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

[stemelbow]

It's a two-way street. In virtually all cases I have encountered, the critic has not made so much as a modicum of effort to understand the Mormon belief regarding proxy baptisms. See my sig line, the part in blue.

Case in point is found here. We're not baptizing people into the Mormon religion, as it seems california boy is suggesting we are. That seems to be a misunderstanding. I mean no offense to him, but it seems like anyone can be offended for nearly anything another does if you spin it as offensive.

[Jeff K.]

It is a misunderstanding based on ignorance. They do not automatically become members in the next life. The shame is when members do not understand our doctrine enough to try to help others understand specifically what is being done. You end up with some people agreeing that it is theological rape (as one poster stated). The sad part is when members agree with the basic stance. It speaks to our need to educate those members who are not aware or knowledgeable. Now, if they choose not to be aware, that is a different cut of the cabbage.

[selek1]

It's amusing -- and I've seen it happen time and again -- how the critics scramble and stretch to come up with the ugliest hypothetical scenario they can conceive of to try to form a persuasive argument against baptisms for the dead.

It is equally amusing and very revealing that the critics only means of rationalizing deliberate, bigoted attacks on Mormons of faith is "well, Mormons sometimes offend people too."

Attempting to draw a moral equivalence between inadvertent offense given in private and a deliberate, malicious, and vicious attack made publically is pathetic, and disingenuous at best.

Such efforts are indicative of a severe deficiency in both morality and logic.

The selective nature of such attempts also gives the lie to all those calls for "civility" and "a new, more moderate" tone made by Maher's political fellow travellers.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a misunderstanding based on ignorance. They do not automatically become members in the next life. The shame is when members do not understand our doctrine enough to try to help others understand specifically what is being done. You end up with some people agreeing that it is theological rape (as one poster stated). The sad part is when members agree with the basic stance. It speaks to our need to educate those members who are not aware or knowledgeable. Now, if they choose not to be aware, that is a different cut of the cabbage.

When I have, on occasion, encountered a Church member who sympathizes with our critics on this matter, it has been apparent that she lacks interest in, commitment to or knowledge about redeeming the dead.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

Well finally at least one perosn acknowledges that they can understand why someone might be offended. And yes I completely agree with the motives and possibly irrationality for being offended. Mormons should still be sensitive to how others feel instead of calling them ignorant and telling them they could care less how they feel.

I fail to understand why you think we should be sensitive to others who are offended, but refuse to acknowledge or even understand our motivations for proxy ordinances. You seem to want us to treat irrationality with sensitivity and have no problem equating Maher's actions with what we do, looking back at the analogies you've presented.

My point continues to be that it's their problem, not ours in those cases.

[Mudcat]

Here (warning: language at the link):

Thoughts?

-Smac

I think it was pretty tasteless and can see why LDS would be offended. I suppose I found it offensive myself.

BM is a sensationalist and seems to get his jollies from mocking others... guess that must be the byproduct of that "rational unbelief" he maintains.

I will say, that LDS proxy baptisms seems to be one of the things LDS do, that other religious folks have a great deal of difficulty with. I personally found the practice as something that was offensive to me, until I began to understand more about LDS.

As a political stunt, it was probably a well placed shot at Romney.

If Romney gets the nom, I would anticipate an exponential increase in this sort of thing from the media, Obama's on media assault notwithstanding.

[Scott Lloyd]

I will say, that LDS proxy baptisms seems to be one of the things LDS do, that other religious folks have a great deal of difficulty with. I personally found the practice as something that was offensive to me, until I began to understand more about LDS.

I would hope and expect that a greater understanding of the doctrine itself contributed to that change of heart.

Alas political opponents and many in the media often don't take time to acquire such understanding, let alone convey it to others.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm offended by him strictly on the grounds that he claims to be a comedian but he's singularly unfunny.

I agree.

In a certain sense of irony that is indeed the joke.

[selek1]

As a political stunt, it was probably a well placed shot at Romney.

There's no "probably" about it, Mudcat.

He targeted the Romney family (and Edward Davies, Romney's deceased father-in-law) by name.

Can anyone here picture- for even a nanosecond- Maher offering the same kind of vicious mockery to Nancy Pelosi (Catholic) or Harry Reid (Mormon)?

Maher and his fellow travellers are all for "civility" when its their sacred ox being gored.

When the shoe's on the other foot however, you get scurrilius personal attacks, irrational conspiracy theories, and accusations of "terrorism", "hostage-taking", and extreme comparisons (such as that offered by Sethbag).

However thinly veiled, all of the defenses of Maher offered in this thread are politically motivated- as was his initial attack.

Edited February 6, 2012 by selek1

[Mudcat]

I would hope and expect that a greater understanding of the doctrine itself contributed to that change of heart.

Bingo Scott.

Alas political opponents and many in the media often don't take time to acquire such understanding, let alone convey it to others.

I agree and that is the bad part. People in general aren't going to invest a lot of time into determining what LDS are actually doing, but will hold the misrepresentation as factual to some degree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I find SP offensive, I don't watch that show. In fact I don't watch a whole lot of TV these days. Most of it is bad.

[Scott Lloyd]

There's no "probably" about it, Mudcat.

He targeted the Romney family (and Edward Davies, Romney's deceased father-in-law) by name.

Can anyone here picture- for even a nanosecond- Maher offering the same kind of vicious mockery to Nancy Pelosi (Catholic) or Harry Reid (Mormon)?

Maher and his fellow travellers are all for "civility" when its their sacred ox being gored.

When the shoe's on the other foot however, you get scurrilius personal attacks, irrational conspiracy theories, and accusations of "terrorism", "hostage-taking", and extreme comparisons (such as that offered by Sethbag).

However thinly veiled, all of the defenses of Maher offered in this thread are politically motivated- as was his initial attack.

I don't know a whole lot about Maher, but I question whether he's all that concerned about civlity. Didn't he once have a show called "Politically Incorrect"?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know a whole lot about Maher, but I question whether he's all that concerned about civility. Didn't he once have a shoe called "Politically Incorrect"?

A shoe? Who names their shoes?

Lol.

[Jeff K.]

Ed Sullivan.... "A Really big shoe tonight.... the Beatles"

[Scott Lloyd]

A shoe? Who names their shoes?

Lol.

Oops. An instance when the spell checker is not an advantage.

[Calm]

Well finally at least one perosn acknowledges that they can understand why someone might be offended.

You must have missed my post.

Plus many others have said they understand how someone who does not understand what we are doing is offended. They are criticizing only those who continue to be offended when they know the details of our belief.

[thesometimesaint]

I am eagerly awaiting for Mr. Maher to recreate on TV "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Taking bets on how long he'd have any TV show as a platform for his hate.

[Scott Lloyd]

You must have missed my post.

Plus many others have said they understand how someone who does not understand what we are doing is offended. They are criticizing only those who continue to be offended when they know the details of our belief.

What I've observed in discussions on this matter is that the critics are very rarely people who have standing to claim any sort of victimhood from what the Church does with regard to vicarious baptisms. Rather, they are usually perennial antagonists of the Church who claim to be sticking up for some unspecified victims but who in actuality are using the controversy as a club with which to bludgeon the Church. Maher is a classic example.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

What I've observed in discussions on this matter is that the critics are very rarely people who have standing to claim any sort of victimhood from what the Church does with regard to vicarious baptisms. Rather, they are usually perennial antagonists of the Church who claim to be sticking up for some unspecified victims but who in actuality are using the controversy as a club with which to bludgeon the Church. Maher is a classic example.

I would agree there is a significant difference between those who are offended on this matter as a personal issue (perhaps relating to the idea of identity or community I mentioned above) or a limited one (they don't make it one of a list of things that are wrong with the Church, but instead respond to the concept independently of other possible criticisms****) and those who extend what they see as the offense into an attack on the Church.

*****Not sure my point is clear here. I will use an analogy of an individual who gets upset on one occasion with a friend because she has borrowed something without asking as opposed to an individual who over the years continues to bring up with pleasure that one occasion along with a long list of perceived injustices, etc. especially when there is any opportunity to trash the other to demonstrate what I see as the significant difference. If the perceived wrong is ever brought up in the first case, it is with the desire to resolve the issue, not publicize it. The primary purpose of bringing up the perceived wrong is to criticize the person, not the act, in the second case.

I think the difference can be seen pretty quickly by figuring out who are actually troubled by the perceived offense and those who are delighted by it (not because they approve, but because of the use they can make of it for another purpose besides hoping to resolve the offense).

[Loran Blood]

I am eagerly awaiting for Mr. Maher to recreate on TV "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Taking bets on how long he'd have any TV show as a platform for his hate.

The Protocols may be going a bit far, but given the general tenor of many on his side of the political fence, I doubt it would be much of a stretch for Maher to buy into John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's Israel Lobby stuff.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe, but it is an interesting thought.

Even Mr. Mahar picks his targets to those that can't or won't fight back. Being a bully is fun until someone cleans your clock. Rhetorically speaking of course.

Edited February 6, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[blueadept]

You must have missed my post.

Plus many others have said they understand how someone who does not understand what we are doing is offended. They are criticizing only those who continue to be offended when they know the details of our belief.

I distinctly remember the day when I told my wife that I understood the practice but asked her not to share information with me like when she baptised her deceased Catholic grandfather. That marked the beginning of the end for my marriage.

[Calm]

I distinctly remember the day when I told my wife that I understood the practice but asked her not to share information with me like when she baptised her deceased Catholic grandfather. That marked the beginning of the end for my marriage.

It is too bad in my opinion she could not accept your beliefs on the same level that you accepted hers (allowing her to fully act upon them while not participating in them yourself directly).

[mnn727]

The words "God will not be mocked" spring to mind.

[Bill Hamblin]

If only we had "baptism for the dumb" we could baptize Maher right now!