> From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" to do this > ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? Otherwise, I see this as religious > infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an offense against the > descendants of that deceased. I believe that Mormons try to search for their ancestors so that they can baptize them posthumously. That would imply that the deceased was not a Mormon--if he/she WERE a Mormon, why would they need baptism after death? If my assessment is correct, then consider this: what would prevent one of your descendents from "baptizing" you at some point into the future--say 200 years from now (you never know, sooner or later you'll have a Mormon in the family). As I see it, we have two options. 1: Raise cain with them & tell 'em to cut that out. 2: Do nothing. Let 'em "baptize" anyone they want. Who cares, anyway . . .? It's all a crock. I personally prefer option #2. Life is too short to argue with the LDS Church.

"Larry Y." <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:fM9j8.7895$P4.649338@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net: <snip> > I believe that Mormons try to search for their ancestors so that > they can baptize them posthumously. That would imply that the > deceased was not a Mormon--if he/she WERE a Mormon, why would they > need baptism after death? Seeing as how the church was formed in the early 1800's, they have a *lot* of ancestors who never heard their gospel!! Sherry