-> ~>  EC> I don't much care why, but the fact that you still call it
baptizing
->  
-> ~> Than, why bother defending it?
-> 
-> By your standards (such as they are), you owe me an apology for
suggesting
-> that I "defended" the practice.
->  
-> ~>  EC> them as opposed to baptizing FOR them shows that you still don't
have a
-> ~>  EC> clue. 
-> 
-> ~> Wrong, Earl.
Three different people have now tried to explain/correct you and you have
given no evincing of comprehension, interest or reading the replies, merely
repeating the bleating of your opinion.  There must be a lot of self
satisfaction going on because it sure ain't convincing. 

  Unless the deceased left a will that they wanted to convert 
-> ~> to mormonism, it should not be done.  It's offensive to the deceased 
-> ~> beliefs. 
A Great Movie title: "The offended Dead..."
Ok, you say you know about being offended. Do ALL baptisms offend you?
Does the thinking that life has a purpose offend
you?-----------------------
I think that those who have not experienced rapture miss out on a life
improving experience and can never speak with any authority on religious
matters. I do not expect anyone to agree nor will I defend such an
outrageous opinion.
-> 
-> Still you lack a clue.  How in the world do you think a living person
can
-> convert a dead person to a different religion, and why do you think that
-> has anything to do with the practice that was discussed in the article? 
-> You know, the one you still haven't read, or haven't understood.
But, hey, other than THAT....
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5