Bill Maher Performs "Un-Baptism" Of Mitt Romney'S Deceased Father-In-Law

[Eldwynn]

What needs to happen is for other religious faiths to confront Bill and his anti-mormonism. He would never mock the muslim faith or the other religious groupings outside of christianity. This makes him a coward and a hypocrite. But Americans can unite against his bigotry and make some noise. America should be a tolerant nation of religious practices and when a TV personality steps out of line, there needs to be an effort to confront it through the airwaves.

Bill is a bigot..and an attention grabber.

Lol yah because Bill would never mock muslims or other religions groups. Nope, never. He's never done that. Nope.

**Spoiler alert** he mocks other faiths all the time. He is a comedian- he's an equal opportunity mocker. It's what he's paid to do.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Calm]

I agree that faithful Mormons believe that a person needs this, and consider being baptised for the dead an altruistic act. I'm only saying that from the point of view of others who don't believe this, it's a definite shot across the bow that we're not really used to anymore in our society, and if it doesn't go over well, that's probably why.

I would agree.

I understand that some people look on religion as a private matter, one that shouldn't be talked about much in public even as they see it as a personal and private matter. I have found it quite difficult to get anyone (not LDS of course) to discuss their religion with me outside of the internet groups that are formed because of a desire to do just that. In a sense then, our performing baptisms for the dead for others can be looked upon as crossing the boundaries of good taste or invading the personal space and privacy of others, even if they are dead (more often it is the personal boundaries of those taking offense that are crossed, sometimes just by the possibility of our acting on our beliefs to spread the gospel and redeem the dead rather than just 'living and let live' so to speak).

We see the dead as part of our extended family. I would think that many other faith and ethnic communities have a similar tie to their dead, such that those individuals, even though dead, are part of the community's sense of identity. It makes sense to me that there are those who see baptism of the dead as an attempt to erase that connection with that community and reform it with our own, even though the reality is that since we see life as much, much more than just mortality (having existed in a multitude of relationships prior to mortal life as we will after mortality) we see our actions as adding to someone's life and connections, expanding them rather than substituting or even removing connections that they had established during their mortal lives.

I think it is wise to be sensitive to those who hold those perceptions but I don't think it should prevent us from doing what we believe is right and commanded by God.

Edited February 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

I've usually thought that the response to baptism for the dead by others, for example the Jewish relatives of Holocaust victims, was a little overwrought, but I recently had a second thought about this.

We know that most religions think that they're the correct one, and by corollary the others are not correct, but for the most part we pretend that we don't believe this when we're amongst others. It's simply not polite to go about telling everyone else that their religions aren't true, and ours is. Instead, the polite thing is to keep our opinions to ourselves, and keep our practice of our chosen religion a private matter.

Baptism for the dead, however, flies in the face of this. If you're a Jewish relative of a Holocaust survivor who's been posthumously baptised into the Mormon church, what the Mormon Church has said, through this action, is: your beliefs are wrong, ours are right, and we are correcting that for your grandma or whoever, because we know better than you do what they need and ought to have.

I agree that faithful Mormons believe that a person needs this, and consider being baptised for the dead an altruistic act. I'm only saying that from the point of view of others who don't believe this, it's a definite shot across the bow that we're not really used to anymore in our society, and if it doesn't go over well, that's probably why.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know I've been prayed for by others who don't understand Mormonism, that I'll see the light and exit the church. Am I offended? Not particularly; in fact my usual response is that I need all the help I can get, and if someone wants to pray for me, then perhaps at least the correct things in their prayers will be effective. While exiting the church would be the wrong thing, I can always use more light.

This is from people who attack my faith, and I have no problem with it. Vicarious ordinances, on the other hand, are simply an offering to be accepted or rejected and are done in that spirit. There is a difference between the two approaches and the spirit in which they are offered, and there is a line that can be crossed. However, to those who don't believe, there is no coercion intended in either, and as such I don't think that it is "a shot across the bow". In matters of faith and truth, the basic principle in all cases is that if you have it, you should be sharing it for the benefit of others who desire to accept it. Keeping it to yourself does no one a service; those who are offended when a person doesn't "keep it to himself", and who don't understand this principle are going to find offense in something anyway. Being offended is simply a way of exerting dominance in a situation, and it's not a game that is particularly honest.

[rodheadlee]

Bill who?

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn.

Mr. Maher said himself why he doesn't mock Muslims. He believes they'll put a fatwa against his a** and kill him.

Edited February 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[oats]

South Park is far more offensive in its treatment of things people hold sacred.

Yet, I hardly ever hear younger Mormons do anything but occasionaly try get some "I'm cool too" points by declaring that they like South Park. The hate on Maher for this little bit of silliness seems overwrought.

Besides the superficiality of the 'offensive treatment' comparison there is little in common between South Park and Maher. Maher's goal is to mock and offend under the pretense of superior intellect. Despite his air of intellect he obviously doesn't (or can't?) even understand the idea of baptism on behalf of the dead.

There is a huge difference in the hows and whys. I'm not sure how a person could be familiar with South Park and Maher and not be aware of the difference. Unless their judgment is very superficial. Have you watched a lot of South Park episodes? Would you compare Stephen Colbert with Fox News? One openly acknowledges their limits and failings of what they say while the other insists they are right and objective.

[california boy]

I don't know about anyone else, but I know I've been prayed for by others who don't understand Mormonism, that I'll see the light and exit the church. Am I offended? Not particularly; in fact my usual response is that I need all the help I can get, and if someone wants to pray for me, then perhaps at least the correct things in their prayers will be effective. While exiting the church would be the wrong thing, I can always use more light. This is from people who attack my faith, and I have no problem with it. Vicarious ordinances, on the other hand, are simply an offering to be accepted or rejected and are done in that spirit. There is a difference between the two approaches and the spirit in which they are offered, and there is a line that can be crossed. However, to those who don't believe, there is no coercion intended in either, and as such I don't think that it is "a shot across the bow". In matters of faith and truth, the basic principle in all cases is that if you have it, you should be sharing it for the benefit of others who desire to accept it. Keeping it to yourself does no one a service; those who are offended when a person doesn't "keep it to himself", and who don't understand this principle are going to find offense in something anyway. Being offended is simply a way of exerting dominance in a situation, and it's not a game that is particularly honest.

I can appreciate that not all people are offended by someone saying they will pray for them. But some are. I wonder if you received a letter in the mail telling you that you were now a member of the Catholic church if you would be offended. Perhaps you wouldn't, but many would find that even more offensive than someone praying for them. If you adamantly did not want to be Catholic yet someone was, in your view. forcing you to be listed on the rolls of the Catholic church as being a member, you too might object to that.

I am just saying that not everyone sees baptism for the dead as being benign. I am surprised a Mormon can not understand how it COULD be offensive. I think there are a lot of people that will see Maher's little skit as giving back to Mormons what Mormons give to others. In other words, Mormons mock our religion by converting my beloved grandmother that would not be caught dead in the Mormon church, so lets just unbaptize them. I know this is not exactly what Maher did, but perhaps you can see what is going on here better with this example.

I think it would be better for Mormons to acknowledge that some will be offended by having their beloved ancestor baptized into the Mormon church than rationalizing that it should be no big deal for them. You have to understand Mormon doctrine to understand what baptism for the dead means. Most people only view baptism as an act showing commitment and acceptance to a religious belief.

[followerofemmanuel]

What needs to happen is for other religious faiths to confront Bill and his anti-mormonism. He would never mock the muslim faith or the other religious groupings outside of christianity. This makes him a coward and a hypocrite. But Americans can unite against his bigotry and make some noise. America should be a tolerant nation of religious practices and when a TV personality steps out of line, there needs to be an effort to confront it through the airwaves.

Bill is a bigot..and an attention grabber.

He mocks all relgion and every faith. I have heard him speak in interviews.

[jwhitlock]

I can appreciate that not all people are offended by someone saying they will pray for them. But some are. I wonder if you received a letter in the mail telling you that you were now a member of the Catholic church if you would be offended. Perhaps you wouldn't, but many would find that even more offensive than someone praying for them. If you adamantly did not want to be Catholic yet someone was, in your view. forcing you to be listed on the rolls of the Catholic church as being a member, you too might object to that.

Since LDS proxy work is not the same thing as someone telling me I'm a member of another church against my will, this analogy is invalid. Someone continuing to claim the LDS proxy work forces people to become Mormons, after being corrected in that misconception, has only himself to blame for being offended.

I am just saying that not everyone sees baptism for the dead as being benign. I am surprised a Mormon can not understand how it COULD be offensive. I think there are a lot of people that will see Maher's little skit as giving back to Mormons what Mormons give to others. In other words, Mormons mock our religion by converting my beloved grandmother that would not be caught dead in the Mormon church, so lets just unbaptize them. I know this is not exactly what Maher did, but perhaps you can see what is going on here better with this example.

Since the difference between what Maher did and what Latter-day Saints do with proxy work is significant, both in intent and in spirit, anyone who thinks Maher is just dishing the same back out to Mormons needs to have a reality check. If someone sees what we do as not being benign, then they are either not educated on the subject, or they have decided they are going to be offended no matter what. In either case, it's their problem - not ours.

I think it would be better for Mormons to acknowledge that some will be offended by having their beloved ancestor baptized into the Mormon church than rationalizing that it should be no big deal for them. You have to understand Mormon doctrine to understand what baptism for the dead means. Most people only view baptism as an act showing commitment and acceptance to a religious belief.

No one has rationalized that it's no big deal; do you really understand what LDS proxy work is all about? You seem to have mischaracterized it repeatedly in your post by inferring that proxy work forces those on the other side into Mormonism. A clear understanding of LDS doctrine would quickly show how faulty that perception is.

Frankly, I tend to be dismissive about people who continue to be "offended" about LDS proxy practices when they have been accurately informed as to what they are really all about. They're typically going to find ways to be offended about Mormonism no matter what we do, so it's not really worth worrying about them. it's their problem and we've got better things to do than to try to play games with them. On the other hand, if someone really wants to understand, then I have all the time in the world for them.

Edited February 5, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Tarski]

Have you watched a lot of South Park episodes? .

Probably 99% of them mostly because I don't bother changing the channel after The Colbert Report.

I still hold that SP ought to be considered more offensive--and make no mistake they are making fun no matter what other point they might have.

Consider, for example, the case of the Savior Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag. I can't imagine your reaction if Maher had acted out a skit like that.

Remember the time they showed a meeting of Catholics priests, bishops and other officials where several of them had sex slave little boys at the end of dog leashes?

What ifwe replaced Catholic with Mormon in that case? Offensive? How should Catholics feel about this?

And, yes I know there is often some point they are making (in the first mention case above it was something about censorship hypocrisy). But does that make anything OK? Just because one has a little point to make? Maher supposed he had some kind of point too.

There are concept differences between SP, Colbert and Maher's comedy but the differences are not relevant enough to save you from being guilty of special pleading.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Tarski

[Tarski]

And yet Tarski would be among those screaming the loudest had Maher done a pantomime about eating watermelon while wearing blackface.

There is plenty of comedy on TV that turns on racial stereotypes and I have even seen some that turn on the watermelon thing. Of course context is everything. Often the comedian is black in such cases.

Anyway, your comparison with racial bigottry doesn't work for me.

Mormonism isn't a race or anything like it.

My supposed "bigotry" against Mormons would be better compared with your bigotry against liberals.

Mormonism is a set of socially consequential beliefs and practices and beliefs and practices are exactly the kind of thing it is fair to criticize.

If you think otherwise then please remember to always be somberly respectful and uncritical of all liberal organizations.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Tarski

[jskains]

Bill is IMHO a missionary for the Atheist religion. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Believing strongly and faithfully that there is absolutely no God is still a belief. And I love in the beginning how he jumps on that, demanding his ideas are not religious in nature, creating his own definition in order to avoid being called exactly what he hates. The reality is Atheists have organization, that organization pushes their beliefs on others through insulting billboards, a horde of agry anti-Theists who pummel threads bashing Christians, etc. with comments like "Christtards", and books/spokespeople who basically promote the idea that if you don't go Atheist, your just stupid and ignorant. And I hate to say it, that can for some be just as "manipulative" as saying people who don't go Christian are going to hell. Humans do NOT want to come off as stupid, nor do they want to come off as ignorant.

JMS

[Tarski]

Bill is IMHO a missionary for the Atheist religion. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Believing strongly and faithfully that there is absolutely no God is still a belief.

I see. So since I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster does that mean I must be part of some religion? What shall we call that religion?

Are you a member?

[jwhitlock]

Here's a question in the context of this thread; which of the following is more "offensive"?

- LDS proxy ordinances that are done to give those on the other side additional options for salvation, should they exercise their agency to take advantage of them.

- "Christians" who tell me that my grandfather has gone to hell because he died as a believing Latter-day Saint. If you don't subscribe to their brand of faith in this life, then you have no options other than hell on the other side.

It is a misrepresentation to claim that LDS proxy practice forces those who have passed on into the Mormon church. Those who are offended because of LDS practices often teach things concerning non-believers that are far more offensive in nature.

[jwhitlock]

I see. So since I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster does that mean I must be part of some religion? What shall we call that religion?

Are you a member?

There's a difference between the Atheist Religion and those who simply don't believe in God. Maher, Dawkins, and the late lamented Hitchens are all evangelists for that religion. People who simply don't believe in God, but also don't particularly care to pummel theists for their beliefs, or to tout the superiority of their directed non-belief are another thing altogether.

If you actively opposed the existence of the Loch Ness monster, then you would be part of a belief system. If you just didn't care or didn't believe and left it at that, it's a non-issue for you. I trust you can see the difference.

[jskains]

I see. So since I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster does that mean I must be part of some religion? What shall we call that religion?

Are you a member?

Depends on how active you are about it. Do you have a group called the "American Unbelievers in the Lochness Monster Society"? Do you have billboards on "Lochness Fest" dedicated to mocking the believers? Do you have a national TV Program that constantly mocks them?

If so, you might be a religion.

[Tarski]

Depends on how active you are about it. Do you have a group called the "American Unbelievers in the Lochness Monster Society"? Do you have billboards on "Lochness Fest" dedicated to mocking the believers? Do you have a national TV Program that constantly mocks them?

If so, you might be a religion.

If belief in the Loch Ness monster was both prevelant and was having a big impact on social policy I might be moved to join such a group. But it still wouldn't be a religion.

[Sleeper Cell]

Doing temple work for my father was an important part of my grieving

process. I imagine that the same was true for Ann Romney. Maher is the

atheist version of the “Westboro Baptists.”

[california boy]

Since LDS proxy work is not the same thing as someone telling me I'm a member of another church against my will, this analogy is invalid. Someone continuing to claim the LDS proxy work forces people to become Mormons, after being corrected in that misconception, has only himself to blame for being offended.

While you and I understand what proxy work is, others do not. Of course we see a difference. Those that don't understand Mormon theology do not. What people hear is that Mormons baptize people after they died into the Mormon church. To a large extent, that is exactly what baptism for the dead is. It is an act of allowing someone to accept or reject membership into the kingdom of God.

Since the difference between what Maher did and what Latter-day Saints do with proxy work is significant, both in intent and in spirit, anyone who thinks Maher is just dishing the same back out to Mormons needs to have a reality check. If someone sees what we do as not being benign, then they are either not educated on the subject, or they have decided they are going to be offended no matter what. In either case, it's their problem - not ours.

I think what Maher is saying is "If Mormons can baptize someone that is dead without their consent, then I can unbaptize them without their consent." I get that you view things differently. Is all I am asking is, can you see things from another perspective besides your personal understanding of what this ordinance is about?

No one has rationalized that it's no big deal; do you really understand what LDS proxy work is all about? You seem to have mischaracterized it repeatedly in your post by inferring that proxy work forces those on the other side into Mormonism. A clear understanding of LDS doctrine would quickly show how faulty that perception is.

Of course I understand what LDS proxy work is about. My comments are not about how I view proxy work, it is about how others may view proxy work. I am not mischaracterizing the doctrine at all. I am stating that others may not understand this doctrine in the same way as you or I do. Is that so hard for you to understand??

Frankly, I tend to be dismissive about people who continue to be "offended" about LDS proxy practices when they have been accurately informed as to what they are really all about. They're typically going to find ways to be offended about Mormonism no matter what we do, so it's not really worth worrying about them. it's their problem and we've got better things to do than to try to play games with them. On the other hand, if someone really wants to understand, then I have all the time in the world for them.

This thread is not about people being offended with LDS proxy practices. This thread is about LDS members being offended by someone who is "unbaptizing" someone that the church baptized after they were dead.

[selek1]

This thread is about LDS members being offended by someone who is "unbaptizing" someone that the church baptized after they were dead.

Incorrect.

This thread is about LDS being offended by deliberately inflammatory, vicious mockery aimed squarely at LDS practice and belief and intended to excite and titilate the bigotry of others.

No one here believes for a moment that Maher was in any way sincere in his actions.

We would not be (and has been stated repeatedly, are not) offended by genuine expressions of concern or good will from people who disagree with our beliefs or practices.

Maher's stunt does not qualify as such on any level.

It was not his "unbaptizing" that was offensive- it was his deliberate, hateful caricature of the sacred beliefs of others.

His antics were intended solely to incite and offend, and to ridicule the sacred for cheap polemical purposes.

Edited February 5, 2012 by selek1

[california boy]

Incorrect.

This thread is about LDS being offended by deliberately inflammatory, vicious mockery aimed squarely at LDS practice and belief and intended to excite and titilate the bigotry of others.

No one here believes for a moment that Maher was in any way sincere in his actions.

We would not be (and has been stated repeatedly, are not) offended by genuine expressions of concern or good will from people who disagree with our beliefs or practices.

Maher's stunt does not qualify as such on any level.

It was not his "unbaptizing" that was offensive- it was his deliberate, hateful caricature of the sacred beliefs of others.

His antics were intended solely to incite and offend, and to ridicule the sacred for cheap polemical purposes.

You are saying the same thing. You just think it is more helpful to use inflammatory language to make your point. I am not going to disagree if you want to try and ramp up the outrage. If you think it helps to better understand the issues, then by all means, ramp it up.

[jwhitlock]

This thread is not about people being offended with LDS proxy practices. This thread is about LDS members being offended by someone who is "unbaptizing" someone that the church baptized after they were dead.

This thread is actually about those who both mock LDS practices - which is what Maher did - and those who rationalize that mocking because they are "offended" at LDS practices.

Any offense you have detected on this thread by LDS directed at Maher is not because of "unbaptizing"; it's because of his mocking. What LDS do in their practices and what Maher did are not the same thing. Our only obligation towards those who are "offended" by our proxy practices is to correct their incorrect understandings. If they persist in their misrepresentations, that's their problem, not ours.

[volgadon]

I still hold that SP ought to be considered more offensive

Which is why I don't bother watching it.

[selek1]

You are saying the same thing.

Incorrect (again).

You posted:

This thread is about LDS members being offended by someone who is "unbaptizing" someone that the church baptized after they were dead.

This implies that LDS are either 1) offended by the "rite" itself or 2) concerned that Maher is somehow sheep-stealing.

You (and Maher's less-subtle apologists) are deliberately ignoring the inescapable (and oft-repeated) fact that had Maher been acting in good faith, this would be a non-issue.

The first implication from your statement- that LDS are somehow offended by the "rite" itself- ignores repeated statements that we are not bothered by genuine expressions of goodwill or concern regarding our eternal salvation.

Neither I (nor any LDS of my acquaintance) are troubled when our evangelical cousins offer sincere prayers that we might "find the truth" (as they perceive it). Nor are we offended when they try to share their vision of the truth.

It is only when they approach us with malice, deceit, mockery, and derision that we become offended.

We are not bothered by their invitations to share in what knowledge and goodness they possess. But we are offended (and rightly so) when they presume to condemn us, denigrate us, and try to tear down what knowledge and goodness we possess.

If Maher had been sincere in his desire to "liberate" Romney's father in law, we would chuckle at his miguided zealotry and let the error pass (almost) without comment.

Had he- in any fashion- been genuinely concerned with the welfare of Edward Davies, we would not have an issue. We would not object to any "rite" he cared to perform, whether it be a prayer, proxy-baptism, or pinning a voodoo doll.

As such, it is not "the rite" that is offensive, but the hatred, bigotry, and mockery which drove it.

The second implication is non-sensical on its face, since we don't believe that Maher has any efficacy, claim, or authority. He's wasting his time and breath.

We readily grant that it's his breath to waste, and aren't losing any sleep over it.

So, no. I am not "saying the same thing".

It was not the "un-baptism" which was offensive- it was the spirit of hatred and contention behind the rite that troubles us.

[blackstrap]

And he probably would not have done it to a non-Romney connected person.