Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


  • Accident Compensation

  • Save money when shopping online, visit Coupon croc for the latest discount codes and vouchers.

  • See blogs and businesses for USA

  • Southern Utah University

  • Search Now:
    In Association with
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2004

« Did MF Global Commit Crimes? | Main | Moral Acourage »



First, my view is that the proxy baptism should be reserved for one's ancestors, which is what is generally practiced. However, I come from a long line of Jewish heritage, so in my case I would be baptizing deceased Jews. But that's neither here nor there.

My question is how you are interpreting the "baptizing people who died because they were born Jewish." Do you see it as Mormons believing they are saving people of a lesser religion, or something along those lines? We believe to be children of the House of Israel and believe very much in the Abrahamic covenant, both of which Judah is part. Now I realize that the modern use of the identifier includes those who aren't strictly of the tribe of Judah, but I wonder if the act is misinterpreted in a way. I would like to think these people are doing it out of a sense of saving their brothers and sisters of the House of Israel, rather than saving people of a damned sect or race. Perhaps I've read it wrong.

Dave Tufte

I'm sure I thought something like this 20 years ago, but I'd like to think I'm over it now. ;) It's never bothered me that my ancestors have probably been baptized; the distaff side of my family had a genealogy book published about 85 year ago, and the copy in the Family History Center in Salt Lake is in better shape than the one I stand to inherit from my Mom.

But, I think what still bugs me about baptism for the dead of Jews is that "Jewishness" is not just religious or social, it is also genetic.

Most people do not actively choose to be a Jew. It is a fact of their birth.

Mormons do actively choose whom to baptize.

So, I'd feel a lot better about baptism for the dead if the active choice of contemporary Mormons respected the lack of active choice on the part of many dead Jews. Clearly, that puts someone like you in a tough spot, but at least it delivers a clear conclusion about what to do with Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel's parents.

Here's a hypothetical: I'd also prefer that something like "baptism for the transgendered" — in which those who've undergone sex changes baptize the transgendered dead because they didn't have the technology to overcome the body they were born with — never come into existence. I just don't want someone else deciding that, say, my grandfather was a closeted queen, and then acting on it. To answer your question: save people from the choices they make, not the ones they didn't have.

But, in the end, I don't have a dog in this fight. What I'm really concerned about is that in the end a Jew is going to shoot a Mormon over this, and that society is going to think the Jew had just cause.


First: as a Mormon, I will admit I was very confused about this sbuject only a couple of weeks ago. But I recently learned something. A man is not MARRIED to two different women, only sealed. It would take a long time to explain it fully, but just know that being sealed simply means that you can be with someone forever in your eternal family . You aren't married to two different people, simply, you can be with them in the next life.Second: polygamy was originally commanded, back in the 1800 s. This was commanded so we could grow as a community. After the doctrine and covenants ended, and we no longer needed this commandment, we were commanded to stop. If we had a record of every prophets communication with god, we would have record that we were COMMANDED TO STOP. The fundamentalist latter day saints, or the FLDS, are a group of people who have continued the polygamy practice, a of they may call themselves mormons, but they are not the same religion as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -2Was this answer helpful?

Dave Tufte

Umm ... what does this have to do with baptism for the dead?


).Priesthood ban, Mormon White Supremacy Ideologies (Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, Mark E, Peterson, Joseph Fielding Smith, the list goes on and on) and Mormons against Civil Rights (Racism).Priesthood male arcihrehy and Mormons against Equal Rights (Misogyny).Mormons love to portray themselves as righteous victims, that have been victimized for the sole reason of being righteous and good. Their latest false, paranoid and delusional persecution rhetoric: intellectuals and liberals are out to attack and destroy religion (Oaks). Semantics, rhetoric and sales pitch: Republicans sell their party as the Moral Values party. Both parties are about moral values of course, but one selling itself as the moral values representative inevitably relegates the opposing one as the opposite of that, which in this case is not true, but as a sales pitch it works.Social pressure- absolutely. I have heard many times in Mormon UT liberals cannot be Mormons and vice versa. Mormons that dare to have differing political views are vilified, demonized, alienated (no callings for them) and looked down on by their religious community: few have the cojones to withstand the Mormon hatred against diversity.Ignorance- Mormons don't seem to think for themselves, they just do what they are told by their leaders because they think (incorrectly) that their leaders' ideas represent God's ideas. Mormons have given up true discernment and have preferred the false traditions of their fathers and their leaders. This is clearly shown as they go from one extreme to another from the socialist/communist ways of Joseph Smith to the condemning of such things as evil resembling cold war era rhetoric. Their leaders are pretty much God: whatever they say is what goes.Mark Brown #15, very interesting. I know the freakish things Mormons at BYU are capable so I am not terribly surprised but I was not aware of that story. Yeah, I guess you can add that pest called BYU and their freakish and crazy attempts at keeping it as conservative as possible, and then their brainwashed indoctrinated pupils going out to be the leaders of the Church around the world. Again, Mormons against diversity and freedom of thought and speech at its best.Ignorant, deceitful, extremist freaks on celebrity pedestals that Mormons consider role models: Glen Beck.I agree with the things mentioned above as resistance to the other extremist displays of liberalism: hippies etc. Extremism probably falls within Newton's third law: a force applied generates an equal and opposite force. Extremism generates equal and opposite extremism.Need more reasons? Whether they are wrong or right, and some mere stereotypes that may be only true in exceptional instances if you want to believe it that way, I think the reasons listed here do cover quite a bit

Dave Tufte

A lot of vitriol here ... but as a no-mo in the heart of Utah, let me add a few things that I think i **can** clarify. Please note that just because I haven't shot down some of this stuff, that doesn't mean I approve. Anyway:

1) I know lots of liberal Mormons. Not a majority, certainly, but I wouldn't say they are actively repressed. Of the 25 or so people that I work with day to day, the only liberals are Mormons ... the third that are no-mo are conservative too.

2) I don't think Mormons can't think for themselves. But, I do come across quite a few of them who will say that they have a certain position because someone they respect within the church holds that view. I view this as more of a crutch. I don't like it very much, but people in unions do the same thing. Many people do use membership in something bigger than themselves as an excuse to avoid thinking. Mormons are no more inclined to do that than others; but I think that joiners are. To the extent that LDS church is populated by joiners, you could see more of this.

3) I do think that Mormons do have trouble with their "worship" of other Mormons on higher pedestals. Glenn Beck is only a visible expression of that. I get Mormons who treat me with a little bit of that just because I work with their stake president. It's weird. I've never lived in LA, but I've heard that there are people who are not in the entertainment industry who behave the same way when they find out that you know a celebrity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Reading

  • The Earthsea Cycle
  • From Archetype to Zeitgeist

Non-Economics Blogroll

Gone but not Forgotten


Movie Rating