“'All we’re doing is dunking someone and saying a prayer or doing a ritual,' he said. 'Being upset about it presumes that we have an effect.'"

("Mormons Still Baptizing Dead Jews Despite Agreements to End Practice," by Allsion Yarrow, 15 February 2012, at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/15/mormons-still-baptizing-dead-jews-despite-agreements-to-end-practice.html)
_____


No big deal. It's like the dunk tank at the local carnival. All those complaining Jews out there are presuming it actually means something. Relax, it doesn't. Chill. No harm, no foul.

Ol' Danny Boy is getting pretty desperate when he gets to the point of adopting the language of RfM to defend Mormon cult necro-dunking of Holocaust-massacred Jews.

But we knew all along he was a closet doubter all along.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 08:53PM by steve benson.

'Being upset about it presumes that we have an effect.'

By saying this, isn't DCP saying that Mormon baptisms for the dead have no effect? And if dunking someone and saying a prayer or doing a ritial has no effect, doesn't that mean that all mormon practices involving dunking, prayer, and rituals also have no effect?

I think DCP basically just admitted that there is nothing real or literal in mormon baptisms for the living, for the dead, and for mormons saying prayers and performing rituals.

Haha, you took the words out of my mouth.

It really does sound like he's calling a spade a spade.

it doesn't mean that the pain doesn't exist or is invalid.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 07:51PM by steve benson.

I think that Daniel C. might just be doing the whole apologist "gotcha" thing: Aha! The fact that you're upset about it shows that you know it has an effect! You're admitting that the church is true!

But it's clearly an offensive practice. The fact that Mormons are baptizing deceased Jews is an echo of centuries of anti-Jewish persecution. As many have pointed out, the ritual purports to separate them from their faith, which was all that was left to European Jews during the Holocaust. There have also been forced baptisms of Jews several times in European history, especially during the middle ages, and during the renaissance in Spain.

I suspect that the Mormon church overlooks the offensiveness of this practice because, as in most things, the church looks inward toward its own needs rather than outward toward the needs of the world. Unfortunately, all of the rituals that the church uses in its temples are initiatory rituals rather than regular worship services like you would find in, say, a cathedral or other large church building. The problem with initiatory rituals is that after you go through them once, there's no need to do them again, and so no need to return to the temple on your own behalf. Hence the need to undergo baptism, confirmation, endowments, and weddings on behalf of the dead.

I believe it was Cheryl who came up with the terms "necro-dunking" and "dead-dunking." I prefer the latter, myself.

If "Frank" would be screwing "Mark's" dead daughter, he could not get her pregnant or hurt her, so it would not have an effect, according to the lines of thought of Daniel Peterson...

Yes, this is said in a rude way, but Necro-dunking is that rude too.

" 'Being upset about it presumes that we have an effect.'"

And there ya have it. Admitting to it having no effect. All a bunch of doo doo...

He undoubtedly intended it to mean the exact opposite of your interpretation:

"The uproar proves that non-mormons know that BOD is a true ordinance of the one, true church."

<begin sarcasm>
Which ever way the wind blows, it always proves the mormon church is true.
<end>


Edit: add road signs ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 09:32PM by 3X.

Give it up.

Mormonism isn't cool and neither are you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 08:16PM by steve benson.

Coming in uninvited; in fact, expressly not invited, insisting that their way is the only way and the only reason non-Mormons don't like it is because they know it's true. Where possible (i.e., in temple rituals) forcing the issue, on dead people who aren't as vocal as disinterested living folks.

What's offensive about that cement-headed attitude?

I can't imagine.

Oh - ouch - you so got me - not really.

It has no effect. It means nothing. Just like you and your silly ass religion.

Go play somewhere else 3X, somewhere where you will not leave crying.

"Go play somewhere else 3X, somewhere where you will not leave crying."

Someone is confused ...

My post was a sarcastic rendition of Peterson's motivation ...

nickerickson: "'Being upset about it presumes that we have an effect.'"

nick: "And there ya have it. Admitting to it having no effect."

I agree with oddcouplet that DCP is saying, in effect, "so even non- and anti-Mormons believe that baptism for the dead has an effect (or they wouldn't be protesting about it)". He is not making the statement that it's an empty ritual and therefore doesn't matter.

steve benson: "...when he gets to the point of adopting the language of RfM to defend Mormon[ism]..."

That was my first thought. It is the language of RfM (dead-dunking) and the opinion of some RfM posters (that being upset about it indicates we believe dead-dunking has an effect).

It is not the belief about any possible meaning or effect of the ritual that is offensive. I really cannot believe that people can't grasp that point. They can disagree with our conclusions but how can they not understand our point?

Our names are important to us, our reputations, our philosophies, our religious beliefs (or none), our legacies. It is common for family members to be scrupulous about knowing a loved one's last wishes and following them. We cherish the memory of our loved ones who have passed on and honour their names and legacies. What gives unknown outsiders the right to get involved? Why would any faithful Mennonite, observant Catholic, murdered Jew, Shinto princess, confirmed atheist or my Aunt Fanny want their names recited in a Mormon ritual inside a Mormon temple when they never sought Mormonism in their lifetime?

Mormons should let Mormons be Mormons and leave everyone else alone to be who/whatever they want.

Each to his/her own.

I'm sure the Mormon God can figure it all out. Maybe he can let his people know to let everybody else's people go.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 08:22PM by Nightingale.

He's shrugging it off far too easily and lightly to be a TBM at heart, IMO.

Peterson is a water-carrying employee for the Mormon cult who does its bidding to get its pay.

He knows the lay of the land and is laughing all the way to Zions Bank.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 08:59PM by steve benson.

You may be right. And you have far more experience than I do with Mormons from the inside out.

I do vaguely recall that he objected to the term 'dunking' at one time but I could be mistaken. I agree that he would be unlikely to use the term if he considered the rite to be sacred.

Unless he was speaking from the point of view of a non- or ex-Mormon, which I still think is possible.

A rather instructive reader's comment from the Daily Beast:

reader "apeirongnosis":

<quote>
Offense is in the eye of the beholder, as are "acts of reverence and love". Mormons don't get to dictate whether or not their practices are offensive. Nor do they get to excuse them as acts of love, where others perceive them as selfish and insensitive.

I think their rituals are silly, and of no supernatural effect, but I still find them deeply offensive. It bothers me that the names of my loved ones may be used without their personal consent, to further the agenda of a religious sect they would not support. It bothers me that my Mormon relatives will probably be baptized "on my behalf" after I am dead. To have my name associated with that organization in any way, and to be used in their faith-promoting practices, is anathema to me.

Cheers to Wiesel and Radkey and others who bring attention to this bizarre and insensitive practice. My only criticism is that devout Jews and holocaust victims shouldn't be the only ones exempt from inclusion. The Mormons ought to consider a "Do Not Dunk" list so that they can limit their practices to the realm of decency.
<endquote>

I quite agree with that point of view: LDS dead-dunking isn't about the dead, it's about the use of appropriated names in mormon faith-promoting ritual. And I certainly object to my name being potentially used in that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 09:51PM by 3X.

>Being upset about it presumes that we have an effect.

No, believing you can take the legacy from Holocaust victims that were MURDERED for being Jewish and use their names for your own Mormonized fantasy is why people are upset.

Go sell crazy to the Scientologists, Danny. You obviously lack the balls to own up to the LDS church's disgusting, dishonorable dead-dunking.

This is about the 12th time that Mormons have been told to stop baptizing murdered Jews. Yet they persist. They simply don't get it. This is the type of conduct that cause nevermos outside the Jello Belt to think Mormons are weird. It is a symptom of not having contact with normal people, and being confined to an echo chamber where disgusting conduct seems the norm.

Joe Smith "translating" the BoM without the plates present. The Mormons continue to disrespect reality and intellect. Daniel Peterson's weak denial does nothing for me, as long as he continues to advocate ignorance and superstition. It doesn't matter whether I like dead-dunking or not, it's a terrible thing to teach to innocent children. They should shove the doctrine into the idiot adults only compartment. That or a dark place.

My concern is not about the dead, or the memory of the dead, or the respect for the dead. I am more concerned about what this practice does for the Mormons who do it.

By dead-dunking, even if we non-members shrug it off and say, "doesn't matter, I don't believe in it anyway," it cultivates an arrogance and a wrongful pride in the Mormons who do it believing they are "saving" lost souls.

It's not about the names or reputations of the dead. It's about the attitudes of the living Mormons who are looking at everyone around them as future baptism targets.

So would Mr. Peterson be ok with his dead relatives names being used as part of a voodoo ritual sacrifice involving drinking chicken blood? How would that feel to him?

Or how about we hold a voodoo dance in a cemetery over the graves of his relatives. I mean, there's no "effect", so why care?

Turnabout is fair play.

Just in case it's real, true, effective, and not a bunch of doo-doo, I have just formed a new Reverse Church.

In one all-encompassing ordinance, and by the authority in me vested (embryonic diety), I have reversed the LD$ Necro-dunking ordinances for all dead Jews.

Now they're Jews again.

Really.

Next, I'll do the rest of the world.

(You have to admit, my RND ordinance is equally valid, right?)

It was smart of DCP to delete the comments. All anyone would have needed to do is link to his FARMS article, "Text and Context," where Peterson quotes liberally and approvingly from the a book by the notoriously anti-semitic author E. Michael Jones, and the whole thing would have blown up in his face. Tossing in DCP's quip that "Jews have few friends in the world" would have been the trifecta.

his ancestors being voodoed

After all, it's not like it would affect anything.

Anyone up for a little ritual, proxy, necro-adultery? Really, the old lady told me she was anxious for it.

Peterson is clearly saying that there's no need to be upset about dead-dunking as it has no effect.

He's just let the cat out of the bag because he's admitting that by extension nothing in Mormonism has an effect, including the Melchizedech priesthood, temple sealings and other such nonsense.

Let's watch him squirm his way out of this one.

It is needlessly offending living people who, although Gentiles, are Jews and deserve respect, like everyone else.

Giving the finger also has no "effect" except communicating contempt. Which is exactly what the Mormon church is conveying through their dishonesty followed by minimizing the importance of the victims' feelings.


Anagrammy