Anne Frank is a Mormon again

A leaked screenshot from a Mormon database shows that Anne Frank has been posthumously baptised into the Mormon faith, again, despite LDS church promises to the contrary. (Thanks, Fipi Lele!)


    1.  Came to post this.
      Anyone got a copy of Mitt’s family tree?
      I heard this group in Utah keep good records.

  1. I don’t get it (and I’m Jewish). Are the Jews who object to this afraid that the Mormon posthumous baptisms will succeed? 

    (edit: I think I a word.)

      1. It’s a dick move, and: for people who aren’t the famous Anne Frank, it is going to spread disinformation that will make it harder for future generations to know their ancestors’ real faith.

        To the cynical, it appears to be a conscious attempt by the church to muddle history and exaggerate their acceptance and importance in our descendants’ eyes.

        I’m quite sure that, of the details about this practice that are lost to the years, the very first detail to vanish is going to be that these baptisms happened posthumously.

          1.  The Mormon Church maintains the largest and most complete collection of genealogical records anywhere.  And they use that information in order to posthumously baptize everyone as Mormon and then register that information in those databases that are then used by researchers to figure out stuff like who is related to whom and the pertinent facts about those people…age at death, birthplace, religion…. 

            Draw your own conclusions. Someone doing research today into the family members who disappeared from the face of the planet in WWII know that they disappeared from their small European cities because they were Jews…will that be true in 100 years? In 200 years?  The misinformation will live on much past our lifetimes

          2. But the history of their foundation – a few believers trekking westwards following some guy called Smith to avoid persecution rather limits the mathematical possibilities of retroactive baptism. Better to take the Islamic view – everybody is and always has been Muslim but they just don’t know it. Islam is the true original faith which others have perverted. Mathematically much simpler.

    1. If I found out some wacky cult had posthumously inducted a relative of mine I’d probably just smile politely and say thanks. It’s silly, but they mean well.

      1. It’s silly, but they mean well.

        No, they don’t mean well.  They’re trying to take over the world and they’re re-writing history to do it.  Where is the “mean well” part of that?

          1. Isn’t that pretty much every major religion in a nutshell?

            Funnily enough, Judaism – Anne Frank’s religion, actively discourages conversion. But yes, many religions do it. It’s generally racist, since spreading religion usually consists of telling the little, dark people that their ancestral culture is evil and barbaric and that they need to find Jesus (or whoever) if they don’t want to spend eternity on fire. And of course, many religions are antisemitic, but Mormonism has really brought style to the evil by re-branding people who were literally branded for being Jews. It is utterly evil.

  2. I am not a mormon but I think I understand their beliefs.  It is that by baptizing the dead when the resurrection comes those that have been baptized will have the CHOICE to enter heaven.  That’s probably over simplified but I believe it’s close.

    1. They believe the current head of their church is God’s prophet here on Earth.  As in, he’s currently getting messages from God and passing them along to the rest of us, Moses-style.  

      This invalidates all previous prophets and anything they’ve passed along from God in the past, making the LDS church the one and only true church.  It is therefore the only one able to baptize people.  So they believe they need to “re-baptize” everyone who’s ever lived and was baptized by an earlier (incorrect) version of the Christian church, as well as all the non-baptized folks like Jews along the way.  

      That’s what their huge genealogical database is for- they’re literally try to catalogue every single person who’s ever lived so that they can baptize them.

      1. Okay I was wrong before. I remember now what ex-mormons have told me. It is some Christians who will let everyone born before the incarnation burn in hell.

    2. I wish it was that simple. The Mormon religion doesn’t follow the same concept of Heaven/Hell as “regular” christian sects. In short – everyone goes to heaven, except Mormons who did really bad stuff and didn’t repent – they go to “outer darkness” which is kind of like Hell.

      So, the dead person is already sitting around in heaven, when someone informs them that there was a posthumous baptism. They then get the choice to accept it or not. Accepting it, I think (it has been a long time since seminary, ha) will allow them to visit higher levels of heaven reserved for Mormons.

      Note: I was raised Mormon, but quit as a teenager, so my memory of how everything worked is a little hazy.

      1. I was also raised as a Mormon, and to my shame I was dunked several times for dead souls (though never Anne Frank, as far as I know. It happens very quickly: “Name!” [dunk] “Name!” [dunk], five to ten times. Then you get back in line and wait for your turn to come up again). But baptisms are only the tip of the iceberg. Did y’all know that the Mormons also perform posthumous weddings?  It’s true. They call them “endowments,” though, which camouflages the sensational nature of the rite.  I wonder how many times the poor young woman has been wedded by now?

        1. I call it what it is. Crap. At the very least have a special register for these posthumous rites segregated from your living emmbers due to the fact that you have no way on the dead’s acceptance/rejection which is exceedingly arrogent.

          Then again it’s also a way to inflate numbers to make your relegion look bigger than it actually ever was.

          1.  Lol – they record the “proxy baptisms”, and do so separately from records of people baptized during their lifetimes.  When they talk about the number of members, they don’t include dead people (baptized or not).   They don’t believe everyone they proxy baptize is Mormon, just that there has to be at least one baptism done corresponding to every person who lives.  It’s wacky, but not malicious.

          1. Since you believe yourself to be knowledgable in this area, please do enlighten us: how is this religious custom not offensive to non-Mormons?  (serious question)

  3. That girl embraces Mormonism more often than most people change underwear!  I think this is number nine.  The article also mentions that Simon Wiesenthal’s parents and the still-living Elie Wiesel have been re-branded recently.  I wonder if they’ve gotten around to baptizing my namesake from Bythinion yet.

  4. The posthumous baptisms are only meant to offer the opportunity to get the benefits of baptism to those who did not get the opportunity when they were alive.

    The act does not automatically convert the recipient to Mormonism, and does not do anything if the recipient declines.

    I really wish this behavior would stop being sensationalized by the media. This is just Mormons doing what they do, no one gets hurt by it, and it does not do or mean what those who object to it thinks it does or means.

    Of course, for those inclined to base their beliefs on evidence, the whole thing is a bit of a non sequiter.

      1. I don’t quite understand how. They aren’t forcing anything on anyone. It’s basically them saying “so we understand you died and weren’t Mormon. Now that you are dead, would you like to be? No, OK, never mind then. Enjoy your afterlife, then.”

        Since dead people have the unfortunately inability to respond to questions like these, the only practical way to do this is to baptize them by proxy, and allow them to accept or decline.

        To horribly decontextualize from the Princess Bride: If you didn’t say “I do”, the marriage didn’t happen.

        I think it’s a bit offensive for living people who believe that dead people can have wants to assume that they know what those wants are. From the point of view of the Mormons, it would be rude to not offer the choice.

        1. “I think it’s a bit offensive for living people who believe that dead people can have wants to assume that they know what those wants are. From the point of view of the Mormons, it would be rude to not offer the choice.”
          Which people, the family of the deceased or the post-mortem baptising Mormons? In each case, I would say ‘yes’.

          1. Some families indicate that they know what their deceased family members want. When correctly following the Mormon doctrine, those performing the posthumous baptisms do not.

            I realize that I may be coming off as a bit pro-Mormon here. I would just like to firmly state that I am merely not anti-Mormon, and like to form my opinions on these matters by understanding the facts, rather than making wild assumptions.

          2. I guess this is just another case of the “we know what’s best for you” paternalism that most organised religious groups seem to love so much. I am curious to know the method by which the deceased are offered their ‘Mormon lifeline’ in the after-life. Does Moroni turn up with a written invitation

             “You are cordially invited to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the purposes of the salvation of your immortal soul (hereafter ‘the recipient’).  The recipient’s remains have already been consecrated according to LDS doctrine, please tick the box below to indicate your eternal preference:AcceptSink into utter and everlasting damnation


          3. Thanks for that, I’d never heard of him and now I may have to waste a few hours of my life on YouTube catching up on what I missed.  Cheers.

        2. I don’t quite understand how.

          Let me put this in simple terms.  How bout we dig up your mom and dress her corpse like a hooker?  I mean, who’s really harmed by desecrating her memory.  I’m pretty sure that my mother would rather be retroactively turned into a hooker than a Mormon.

          1. That is pure hyperbole. No one is talking about doing anything to any actual remains or other forms of physical remembrances of the deceased.

          2. Bkofford: I am not a rabbi, I am not your rabbi, and this is not a doctrinal opinion.

            Jews believe that on this planet they are separate from Their Deity, who laid down a series of requirements for them, and one of those requirements is that they not be consecrated to another deity, in that a series of rituals, baptism not being among them, have already consecrated them to Their Deity.

            Jews who are observant will see a group of Gentiles who are attempting to consecrate their relatives to a False Deity — and even their physical remains and memories are important.

            This behaviour specifically and insultingly tells these Jews that their religion is false, that they don’t have a right to stand before Their Deity.

            It’s little different from reconsecrating their resting places or defacing their gravestones. It shows a sociopathic lack of respect.

          3. And that’s just Judaism. I have not touched upon the numerous traditions that hold that one’s soul’s fate is determined by what is known of them once they have left this life, what songs are sung of them, that an afterlife for them is shaped by what those on Earth do in their name or their memory.
            It does not matter whether they think they’re doing “the right thing”. People have a right, even posthumously, to not be appropriated, a right to their religion, a right to their reputation.

          4. I think you’re usually quite insightful but that’s an absurd straw man.

            What the Mormons are doing isn’t real. Saying your mom wore army boots might be disrespectful but it hardly makes it true.

          5. bardfinn: (Odd, the reply link seems to fail to show up properly this deep, I see why you had to reply like you did.)

            Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but the practice of doing so is merely considered a fools errand, and not impossible. For the moment, I will continue to be the fool.

            It is my understanding that what the Mormons do is not, by itself, an act of consecration. The actual consecration is dependent upon the recipients consent, and thus should not force anyone to actually violate the tenants of their religion in the manner you have indicated.

            However, it is also my understanding that there have been some serious discussions in regard to this matter by the authorities of the religions involved, and it was determined that there were cases where the Mormon church would actively avoid the practice to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if there is no actual impropriety. (Some would even argue that this decision is unfortunate for the deceased involved, and those some would likely be Mormon, but I will not go that far.)

            In this case, someone clearly did not adhere to the agreement, and so someone clearly did something wrong in this particular case, but using this example to refute the entire practice seems to be a logical fallacy.

            I will further go on to state, that I, personally, will not take it upon myself to perform any actions with the intention of helping the deceased, as they are dead, and I fail to see how it would help, but I’m not going to prosecute someone else for having a different belief than me just because I feel it is unfounded.

            If the Mormons were digging up corpses, desecrating shrines, actively asserting that their actions actually did change someone’s status without their consent, or were otherwise directly infringing upon others’ rights, I not only would be arguing this matter much differently, I would think that the entire religion would have to go find another tract of land not already claimed by another party to go practice their beliefs, or they would likely suffer problems very similar to the ones they had shortly after the founding of their church, or worse, and even then, I would think, they wouldn’t last long without changing their practices.

            The link provided by Ladyfingers to the video asserting that there is no right to not be offended is very applicable here. An individual may be offended by the Mormon’s actions, but that, by itself, does not make the Mormon’s actions wrong, immoral, or illegal. I still maintain that anyone’s offence on the matter is likely due to a misunderstanding, and not due to the act itself being overtly offensive.

            I may be excessively verbose for this medium, and I may be posting a bit too much on this matter, but I do strongly believe that if people would spend the effort to learn some details, rather that making grandiose assumptions based on a single headline and a single sentence, they would fail to be offended so easily.

          6. Hmm.. tried 4 different web browsers, and could not get a reply button this deep, but the moderators get one. Interesting.



            The deceased is dead and there is no afterlife. the actions of the Mormons are meaningless and do not matter. Giving respect to whatever memorials or memories that remain of the individual, in order to maintain respect for the lost individual, seems reasonable and the actions of the Mormons take do not directly interfere with this respect.


            The deceased go on to an afterlife. What they currently believe is more important that what they believed in life. The actions the Mormons take are intended to provide the individual the continued ability to follow whatever it is they currently believe would be an act of charity. One that is done in a manner that does not directly interfere with the beliefs of those still living.

            In neither case do I see where the corpse is being held to be more important than a person.

            Also, the word “meat” in the context  of your inquiry  is typically used for animal flesh that is used as food. At least that is what these pages seem to indicate:

            Do you go around eating human corpses? If not, I actually find the wording of your question disrespectful, although I am not personally offended by it because I understand that was not the connotation intended. If so, there are more serious issues here than mere disrespect.

        3. It seems kind of rude in the style of reporters who kept calling Muhammed Ali by his former name, Cassius Clay, for years after he changed it. You can debate with someone what their name should really be, or whether they’re adopting a new name for the right reasons or whatever, but it says something about you if you can’t even use the name that a person asks to be called.

          Not exactly the same situation here, but similar. The religion that a person chooses is part of their identity. When people are able to choose it, baptism is a ritual people go through that affirms their membership in a certain religion or denomination.  Performing the ritual on behalf of people who can’t choose it implies that you’re marking them as a member of that religion.

          Maybe that’s not what Mormons intend by it, but they should expect this kind of reaction given the usage of the word “baptism” in recent centuries.

          1. (actually in reply to bkofford)

            “Hmm.. tried 4 different web browsers, and could not get a reply button this deep, but the moderators get one. Interesting.”

            Welcome to the internet.  You’ve got some catching up to do.

    1. It’s just one of those odd Mormon beliefs that people generally don’t know about.  It’s completely astounding to me that Romney’s religion has not been an issue in the campaign this year, particularly as he keeps bringing it up in the context of religious persecution.  Santorum not going after this seems more sinister than enlightened.

      1.  Yep, those Mormons are sure odd with their beliefs. 
        Let’s silently pray to the holy-zombie-Jesus-who-hears-all that they see the silliness of their ways.

        1. Praise Holy-Zombie-BABY-Jesus-Who-Hears-All, you splitter; or burn in Hell for all Eternity!

          We follows of the one true, holy and apostolic Church of Holy-Zombie-BABY-Jesus-Who-Hears-All take a dim view of heretics and schismatic.

  5. Yeah, but isn’t it, like… insulting to their entire family? Your freedom of religion is somehow relinquished when you die?

    Do Mormons not care about insulting people? Should the Pastafarians retaliate but posthumously converting all of the dead Mormons to worshippers of the mighty noodled one on the off chance that they;ll get a chance to enter a heaven made of meatball delights?

    I’m a non-believer and it still comes across as a giant dick move. Leave dead people alone.

    1. The Mormons also believe that baptism, and further, baptism by particular priesthood authority, is essential for salvation. They therefore work to baptize all of humanity, daunting as that may sound, and yes, that’s partially why they keep all the genealogical records others have commented on. That said, anyone Mormon or otherwise paying attention will know it has long been Church policy not to perform these proxy baptisms for holocaust victims, unless the person doing the ordinance is a direct descendant of that person. This is consistent with agreements made with various holocaust victims’ representatives over the years. Any Church member choosing to ignore that policy, and moreover to create the fairly complex subterfuge required to get the baptism done in spite of the controls the Church has built precisely to uphold the policy clearly doesn’t understand the whole point of doing the ordinance in the first place. It is meant as an act of charity, of benefit both to the deceased should they choose to accept it, as well as to the person performing the ordinance, but the deceit involved to make it happen would certainly cancel out those benefits, at least to the living.

      1. I quote the great prophet Han of the Solos:
        “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

        And add, just because they think it’s charity doesn’t make it a dick move. And such the dick move that they kind of deserve the ridicule and annoyance they inspire every time it’s dragged out into the light.

        I mean, I understand what you are explaining. It all comes down to some version of “They have their reasons and they believe.” But it’s still insulting and disrespectful.

        1. You do realize that Han was wrong?  For example, when he met Vader, blaster in hand, it didn’t turn out so well.

      2. “Any Church member choosing to ignore that policy… clearly doesn’t understand the whole point of doing the ordinance in the first place”
        Yeah, that’s the problem here – some Mormons don’t understand the point of baptizing dead people.

      3. They therefore work to baptize all of humanity, daunting as that may sound

        Daunting?  No, more like brainless.  Really, even if one believes in the theology at work here.  They believe that their Creator has so fixed His universe that baptism is essential for salvation, and it strikes them as a good idea to ensure that every last soul that ever trod this planet gets a fair shake at a baptism, whether pre- or post-mortem, just so that they all get a fair chance at salvation, and never mind how they lived their lives or the choices they made while still among the living?

        Doesn’t it strike anyone else that this practice seems to assume that baptism was something that should have happened to everyone, whether born into the Mormon Church, or before it existed, or simply outside the reach of its most determined missionaries?  In other words, since no Mormon hand could have aided these poor lost souls in their baptism, the Church is now doing the work that God alone could have done?  And isn’t there a touch of reproach about it all, in that if absolutely everyone should have been baptized, then God should have included baptism as part of the package deal of being born?

        What an incredibly stupid devaluing of the point and process of baptism.  (And that’s assuming that the point of normal baptism is intelligent and defensible!)  The arrogance!  “God obviously wants everyone to be saved, but due to circumstances apparently beyond His control (and yet adhering to cosmological laws of His own manufacture), unbaptized people can’t be saved, but since He didn’t get around to ensuring that everyone gets baptized Himself, why, we’ll just do it for Him.”  Is no thought given to the idea that baptism might be the price of salvation that, if not paid by the soul in question voluntarily (or at birth by family with some apparent vested interest in the well-being of the soul in question), then the unbaptized soul is and shall forever remain chained to the status of Eternally Shit Outta Luck?

        Give the Catholics some credit: at least they invented Limbo to avoid having to engage in such utterly self-contradictory nonsense.

          1. Having read that bit, it makes even less sense why they go to this trouble, even if they have nothing better to do.  Apparently their God is such a softy that He doesn’t even keep much of a fiery pit to burn sinners in.  The telestial kingdom contains “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie,” as well as those “who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.”  What kind of half-assed afterlife is this?  Even the bottommost degree of glory is still, apparently, glorious.  You have to receive “perfect knowledge” of Jesus (not just lose faith in Him, but actually know that It’s All True) and then reject the Holy Ghost in order to be cast into Outer Darkness, the closest approximation of Hell.  And only a tiny minority of people go that way, becoming the Sons of Perdition.  (It’s apparently unclear whether there may be Daughters of Perdition.  Brigham Young didn’t think women could be capable of such perfidy.)

            Man, what a weak-tea, darkside-free religion.  Since the three kingdoms of glory all sound like varying degrees if ice cream socials, why would Mormons bother to baptize dead people, especially people outside the faith whose families or descendants might be irritated by the practice?  It’s not like the dead person’s non-baptized afterlife is remotely uncomfortable, let alone eternally agonizing.

            Oh, wait… I forgot about Spirit Prison, where you have to spend 1,000 years after your death if you die in ignorance of the Truth, “or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.”  

            This is a temporary state in which spirits will be taught the Gospel and have the opportunity to repent and accept ordinances of salvation that are performed for them in temples.  Those who accept the Gospel may dwell in paradise until the Resurrection. Those who choose not to repent but who are not sons of perdition will remain in spirit prison until the end of the Millennium, when they will be freed from hell and punishment and be resurrected to a telestial glory.

            I see why this religion has caught on so well.  It appears to be remarkably difficult to end up burning in permanent hell with these guys.

            EDIT: I should note, in case it isn’t screamingly obvious, that a 10-minute theology class at the University of Wikipedia does not a divinity education make, but that’s all I got on these guys, though I started reading The Book of Mormon when I was in high school. I got bogged down pretty quickly. I’m sure I’ve missed all kinds of details and matters of doctrine that make the whole thing as sensible as any religion with ten times the history.

        1. Once they get back to baptising Mitochondrial Eve I guess its game over.

          “Human Souls, Pikachu, you’ve got to collect ’em all!”

      4. And Buddhists work for the salvation of all sentient beings – at least if you hitch a ride with the Great Vehicle.

        Other people’s thoughts and rituals do not affect the deceased. If the living choose to take offense, well, we’ve got lots of that going around these days.

      5. If Mormons truly believe their own version of the Afterlife, then surely this inaction is anti-Semitic, as they are dooming the Jews murdered in the Holocaust to an eternity in the Out Darkness.

  6. Surprised there’s not more atheist comments yet along the lines of “Big f’n deal” already posted. Unless I missed something, I’ll be the first. Big f’n deal.

      1. bkofford,

        You’ve made a third of the posts in this thread, so I took out the repetitive ones.  If you have anything new to add…

        1. Fair enough. I suppose if some people clearly missed information in other posts, based on the content of their posts, it is not entirely necessary for me to point it out.

          With this in mind, I am carefully refraining from replying to teapot’s post below.

          After re-reading the thread to determine what was removed, though, I found it a bit ironic that the most extremist posts here seem to have been authored by a moderator. Nothing I care to file an official complaint about, yet, though.

          1. Aw… and he was gonna feed me.

            I found it a bit ironic that the most extremist posts here seem to have been authored by a moderator.

            Ironic that a moderator doesn’t moderate himself? Um, have you ever used the internet before?

            In any case the charge against you is probably justified. Anti deleted some of your comments (and gave the courtesy of informing you), yet you still somehow manage to have 7/51 comments. Anti has 5, 4 of which are direct responses to comments which required correction and 1 of which is telling you to stop posting repetitive crap. He didn’t say don’t be extreme… he said don’t repeat yourself.

    1. Well, if what I’ve read of their doctorines are true, then since it’s just an offer (made in good faith presumably) they would feel it’s hubris to not offer to those most in need.

      However I do disagree with Mromonism so just smile, walk away and move on.

  7. Assuming that everyone goes to Hell unless they are baptized in this particular denomination, and assuming it can be changed by strangers praying for or posthumously baptizing them, what does this say about their god? Would a good god change hir judgment of a person based on the lobbying of strangers? Weird. This could even be part of a “universalist heresy” (as I’ve heard it described in a universalist church): maybe everyone who ever lived, no matter how evil, could eventually be moved out of hell and into heaven or salvation or whatever by prayers or posthumous baptism rites performed by strangers. Yay! Except why would a good god wait for that or demand that? Weird, weird stuff.

    1.  Well, their plan is certainly to do a baptism for everyone (sometimes several!).  They don’t see this as binding – and in any case baptism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for entry into heaven’s VIP club (Mormons believe almost everyone goes to a heaven of some sort).

      Why would God require this?  I think the Mormons believe this work was requirement was put in place (partly at least) to encourage people to connect people with their ancestors. 

  8. Of all people, the mormons should know that it doesn’t count until you’re wearing the magic underwear. Are they digging up the deceased and dressing them in funny garb as well?

    [Feed me]

    Those of the opinion that this isn’t offensive: you’re wrong. It is absolutely offensive because the mormon church signed an agreement with the jews stating they wouldn’t do this anymore…. but they’re still doing it.

    Anyway it doesn’t bother me a whole lot because I think any religion is just as batty as the next one – however, I respect people’s right to choose their own belief system. The mormons should do the same.

    I would be incredibly offended if they did this to me. Religious people: Keep your insane beliefs and ceremonies to yourselves please.

    1. I would be incredibly offended if they did this to me.

      They’re more than welcome to do it to me, if only to afford me another opportunity to slam the door in their faces from beyond the grave.  If it were an actual, binding baptism (as opposed to a postmortem offer to Get Straight With The Big Guy), I’d probably be offended.  If I weren’t too damned dead to care.

  9. You are all welcome to baptize me into whatever beliefs you so choose after I die. I’m quite sure I won’t care, seeing as how I’ll be dead.

    1. Joseph Smith Jr.: Heh-heh. Come! We put the religion’s name on everything!

      Joseph Smith Jr.: Moichandising! Moichandising! Where the real money from the religion is made. Mormons: the T-shirt, Mormons: the Coloring Book , Mormons: the Lunchbox, Mormons: the Breakfast Cereal! Mormons: the Flame Thrower!!

  10. In the cooky spirit of this, the pastafarian church should just posthumously baptise every Mormon into the fatih of the flying spaghetti monster.

  11. Publish (even if it’s print-on-demand) a small book that details all the BS the Mormon church is doing in contemporary times; CC license it and have people help you. Let other people also publish it via POD for a minimal cost (they only need a few copies).

    Why? Many nations have a national archive that requires two copies of any published work to be sent to them for permanent storage. Some nations’ laws prohibit any removal of any correctly-filed publications for any reason ever (which is why certain northy-like European countries have material that was perfectly legal in the 70s there but now is not only illegal but will have you being asked to have a seat over there). Preserve the record.

    1. You solution requires effort on the part of researchers to search for and request these books. The LDS have their records online and anonymized via links to various genealogical tools. Score one for Bringham’s Boys.

  12. First. You can’t posthumously baptize a Pastafarian High Priestess. Duh!!
    Second. If life starts at conception for these people, that would mean that over half of every soul that ever lived, died before birth. I hope I don’t go to Mormon heaven it sounds extremely boring and awkward.

  13. Do they publish the names of whom they’ve baptized for all the world to see?  Send letters to the descendants telling them of the “great news”? Or is this just strictly some insane internal thing they do, recording the names in dusty tomes deep within the innards of their Mormons-only shrine? 

    As long as they don’t make efforts to publicize their little internal freak show it truly does seem to be very much a who-the-fuck cares thing.   Most religions, in one way or another make some claims to being the “true path”.  Essentially saying all the followers of other religions are at the very least misguided fools. Not seeing how this is more insulting, or more “batshit insane when you step back and look at it”, than 90% of the rituals of every major religion.

Comments are closed.