If you don’t go bragging about it, especially to the dead kids parents, no one will know, and no one will care. The offensive dick move is in bragging about having done it to people you know will be offended by it. If the Mormons didn’t go telling specific Jews they actually did it to specific relatives of those Jews, there wouldn’t be an issue.
What people don’t know (at least in this case) won’t offend them. What you insist on telling them about just might.
I was being silly
The church has the ability to check that any name provided by a person is one of their relations, as they promised to, it would be trivial for them to stand by their word but they won’t.
Or they could say that you could only accept the provided names that most people use, and if you wanted someone to be included you had to submit the names.
The church has zero interest in doing so of course.
BTW I’m related to Porter Rockwell, that sides lineage is a forest not a tree.
Even if I could contact all those people in my life time there are thousands of Mormons with Danite lust that would probably get me in the end.
The part about being “on the church rolls”. Mormon genealogical records will show that ordinances were performed by proxy. But the deceased are not added to membership rolls. There are currently about 5 million people who self-identify as Mormons. The organization claims about 14 million, because that’s how many living have been dunked. There have been hundreds of millions of proxy baptisms. Those are not on the rolls, because as you pointed out the Mormons don’t claim to know whether those souls have accepted the baptism.
I have no doubt that my family will necro-dunk me before my body even gets cold. But that won’t make me Mormon # 14-million-and-1.
I’d be willing to bet that those who didn’t believe in Voodoo would dismiss being so targeted with a chuckle. I would.
The rolls in that case are of the living.
From a theology standpoint your are both baptized and confirmed in the church.
It is a little silly to claim that they don’t consider them baptized or confirmed just because they don’t count the dead as current member stats.
These databases of the baptized are the ones that people search and find Holocaust victims, Hitler, Obama’s Mom etc in.
Not really. They don’t claim them as there is really no way to know whether or not the deceased individual has accepted the ordinances. They are only baptized IF they choose to accept it after it has been done. They are free to reject it.
No, the fact that involuntary baptism does not fully fulfill the Fourth Article of Faith does not change the concept that the LDS church believes that it fulfills the baptism requirement.
The mental gymnastics you are presenting also apply to the living, just because someone willingly accepts baptism does not mean they will meet the other requirements.
You still have failed to justify why the church refuses to stick to their word though, which is the bigger issue.
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn’t. It all depends on what pushes the right “buttons” with that particular person. Some people would be creeped out and annoyed, even if they thought Voudon was hooey, by the hostility of such a gesture.
The same person who chuckles over Voudon could potentially be furious if they found some internet perv was photoshopping pics of their dead teenage daughter’s face onto porn model bodies and wacking off to it - and bragging about it in public.
It equally affects them physically in no way. They aren’t present to actually witness it. They just hear about it. The daughter is dead, doesn’t affect her. Are you going to say they should just have a good laugh? They have no right to be annoyed, or to ask the perv to stop?
http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html
Here is a link that documents the promises the LDS church made and how they have failed to comply with them.
Where did you get this from?
It is from the LDS church “family search”
I received it from a church member.
You’ve shown a record that indicates that work has been completed for a deceased person. Nothing more. That person is not considered a member of the Mormon church. The record simply prevents the work being done a second time. Whether or not Mr. Sagan accepted the work is not known.
If we’re going to play connect the dots, it’s necessary that they be on the same page. Your examples are ridiculous as related to this discussion.
Actually I am quite sure there is no afterlife so Yes I do know he didn’t accept it 
Although I am quite open to any evidence to the contrary.
Could you please stop avoiding my point that the church has agreed multiple times, in signed accord from the office of the president to quit baptizing Holocaust victims and more than that, limit submissions to family members.
The fact that Mr Sagan’s confirmation happened after his baptism means that the submission was at least reviewed by the Melchizedek Priesthood, as at most temples the Provo temple requires you to bring two changes of clothes and they preform both on the same day if you have a temple recommend and bring your own names.
Although he was not a Holocaust victim it means that the LSD leadership had ignored their SIGNED promise to only baptize direct relatives that they had made only 3 years earlier.
And you can deny it but you have given no cites that the earthly church does not view posthumous baptisms as any different from voluntarily ones, they just claim there is no way to know if the person has followed through with the covenant that they were committed to without consent.
So let us recap,
The posthumous baptisms are documented and recorded in the same way as those who do so in a voluntary way.
The Jewish people have a long history of forced conversions.
The office of the president, the current and live Prophet of the LDS church has publicly stated multiple times in writing that they would stop the practice.
There is little to no evidence that the church ever followed through with this.
It does not matter one bit who had the correct mythology, or even if there is an afterlife or if the person has a choice.
The church is not keeping it’s word even though it would trivial for them to do so.
You’re really confused on the facts. I think that’s most of your problem. There are specific garments worn for baptism, (which get wet, and therefore are changed) and for other ordinances, which remain dry. If you’re doing someone on your list, you can do it in a day, however, it’s rather lengthy process if you include everything from the baptism to a temple sealing.
I think you need to do a little more research on the Melchizedek Priesthood and their role in this too.
Note if you didn’t know, Mr Sagan was Jewish, and note those dates were 3 years after the church agreed to stop the practice.
My last post was too long, please address this and explain this away vs. deferring to the super natural realm.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENMSC/1995-05/0800570625
Certainly, agreeing to something than violating it is a dick move. But that doesn’t address the larger issue of whether or not the baptism is offensive.
http://www.lds.org/new-era/2004/04/baptisms-for-the-dead-what-to-know-before-you-go?lang=eng
Why is it that I have cites but you just say that i’m wrong without providing any cites?
It appears that the LDS Church agreed to stop performing the acts because people complained that it was offensive.