EARL CROASMUN -> God Dan wrote:
 EC>>> I don't much care why, but the fact that you still call it
 EC> baptizing

 ~>> Than, why bother defending it?

 EC> By your standards (such as they are), you owe me an apology for suggesting
 EC> that I "defended" the practice.

Don't hold your breath.

 EC>>> them as opposed to baptizing FOR them shows that you still don't
 EC> have a
 EC>>> clue.

 ~>> Wrong, Earl.  Unless the deceased left a will that they wanted to
 EC> convert
 ~>> to mormonism, it should not be done.  It's offensive to the deceased
 ~>> beliefs.

 EC> Still you lack a clue.  How in the world do you think a living person can
 EC> convert a dead person to a different religion, and why do you think that
 EC> has anything to do with the practice that was discussed in the article?
 EC> You know, the one you still haven't read, or haven't understood.

This is getting hilarious. The argument that the Jewish community had was
not that the person was being converted to Mormonism, but that they were
being baptized for at all. The Church honored the wishes of the Jewish
community and made it a policy not to do baptisms for Holocaust victims.

I thought these idiots here in HS were atheists and didn't believe in the
"hereafter." Doesn't atheism hold that when you're dead, you're
just worm food?

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under
the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
 --Thomas Jefferson

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 379711

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)