Over on the inaptly-named "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion" board, a new poster named "Beck" posted the following:
Beck wrote:I am not a Mormon but I was wondering if my father, who died about 20 years ago, would have been baptized at the Mormon Temple. It is my understanding that everyone, regardless of their faith, is baptized at the Temple. If he was, how can that be proven. Is there a way I could have his baptism verified either on-line of by letter. Thanks.
Cinepro responded with this:
cinepro wrote:Something that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that if your father was baptized after his death, then he owes the LDS Church for back-tithing, and you may be required to pay it for him. You might get a letter from the Church describing how best to compute your father's lifetime estimated earnings and how to work out an installment plan to pay the tithing (along with a calculation for inflation-adjustment and interest).
LOL! Pure genius from Cinepro, yet again!
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Tithing by proxy! Why didn't the Brethren think of that?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Prophet: I have had a revelation that many of your ancestors who were baptised by proxy in the many temples of this dispensation have now paid a full tithing.
Just think how wonderful it would be for the Kingdom if all of our living Brothers and Sisters did the same.
It may well give TSM an idea or two!!!!
We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. T.S.Eliot
Here is another good Cinepro post I saw recently in the context of Book of Mormon historicity:
Cinepro wrote:A few years ago, I was asked to review a short documentary for a DVD for a well known film. On the DVD, the documentary was entitled "Original 1968 Production Featurette".
The studio claimed it had been made when the original film had been produced in 1968, and it consisted of behind the scenes footage and interviews with cast and crew members. Everything was very grainy and "aged"; it certainly looked like it was from 1968. But during one of the interviews, one of the crew members made reference to "Star Wars", and in the context, he seemed to be talking about the 1977 movie.
In spite of that fact, I compared the featurette with many other similar productions from the late 1960s. I examined the credits and technical specifications, and even tried to determine what kind of film stock it had been produced on. I approached this problem with the conviction that it had been produced in 1968, just as it claimed to be, and was determined to find every sort of evidence to support that claim.
From my investigation, I concluded, based on the similarities, that it had been produced in 1968, and the reference to "Star Wars" was probably a result of this crew member and George Lucas both having access to an earlier, original source for the name (I called this unknown source "Southwest"). I also suggested the possibility that the crew member had some sort of clairvoyance or supernatural ability to see the future and was referring to the as-yet unproduced "Star Wars" film knowing that future audiences would know what he was talking about. My client didn't buy either of these theories, so I suggested they "put their doubts on a shelf", firm in the knowledge that things would be cleared up at some later date. They simply had to believe in their paperwork that this documentary was, in fact, produced in 1968, even if it didn't seem to make sense at this time.
(Actually, based on the "Star Wars" comment, the client investigated further and determined the documentary had actually been made in 1978, and the title on the DVD was changed to reflect this).