DiscussMormonism.com

The latest issue of Sunstone reports that Pope John Paul II, who has been dead the requisite one year, has already been baptized and confirmed by proxy no less than 4 times (by 4 different persons in different LDS temples). Is it just me, or does this seem like overkill? At this rate, by year's end the dear Pontiff will have become LDS 50 times over! ;)

It's overkill but what can you do? Over zealous members and all.

Didn't they institute a rule recently that you could only submit the name of a relative?

Since the Pope is celibate, I think there would be very few living relatives of his--much less Mormon relatives--to do the submitting.

I think he was good enough that he'll only need to be baptized 20 times.

But at least 20, for sure!

A well known Mormon author told me that his inside sources found that Elvis' had his necro work performed over 1500 times.

Each time the proxy finished an ordinance in The Kings name, they would hear "Thannk you, Thank you very much!"

Temple workers also reported hearing the following later after the session ended, "Elvis has left the temple!"

Well I'm probably a Mormon one million times now.
Cause I'm not dead but I am pretty sure I am a TMB

coffeecat wrote:Well I'm probably a Mormon one million times now.
Cause I'm not dead but I am pretty sure I am a TMB

And what, exactly, is a "TMB", coffeecat?

Shades - The former pope may have had brothers and sisters who have had children. It is possible at least that he has living relatives even though he was celibate - not that that makes it probable that a living relative of his submitted his name to a temple.

I seem to remember that Adolf Hitler had been Baptized for the Dead at least eight times on record. I think that a few more times than Ann Frank.

The point I have wondered about is why folks who think such a baptism has no efficacy are so upset by it. It stands more our less as an expression of one groups own way of caring about others. Whenever somebody tries to do something nice for me, I usually just say thank you - even if it was something I could do without. If I knew a group was having a séance to bless one of my dead relative, I would not be creeped out by it - even if it meant sacrificing a live chicken, nude clogging or Jell-O wrestling. I would just smile and say, "That's nice".

What if some group held "excommunications for the dead" which were intended to cancel out your baptism, endowments, and temple marriage?

Would you be a little bit miffed if they put your parents' names through such a ceremony?

moksha wrote:I seem to remember that Adolf Hitler had been Baptized for the Dead at least eight times on record. I think that a few more times than Ann Frank.

The point I have wondered about is why folks who think such a baptism has no efficacy are so upset by it. It stands more our less as an expression of one groups own way of caring about others. Whenever somebody tries to do something nice for me, I usually just say thank you - even if it was something I could do without. If I knew a group was having a séance to bless one of my dead relative, I would not be creeped out by it - even if it meant sacrificing a live chicken, nude clogging or Jell-O wrestling. I would just smile and say, "That's nice".

Yeah, I think that Shades makes a good point. And the problem is that the act cannot simply be read as "an expression of one group's own way of caring about others." It can *also* be read as the group feeling that its beliefs supercede everyone else's. The dual nature of the way this can be read becomes especially acute when people from the same family fight over whether or not the ordinances should be performed.