Let he who is with subscription cancel it first.

(Most of the demands for cancellation that I’ve seen come from people who I *know* don’t have HBO in the first place.)

Plus, what of it? In my high school 20 years ago, Mormons were routinely mocked by teachers and administrators. Why is *this* event such a touchstone for some people? Are the boycott calls (I’ve seen them in email and in Facebook) a result of front-running majority Mormons who, before a few years ago, have never had to deal with PR adversity?

DKL,

I think you make a great point that the Church’s response is as much for members as for the media.

In fact they just linked to it on the lds.org homepage.

These guys really think they’re on to something–and all they’ve done is cued the scary music. Whoa, dude, that’s like–you know–really original. Like most of television Big Love is Trash–with a capital T.

Margaret,

I think “in context” for Mormons usually means that ordinances and rituals are presented as they were intended–by virtue of the priesthood.

I guess I better subscribe to HBO right away so that I can cancel. I will explain to my wife that it is for the greater good that we subscribe to send a message by cancelling.

with Margaret… Anyone with intimate knowledge of the temple ordinances knows they are held as sacred by members of the church. To display them publicly and without permission is unethical and morally reprehensible. If I still had an HBO subscription, I would cancel it. I found it hurtful to even see the picture of the actress from Big Love dressed in temple robes.

danithew- The temple ceremonies can be found online along with pictures of people in everything from just garments to the entire temple robes. However, you still have to go search it out. And usually this information has been posted by “anti-Mormons” or “ex-Mormons” intent on doing the church harm but not people who are trying to use the church as shock value for ratings and money. I understand the motivation behind anti-Mormons for posting such material (not that I think it’s right) but I think HBO and the producers of Big Love should be utterly ashamed (though, we know they won’t be).

danithew, in the past when Big Love has shown religious ceremonies, it made them correct in essence, but not word-for-word. For example, the baptism for the dead (IIRC) verbiage started out “Having the authority of Jesus Christ” instead of “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” And they did a sealing ceremony on the show in the Henrichson’s back yard that had some of the basic ideas but none of the peculiar verbiage. Since neither of these ceremonies is secret, this type of portrayal has made me feel that Big Love has been fairly respectful of Mormonism.

That said, over time, and especially this season, the show has started to ape Mormon rituals and ceremony more and more often. Yet the series started by claiming made that it was not about Mormonism, but about polygamists, a claim that now appears duplicitous. Specifically, it is duplicitous to take refuge in the claim that the show is not about Mormons when three seasons of the show demonstrate that it is pretty clearly setup to allow all aspects of Mormonism to be portrayed and scrutinized. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with portraying and scrutinizing Mormons, but it’s dishonest to create a show that does this and then pretend that the show is not about Mormons.

I think I will wait and see how the episode goes before I get upset about. What this little controversy is doing is getting big rating for the March 15th show.

I have not seen any of this season, but I felt that the previous seasons did pretty well distinguishing between the fundamentalist issues/stories (which, frankly, lacked a lot of religion), and the LDS issues/stories. It seems that most of the LDS characters have been largely sympathetic.

I see no reason to blame this storyline or scene on Tom Hanks. Is he writing these days? I’d say he is too busy dodging criticism from the Catholic Church over Angels and Devils.

I think portraying clothing, ritual or anything like unto it which any group considers sacred is unethical.

I thought all of our beliefs were “sacred”. How far does a portrayal of “sacred” have to go in order to cross the line into “unethical”? Can they do a portrayal of a non-temple baptism? Using all the right words of the baptismal prayer? Or a portrayal of a Sacrament blessing on the bread and or water? Or a portrayal of someone bearing their testimony?

Do Catholics get all upset when somebody puts on a “pope hat” on TV?

“It seems that most of the LDS characters have been largely sympathetic.”

I disagree. I have watched the show pretty faithfully and it seems to me that the fundamentalist characters are fully fleshed out, if sensationalized, meaning that they have both good and bad qualities and can be seen as real people. By contrast, the portrayals of “mainstream Mormon” characters are almost always portrayed as stereotypical, two-dimensional, hyper-conservative, self-interested and even hypocritical.

“Do Catholics get all upset when somebody puts on a “pope hat” on TV?”

Probably, Mark, but that’s not the right question, since the pope’s wardrobe is available for public view. If other religions had rituals or clothing that they considered sacred enough to keep out of public portrayal of any sort (which they largely do not) then I would want to respect their beliefs and allow them to keep those portions of their religion private. The fact that HBO is apparently unwilling to accord us that same measure of courtesy is the reason why people are feeling offended. Having said that, I am an HBO subscriber and I have no intention of cancelling my subscription over this. At least until I see the episode.

“I thought all of our beliefs were “sacred”. How far does a portrayal of “sacred” have to go in order to cross the line into “unethical”? Can they do a portrayal of a non-temple baptism? Using all the right words of the baptismal prayer? Or a portrayal of a Sacrament blessing on the bread and or water? Or a portrayal of someone bearing their testimony?”

Do you really not understand the difference between those things and the Temple? Those things have already been portrayed numerous times, some with the Church’s full cooperation and blessing. The Temple is different because we choose to keep it private. Having made that choice, it’s not for anyone else to choose to portray it publicly without our consent.

So why is it “unethical” to portray Mormon ceremonies on cable television?
Various religious ceremonies have been portrayed in theatrical productions, movies and television for many years…why can’t Mormon ceremonies be depicted on television.

As a non-Mormon, I have no evidence that there is anything wrong or improper about these ceremonies — the strong Mormon reaction, however, raises more questions than are answered. What is wrong with depicting these ceremonies?

I also found the LDS press release humorous — the church itself doesn’t boycott, but we encourage our members (wink, wink) to participate in the boycotts that some of our members have started….please.

But everything he’s done in connection with “Big Love” has turned me off of him completely. It’s been a cynical, duplicitous attempt to smear Mormons all along.

In the context of his Mormons are anti-American comments, I had the same impression, Hanks is intentionally trying to muddy the Church.

Boycott “BL” if you must, but do not, under any circumstances, boycott or do anything to affect “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” And, I also recommend the HBO series “The Wire.” Quality HBO provided entertainment.

This whole thing will blow over quickly. Just be prepared to answer some abstract questions from friends and colleagues next week about temple worship.

To those angry Mormons: please don’t embarass the Church. Just take your lumps quietly. Nothing you can do will change what HBO wants to do — you can’t control what anyone else does, only what you do. And what you do is what will reflect on the Church, not HBO’s depiction of this stuff, as regrettable as it is.

So why is it “unethical” to portray Mormon ceremonies on cable television?
Various religious ceremonies have been portrayed in theatrical productions, movies and television for many years…why can’t Mormon ceremonies be depicted on television.

As a non-Mormon, I have no evidence that there is anything wrong or improper about these ceremonies — the strong Mormon reaction, however, raises more questions than are answered. What is wrong with depicting these ceremonies?

Jasper – What is wrong here is not the content as much as the choice of the church and its members to have something we consider private and sacred displayed publicly without our consent. There isn’t anything “wrong” or “improper” with the temple ceremonies. But we consider them special.

The same could be said for anything that happens privately in your bedroom. Is there anything wrong with sex between a man and woman who love one another and are married? Absolutely not! If anything, it’s a necessary part of that marriage relationship. Can you find plenty of sex scenes on TV? Absolutely. But how would you feel if someone put a camera in your bedroom and then re-enacted every touch, caress, and romantic word you said to your wife on national television as well as included a picture of you both and gave everyone your address? I’m pretty sure you’d be a little upset by it. You have a right to keep such things private if you wish and so does the LDS church or any other religious organization. This is why LDS members are so upset about this portrayal on “Big Love.” Not because the content itself if wrong or bad in any way.

Jasper (22),
It’s true that many different religious ceremonies have been shown in various media over the years, but it is disrespectful to show elements of a group’s religious practice if they do not wish that to be portrayed outside of its proper context. The fact that you consider it a trivial matter to do otherwise, shows you probably have no clue why it is important to keep religious practices in their context; unfortunately, this is not a concept that anyone here can really explain to you.

Everyone else,
I loved the Church’s response, but I thought the Church’s wink-wink seemed to be directed against boycotts and other things that draw unnecessary attention to this incident. I hope that we as a Church get it through our heads that there is no such thing as privacy anymore, and it’s a waste of our time and energy to react with outrage over these things. Those feelings are natural, but it’s also unfortunate that we would let a couple of writers have that power over us.

ESO – I was trying to think of something I personally consider sacred but certainly not shameful or “wrong” in any way. There is no correlation between the temple ceremonies and sex but the sanctity of both strike me in a very similar way. There are very special things in a marriage that don’t need to be publicized and that the people in that marriage have a right to keep private. Same with the temple. Hopefully my analogy wasn’t offensive in any way. I just can’t think of anything else those outside the church would consider “sacred” and “special” the way we think of the temple.

The Church’s response was perfect. We need not worry what some “unhallowed hand” attempts to do on TV. Nothing has changed since the spring of 1820. Persecutions rage, mobs combine, calumny defames, but the Work continues to go forth.

Has anybody seen Religulous with Bill Maher? He shows garments and mocks the church. They ran him off temple square. I was enjoying it until then. He only spoke to two ex-Mormons and made fun of our beliefs. He’s a comedian, it wasn’t a documentary and he’s trying to point out what he thinks is absurd or hypocritical of all religion. But he walked out on a rabbi who wants to be friends with Iran. I enjoyed most of it afterward, too. From a silly comedic point of view. He sure could have funnier things about our church, though.

Sarah saw it and went ballistic.

We say our ordinances are sacred not secret. HBO–Bill Maher and others mock that which is sacred. We can shun that, but not fear the lack of secrecy because really, we have nothing to apologize for or hide.

I’ve never seen the show, but I agree with McQ, Mormons are seldom portrayed as human beings, more sort of like Stepford people.

#21 Matt, I think you’re absolutely right. I don’t think we should underestimate the influence of the blogosphere.

Dan E, #32: “I hope that we as a Church get it through our heads that there is no such thing as privacy anymore, and it’s a waste of our time and energy to react with outrage over these things.”

There’s also no such thing as bad publicity. “You can only kick the church up stairs, never down stairs”, said Brigham Young. This will only generate interest.

SE, #33: ‘Why even say anything about it? Why choose to attack this “anti-Mormon” event but not all the others? Where do you draw the line? Issuing a statement only brought more attention to the episode!’

The statement is more for members than non-members, and it contains counsel directed to members. Since the ad for the episode was widely known, people expected the church to respond, even if it was pretty much a no-response.

Annegb: “Mormons are seldom portrayed as human beings, more sort of like Stepford people.”

TV shows and movies have a tendency to pick up on the outliers or fringe of any group, and portray them as the norm.

In my opinion, a certain number of Mormons do come across as “Stepford people”. Among LDS in the midwest the “Stepford types” seem to be a small minority. But it seemed like there was a larger percentage in Utah.

BTW, you are definitely NOT Stepford!

My usual term is “Pod-People”.

“They can talk about it and depict it all they want.”

I don’t think anyone here is disputing that they *can*, the question is if they *should*. Both questions seem to be no-brainers to me.

“Stepford people” is indeed erroneous because it implies that what is seen is not real. Many Mormons are happy, clean, productive, cheerful and wholesome (this last one is what really makes observers mad) — so much so that Mormons have gotten this reputation and then we must be Stepford people because no one is really like that, apparently. But that’s where the term breaks down as applied to Mormons. The happiness, cheerfulness, energy, wholesomeness etc., that’s all real in many of the Mormons that are accused of Stepfordness. Thus, the onus shifts to those using the appellation to establish that there’s something wrong with living in a manner that allows you to be happy, cheerful, productive and wholesome. It appears, in fact, that there are many (a lot of them Evangelical Christians, we have learned from the 2008 election) that don’t think that’s a good way to live (see their criticism of Romney as a robot because his life and mannerisms are characterized by this Mormon happiness, cheerfulness, productivity and energy — and wholesomeness) but rather that to be “authentic” you have to be conflicted. You can’t have a solid family life with a load of productive, happy kids but rather estranged children who can’t stand you. You can’t be happy and clean but must be melancholy and rough around the edges.

john f: “Stepford people” is indeed erroneous because it implies that what is seen is not real… The happiness, cheerfulness, energy, wholesomeness etc., that’s all real in many of the Mormons that are accused of Stepfordness.

Maybe. But studies that show Utah having the highest rate of online porn purchasing certainly don’t support the notion that it’s real. Any Mormon that is going to be honest about her own religion must concede there is a healthy dose of Stepford-ness. Indeed, Stepfordness is treated like an ideal and a status symbol in the church.

If following God made people so darned productive and wholesome, then where are the Stepford families in the scriptures? Adam’s family? Lehi’s family? Noah’s family? Abraham’s family? Jacob’s family?

It’s all well and good to put one’s best foot forward at church, but too often the Mormon mode of presentation is designed to mask the inevitable complexities of life with superficial status symbols, whether it be callings or great and spacious homes or a nice cars or well-groomed, nicely-dressed children who play musical instruments and serve honorable missions and get their Eagle Scouts.

So, the difference with Mormons isn’t that Mormon parents don’t have estranged children. It’s that Mormon parents with those types of family problems suffer in isolation, because they are too humiliated by the estrangement to mention it, and because many other Mormons are all too happy to pile on with the gossip about it. Since the goal of the church is to provide fellowship and share each other’s burdens, this isolation and humiliation is a sign of huge failure within our church.

Sorry, my invocation of Stepford-ness did not involve any aspect of materialism but rather just the happy, smiley faces and wholesomeness that people love to love and hate so much about Mormons. To the extent that it necessarily involves the materialistic things you mentioned, that is of course not a good thing.

John f:
No, it’s not the happy, smiley wholesomeness of some Utah Mormons or any -itish Mormons that motivates me to use the Stepford or Pod People label.

It’s the hollow plastic phoniness, the humorless cheesey namby-pamby-ness, the affected mannerisms as if mannerisms were substance. It’s “honoring with their lips” and “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof”, but much of it is superficial in the Pod People.

IMO, Pod People have done to Mormonism, what white bread WASPs have done to Christianity.

Such are a minority in the midwest, and I hope they are a minority elsewhere too.

Granted, everyone has the right to live their religion in their own manner. If being a Mormon Ned Flanders, Molly, Stepford or Pod Person is what someone really wants, more power to them.

But, the superficial namby-pambyness of white-bread protestantism is why I spurned that religious paradigm and went looking for real meaning.

And, I’m likely digging my own grave saying this, since the Stepfords and Pop People do a better job living the commandments than I do.

Anyway, I’m with Robert Kirby. awww.mudrow.org/Herb/FKM1.html

Teach me how not to be a superficial namby-pamby white-bread Mormon. What do I have to do? Grow a beard?

Anyone who wants to boycott HBO over this had better stand by the courage of their convictions and boycott any of the producers’ work as well. According to Wikipedia, these are: Alexa Junge, Ann Holm, Ron Binkowski, Bernadette Caulfield, Jeanette Collins, Mimi Friedman, Shane Keller, David Knoller, Mark V. Olsen, Will Scheffer, Gary Goetzman, and Tom Hanks.

If someone’s not willing to boycott these people’s work, then boycotting HBO is kind of silly.

Jota G – You can’t get HBO on Fios? I’d totally switch to Fios if it was offered in my community. Nothing to do with HBO or Big Love. I’m just tired of Comcast and DirecTV.

#59 I always feel so left out because I don’t receive LDS chain e-mails. Is this because I have no LDS family members besides my wife?

Paroled, I hate Comcast as well. They don’t have fios in my neighborhood, and I don’t think I’d switch to it. I have a lifelong grudge against C&P Telephone dating back to before AT&T broke up and the baby Bells had a monopoly (C&P Telephone became Bell Atlantic and then Verizon).

I did switched to RCN the first week they arrived in my neighborhood. They are way, way better. The HD channels aren’t as compressed, so that the picture is noticeably clearer and free from digital compression artifacts. Plus, RCN is less expensive. And I think that the service is much better than Comcast.

HBO hired an excommunicated member of the Mormon Church for their expert? I know if I wanted a honest and un-prejudicial review of a restaurant I would not ask someone who was kicked out and told not to come back.

HBO hired an excommunicated member of the Mormon Church for their expert? I know if I wanted a honest and un-prejudicial review of a restaurant I would not ask someone who was kicked out and told not to come back.

It amazes me how many people I know who rely on non-LDS sources or “exed” Mormons for information about the church. I grew up in a very religiously divided community and Mormons were always a favorite target. I cannot count the number of times I heard, “Well my pastor told me that you Mormons believe…” Anytime I’ve wanted information about another group–religious or otherwise–I go straight to the source. In this day and age, there’s no reason not to. However, I don’t think the producers of BL would have had much success getting a currently active member with a temple recommend to provide information about any temple ceremonies. I don’t watch the show but it will be interesting to see how accurate this “exed” Mormon’s memory is. Though judging from the picture in TV Guide, he/she seems to have a fairly good recollection of the attire.

HBO hired an excommunicated member of the Mormon Church for their expert? I know if I wanted a honest and un-prejudicial review of a restaurant I would not ask someone who was kicked out and told not to come back.

and

It amazes me how many people I know who rely on non-LDS sources or “exed” Mormons for information about the church.

OK – so kindly refer to these producers an active, faithful Mormon who meets your criteria that they can use (that would be useful to them)… You go with the sources you have. As I commented elsewhere, who would you rather get information on about the US preparedness for new terrorism threats: Richard Clarke or Dick Cheney or John Yoo?

A blog post on the topic by DesNews reporter Joel Campbell is here: http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=6663 , and a rebuttal blogpost by the Trib’s Vince Horiuchi is here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14429321&postID=1007124797015534514 (click blue link to SHOW ORIGINAL POST).

I’m curious as to how people respond to the following:

If the church does proxy baptisms for the dead, thus disrespecting the deceased person’s religious choices and offending living relatives (sometimes), participates actively in taking away rights that some view as sacred (Prop8), and calls the Catholic church “the whore of all the earth” and the creeds of others “an abomination” (this latter still in the scriptures), then why should anyone show any respect for what the church itself holds sacred?

DKL, thanks for your thoughts. I am puzzled as to why you felt a need for personal accusations at the end, however. I am LDS myself and have indeed thought about these things, but have not arrived at satisfactory answers. Accordingly, I think your responses evade the real issues and perceptions at hand. In essence, you are arguing precisely as HBO does, referring to how Mormons motivate and see their own actions on the three mentioned issues, forgetting how the receiving end perceives them.

First, whether one presupposes the efficacy of baptism for the dead has nothing to do with whether or not it can be found insulting. I could be just as insulted by some Satanists praying for my soul even if I didn’t believe it had any greater meaning. The very idea of baptizing for the dead, even if just using somebody’s name, can be seen as an insult and affront to that person or his/her relatives, as mockery of the person’s religious choices and sacred experiences. Believe you me, I have seen this happen by staunch believers in another church.

Second, gay marriage was a right that people in California had before the proposition was passed. This is the right that the church participated in taking away. If they had no such right, why was there a need for the proposition in the first place? The point is not whether gay marriage is a right in the ultimate sense; it was a right afforded for a while to Californians but is no longer, partly due to the church’s involvement.

Third, you know perfectly well that “the whore of all the earth” has often been connected to the Catholic church in Mormon intellectual life. Again, it is beside the point to argue whether such a connection is correct. Calling somebody’s church “the whore of all the earth” is not merely making a derogatory statement, it is a direct insult to what that person holds sacred. And I probably need not mention the former display of a Christian priest as a tool of the devil in the temple ceremony itself. You may not see it as mockery, just as HBO’s people don’t see the Big Love temple scene as mockery, but the receiving end sure does.

Now please note, I’m not arguing that HBO’s portrayal of the temple is a good thing or that it is morally right. I’m just saying that the outrage by Mormons on the issue seems to be reeking of double standards, namely a lack of understanding of how Mormon stances and actions on certain issues are just as offensive to the sensibilities of some others.

Not to mention the whole historical problem surrounding the forced baptism of Jews……

Just Wondering: First, whether one presupposes the efficacy of baptism for the dead has nothing to do with whether or not it can be found insulting. I could be just as insulted by some Satanists praying for my soul even if I didn’t believe it had any greater meaning.

You could also find it insulting to have your name recited over a voodoo doll. Or over a pile of leaves. Or by a teacher taking roll. You seem to think that because people will feel insulted, then there is something reasonable about that. In that case, why not go further than baptism of the dead? Why not cite those who are offended by attempts to proselyte?

Just Wondering: Second, gay marriage was a right that people in California had before the proposition was passed.

You’re begging the question again. The Supreme Court said that gay marriage is right. The people repudiated this according to the system of checks-and-balances in the California constitution. The mistaken opinion of the Supreme Court was in force until it was overruled. Thus, gay marriage was legal for a time under the pretense of being a right, but that pretense was rejected, and gay marriage then became illegal. This is a mere accident of procedure.

Besides, most referendums could be construed to take away people’s rights — and I mean really take away rights. For example, a referendum limiting taxes takes away the legislatures right to impose taxes. A referendum against racial preferences takes away people’s rights to special access. If there were something wrong with taking away people’s rights per se, then referendums themselves should be outlawed.

Just Wondering: Third, you know perfectly well that “the whore of all the earth” has often been connected to the Catholic church in Mormon intellectual life.

I know that it has been used in reference to Catholics, but this reference is anachronistic. There was very little anti-Catholic sentiment in the US until the latter part of the 19th century, when there was a flood of Catholic immigration. In any case, I’ve most heard the term applied to those who oppose God’s work in general.

Just Wondering: I am puzzled as to why you felt a need for personal accusations at the end, however. I am LDS myself and have indeed thought about these things, but have not arrived at satisfactory answers.

I don’t see any real thought here — just rote recital of the standard disaffected-Mormon tripe.

I guess I expressed myself incompletely. Of course anyone saying “A” is true must be saying that “B” is false. Saying “A” might be insulting to someone who believes “B”. But it isn’t unethical. Mocking or exposing something that someone else holds as sacred is unethical… imho.

My agreement that the third issue is the most problematic is that I see a good justification for someone to be upset when they are told they are wrong – particularly in a blunt and/or insensitive manner. The first argument (Baptism for the Dead) just does not have *any* justification for upsetting people (except misunderstanding).

Lon, fair enough. That gets back to the notion that using the temple ceremony for entertainment is justified by vengeance.

Smackdown.

Bookslinger, the misunderstanding may be understandable, but djinn is explicitly going beyond any assumptions of what the baptism itself means (“not the performance of the ordinance”), and is making an assertion that there is a list where the church identifies those baptized as Mormon. Regardless of what others may misunderstand about the ceremony, there is no list that identifies such people as Mormon, and Mormons have never regarded them so.

The list of proxy baptisms is a list of Mormons the same way the Dubuque telephone directory is a list of Finns.

“This isn’t difficult. The Jews that were baptised by proxy are listed on the Mormon church records as having been baptised in the Mormon church. Right? You can pull someone’s record up; birth, death, baptisimal date, etc. Can we agree on this?”

No, we can’t.

The Jews (and others) that were baptized by proxy are listed in the Mormon Church records as having been baptized by proxy. Period. Since they’re not listed as having been “baptized in the Mormon Church,” the rest of the equation doesn’t follow.

I don’t have any problem with “provisional proxy baptism, if accepted by the deceased” since provisional proxy baptism, if accepted by the deceased = proxy baptism. Which is why “proxy baptism” does not = “baptized in the Mormon Church.”

Having spent a long time delving into the processes pertaining to membership in the Church (both for the living and for the dead), I can categorically say that djinn is incorrect.

Deceased individuals for whom an proxy ordinance was performed are NOT considered to be members of the Church. They are not counted among the members; they have simply had an ordinance attached to their name. If they choose to reject it, fine.

If Catholic or Jewish doctrine provided for proxy baptism, I would expect that they would be proactively performing proxy baptisms for everyone who wasn’t Catholic or Jewish, and it wouldn’t bother me in the least if my deceased relatives were baptized.

And while I’m a big proponent of avoiding incorrect perceptions, the notion that we need to be sensitive to the Catholic/Jewish interpretation of “baptize” is just wrong. It’s based on the idea that one remains part of a religion for life. We don’t accept that teaching in our Church (one reason why the whole idea of “DNA Mormons” drives people nuts).

This is all fear and doom…

The Church does not consider those for whom proxy baptisms have been performed to be Mormons.

The church doesn’t consider them to be “Mormons”, but that is the impression given by listing them in genealogical records as “baptized”. Therefore, since the impression is given, that’s the inference taken by non-LDS readers of the genealogical records.

The church and the members have failed miserably in the PR issue here. You guys who are arguing against djinn on this are just going around in circles. You’re right, the church doesn’t consider the deceased as members. But what the _church_ or _members_ think or consider is irrelevant compared to the impressions and implications actually given by the wording used in the databases.

djinn’s suggestion of merely rewording the column heading would go a long way.

In the eyes of the Jews and Catholics, they don’t think we’re actually “making” them or “converting” them into Mormons. They don’t concede the efficacy of the ordinance. But they (mistakenly) accuse of us of _pretending_ to convert them or “make them Mormon.”

They accuse us of this because we have given false impressions by poor word choices used in our genealogical work.

Then, we add injury to insult (sic) by _publishing_ the data, which in effect is saying “lookee here, ha ha, we made your ancestors Mormon! Neener, neener, neener.”

You guys who are arguing against djinn on this point are being bigoted and insensitive to people who are only using the normal meaning and implications of the words “baptism” and “baptized”. And you’re showing ignorance of what the words mean to non-LDS.

I can understand how life-long Mormons don’t “get it” about how our presentation of proxy-work in the temples is misunderstood by outsiders. But those of you who are converts should get it. Maybe you have to be from a persecuted religion (like Jewish) to understand the offensiveness that is implied in our proxy-work publications.

Bookslinger, I’m not disagreeing that some people might reasonably misunderstand the meaning of the baptism. I’m not disagreeing with the idea that we might be able to do something to make that misunderstanding less likely.

What I object to is djinn’s claim that the “dead end up listed in the records of the Mormon church as Mormon.” That’s a claim that the church explicitly identifies the dead as Mormon, and the claim is flat-out false. djin didn’t say that they end up listed in a way that makes some people assume they are regarded as Mormon. S/he said that they are listed in the records explicitly “as Mormon.” The fact is that no church records identify the recipients of proxy baptism as Mormon.

I understand that many people might assume that a baptism implies a change in religion, but djinn is claiming that church records make a positive assertion that this assumption is correct. The church records do no such thing.

Bookslinger, as you’ve said, we’re just going in circles over this, and I don’t see much point in continuing; however I was just going by the plain meaning of the English words. “Listed…as Mormon” sounds to me like a claim that there is an explicit and positive assertion that people are, well… listed as Mormon.

To give a contemporary example, the phrase “listed as enemy combatants” means that the government is making an explicit and positive assertion that the people so named are in fact formally identified by the government as enemy combatants. It does not mean that mean that the government is vague about their status, causing others to think of them as enemy combatants.

It’s amazing how much time and effort people are spending discussing the issue of baptism for the dead.
Baptisms are effectively part of one’s belief system. Outside of that it means absolutely nothing. If I ever found out I was baptized into someone else’s religion, I wouldn’t spend one ounce of effort to complain about it.
Specially after I’m dead!

How simple is it that if we say we are Christians, whe should act in a Christ like manner; and apply his teachings to our life; and if we say we believe we are potential Gods to be like the Mormons we should act like a God in practice; waliking the walk not only talking the talk; my father’s brother was Ervil Lebaron, I grew up in the jungles of Nicaragua becasue my father was keeping us safe from the death threats of his own brother, that claimed he would kill anyone that defied his authority as God here on this earth; and Ervil had his followers kill his own brother and his wives and sons and daughters, anyone that dared to not follow his instructions; and this man claimed this came from GOD!
Read “BLANK FACES” you can find it on amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com and learn about the extremes, some humans subject other humans to in the justification of their own sick and demented pleasures.