not what we think is the real truth.

    Reply
    • IAMLDS

      Larry, I am glad you said what you said on the last paragraphs. The LDS Church is very respectful of other faiths. It is very important that it is explicitly stated in our Articles of Faith: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”.

      Posthumous baptisms are not done by just picking a random name out of a cemetery. It is done by descendants of the deceased. And as is demonstrated by the Church’s declaration to its members to refrain from submitting holocaust victims for ordinances – and that’s including those who are descendants of the deceased except by special approval from general authoritues – they are very serious about this. The declaration was read in every single church building in all the world. Of course, there is nothing a Church can do when a member ignores the Church leadership and manages to get one through. We’re not perfect people. Far from it, in fact.

      We as LDS members may understand completely the meaning of the ordinances but we do acknowledge that it may be not be as easy to understand from those of other faiths and may cause conflict. Therefore, when a deceased has an LDS descendant and a non-LDS descendant, it gets complicated – which is usually the case. Those who have LDS families are usually LDS themselves! The church leaves it up to the family to figure it out. In my case, I am still working on getting my family to understand that getting my grandparents ordinances done does not conflict with their Catholic beliefs. And I decided to wait until such conflict is resolved. The thing is, we truly believe in the necessity of this ordinance in eternal progression. We believe that we are left with this task. We believe in the promise of Isaiah that the hearts of the children will be turned to their fathers. So, it is very difficult for faithful members of the church to just let their deceased family go without this ordinance out of respect for their non- LDS living relatives. A lot of them will go ahead and get it done and let the chips fall where they lay as they feel that their deceased relatives are waiting beyond the veil for their covenant to start so they can move forward with their progression. As for me, I have faith that my living relatives’ hearts will soften and the work will be done for my grandparents.

      Reply
  28. 3dayscondor

    I am a relative of a high ranking CIA official, that used to be the VP of the World Jewish Congress. He has told you people time and time again to stop baptising dead Jews. Now you are harassing me because of it. I also know quite well that the so called “church” is nothing more than a covert operation of the CIA, NSA, FBI. Indeed, more than half of these agencies are staffed by Mormons. I also have a recently aquired recording of a converstaion with one of your church members (CIA asset) of how the US will be hit with a FALSE FLAG nuke attack, that will be blamed on the Russians…And how this must happen and how the Jews run the world…You people are mentally ill…….
    Apologise to me and the world now….Now that I have you…

    Reply

Leave a Reply