So I guess this means you're telling me it's okay to vote for Romney...

I agree this practice of baptizing is not a threat to Jews or others who may not be of the Mormon faith. But it is shockingly disrespectful of the religious choices of others, and makes a mockery of what baptism truly is. It's easy for the Mormon leadership to say, "Well, we told them to stop," and then shake their heads as though the members who continue this practice are simply disobedient children. Steps can and should be taken to prevent this practice in the future.

Count on Mr. Jacoby to lead his crowd to the deep end. I would certainly hope Mormons pose no threat to anyone and by the way Mr. Jacoby this was not the point. Mormons are being disrespectful and making their religion seem odd. By pushing its way into the public square by such fiddling with other religions, the Mormon Church is opening its doors to outside critical scrutiny. I thought they valued privacy and a closed circle(Ann Romney's family was not allowed to attend her wedding since they were not Mormons). No their baptismal efforts are not dangerous, just silly and insulting to other people's beliefs.

Jeff - here's the thing...50-100 years from now future Jacoby's will be amazed by their Mormon wing! They'll wonder why Uncle David converted from Judaism to Mormonism! There's a REAL possibility there. Not to rub a sore wound but there has been NO issues with traditional marriage since homosexuals were allowed to marry here, yet you wrote multiple columns against gay marriage? Hmmm...politics maybe? A Mormon wouldn't be running for president on the Republican side or something like that? Nah...you're just a liberal where strange religious practices are concerned...yeah...that's the ticket!

Jeff - I've lived in Wyoming. Mormons aren't some silly little cult group out in Utah any more. They are going to slowly become American Christianity. Maybe not so slowly. It's a truly American form of social and spiritual connectedness. And you know Americans "love them some America!" As any other group with their own set of rigid practices and belief systems, Mormons have a way of quietly letting you know that they will now be running things. As you say they're very nice about it, but run things they will.

But she asked.....

So, is the implication that Mitt Romney is no threat to Jews but President Obama is? Everything is personal for Jeff Jacoby, and we know he hates President Obama, so that must be part of the message here. But why pull out the Jewish victimhood card? It wouldn't have anything to do with with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to meet with President Obama next week to try to push the President to publicly threaten an attack on Iran, would it? See http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-will-ask-obama-to-threaten-iran-strike-1.415428. Readers should remember that Jeff Jacoby is an advocate and supporter of the reckless right-wing of Israeli politics, which is led by Netanyahu and which - like Jacoby - wants to see an attack on Iran but doesn't mention the potentially disastrous consequences for Israel or American interests of such an attack. But why the victimhood? As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Review of Books two years ago ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?page=2 ): "In the world of AIPAC, the Holocaust analogies never stop, and their message is always the same: Jews are licensed by their victimhood to worry only about themselves. ... But the message of the American Jewish establishment and its allies in the Netanyahu government is exactly the opposite: since Jews are history's permanent victims, always on the knife-edge of extinction, moral responsibility is a luxury Israel does not have. Its only responsibility is to survive. As former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg writes in his remarkable 2008 book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, "Victimhood sets you free.""

Disrespect is, it's true, not necessarily dangerous in itself. Otherwise, I wonder what's become of Mr. Jacoby's usually highly available outrage.

You miss the point. That seems to be your stock in trade, perhaps because right-wing ideology serves as your controlling theology. Of course proxy baptisms do not THREATEN Jews. The point is its an obnoxious practice. People have a right to be who they define themselves to be. That choice should be respected. To even attempt to change that identity, however vainly, when it is impossible for that person to protest, is just plain wrong and aggravates the family. Religious proselytizing is obnoxious in its own right. What can one say about waiting for people to die to sweep them up and convert them? Is that the most convincing you can be about the "good word"? They even did this to Romney's father-in-law who was a strong atheist. My suggestion: if Mormon's need to do proxy baptisms and conversions, Jeff Jacoby would be a superb candidate. Doesn't he then get his own planet somewhere far away?

Bravo Jeff. I never thought I would agree with you on anything. I think its time we stop taking offense at every little thing. What the Mormons do regarding retroactive baptism causes no pain, diminishes no one's pocketbook, and is totally meaningless. Take the high road and assume it is an expression of sorrow and sympathy for the most vicious event in human history. Or take a lesson from the Mormons. They have been outrageously and relentlessly ridiculed lately. And on Broadway, no less. And they have quietly and politely ignored the offense. And please, who needs these moronic and paranoid fantasies that the Mormons are out to take over Christianity? It is more likely that Sharia law will triumph in Alabama.

Well, we all know Jacoby doesn't mind others defining who he is, what he stands for and having his core beliefs manipulated. I don't think so. The only motive here is "My guy Romney isn't so bad."

While I (for once) agree with your premise, I am just wondering if this were happening in another church, would you write the same column. It's presumptuous of ANY religion to try to "save" deceased members of another religion. Is any harm done? Probably not, but it's disrespectful to do this unless a family member requests/approves it.

Two things Mr Jacoby has been very consistent about doing over the years: bending over backwards to defend questionable behavior by Christians, and telling everyone else whether or not they should be offended.

Jeff, you've morphed into Mitt. You are each other's Avatar. No core values. Just political expediency. Hey, even some of the Democrats do this, i.e., Senator John Kerry. I know this because I've read it in your column. Also, if you were not having this political mancrush with Mitt, you'd be writing a column about his being a Bishop in his Church and he most certainly does have a voice concerning this issue.

Really, Jeff? Your ability to rationalize this practice is amazing.

Good Column!

I am more than certain that those, Jews and otherwise, who find this practice both "eccentric" and offensive appreciate you telling them they should feel otherwise. I have an idea Jeff. Why don't we all just run our prospective feelings through you prior to expressing them. You, having placed yourself as the arbiter or righteousness and good taste will be our new god. All hail Jacoby, lord of the land and emotions. Maybe, and I know it's hard for meddling republicans like you to understand; having the incurable urge to judge all and project your moral values on all others, you should realize that other Jews, who lost relatives in the Holocaust have the right to feel offended by this practice just as much as you have the right to dismiss it as harmless. Just remember many feel that it was this type of dismissal to Christian attitudes toward Jews that laid the groundwork to what happened in Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

Abe Foxman is given to overwrought rhetoric. What verbal contortions he went through to justify his efforts to help the Turks deny the genocide they perpetrated on the Armenians, despite the fact he was running a human rights organization which criticized those that would deny the Holocaust. What a hypocrite.

In total there is nothing harmful, disrespectful, or illegal with the LDS' practice of involuntary, posthumouse baptisms for Jews. In a lot of ways the practice seeks to reconcile people, faiths, and tragic history. It also serves as a subtle, almost passive manner of mission work and proselytizing. I am not very concerned about this but like many other sensitive Jews I wonder how would such a practice be received by society if the roles were reversed (not, as Mr. Jacoby explains, would such a posthumous gesture even signify in Judaism.)

In response to your comment I might say, "Why don't we all just run our prospective feelings through mod1730 prior to expressing them" In your comment it seems that you are doing exactly what you accuse Jacoby of. I disagree with practically every word that Jeff Jacoby has ever written so I have no problem with anyone critiquing his opinions, however, I do have a problem with critiquing him simply for having an opinion which is what you seem to be doing.

I feel the same about my dead relatives being posthumously baptized (because Judaism isn't enough to get them to heaven) about the same as I'd feel if someone told me he'd been pleasuring himself while fantasizing about what he'd like to do with my underaged daughter -- no actual harm, but it's rude, and it's close enough to a lot of nasty stuff that had done actual harm (eg Edgardo Mortara, and prosecution of forced converts for apostasy) that the offense should be predictable.

Excellent article. I share Mr. Jacoby's view. All four of my grandparents as well as numerous other relatives were murdered by the Nazis, and while I do believe the practice of posthumous baptism is wrong, I understand it is done in the spirit of saving someone's soul. More importantly, however, it seems clear this issue is being discussed in the press to remind everyone that Governor Romney is a Mormon, and especially to try to inflame people of the Jewish faith against Governor Romney. Consider that the world currently has real economic problems and great evil exists in Iran and Syria, it is the liberal press'desire to divide and distract that is odious.

It's rude, it's stupid, it's weird and insulting to Jews, as if their own faith was somehow not enough.

Mr Jacoby enjoyed the luxury of being asked if he minded his relatives being inducted posthumously into the LDS rolls. Let's set this a little differently. Suppose it was an African American who was posthumously inducted into the KKK. Would that be offensive? Suppose it was the Nazi party who decided to so honor Mr Jacoby's relatives? I can see the eyes popping now. My point is that anyone who posthumously inducts anyone into any organization, which that person would not have joined of his/her own volition, insults that person. Is it a threat? No probably not. But it is a slight to that person choice of faith and to the faith itself. I remember, as a child, announcing to my Jewish friends family that they did not have to remain Jewish. They could join the one true faith (I was Catholic). Though my words were well intended (and innocently ignorant), it was a slap in the face to those folks. They were kindly diplomatic in their response but how wrong headed was I. The LDS posthumous baptism may also be well intended but it is no less ignorant or insulting.