Crash-Course: How AP Spins For Obama Obama Situation Room Photo Faked How Goerge Soros directs Associated Press Rothschilds and the Associated Press Associated Press Praises Communist China


Boston Globe Falsely Reports Daniel Pearl 'Post-Humously Baptised Mormon'

The anti-Mormon bigotry continues:

Members of the Mormon Church last year posthumously baptized Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was captured and killed by terrorists in Pakistan shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to records uncovered by a researcher in Utah.

Helen Radkey, an excommunicated Mormon who combs through the church’s archives, said that records indicate Pearl, who was Jewish, was baptized by proxy on June 1, 2011 at a Mormon temple in Twin Falls, Idaho. Mormons baptize deceased Jews and members of other religions as part of a rite intended to give them access to salvation.


Baptism is performed by proxy on Mormons on behalf of deceased relatives that they may possibly get to accept or reject if they never got the proper opportunity to accept or reject Mormonism in life. That's all it is. This simple explanation is missing from, from NPR, from Huffington Post, from Haaretz, and the rest of the slimeball media who picked up this story.

Mormons are told to be very careful when performing these proxy baptisms, to only do it on behalf of close relatives, and to ask permission from close family of the deceased before doing so. Such permission is required before it can be performed.

There is zero evidence provided that Pearl's baptism took place. How could an ex-Mormon access these records, as they are only accessible to good-standing members of the church? Why aren't we told the name of the person who allegedly requested the baptism, which is always provided in these records?

Boston Globe frequently spreads anti-Mormon bigotry with lies. Think they will ever mention Obama's "God D*mn Amerikkka" pastor?

1 comment:

Michael R. Collings said...

Excellent points, several of them not yet made in other articles...especially the question of proof, and the legitimacy of an ex-Mormon's claim to be privy to temple records.

Even so, the article's main point is crucial. If you don't believe the LDS claims, what is the difference if they perform a symbolic proxy baptism? If you do believe them, it is all to the good.

Well stated.