posted
On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"? He may have even been baptized by John and then afterwards not heard of Christ, then converted after sharing that very traumatic experience with him. No one ever said the man wasn't baptized.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I've excerpted the relevant text below. Mind you, I don't speak to its veracity, as this is merely what I remember being told at an uncritical stage of my life. It could very well be hogwash. I'd stake a muffin on dkw knowing the answer, tho.
quote:Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention[ed] by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead? [emphases added]
quote:Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?
I don't buy it. Paul seems much to articulate and focused on the Gosple of Christ to legitimize Pagan rituals because even THEY know about the ressurection.
That would be akin to the pope saying, "Of course we believe in baptism, even THEY (the Mormons) know about baptism and baptize their members. I do appreciate the perspective tho. I am glad others buy it. Thank you.
Jenwren, I will fidn teh scripture when I get home.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Alexa, like I said -- I'm not vouching for it making sense, I'm just trying to answer the question you asked.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev- That sounds like a serious reach. P.S. Though we believe in different "Kingdoms". Though I guess he would be looking at Paradise. Does baptism factor into Paradise/Spirit Prison or not?
CT, that's interesting, I hadn't heard of that before, except the part about Corinth being a diverse metropolis.
quote: I don't see how you can compare proxy work with rape, Kayla, since according to Mormon theology all parties must be acting of their own accord for the work to valid.
The important part, being Mormon theology, right? Do you know what the theology of the dead being baptized is? Does it even matter?
Kat, bugger off. It's exactly how I feel and I'm not using the most offensive language I can. I'm just not putting as nicely as I could have if I chosen to go that route. Others have been couching their terminology and using their words more politely, but since you can't seem to get it through your thick head that it is a violation, I thought I'd phrase it exactly the terms I thought of it in, rather than dancing around it. Not that I give a rat's ass what you think, but there are some here who actually listen with an open mind.
quote: Kayla- you are being ridiculous and more than a little melodramatic.
But your incessant need to save the souls of dead people against their will isn't because the Bible tells you to isn't?
quote:Kayla?
I still love you. Even if I gall the hell out of you.
Eh. You don't gall me. I'm way too scared of you for you to gall me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I remember a lot of little factoids I memorized as a wide-eyed youth. *grin I think some of them may have been accurate, even. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't believe in baptism for the dead and Christ says you need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God, what do you think happens to everyone who couldn't get baptized?
I believe it was Christ himself who said to a disciple (regarding the fate of another disciple) that no man shall know the fate of another man while in life. The proxy baptism is assuming knowledge of such, and not consistent with what Jesus himself said.
quote:How do you interpret the New Testiment when it says, "Why do we baptize for the dead if the dead rise not?" (paraphrasing).
The NT says it baptises the dead? Sorry, but I'd like to know what book you're referring to, since I don't believe you. Perhaps you're referring either to the BoM or to some text associated with the NT according to the LDS church?
quote:Out of curiosity, what do most Christians believe about those who have lived and died without a knowledge of Christ?
Out of curiosity, why do so many people feel they have the right to judge those already dead? Sounds pretty damn arrogant to me.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last time we talked about Corinth, the subject of people preferring to drag the boats over the Isthmus rather than face pirates at sea came up.
John- it sounds like it must be in Corinthians. I guess all the good Mormons are scared away, because they would have memorized it in high school. I was not a good Mormon. I guess I really can't say if I am one now.
posted
vw: though with some accuracy, you can probably tell who isn't.
kayla: hug. I don't have a good response to your frustration. I guess I just hope one of them sits back and actually thinks about your post for a minute instead of jumping so quickly.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and thanks, CT, for making that distinction for them. I knew of that instance, but it was pretty clear to me that Paul was speaking out against it, not for it.
And quick question to beverly:
quote:On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"?
Do you know what religion Jesus Christ was? I mean, do you really have an understanding of what his religion was? Here's a hint: he wasn't a Christian.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
We should also look at Acts 10, where we see that the Holy Spirit comes on the new believers. *Then* they are baptized. Not the other way around. This is important because it came on Gentiles too, which could we agree means that they were going to Heaven? I mean, it wouldn't make much sense that the Holy Spirit could indwell these people yet they would still be headed for hell, does it? The baptism was still important -- I don't want to sound like it isn't -- but it seems to me to show that it's not a requirement for salvation.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one who tells people to "bugger off" has any right in this world or the next to declare something offensive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was always curious as to why an LDS baptism was necessary for dead Christians. They had already accepted Christ, following the instructions of the Old and New Testaments.
And if they're (the religions) so different as to warrant separate baptisms, why did Jesus only tell one continent the correct way into heaven and give the other only part of the story?
And I have trouble seeing what possible virtue or show of obedience it could be to be standing in line at the Gates of Heaven, finally knowing the answer of the Creator...and having an angel say to you, "Okay, we've just got it in from Earth that you've been baptized into the LDS church. You could A: Accept this baptism and come on in for punch and pie and eternal bliss, or B: Reject this baptism and head on down to a lower heaven for Metamucil and Ritz crackers. Your choice."
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Online Edition of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has at least three references to the baptismal practices of the Eleusinians, although the details of the practice aren't made clear.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* So, which part of the vicious things are sincere and which part do I dismiss because she's mad?
Or am I sincerely being told to go and bugger off? Is she really saying that? Did she really come to a person in a thread and tell them to do something that deeply offensive?
It's better all the way around to assume she's mad and blowing out language she doesn't understand.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The important part, being Mormon theology, right? Do you know what the theology of the dead being baptized is?
I'm a bit unclear about what your theology is, Kayla. So you believe that we have the power to defile your soul by dunking someone in water in your name? I still fail to see how it hurts anyone's soul, and I'd like it if someone could explain it better.
[ April 12, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what? The sheer proportion of stupidity in this thread will keep me from bothering to post in it again. I'd forgotton how much of a pain in the ass most Hatrackers are, especially when it comes to "Mormonism."
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Non-mormons tend to see it as something done to others against their will, or without their consent. They often believe dead people can't make choices. We believe they can. That one fundamental difference in viewpoint makes for a lot of misunderstanding of the LDS church, I think."
I'd like to point out that this is really a very fundamental problem, and why the LDS church needs to either be considered Self-Centered Jerks, or stop doing baptism for the dead.
Most Judeo-Christian theology's believe we make our choices in life, whereas LDS apparently don't believe choices aren't restricted to life.
But if you baptise me after I'm dead, and my theology states that I can no longer make choices, then I have been baptised into your religion by my theological views... regardless of what you believe about the ceremony.
As Kayla so inelegantly put it, this is nothing short of "Soul rape."
This is what John L. has talked about on this and other threads... casual dismissal of why something might be offensive. In this case, YOU believe that the soul can make choices after death, so its perfectly ok to do things to someone else's soul... even if the person on the receiving end believes that his soul cannot make choices after death. And then you turn around and expect us to understand that you don't mean it nastily. Well, its TAKEN nastily, no matter HOW you mean it, because you're DOING something to cause spiritual harm.
Look at it this way: I believe that a soul can't go to heaven unless the body is mutilated at age 30, regardless of life or death status. Since I sincerely believe this, I go around and drug people, hack of the pinky on each hand.
Wouldn't you say that I'm doing something wrong?
To someone who does not hold your view of the afterlife, something irreparable has been done to harm the soul.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what so weird. If we're wrong, nothing happened! We just spent a gazillion dollars building giant paper weights.
The point is that it ISN'T happening to their soul. The soul must have that inner decision. The physical part of baptism is for the body.
quote:Look at it this way: I believe that a soul can't go to heaven unless the body is mutilated at age 30, regardless of life or death status. Since I sincerely believe this, I go around and drug people, hack of the pinky on each hand.
It's not their soul. It's not them.
But what you are talking is closest to, well, the suffering that Christ did. That a price must be paid for sin, and so he paid it in proxy of us. Do you find the concept of Christ offensive as well?
quote:On the theif on the cross, isn't there a chance he could be a baptized follower of Christ who had "fallen away"? He may have even been baptized by John and then afterwards not heard of Christ, then converted after sharing that very traumatic experience with him. No one ever said the man wasn't baptized.
Beveryly, that is quite a reach, dontcha think? Sure, it's possible, but is it very likely?
Look, we've hashed out the baptism required for salvation debate before, though granted you weren't here.
Christ didn't baptize anyone directly that we know of, did he? And yet, he went around telling everyone that they would be saved. He offered the woman at the well living water and he didn't then tell her to kneel down and pour it over her head.
To say baptism is necessary for salvation limits Christ, it says that even if I accept him as my Saviour and believe on Him, he can't let me into heaven until somebody baptizes me. What if I accept him while I'm dying and no one else is around to baptize me? Am I going to see him in the afterlife and he'll say "Sorry, Adrian I know you believe in me but you never got baptized. Can't let you in." The Jesus I believe in is not that capricious.
I don't think he requires any outward action of ours for us to be saved. What we do outside, in public, are works and we are specifically told we are saved by grace not works, lest any man boast. Baptism is a wonderful, sacred event that is a public declaration of your faith and it should be done out of obedience, just as Jesus was baptized out of obedience and but it's not necessary for salvation.
I know your faith believes differently, as do my southern baptist relatives. But frankly, I don't see the support in scripture for that interpretation. And, when asked one by one, most of my southern baptist brothers and sisters believe as I do. In fact, a southern baptist preacher told us once he thought requiring people to be re-baptized as adults before they joined his church was silly, but as long as he was a pastor of a southern baptist church he had to enforce that rule.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some religions do. According to many, including Judaism, there is power in reciting names and words.
So what exactly do Jews believe happens when a Mormon is baptized for a dead Jew?
quote:But if you baptise me after I'm dead, and my theology states that I can no longer make choices, then I have been baptised into your religion by my theological views.
Really? Your theology says that people can change you after you're dead, and that you're powerless to do anything about it? It was my understanding that most people believed that changes like that don't even happen in the afterlife.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1 Cor 15:29: 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
I didn't have it memorized. I just did a search on lds.org
I'm not sure why it is such a stretch to think that man *might* have been baptized. We believe that baptism had been going on since the days of Adam and had been done in any gathering that had the full gospel before and after Christ that had not fallen away into apostacy. We believe that what John the Baptist was doing was not so foreign to the Jews of the day. (Sorry to anyone Jewish who might take offense to that.) I realize that is LDS theology, though. I don't expect anyone else here to believe it. Look at the people in the Book of Mormon. They were practicing baptism hundreds of years before Christ came. (Again LDS theology, not anyone else's.)
posted
So, you're saying it's a Pascal's Wager deal with the proxy baptisms, Kat? I find that difficult to swallow. Also, you're still completely ignoring the outright insult and spiritual damage other faiths are claiming you're doing. This means that it's not harmless, it just doesn't matter according to your faith (as you proclaim it).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The entire concept of Christianity rests on a belief that the religions that came before are missing something.
Are you offended by this? Are you offended by all Christians?
---
For the question beverly is on, I have a different understanding. Paradise equally the spirit world before the Resurrection/Final Sorting, and the dividing line is not baptized/non-baptized. Personal opinion, it is heart changed/heart not-yet-changed, in which case he could be there in Paradise.
quote:The Jesus I believe in is not that capricious.
That seems to be the opposite of capricious to me. If the law is that you have to be baptized, then it's capricious not to follow the law.
quote:Also, you're still completely ignoring the outright insult and spiritual damage other faiths are claiming you're doing.
Religions insult each other all the time, though. It's not a valid argument to say "this insults me, so you have to stop doing it." And I still don't see any spiritual damage, either. Please explain how we're damaging people's spirits.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, as has already been pointed out, that phrase was Paul speaking out against Gentile non-Christians who were performing a rite in competition with Christian baptism of the time.
Jon, it's not a matter of what is happening to the Mormon who stands in proxy, but of what is happening to the dead of another faith. I'm not going to turn this into a Jew vs LDS Ecumenical Battle of the Soul. What the proxy baptism is doing, according to other faiths, is meddling directly in the affairs of the soul to a faith which it doesn't belong, causing insult and damage without consent or choice. No matter how much love with which it is being performed, damage is being done according to non-LDS faith. What has been said in this thread is that it doesn't matter, according to LDS members who have stated so here. It does matter to those of faiths not LDS who believe otherwise.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I understand that there may not be enough evidence in the Bible to support the belief of the necessity of baptism. But the Book of Mormon makes it pretty clear. When Christ visited the people on the American continent he said the following: 3 Nephi 11:37-41
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and abecome• as a blittle• child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my adoctrine•, and whoso bbuildeth• upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the cgates• of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall adeclare• more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a bsandy• foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.
So for us, this is pretty serious stuff. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katherina, I agree that that is the more likely interpretation. I was just making a point that we don't know that he wasn't baptized per se. I personally don't have an opinion on the matter.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because something is insulting, should it be illegal? Should we not do it? Those protesters outside the Conference Center believed what they were doing was right and good, but I find it insulting. Does that mean they should be restricted?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: Others have been quick to post the same question. And I see John's response -- it's been explained that others feel that way. And perhaps that feeling should be enough. But I'm looking for an explanation that goes beyond that.
Thus:
---- While I understand why the practice is considered offensive, I'm still not getting the "spiritual damage" part.
I realize that this is simply a reiteration of things other LDS Jatraqueros have said, but if you don't believe in the authority and doctrine of those performing the proxy baptism, how can it impact your soul in a way that damages the sacredness of it?
I think I understand the historical argument made by Jews -- it's a painful reminder of forced baptisms that were done.
And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians? I want to understand this. I get that it's an offensive idea. But I still don't quite understand how it affects someone else's faith in such a profound way as to feel like your soul is being violated. How can something you don't believe in violate your soul? If you don't believe in it -- it has now power and efficacy for you?
quote: Well, Dana and I aren't dead.... we are offended by the practice and the thought of it.
I think it's always a good exercise for people who hold strong beliefs to examine how those beliefs affect other people. I think it serves to help you understand your faith more, and to make you a better witness for your faith.
I think your suggestion, Belle, is worthwhile. After thinking it over, I came up with the following example which sort of fits and explains my point of view.
As Christians you and I believe that we must believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and follow Him in order to be "saved." In fact (and I hope I'm not misstating this, please forgive me if I am) we believe that Jesus is the ONLY way by which we can be saved.
Now, of course, this attitude is EXTREMELY offensive to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and others.
But we're not going to change, are we? We're not going to EVER deny The Savior, are we?
Now, baptism for the dead (while it is an EXTREMELY important tenet of my faith) is not nearly on the level of actually holding Jesus as the Christ. It's up there, but not quite.
If I believe that baptism is essential for salvation;
And, I believe that that baptism must be done with proper authority in the proper manner;
And, I believe that my church is the only one which possesses that proper authority;
And, I believe that many many people throughout the history of the world haven't even heard the name of Jesus Christ, let alone come anywhere near a baptismal font;
And, I believe that some of them are hearing about Him now (after their death) and want to receive this baptism;
And I believe that I can give it to them;
But I don't have a clue who they are, so I pretty much just have to be proxy baptized for everyone just to make sure I get the ones that want it;
And the ones that don't want it can tell me to bugger off;
And I believe that God has commanded me to do as much as I can to get these baptisms completed;
Then, I pretty much need to obey Him even if it makes Bell, Kayla, and a cast of thousands mad at me.
Now, as far as the 400,000 holocaust survivors are concerned: Perhaps by baptizing them during such an uproar, I would cause the entire baptism for the dead process to be slowed in its progress.
So, unfortunately, I have to compromise in this one area, so the work can go forward in other areas. These 400,000 people have to wait awhile longer, unfortunately.
FWIW, if some family member instructed me not to perform a proxy baptism for them after they died, I would absolutely comply. I would also use my influence within my family to make sure that other LDS family members complied with those wishes.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians? I want to understand this.
The condemning part is no more offensive. The keeping of a list makes it more offensive. And as I already pointed out, those faiths who put power in written words (example: once again, the Jewish idea of names written down) take even more insult to the point of spiritual injury at the practice.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that if someone is sufficiently offended, their spirit is permanently damaged?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all of the animosity on this thread, and I feel a lot from JohnL, I would like to state that I never knew such deep emotions existed about proxy baptism. I would like to thank everyone for participation in the thread as it has helped me understand another viewpoint more clearly.
The scripture JohnL is 1 Cor 15:29: 29, but like you said it has already been explained to speak againt baptism for the dead. I disagree (and stated why), and there is room for disagreement without getting so agitated.
I never knew so many people were so agitated. I thought most non-members found it a little silly but were grateful that the LDS church has pioneerd so much in geneology. As a LDS, I always liked the verse in Malachi about turning the hearts of the childrens to their fathers and vice versa.
To me it seems beautiful, but I am Mormon. So I will step back and try to imagine it akin to rape. I must admit, I don't think I can, but I will ponder and pray for a time and see if I can think along those lines. Obviously people are upset.
Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms. Curious curious.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms.
Oh my stars, I love this explanation!! *steals it for future use*
Hatrack makes me look so clever.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me and Val were debating this yesterday and this was my opinion. Its not going to change a single person's mind, but I want to say how I feel as a non-Mormon about it.
Say a relative somewhere down the road baptizes me when I am dead. Here are the possibilities for what happens:
1. I am in a non-mormon version of the afterlife, and I still exist whether in heaven or hell or whatever.
If somehow I knew I was baptized LDS I would laugh at them. It doesn't affect me at all. Probably I would appreciate the sentiment.
2. I no longer exist (what I consider most likely).
I obviously wouldn't care, as there was no "me" to do the caring.
3. The LDS religion is true.
In this case, of course I would choose to accept the posthumous conversion because its obvious that its true considering the one who offers will be in the afterlife will be LDS.
In none of these choices do I end up badly.
If every religion on earth would give me the choice after I am dead, that would be GREAT!
That way I can accept the one that actually is around in the afterlife to offer.
The problem you guys seem to be having is issue number one. For some reason you can't accept that if the LDS religion is wrong, NOTHING HAPPENS. Your soul likely wouldn't even know, unless God told you to have a good chuckle together.
It seems some of you think that by a religion that isn't even accurate performing a ritual using your name, somehow you will be yanked from heaven.
Well you won't. If I know anything about God, then he doesn't work that way. I mean give me a break, he is going to go up to you in heaven and say "Well sorry dude, you picked the correct religion in life, but someone just baptized you now that you are dead. Down to hell with ya."
Your soul gets "raped"?
Thats not even CLOSE to analogous. Even in the unlikely event that the LDS religion is true, YOU GET A CHOICE!!! Its more like your soul gets asked to have consentual sex and you can freely refuse.
I hope you guys know that I am baptizing everyone who posted in this thread into the church of Phil, and no, you don't get a choice.
Sorry, No Heaven For You!!!
Oh and John, you get an extra holy baptism. You'll surely be a high ranking official when you die and go to Phil heaven.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:example: once again, the Jewish idea of names written down
Sorry. I should have referred to this in my post -- I did read this and it makes sense.
Can I ask for further elucidation -- what is the belief/reasoning behind the objection to the names being written down? What is the nature of the power in writing the word and in what way does this lead to injury i.e. what is the nature of the injury?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
4. The proxy baptisms of the Mormons affect the dead, but not in the way intended by the Mormons.
#4 can be harmful. Paul insists the same earlier on this page. The Mormon Church believes the dead have the choice to accept the proxy baptism. What if they don't? What if your proxy baptism changes the dead? Kind of like expelling a poltergeist? Then harm is done.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It could very well be hogwash. I'd stake a muffin on dkw knowing the answer, tho. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Yup. I can still put 8 of these things in one post.
