The Couch

Gandhi Baptized By Mormons Church!

Comments on Gandhi Baptized By Mormons Church!

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 02/29/12 - 2:24 PM:
Subject: Gandhi Baptized By Mormons Church!
Newspapers have this intriguing case:

Washington, Feb. 28 (PTI): A researcher has claimed that a US church belonging to the Mormon sect has baptised Mahatma Gandhi in proxy, drawing sharp reactions from a grandson of the Mahatma and Hindu activists.

Helen Radkey said Gandhi was baptised by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), popularly known as the Mormon Church and headquartered in Utah’s Salt Lake City, on March 27, 1996. She said the baptism was confirmed on November 17, 2007, at the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple, a Mormon shrine.

LDS members have posthumously baptised many non-Christians in the past, claims Radkey, who has been excommunicated by the Mormons. She says an LDS member baptised Anne Frank, the Jewish teen whose diary and death in a Nazi concentration camp made her a symbol of the Holocaust, last Saturday.

Radkey said she had seen the record on Gandhi’s baptism on February 16 this year but it had since disappeared from the church’s database. “I assume (the) Mormons did not want others to know about Gandhi’s baptism.”

Arun Gandhi, a grandson of the Mahatma who lives in upstate New York, told The Huffington Post: “It bothers me in the sense that people are doing something when a person is dead and gone and there is nobody to answer for that person.”

He noted that his grandfather was against proselytising of any kind, whether it involved Hindus or others.

“He thought people must decide for themselves which religion they want to follow and they should follow that religion. It’s not up to others to force them. He was respectful of all the religions,” he said.

Suhag Shukla of the Washington-based Hindu America Foundation said the proxy baptism of the Mahatma was “deeply offensive, not only to Gandhi’s legacy as a devout Hindu, but to Hindus the world over”.

US-based Hindu activist Rajan Zed said he had written to LDS president Thomas S. Monson but received no reply.

You can access the story here: www.telegraphindia.com/1120...ontpage/story_15193592.jsp


I am curious to know: What does this posthumous baptizing signify?

Is it justified to baptize anyone posthumously without their consent(I mean if the person left it in their will then it seems alright to me.)?

Do Mormons and other churches think that they are doing an act of kindness?

Any ideas?

thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 02/29/12 - 5:58 PM:

Sounds like a publicity stunt, they knew the story would get around, pulling it from the web site is just part of it. from my understanding of Baptism the posthumous act means nothing because the person is supposed to profess their faith and belief and infants have sponsors (Usually the Parents, But my wife and I did it for 2 of our grandchildren) who promise to teach them as they grow. So a dead person cannot profess their faith and cannot be taught that belief system. It really seems like an empty gesture but perhaps it makes that Mormon church feel better?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/01/12 - 3:41 AM:

thedoc wrote:
Sounds like a publicity stunt, they knew the story would get around, pulling it from the web site is just part of it. from my understanding of Baptism the posthumous act means nothing because the person is supposed to profess their faith and belief and infants have sponsors (Usually the Parents, But my wife and I did it for 2 of our grandchildren) who promise to teach them as they grow. So a dead person cannot profess their faith and cannot be taught that belief system. It really seems like an empty gesture but perhaps it makes that Mormon church feel better?



Sounds true to me. Mormons church is becoming most popular church in USA?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 03/01/12 - 9:46 AM:

"...baptised Mahatma Gandhi in proxy..."

Which means absolutely nothing.

#

"What does this posthumous baptizing signify?"

Absolutely nothing.

#

"Is it justified to baptize anyone posthumously without their consent?"

If baptism was more than ritual, no, there'd be no justification, but, since baptism is hollow, I say 'baptize away!'.

#

"Do Mormons and other churches think that they are doing an act of kindness?"

Probably, but, really, it's just an act of self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, horseshit...another example of 'Here, let ME 'save' YOU 'cause I know better than you what’s right for you...'. Fortunately: it's harmless, so, if Mormons wanna waste their time with useless crap: fine by me.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/02/12 - 12:36 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"...baptised Mahatma Gandhi in proxy..."

Which means absolutely nothing.

#

"What does this posthumous baptizing signify?"

Absolutely nothing.

#

"Is it justified to baptize anyone posthumously without their consent?"

If baptism was more than ritual, no, there'd be no justification, but, since baptism is hollow, I say 'baptize away!'.

#

"Do Mormons and other churches think that they are doing an act of kindness?"

Probably, but, really, it's just an act of self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, horseshit...another example of 'Here, let ME 'save' YOU 'cause I know better than you what’s right for you...'. Fortunately: it's harmless, so, if Mormons wanna waste their time with useless crap: fine by me.



I agree.smiling face
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/02/12 - 3:09 PM:

They ought to baptize Mohammed (pbuh), LOL, now THAT would be headline making news, if not the start of war.

laughing
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/02/12 - 3:19 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
They ought to baptize Mohammed (pbuh), LOL, now THAT would be headline making news, if not the start of war.

laughing



laughing
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 03/02/12 - 4:02 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
They ought to baptize Mohammed (pbuh), LOL, now THAT would be headline making news, if not the start of war.

laughing



Why stop there, I think they should baptize everyone in the world, living and dead, one at a time, and send a nice big cash gift to honor the event.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 03/04/12 - 10:02 PM:

Would they baptize Hitler, Stalin and Mao, or are these figures destined for one of the Mormon hells?

In this way, baptism might be an interpretation of God's final judgement (if Mormon's believe in something like that).
Those who decide to not baptize morally reprehensible historical figures are in a way preempting divine judgement. Is there hubris in that? It therefore seems that some cases of baptism for the dead are in themselves sins (or at least morally questionable).

I guess you baptize the dead and then after that you baptize yourself. One hand washes the other.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/12 - 10:34 PM:

Nihil Loc wrote:
Would they baptize Hitler, Stalin and Mao, or are these figures destined for one of the Mormon hells?

In this way, baptism might be an interpretation of God's final judgement (if Mormon's believe in something like that).
Those who decide to not baptize morally reprehensible historical figures are in a way preempting divine judgement. Is there hubris in that? It therefore seems that some cases of baptism for the dead are in themselves sins (or at least morally questionable).

I guess you baptize the dead and then after that you baptize yourself. One hand washes the other.



Do you know for sure that Hitler and Stalin were not baptized? Mao, probably not but even there do you know for sure?

If baptizing a dead person then subjects them to devine judgment, then not baptizing is (something, but I can't figure out what) against God. Certainly some churches believe that they have the authority to speak and act for God, but most believe that they can encourage and guide a person but in the end it is God who does the converting and saving.

However baptizing is not a gurantee of going to heaven, Even a baptized person can be an unrepentant sinner and be condemmed, at least that is my understanding of it.

To paraphrase,
"You can lead a sinner to religion, but only God can make them believe."
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/12 - 12:47 AM:

thedoc wrote:
Do you know for sure that Hitler and Stalin were not baptized? Mao, probably not but even there do you know for sure?


Well doing a quick search, this came up:

The Mormon Church Attempts to Conceal
Temple Records for Adolf Hitler


I guess the whole concept of baptizing the dead becomes less interesting if everyone is included. Why don't they just do an all encompassing generic baptism for the dead (and the future dead) and be done with it.



Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/12 - 3:25 AM:

Nihil Loc wrote:


Well doing a quick search, this came up:

The Mormon Church Attempts to Conceal
Temple Records for Adolf Hitler


I guess the whole concept of baptizing the dead becomes less interesting if everyone is included. Why don't they just do an all encompassing generic baptism for the dead (and the future dead) and be done with it.





A good question indeed. This seems like the difference between getting signed-off as 'Totally Nuts' versus 'He is quirky and whimsical at times,' especially if this getting quirky and whimsical earns you some popularity. laughing
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/12 - 3:28 AM:

thedoc wrote:



Do you know for sure that Hitler and Stalin were not baptized? Mao, probably not but even there do you know for sure?

If baptizing a dead person then subjects them to devine judgment, then not baptizing is (something, but I can't figure out what) against God. Certainly some churches believe that they have the authority to speak and act for God, but most believe that they can encourage and guide a person but in the end it is God who does the converting and saving.

However baptizing is not a gurantee of going to heaven, Even a baptized person can be an unrepentant sinner and be condemmed, at least that is my understanding of it.

To paraphrase,
"You can lead a sinner to religion, but only God can make them believe."



I am not sure but I feel Monk2400 might tell us and perhaps you already know of gospels from Bible which say that no matter how big a sinner one is if he swears certain things and expresses his love for Jesus and God at the time of his death; he gets heaven thereafter and not hell. Have you come across something like that?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/12 - 7:52 PM:

Baptism by water is for people before Jesus (and Jesus). after him, its all baptism by Spirit. Why the church or churches continue to baptise by water is beyond me. It's a pointless tradition that does not do anything, even for babies. Certainly not for dead people, LMFAO. Guess what, they're DEAD. Meaning God's already got a plan for them, lOL.

There is a similar tradition in Buddhism, chanting for the dead, but wise sages dismissed this as nonsensical, which it is, even from a Christian perspective. Of course, Mormons are a whole nother phenomenon, lol, and can not be called 'Christian' except in a very loose sense.

8)
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/12 - 9:01 PM:

It's all symbolism and ritual, why deprive people of something that gives them comfort. You could reduce Christianity to simply stating that "I believe in God and Jesus Christ" one time and be done with it, but where is the fun in that? Religion is an ongoing process, a continuing activity or it looses it's meaning. If you do not participate that is your choice, but what is it to you if others choose to join in the act. There are many misguided religious people who believe that it is up to them to approach and 'save' those outside of the church, and this is unfortunate as it does more harm than good. Just be sure of what you believe and why, there is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/15/12 - 12:19 AM:

thedoc wrote:

It's all symbolism and ritual, why deprive people of something that gives them comfort. You could reduce Christianity to simply stating that "I believe in God and Jesus Christ" one time and be done with it, but where is the fun in that? Religion is an ongoing process, a continuing activity or it looses it's meaning. If you do not participate that is your choice, but what is it to you if others choose to join in the act. There are many misguided religious people who believe that it is up to them to approach and 'save' those outside of the church, and this is unfortunate as it does more harm than good. Just be sure of what you believe and why, there is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides.



I will be honest here: Everyone is entitled to have opinions. Everyone should live as per their volition but does volition exist? Aren't we just born into a religion and embrace it? But why should that change things? Even embracing a religion after proselytizing because of some reasons should not be too different.


Faith is very good but doubt is better in my opinion. I know that you might think that I am younger and hence this propensity and you might think that younger people tend to be experimental because they feel energetic and immortal. So be it. But you have hit the nail on the wall in my humble opinion. Yes, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others NEED RITUALS.



They need rituals because this monster called mind makes life a hell without rituals. Why? Because boredom is what rules and has final say. Wisest will live with no rituals. The activities which are not significant apart from being rituals start dropping one after another in the lives of wise persons and there are so many I have observed. Wisdom is more of avoiding what is unnecessary than doing more things. But who am I to suggest people to become wiser? Nobody. That is why I don't. I don't preach on a high platform and I think nobody should ( And even that 'should' is redundant!). I know that I am not being very eloquent but it's important to state that people are in frenzy with religion. Rarely anyone knows the meaning of being 'religious'.



Is being born into a family which practices certain things and embracing all its rituals and even investigating into them with superficial approach what you call 'religious'? I want to tell you something: I have observed closely and I have met some of the most religious people. They have this fragrance of goodness and they're so calm and peaceful and they stand for right things and they practice no rituals. They're burning flames of consciousness and they doubt all the time. More I observe people involved in rituals, more I feel that dogma is so prevalent. You cannot talk to fanatics. If you start questioning them, instead of discussing things logically, they start attacking you. They know that they cannot stand any reasonable discussion and hence start attacking anyone who approaches them with reason. Is this being 'religious'? No it's not in my opinion and I am sorry.


'Be sure of what you believe and why' might be a difficult to interpret statement. If you really know what you're doing, you would end up doing nothing because you would dissect everything upto the end and nothing will be left, but that is what induces such great indolence that you would not remain a practical man. But being too sure causes much harm than not, especially in religious affairs.


Religious people just use convenient things. Those who try to play by 'Holy Book' too cannot play it for enough long. When you point out that they're not playing it by book, they become angry and start attacking you. Starjade has so beautifully pointed towards contradictions in Quaran and as per Sura 4:82 this is enough to prove that Quaran is not from God. But who is going to accept that? May be Salman Rushdie would but isn't he already in danger? I have taken Islam just as an example. I don't regard Hinduism or Christianity or any other religion any better than Islam.


It's true that none has any right to deprive anyone of any 'comfort'; execpt that this 'comfort' should not become cause of discomfort for others. Moreover it takes extraordinary audacity to say that those things which are 'comfortable' might cause great discomfort for many, later on.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/15/12 - 12:28 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Baptism by water is for people before Jesus (and Jesus). after him, its all baptism by Spirit. Why the church or churches continue to baptise by water is beyond me. It's a pointless tradition that does not do anything, even for babies. Certainly not for dead people, LMFAO. Guess what, they're DEAD. Meaning God's already got a plan for them, lOL.


I think you're saying that it's pointless because Jesus emphasized on baptizing with Spirit? That means that Christians are not playing it by book.

Monk2400 wrote:
There is a similar tradition in Buddhism, chanting for the dead, but wise sages dismissed this as nonsensical, which it is, even from a Christian perspective. Of course, Mormons are a whole nother phenomenon, lol, and can not be called 'Christian' except in a very loose sense.


Mormons are indeed a whole different lot. I think my question is yet not answered and that might be because I had confounded you with Mephiboseth. My bad. Mephiboseth on MPG used to contribute on a thread called 'Why Christianity is so looked down upon' and so did another guy who was a very good photorapher as well. They quoted once some verse from Bible which had something similar to my question. peace
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.