Mormon Proxy Baptism Was Performed On Mahatma Gandhi

[_Mary]

This article was the middle page spread in the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ormon.html

Not good publicity for the church here in the UK.

[_bcspace]

Mormon Proxy Baptism Was Performed On Mahatma Gandhi

Sweet. I think he'd accept it just as Anne Frank would.

[_Chap]

This article was the middle page spread in the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ormon.html

Not good publicity for the church here in the UK.

The ending is quite punchy - and it is a l o o o o ng article -

...the question is whether America is prepared to accept a man who has up to 175 ‘great-great-grandmothers’ — and who belongs to a Church that has baptised Princess Diana, Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler as Mormons — to run their country.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1nhtihdhU

Well, we shall see, shan't we?

[_DarkHelmet]

This article was the middle page spread in the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ormon.html

Not good publicity for the church here in the UK.

The public is baffled by proxy baptisms, what is the reaction going to be when more of them learn about proxy plural marriages?

Although the Church finally banned it in 1890 to comply with federal law, according to the investigator it still sanctions posthumous plural marriages, so dead people can be wed in its temples in rituals acted out by stand-in brides and grooms.

There are apparently plans to stage the 14th marriage of another of Mitt Romney’s long-deceased great-great-grandfathers, Miles Romney

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1nhzcLYKk

[_Drifting]

The amending of the database from the persons actual name to "unknown name" is quite simply dishonest. If they believe it was right then don't change it. If they believe it was wrong, apologise, delete the record and DON'T DO IT AGAIN......!

[_Mary]

The public is baffled by proxy baptisms, what is the reaction going to be when more of them learn about proxy plural marriages?

It's interesting that of all the things the media could focus in on with regard to the church, that they choose proxy baptisms. The article included some good positive stuff too, which was nice to see.

[_bcspace]

The public is baffled by proxy baptisms, what is the reaction going to be when more of them learn about proxy plural marriages?

It's interesting that of all the things the media could focus in on with regard to the church, that they choose proxy baptisms

Most of the public seems to willfully misunderstand just like the critics do and that is why I think the critic's attempt to inflame the public always tend to fizzle and maybe even backfire if such attempts begin to be seen as religious persecution.

[_Mary]

Most of the public seems to willfully misunderstand just like the critics do and that is why I think the critic's attempt to inflame the public always tend to fizzle and maybe even backfire if such attempts begin to be seen as religious persecution.

Baptisms by proxy (headlining on Diana - a sensitive subject in itself) is going to be seen as bizarre and baffling and also a little insensitive to the living families involved. I don't think there is willful misunderstanding bc. Can you explain what you mean by that?

I think the church definitely needs to clean up its act with regard to the submission process for names, and stop people abusing the system, otherwise this is going to keep coming up and is going to tick off a lot of people. Aren't they trying to do that right now?

As I said, the article also contained some good positive stuff about contemporary LDS. I think the churches greatest strength is the goodness of many of its people.

[_The Mighty Builder]

Most of the public seems to willfully misunderstand just like the critics do and that is why I think the critic's attempt to inflame the public always tend to fizzle and maybe even backfire if such attempts begin to be seen as religious persecution.[/quote]

bc space you are so right. The world is seeing Proxy Baptisms as religious persecution. That is the reason for the attention and mockery.

[_Equality]

The 9/11 hijackers have even been baptized

CFR?

I do think that all hell could break loose if the Muslims ever really get wind of this practice. I mean, look at the violence that erupts when someone draws a cartoon of their pedophile prophet Muhammad. Or dresses up like him for Halloween. Or when some copies of the Koran are inadvertently burned. An argument could be made that having a Mormon as president, given the sensitivities on this subject, might make the world a more dangerous place.

At the same time, I think the church once again wants it both ways. Wants to be seen as standing for principle and boldly declaring a doctrine, but then when facing public pressure, is willing to throw essential doctrines and practices under the bus for the sake of fitting in. Either BFTD is an essential practice of great urgency (as the Brethren tell the members) or it's optional (as the Brethren seem to be telling the press and the Jewish leaders who criticize the church for baptizing Holocaust victims). If the church were to act on principle, with integrity, it would simply refuse to stop the practice for anyone and explain that it's a core part of the church's beliefs. Why is it any more offensive to baptize dead Jews than to baptize dead Presbyterians, atheists, or Khoikoi?