After Anne Frank baptism, Mormons vow to discipline members
A picture of Anne Frank, perhaps the most famous victim of the Holocaust.
February 22nd, 2012
05:11 PM ET

After Anne Frank baptism, Mormons vow to discipline members

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Reacting to a report that well-known Holocaust victim Anne Frank had been baptized by proxy in a Mormon temple, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it is committed to disciplining members of its church who conducted such baptisms, which violate church policy.

Word of the Frank baptism came a week after the issue of Mormon posthumous proxy baptism of Jews attracted national attention. This controversy surfaced after it was reported that the dead parents of Jewish Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal had been baptized in a Mormon temple.

The church apologized for that baptism, blaming it on a technical glitch in its system for submitting names for posthumous proxy baptism.

“It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement Tuesday, responding to the report about the Anne Frank baptism.

Explainer: How and why do Mormons baptize the dead?

Though the church regularly conducts proxy baptisms for dead, in what it calls an attempt to give everyone a chance to accept salvation through Jesus, it has a 1990s-era policy against conducting such baptisms for Holocaust victims.

The policy was adopted after complaints from Jewish groups, which said it was offensive to conduct Mormon baptisms for Holocaust victims who were killed because of their Jewish faith.

“The Church keeps its word and is absolutely firm in its commitment to not accept the names of Holocaust victims for proxy baptism,” said Purdy in his Tuesday statement.

The church said it is “committed to taking action against individual abusers by suspending the submitter’s access privileges,” the statement continued. “We will also consider whether other Church disciplinary action should be taken.”

According to Helen Radkey, a former Mormon who tracks Mormon posthumous proxy baptisms, the one for Anne Frank was conducted on Saturday in the Dominican Republic.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Judaism • Mormonism

soundoff (1,379 Responses)
  1. Pppplease

    Oh, please. Big freakin deal.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • AGuest9

      I love when one group with nonsensical ideas attacks another for THEIR nonsensical ideas.

      February 24, 2012 at 8:42 am |
  2. jsiller

    not even tom cruise would believe these people's boloney

    February 23, 2012 at 10:32 am |
  3. AnnaBarr

    This is so wrong.....

    February 23, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  4. Mitzy

    The Covenant between God and His Jews in inviolate. It does not pertain to Christians or Muslims, nor can they affect it or lay claim to it. They are heathens in God's and Jews' eyes, belonging to the pagan world.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • CaptianObvious

      No offense, but God can raise from these stones seed unto Abraham.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • CaptionObvious

      8=====D ~~~~~~~

      You said seed...

      February 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  5. b

    This country was NOT found on Christianity. The founding fathers were intellectuals, spiritual maybe but NOT Christians. Here is a tidbit about George Washington "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative."

    February 23, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • bannister

      So what? This article is not about separation of church and state.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • cbinal

      Where did you find that? On a Liberal website? Obviously, you have never read his Innaugural addresses. Which happen to be historical records, not some made up nonsense from a Liberal website.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • *facepalm*


      Please point out where in Washington's inaugural address he mentions that he's Christian. He references an almighty being – wording that sounds awfully deist.

      Much is debated about what Washington actually believed because he didn't wear his beliefs on his sleeves. Our current president and presidential candidates should take note.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • cbinal

      @Facepalm Please! You guys want to split hairs on this Deist vs. Christianity stuff and then turn right around and say they had no affilliations with any religion. I agree that they were conscoius about declaring any one faith to be the "religion" of America because they got away from that in England. But, anybody who reads what he said or wrote can tell what the man was – that is, unless the revisionists like yourself has gotten to it. He was Episcopalian, he was a Christian. His tomb even has Bible quotes on it. Give it up.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @cbinal – splitting hairs? Maybe you need some remedial reading comprehension courses. The entire first post was about how this country was not founded on christianity. You said that the original poster must not have read the inaugural address. Reading the inaugural address in NO WAY supports a position that Washington was a christian. Holy Logic Fail.

      If you think that the differences between deism and christianity is just splitting hairs then I would suggest you know little about either.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Facepalm Go away. The man claimed to be Episcopalian, that's Chrisitanity, that's not Deism. I'm sure in a few years you guys will be claiming that George Bush, Clinton, and Obama never claimed to be Christians either.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @cbinal. Go away? What are you, 10? Then man attended, and rarely participated in an Episocaplian church because his wife was Episcopalian.

      Nice way to gloss over the whole inaguration thing. Perhaps you should read it yourself before chastising others. You know – the whole take-care-of-the-beam-in-your-own-eye thing.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face I didn't gloss over anything. I didn't say he said he was a christian in his innaugural address, his innaugural addresses make statements that would lead just about anyone (except you) to believe he was a Christian. But if you need more definitive there are plenty of quotes out there. Like this one – "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

      February 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      " I didn't say he said he was a christian in his innaugural address, his innaugural addresses make statements that would lead just about anyone (except you) to believe he was a Christian. "

      I'm still challenging you to prove that. You haven't. Because you can't. I've read the inaugural address. He mentions a deity. Period. Try actually reading it before making yourself look like a fool.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Facepalm Do you have to have everything spelled out for you? OK, then, by your own statements you say he and the other founding fathers were Deist. By definition Deism is the belief in a Creator God who has remained indifferent from that time on. Washington, obviously, was addressing a God which he believed had a hand not only in the formation of our country but, the sustaining and blessing of it's people. That would be a Christian phylosophy. And if you want more quotes on the Founding Fathers who were Christian – try this site: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN122

      February 23, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Washington, obviously, was addressing a God which he believed had a hand not only in the formation of our country but, the sustaining and blessing of it's people. That would be a Christian phylosophy."

      Also: Islam, Hinduism, and nearly every other religion invented by man. Yet another Epic Logic Fail. If yo're trying to equate deism with christianity, then you're a fool.

      And the quote you listed above where Washington mentions Christianity is not part of either his first or second inaugural address. Are you lying to prove your point, or are you just that misinformed?

      How's this for quotes on Christianity by our founding fathers. Let's start with the author of the declaration of independence:

      And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors

      Or this, by the father of the constitution:
      "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance"
      "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

      Or by Franklin:
      ""I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.""

      Shall I go on?

      February 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face – No don't go on – because you are spouting that revisionist nonsense. As I said – you call them a Deist, but you obviously don't even know the definition of a Deist. You are the fool.

      February 23, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Just for kicks:

      John Adams:
      "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

      By the way, that site that you link to contains quotes that are taken wildly out of context and often puts together two highly unrelated quotes in a weak attempt to show support for christianity that just isn't there. Even the most cursory readings of the religious thoughts of such men as Jefferson or Adams show them unequivocally to be NOT christian. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply bearing false witness and shows a complete lack of knowledge of those men's philosophies. The quotes that I've posted above show this conclusively. If you really think that Jefferson believed in the divinity of jesus then you're either a liar or an ignoramus.

      about.com really isn't a reliable site on which to conduct research, btw. It's a step down from wikipedia in terms of reliability.

      February 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "As I said – you call them a Deist, but you obviously don't even know the definition of a Deist. "

      Whatever helps you sleep at night.

      From the World English Dictionary:
      Deism: "belief in the existence of God based solely on natural reason, without reference to revelation"

      That's pretty much the opposite of Christianity – which relies on the bible for revelation. But if it makes you feel better to convince yourself that black is actually white, you go right ahead.

      February 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • GodPot

      @facepalm – But aren't you ignoring the obvious Christian math at work here? If America = God's new Chosen people who have been given authority by the Creator to police the world and bring Christianity and our version of theo-democracy to the brown skinned barbarians, then by proxy those who built this nation must have been Christians or at least been "Used" by God to build the foundation of this Christian nation...i mean, what they actually said and believed is of little consequence...

      February 23, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face – see you can't even comprehend something as simple as what I said. I said YOU call them a Deist. Let me slow it down for you. If he were a Deist he would not have made those statements in his Innaugural address about a "Deity" as you say. Because his statements are referring to a God who is actively concerned with mankind, this nation, and each person. A Deists' God isn't concerned with those things. So, his statements are obviously referring to the God of Christianity. Which in turn must mean his beliefs are Christian beliefs.

      February 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "So, his statements are obviously referring to the God of Christianity. Which in turn must mean his beliefs are Christian beliefs."

      Because christianity is the only religion with a concerned god? Right. Yet another Logic Fail.

      Your base premise is also flawed – you misrepresent deism. Read the definition. You can read, right? Deism doesn't necessitate an unconcerned god – that's more toward the realm of Spinoza and Einstein.

      February 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face – I'm done with you. You are either totally ignorant or you just hear what you want to hear. Look up Deism in the Dictionary and read the entire definition, not just the parts you want to read. Do you understand the word "indifferent"? If not look it up too.

      February 23, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      If you want to paint yourself into a corner and state that the only version of deism which is valid is that which concerns an indifferent deity, I suppose that is your prerogative. But you describe only a sub-set of deism which I neither intended, required, or implied. Reading Comprehension Fail.

      From Desim.com:

      Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

      From Dictionary.com:
      de·ism   [dee-iz-uhm]
      belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
      belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

      Note that only ONE definition of deism refers to an indiffernt deity. This is not a necessitity, no matter how much you wish that to be the case.

      Another Epic Logic Fail.

      February 23, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Christian Math

      1 + 1 = strawberry.

      February 23, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face So, in your twisted mind, A Deist could be a Theist, Christian, Muslim, etc. just as long as he doesn't procalim one of them in public and as long as he doesn't proclaim to be athiest or a polytheist? He can believe that there is a Creator God that cares about people, governments, and establishing nations? So, indifference is just thrown in there so if they need to change their position to suit the argument they can. Is that it? Because otherwise I still hold that a Deist wouldn't say the things that Washington said in his innaugural. That is my last response, I'm not responding again. You can have the last say, which seems to be what you're after.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "@Face So, in your twisted mind, A Deist could be a Theist, Christian, Muslim, etc. just as long as he doesn't procalim one of them in public and as long as he doesn't proclaim to be athiest or a polytheist?"

      Yet another Epic Reading Comprehension Fail.

      Wow. Let me spell this out real slowly. Deism necessitates a belief in god where that god is not revealed. Christianity, by defition, requires a revealed god (in jesus and the bible). Thus, one cannot be a deist and a christian.

      This really isn't all that hard.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Christian Math – Come on? Everyone knows 1+1=Apple.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face -"Wow. Let me spell this out real slowly. Deism necessitates a belief in god where that god is not revealed. Christianity, by defition, requires a revealed god (in jesus and the bible). Thus, one cannot be a deist and a christian."

      Sorry, guess I lied, I have to respond to this one. But, you are saying, Deist believe in a god that is concerned about people, governments, nations? I wish you would just answer that question, because if you say no, then why would Washington say those things? If you say yes – I will know exactly where you stand on the definition.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "But, you are saying, Deist believe in a god that is concerned about people, governments, nations?"

      I understand that your world is black and white. This issue isn't. A deist would not necessarily have to answer one or the other. One deist could believe in a disinterested deity and another deist might see an involved deity. The necessary distinction between deism and christianity is that in deism, the deity is not directly revealed. In Christianity god is necessarily revealed.

      This leads to a whole host of separate distinctions. I.E., deists would not be bound to a particular version/translation of a revealed text, such as the bible (or Koran, or Torah, etc.) A deists' understanding of an involved god would come solely from observation of the physical universe and reasoning.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Face Ah, I see, how convenient, a candy store religion – pick and choose what you like. Not to mention it is so easy for a revisionist to dismiss anything the person might have said in the past. Wow! Thanks for clearing that up, works out great for you guys doesn't it, imagine that. So, in say 30, 40 years you can just say Bush was Deist, Clinton was a Deist, Obama Deist, Billy Graham Deist. Dummy me was going with a literal interpretation, I should make a note of that – "Check meaning in dictionary – then ask someone more liberal to interpret." Thanks.

      February 23, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Please tell me where I have revised anything. Please. One shred of actual proof. I won't hold my breath.

      Literal interpretation? No, you cherry picked on particular meaning and applied it universally – and incorrectly. Candy Store? Hardly – I used the entire definition, not just the one that you find the most convenient for your argument. You dismiss that part of the dictionary that you find inconvenient. Wishing it not to be so won't make it go away, however.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • Think again

      *facepalm* = 1

      Cbinal = 0 (again)

      @ Cbinal
      I’m sure you are a good person and all that blah blah. You claim others are ignorant when they post provable facts. You claim they only see what they want to see and you deny those same facts. You need a long hard look in the mirror hun.

      February 24, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • cbinal

      @Face – OK last time for real this time, because your head is too thick: You can't see the forest for the trees, I'm the one that told you to look at the entire definition. You are the one that wants to throw out the word "indifferent". I gave you quotes and places to go check, which I might add has footnotes to where the quotes came from but, you refuse to accept those – that's called being a revisionist.

      February 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • *facepalm*


      Who in the heck taught you to read a dictionary. There are two different definitions. They are not one in the same. You are dismissing the version you find inconvenient. Somehow, you think that because one definition of a word contains the word indifferent, that all defitions must. If you want to learn how to read a dictionary, I'd suggest you go ask a fourth grader.

      Holy wow.

      February 26, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • cbinal

      @Face "Who in the heck taught you to read a dictionary. There are two different definitions. They are not one in the same." Obviously no one ever taught you how.

      February 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  6. Don


    February 23, 2012 at 10:30 am |
  7. gary winnipeg

    If I did believe in religion, wouldn't god judge you based on your own beliefs and actions, and if some total strangers came along after you were dead and baptised your name into some other religion (or if strangers came and desecrated your grave or something), why would that change god's opinion of you. God might punish the strangers who did that thing to you, but god's opinion of you would be based on your own beliefs and actions while you were alive.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • skellyute

      Couldn't agree more. The outrage around this topic is strange to me.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:34 am |
  8. Barry

    this is insane..who are some of these Mormons going to posthumously baptize next? Gandhi? Karl Marx? I know Church doctrine doesn't condone or approve of these "rogue" acts..but seriously the process they have is flawed if this is happening. Not that it really matters to be "frank". Baptizing someone posthumously doesn't really matter in my opinion if the person never lived or believed in Christ during their lifetime.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:29 am |
  9. Becca

    I know this is offensive and all, but what's it matter that a few crazy mormons are sprinkling water (doing so "by proxy") over dead Jewish bodies? It's not like it's actually harming anyone. Just some mentally deficient Mormons doing mentally deficient activity. We all know nothing's actually happening...

    February 23, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Binky42

      It's disrespectful is all. These families have been through enough, and don't need a bunch of crazy Mormons dragging their dead relatives into crazy baptism ceremonies.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:30 am |
  10. Joe

    As a genealogist I have often discovered that my great grandparents and great great grandparents, etc. have been baptized and sealed and all those other things by the Mormons. And I find it offensive. These people were quite often devout Catholics, or Methodists, or Quakers and I think their spirits and their memories should be left in peace. It is the height of arrogance to think that you can and should change someone's religion in the afterlife.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • CaptianObvious

      That is not what they believe, Joe.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • skellyute

      CO is spot on. Mormon's do NOT believe they can change some ones faith in the after life.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  11. Richard Conn Henry

    I hope Satanists are not converting Joseph Smith to Satanism!

    February 23, 2012 at 10:28 am |
  12. Brad

    Passive-aggressive antisemitism

    February 23, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • RillyKewl


      February 23, 2012 at 10:30 am |
  13. N.Shapiro

    This is a vile and disgusting practise.
    Whiile this pagan necromancy has no effect, it is still disrespectfull, insulting and contemptuous.
    The Momon black magic seances are their business, but they should stop involving other people,
    and should have respect for the memories of the dead.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:28 am |
  14. Binky42

    So, they baptized the Wiesenthal's by mistake.....because with a name like that it isn't COMPLETELY obvious that they're Jewish???

    Mormons are just plain crazy.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • potpotsie

      Maybe you guys should go research and understand, before posting and making yourself look like a fool.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:38 am |
  15. Laurie

    Everyone needs to be schooled on "Mormanizm". Have been doing a lot of research, it is seeming more cult like to me than I originally thought. This baptism stuff is strange too.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • CaptianObvious

      So much research that, in fact, you cannot even spell "Mormonism" correctly.

      Let's fear and irrationalize a little more here people.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  16. Epidi

    I'm so sure she'd be pleased – NOT. How arrogant & presumptuous.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Binky42

      They apparently need more young dead girls to marry their old dead men.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:28 am |
  17. ginx

    Yet another reason I think that the mormon faith is just really screwed up.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Jt_flyer

      I don't think you want to open THAT can of worms.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  18. Jt_flyer

    Do you have any idea how irrelevant this nonsense is to God? Just for a moment try to think logically.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • randy


      February 23, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Phattee

      Did you just ask people to think "logically" about "God"? HAHAHAHAHA

      February 23, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Dave

      If you use logic, you see that all religion is stupid and a waste of times and resources

      February 23, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Nate

      If people thought logically, we wouldn't have religion, let alone mormonism.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Steve Brinkhoff

      Yes, Mormon beliefs are nuts – unlike "our" talking snakes, magical burning bushes, a flat earth, unicorns (yes, unicorns are in the Bible...), etc etc etc

      February 23, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • MarcTTF

      Do you have any idea how irrelevant and nonsensical the concept of god is? Just for a moment try to think logically.

      Just sayin

      February 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  19. Ray

    I live in Utah. They do this all of the time. They make an agreement not to do this for people such as those who are jewish. They have baptized Adolf Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, survivors of the WWII holocaust, etc. No matter what agreement is made, they will continue to do this. I find it awful. Maybe because Mitt is running for office and is a mormom, they will concentrate on this. Do you know the Mormons do not believe in the cross ? They believe that Mary and Joseph had a physical relationship and Jesus was born? They do not believe in the Holy Trinity ? They believe in levels of heaven that depends on how good a mormon you are. ? Do we want a President who believes this ?

    February 23, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Pam

      I think all strong beliefs in mythical beings and the literal reading of ancient texts is ridiculous, so I'm not sure why Mormon beliefs are so different from traditional Christian/Catholic beliefs. It's all just a bunch of bull created by a few men who wanted to control the rest of the population. Whether Mormon, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish – it's all the same crap in the end.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Dave

      I'd like to see a president that doesn't believe in any of that imaginary stuff.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Really

      You really think an invisible spirit in the sky made a woman pregnant without being physically involved with a man? I want a president who does not bring their religious beliefs to the front of their campaign. You know, like the founding fathers believed.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Steve

      No Ray, we do not want a President that touts his or her religion as superior, or one that wears their faith on their sleeve. We want a President that believes, as Thomas Jefferson did, that ones faith is a private matter between the person and their "creator". We want a President that focuses on the problems of the country and not faith and religion. We want a President that unites Americans and not one that alienates Americans because what they choose to believe or not believe in, with regard to faith, differs from the President's or his party's views. In short, religion and politics don't mix unless you like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • rick

      Ray you are wrong. Some how living in Utah doesn't make you any more credible. Mormons believe in the cross. They just don't use the symbol of Christ's crucifixion and something to worship. We do not believe that Mary and Joseph had a physical relationship and then Jesus was born. What does that mean to you. We believe in the Holy Trinity just not that they are one. We believe they are three distinct personages. We believe in different levels of heaven just the same as the Apostle Paul said when he said he was caught up to the third heaven in a vision and Christ said - "In my Father's house are many mansions" do you have a problem with that? Also the Apostle Paul even mentioned in Corinthians that they were baptizing people for the dead in the temple there in Jerusalem. Why is it only the Mormons still believe what the early Christians were doing back then!!!!

      February 23, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Ryan

      I also live in Utah, and although I am not Mormon, some of your statements are incorrect.

      They do believe in the cross, but it is not a focal point of their faith. The crucifiction is taught, but the cross is not displayed.
      They do believe in the Holy Trinity, and a prayer is giving during their Sacrament that acknowledges this.

      As far as the story goes though, this is obscene. If they didn't choose this faith during their life, why should they have to be involved after death?

      February 23, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Nate

      Go Pam! +1 Ditto. Couldn't have said it better myself.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • TheSaint

      This comment is garbage. Nothing in it is true. Perhaps you sh ould investigate your thoughts before you shoot your mouth,

      February 23, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • potpotsie

      @Ray You do realize the mormons do believe in the cross? They just believe its too sacred to wear casually

      February 23, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Genealogist

      Ray clearly you have an axe to grind with the LDS Church. My non-LDS father and his family come from Utah. They felt isolated and at times devalued by the LDS neighbors.That is a failing on the part of the members of the church. However it has never caused him to make outright false statements about the faith as you have.

      For those who are interested in what we do and do not believe about marriage, the Immaculate Conception of Christ, and the Godhead (ie the trinity) and many other things I refer you to the 13 Articles of Faith, the King James version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon (not the stage play) and our Doctrine & Covenants. The information is available to you on LDS.ORG and no missionaries will come calling.

      With regard to the beliefs about post mortem baptism–WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EVERY PERSON FOR WHOM THE WORK IS DONE ACCEPTS IT. WE DO BELIEVE that the only way to gain the full benefit of the Atonement of Christ is by accepting Him as your personal Savior and through the waters of Baptism. We believe that every soul is so precious to God that each deserves every chance to he can get. No more no less. We don't count those proxy records in our membership rolls.

      You don't have to believe it or accept it–that is key. We believe that all humanity has the right to choose.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • cbinal

      @Rick "the Apostle Paul even mentioned in Corinthians that they were baptizing people for the dead in the temple there in Jerusalem." Can you show me that verse? Because if you are talking about 1Cor 15:29 you misinterpretted that. The "dead" he is talking about there is being identified with Christ. You could basically say If the "dead" (Jesus) be not risen, then there is no sense in being baptized for someone (Jesus) who is dead. Which would make sense with the following verse, which your interpretation would not. Besides Coronthians was written to the people of Corinth who had many stange practices that Paul repremanded them for – didn't say anything about Jerusalem.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Sharealittle

      Ray, though there may occasionally be mistakes, the work done in these temples are acts of love and service. We may have a different perspective on life here and in the hereafter, but we believe in eternal families and that is the basis for this work.

      As for the concepts of Christ I must respectfully disagree with a couple of your points. We do believe Christ died on the cross and sacrificed himself for the sins of all who would repent. And 3 days later he resurrected himself and is alive. The reason we don't have crosses on our churches is because our focus is on the living Christ.

      Second, I'm not sure where you heard it, but we don't believe Christ is the product of the relationship of Joseph and Mary. We believe in the miracle of his birth to the virgin Mary. He is the only one born in this way. More info can be found at http://jesuschrist.lds.org

      February 23, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • cbinal

      @Geneology and Share – you seem to be nice people, as most Mormons are, but I knew when I read the story of Joseph Smith he was a false prophet. He says he met an "Angel of Light" in the woods that told him these things. The only Angel of Light mentioned in the Bible is Satan. 2Cor 11:13 to 15. Also see Gal. 1:6 to 8, it's talking to you.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Lots of Christians believe in a tiered afterlife.
      Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Limbo etc.
      Have you ever read Dante's Inferno and his detailed layers of hell? (I know it's not scriptural, but the idea is there)
      The Celestial Kingdom is no more strange than any other idea of an afterlife.

      As for belief in the Holy Trinity – I've never been quite sure how a religion that worships a triune God can rightly consider itself monotheistic....

      February 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Doc – "I've never been quite sure how a religion that worships a triune God can rightly consider itself monotheistic...." What's so hard to understand about that? God said let's make man in our image. You are a trinity – body, soul, and spirit. Your body is physical, your soul the mental opperational aspect of your body, and your spirit is your subconscience distinguishing between right and wrong.

      February 23, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • MarcTTF

      Life would be so easy if baseless assertions like yours actually counted for something.

      February 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Marc – Baseless? Where?

      February 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • cbinal

      @Marc Are you talking about my "trinity statement"? 1 Timothy 3:16

      February 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
  20. Phillip Bunnell

    Does anyone recall Anne Frank waning to be baptized? Are the Mormons the biggest control freaks in the world or what? Look out Romney supporters. His kind will be in your bathroom making sure you wipe properly.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • JoeS

      Wouldn't want any skid marks in those magic underoos would we?

      February 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.