Posted on 03/04/2012 7:48:55 PM PST by Ben Barrack
As the Nevada Republican Caucus returns were coming in last month, CNN's John King referred to Mitt Romney as “Governor Mormon.” Without correcting himself, he used the word “Mormon” four times in nine seconds. While some may argue it was an innocent slip, others will say it was Freudian in nature.
A short time later, King's network did a story on a bizarre Mormon practice that involves posthumously baptizing non-Mormons by proxy. In the report, the parents of “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal were identified as having been subjected to such a practice. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who was interviewed for the CNN story, unhappily responded to revelations that he himself had been placed on such a list.
In its report, CNN cited Helen Radkey as the person who discovered these unusual baptisms. Radkey is a former Mormon who claims that, “Jewish Holocaust names are regularly going into the Mormon database.” The report concluded with a reference to Romney actually participating in such proxy baptisms. The message was clear but subtle; Romney is part of this.
Radkey is an extremely key figure, not so much for what she provided to CNN for that story but what she still has yet to provide.
About one week later, the Independent, MSNBC, and Yahoo News all reported that the iconic diarist and heroine, Nazi-era Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized nine times by the Mormon church. Yahoo News cleverly segued from this story to an unrelated story about a Romney comment during a Republican debate, in what appeared to be an attempt to subtly connect the two stories.
Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert went even further by inviting a Jewish intern onto his set during his program and asked him to hold a hot dog while Cobert cut off the tip with a...
(Excerpt) Read more at redcounty.com ...
I’m ... I’m almost starting to think that John King prefers Democrats over Republicans!
What will happen when the unaware public learns that Mitt is actually “Bishop Romney” that is expected to become at least the Mormon equivalent of a Cardinal after this is over, and who’s father was a Bishop, and who’s uncle was in line to become their Pope, (he died).
So far the media has protected Mitt and acted like he was just a guy that happened to be Mormon, they have not revealed yet that the Romney’s are Mormon Royalty and power, and the suppliers of tens of millions of dollars to Mormonism.
Folks are missing the point of the lesson: every time the leadership allows this proxy crap baptism, they are shouting that all other religions are not up to par, nothing but apostasies. Yet the MormonISM apologists working FR will try daily to squelch any exposure of the heresies and blasphemies hallmarking Joe Smith’s fabricated-to-look-like-Christianity-restored religion.
Wake up, Republicans!
Maybe some Mormons could help me out here - I thought murder was an unforgivable sin - so would any known, certain murderer like Hitler be posthumously baptized?
Well, great, my late Jewish grandfather looked toward talking to him in the afterlife.
No, shouldn’t be. Most of these famous (or infamous) people’s names have been submitted by individuals in the church, that are counter to the accepted rules set in place.
At any rate, it doesn’t matter. It’s an outward ordinance that, according to the LDS belief, is only valid if accepted by the individual on the other side. The link I provided earlier goes into the why’s and what pretty well.
It is a hostile act that the religion always says they are going to stop for any group that has the power to raise a stink, or in this case, bad publicity.
It is always self serving for the Mormons, also they operate in secret, so no one really knows what they do anyway, unless it leaks out. I would think they are looking into security leaks now.
It does matter, or the subject would not constantly be a source of outrage to the world outside of the cult.
2
Is this done alphabetically?
Read the link. Posthumous baptisms are not counted on the rolls of the Church. You asked what seemed like an honest question. If you really want to know, I provided a source.
Mormon aren’t Christian and neither is Romney!
They’ve already baptized his mother.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/mormons-baptized-obamas-m_n_197707.html
Allon, if you "really want to know", I'm providing a source:
"L.D.S. Doctrine Of Baptism For The Dead.
Baptism Of The Dead Vs. The Bible
by William Woodson
The present article will summarise the L.D.S. doctrine of baptism for the dead (as set forth in a standard work by James E. Talmage) and reply to it from the standpoint of Bible teaching.
I. The Doctrine in Summary
This L.D.S. doctrine may best be understood in the context of their general view of baptism. According to Talmage, one who seeks membership in the Mormon church must be one who has “obtained and professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and “sincerely repented of his sins.” One so situated is then to “give evidence of this spiritual sanctification by some outward ordinance,” ie., “baptism by water .” (P. 120, 2 Nephi 31:17) In Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 one reads those to be baptized must humble themselves, having “truly repented” of all their sins before being baptized. Baptism is regarded as essential to salvation (P 128) and those, as the Pharisees and Lawyers (Luke 7:30), who reject baptism are thereby “forfeiting their claim to salvation .” (P. 130)
In developing the doctrine of baptism for the dead, Talmage notes that not all have heard and obeyed the gospel. (P. 145) He asks what provision has been made for those who have died having neglected and/or never having heard the gospel? (P. 146) He then argues that though these negligent or untaught ones will be punished, they will be punished only long enough to bring about their needed reformation and satisfy God’s justice. (P. 147) Thus he teaches a second chance for those who die in rebellion against God. To support this he refers to I Peter 3:18- 20; 4:6 which he alleges teach the gospel is to be preached in the spirit world now by ministers of the gospel who have died. (pp. 149, 152)
But, since one in order to be saved must be baptized, this neglected “ordinance” can be received vicariously when children are baptized on earth for their fathers and ancestors who have died without being baptized. In this way the children, who receive this baptism for others, now dead, become “vicarious saviours” and have their faith strengthened by these good works. (pp. 151 -152) Thus the one baptized on earth is “acting as proxy for the dead.” (P. 153) Of course, he alleges, those in the spirit world may reject the blessings made available by proxy, but they are not compelled or hindered from the exercise of their free moral agency. (P. 153) All this is allegedly sustained by 1 Corinthians 15:29 (P 149), by visitation of an angel to Joseph Smith in 1823 and in 1836, (pp. 150 -151), and by the teaching of Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 128:18. (P. 151 ).
II. Response to the Doctrine
A. The present work will not discuss I Peter 3:19 -20: 4:6 although these verses are alleged in support of the doctrine. Brother Guy N. Woods has discussed these verses in his commentary and in a major article in the Gospel Advocate (July 31, 1975). Suffice to say, these verses do not teach a second chance for disobedient people, after death, to hear and obey the gospel. The great gulf which could not be crossed between the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:26) and the fact that we will be judged according to deeds done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10) show there is no second chance after death.
B. Several aspects of the doctrine are not reconcilable with other aspects. For example, the idea that those, as the Pharisees and lawyers, who reject baptism and are “forfeiting their claim to salvation” clashes with the idea of “vicarious saviours” who later are baptized by proxy for them How can it be that one forfeits salvation but may later have a vicarious saviour? Since baptism, by proxy we are told, is only one of several “associated ordinances” does this mean that a “vicarious saviour” could observe the Lord’s Supper, pay tithes, etc., for the disobedient departed spirit who is not able to do so for himself?
The Book of Mormon, Alma 34:32- 36, teaches that the present life is the time to prepare to meet God and if one does not so prepare in this life “the night of the darkness” comes “wherein no labor can be performed.” How can this be made to fit with the view of a second chance after death? Also a final inconsistency to be noted in that between the prerequisites of baptism according to L.D.S. doctrine and the vicarious baptism allegedly performed If one lacks faith and repentance, as per their doctrine, his baptism is invalid. But, the dead, for whom this “proxy” baptism is allegedly performed, did not believe and repent before death.
How can the one being baptized by proxy know the act on his part is not rendered invalid because this disembodied spirit, in whose stead he is baptized, is without faith and repentance at the time of his proxy baptism? Can the one undergoing proxy baptism on earth know the intended recipient, in the spirit world, has believed and repented, though he died without belief and repentance? If he can, how does he know this? If he cannot, what is the status of this proxy act, on earth, during the interval between its performance and the proper faith and repentance on the part of the intended recipient? Does it simply float around in some ethereal storage house for proxy baptisms until the intended recipient, perhaps thousands of spirit world years later, decides to respond to the baptism of his vicarious benefactor by proxy baptism?
C. The “proxy baptism,” “vicarious saviour doctrine” of L.D.S., in order to sustain itself, must not only remove such inconsistencies as noted, but it must also show that the whole concept of proxy baptism is taught in the Bible, and that the vicarious baptism interpretation alone is the true interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29. Instead, at least two other views of the passage are possible.
1. First, it is the case that the Greek word huper, in the expression “for the dead,” is defined by Thayer (P 639) as meaning “on account of, for the sake of” something or somebody. He explains by saying huper is used “of the impelling or moving cause” on account of which anything is done. He refers to such passages as the following to support this view: Acts 5:41, 9:16, 15:26, 2 Thess. 1:5, 2 Cor 12:10, John 6:51, John 11:4, Rom. 15:8, Phil. 2:13, 2 Cor. 1:6, Eph. 3:1, 13, 5:20, etc.
Arndt and Gingrich (P. 846) state concerning huper that it is used “to denote the moving cause or the reason because of, for the sake of,” and refers to verbs of suffering where it gives “the reason for it.” Verses cited as reflecting this meaning are: Acts 5:41, 9:16, 21:13, Phil. 1 :29, 2 Thess. 1:5, Eph. 5:20, Rom. 15:9, etc. Eminent commentators reflect this use of the term huper, as well, such as Robertson and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, P. 359; and G. G. Findlay, Expositors Greek Testament, II, 931. Thus the verse refers to those who, out of regard for a dead Christian friend who previously taught them by word and deed, are baptized in obedience to Christ.
2. A second view, held by such men as G. R. Beasley-Murray,2 regards the verse as an ad hominem argument against an importation from possibly mystery religions or other Hellenic religions. The Corinthians were following this practice of Greek non-Christian religion and Paul refers to it to show the inconsistency of their practicing such by denying the resurrection. He thus demonstrated their inconsistency without arguing with their practice.
Thus, since no one today can believe, repent, or confess faith in Christ for another by “proxy,” we conclude for the same reason no one can today receive baptism for another. On either view set forth above, the verse, and hence the Bible does not teach the L.D.S. doctrine of baptism for the dead." FOOTNOTES 1. James E. Talmage, A Study of the ArticIes of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1964). 2. G. R. Beasley- Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 185 -192.
This baptism for the dead is just another attempt by mormonism to set its doctrine above Christian belief and as in this article, proclaim mormons as "vicarious saviors" on a level with their god who was once a man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.