[ December 26, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is it time to re-hash this discussion?
*checks watch*
I guess it could be.
*leaves room*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am trying to type cautiously to keep myself from getting banned, but suffice to say I share your outrage, Lisa. Foul doesn't begin to describe it.
I've gone round this issue with Mormons on this board before, and they've let me know how important a part of their faith this posthumous baptism is - I don't like the practice for myself, I don't agree with it, and I would be very hurt and angry if anyone did it to me and anyone I loved but I am truly shocked, and horrified they would do this after making promises and assurances to people of the Jewish faith they would not. That's just...well...your word foul is a good one.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
<edit>Maybe I should follow mph's lead and leave the issue alone; it's obviously something very contentious, and I generally prefer to stay out of such things.</edit>
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't think there should be a law against it, if that's what you mean, and I would if it was a material harm.
But it's disgusting and contemptible. It shows their contempt for others, and I can't think of enough bad to say about it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
How can you use this apologetic in a discussion of a spiritual nature?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This isn't about being materially harmed. The LDS Church was casual about a man's faith, when he went through hell on earth because of and in defense of it. You's think that he'd be allowed a little bit of peace in death.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I kind of agree with mph (we have had this conversation before, repeatedly -- it was in fact the original reason I registered at Hatrack), this is disgusting.
What happened to the agreement that would only add people who were actual ancestors of current church members? I could be wrong, as I certainly don't personally know all of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but I believe this is an absolutely clear violation of that agreement.
Peter, from our perspective, this is little different from desecrating his grave.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
The harm is in suggestion:
quote:“It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate his memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive God’s eternal blessing.”
Now I'm wondering if individual members are just being sloppy and not checking or if there's a bigger problem going on.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why do you care, Lisa? Not in a flippant way, but in a "my right to swing my fist" way. In what way are you, or any member of the Jewish community, materially harmed by this act?
Not speaking for Lisa or people of the Jewish faith, but I think the reason she cares is in the title of her thread. This is a desecration of the memory of someone important to her and to Jewish people. It's a disrespectful act, it may not cause physical harm to anyone but it may well cause emtional harm to his family and to the people who honor his memory.
And I have been here for the discussions about this in the past. Gotten upset, even took a break from Hatrack because of the way people reacted I know it's a hotbed issue. And I know that most Mormons will not see this the way I do or the way Lisa does and you'll think we're over-reacting or showing prejudice against the Mormon faith.
That's the way these threads always go. You may not think it's offensive. But WE DO. We find it hurtful and disrespectful. And the Mormon church was asked not to do it to Holocaust victims, and from what I understood the last time we argued this, they agreed. They've broken their word, apparently. And done something that other people, of varying faiths, find offensive. Please understand, in the issue of continuing conversation, that this is offensive to us, even if you don't know why or don't understand why we'd have a problem with it. The fact remains, some of us do have a problem with it.
And can't we all agree that the church should keep its word?
Edit: And can't we all agree Belle, as an English major, should know the difference between "its" and "it's"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep. It's pretty bad, after we said we wouldn't.
Let's find the octogenarian that did it and hang her up by her wattle. It's the only solution.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see what good can come from calling another religion's beliefs sacrilegious.
quote:Let's find the octogenarian that did it and hang her up by her wattle. It's the only solution.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I don't understand the outrage myself, not minding if I get baptized into other religions posthumously, but I see the discussion has nothing to do with rights and more to do with perceptions of decency and decorum.
<edit>Wow, I started this when there were only a handful of responses. It is in response to Lisa and PC's answer to my "swing my fist" question</edit>
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's the harm if someone paints a swastika on a Jewish grave? It's just paint. It comes off. And it doesn't hurt the person who is dead.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yep. It's pretty bad, after we said we wouldn't.
Let's find the octogenarian that did it and hang her up by her wattle. It's the only solution.
Or, since y'all claim to be willing to live by the agreement and there keep being violations, you could institute some type of check. I don't know how names are submitted, but perhaps ask people to verify that they are related to the person whose name they are submitting.
Give me a break, Scott.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
It has no effect, obviously, but it certainly is not meaningless. The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man. The meaning is deceit.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There are rules about what names you are supposed to submit. Not everyone follows them. I'm sorry people feel disrespected by something that is done, from a Mormon perspective, out of love, although I do think it would be more loving if people followed the rules.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
That's fine. I know there are people in that camp, too. And I don't think my faith or salvation would ever be threatened if someone baptized me after my death, but I still wouldn't want it done, nor would I want it done to my loved ones.
My grandfather is dead, and until I met my husband he was the man I loved most in the world. I don't believe his spirit is on earth, and I believe his physical remains in his grave are just so much dust, nothing important. But I still wouldn't just shrug my shoulders and not care if someone spray painted his marker and tore up his gravesite. It would upset me, hurt me, and offend me.
As Rivka has said, to those that feel this way, this is a similar type desecration. So even those like Storm that don't care one way or another, at least try to understand that some of us indeed do care. And that doesn't mean we question our faith. It's a matter of respect. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man.
If you think that the reasons people do this is out of contempt for others, you obviously have no understanding of this issue.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's pretty bad, after we said we wouldn't.
What strikes me as odd isn't so much the going back on word. It's that the posthumous baptisms happen without expressed approval.
Storm,
Protestant Christianity places a primary emphasis on ones personal relationship with G-d. I think that for more community-based religions, that depend on a community's relationship with G-d, being publically baptized, or having your faith publically called into question or stripped is a bit different.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Love? By disrespecting someone's beliefs and what they dedicated their life to?
That's a pretty twisted kind of love.
And I disagree with Lisa. I think there is harm done (as I have explained before).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The meaning is contempt for others. The meaning is peeing on the memory of a good man.
If you think that the reasons people do this is for contempt for others, you obviously have no understanding of this issue.
The road to hell, Porter. It is a demonstration of contempt for all we hold dear, regardless of the reasons it's being done.
I'm quite sure that there were inquistors who tortured their victims out of love as well, to spare them eternal hellfire.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
rivka, it's from love becasue of what we believe. And we don't see it as disrespect.
But I'm not going to argue this any more. I value you as a friend and don't want to fight. We do pretty well when we stay away from this issue. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kq, I agree that is out of love - but it is also out of arrogance. A "you don't know any better and can't be trusted to choose" kind of arrogance. It is the same kind (though, mercifully, not the same degreee) of arrogance that led the Catholic Church (in prior days) to decide that people were better of dead than unconverted.
It is possible to believe that your faith is best without imposing it on others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If the discussion about the Golden Rule ever comes up again, this will be the first thing I mention as an example of people "doing unto others" against their will.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Hier also urged the Utah-based Church to remove the names of all other Holocaust victims from the list.
Not all Holocaust victims were Jews. Jewish Holocaust victims cannot necessarily be categorized under a single, unified proclamation of faith or ancestry. And certainly, not all Jewish Holocaust victims fall under Hier's jurisdiction. Jews own the Holocaust about as much as blacks own the American slavery issue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You are the one that appeared to bring up people's intentions (contempt, etc.). If you don't think that people's intentions matter, why are you even bothering to bring them up?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
kmbboots, all I can say is that is not what I believe about it. I would be happy to try to explain by e-mail my feelings on the subject-- but as I said before, I'm bowing out of this thread.
Really. Starting... NOW. Yeah, now. Oh, wait, Now!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Somewhere in Salt Lake City, a little old woman who adored Simon Weisenthal's example of courage and perseverance is being "counselled" about her "misdeeds..."
"Sister Smith, why did you break our oath with the Israelites?"
"What-- young man, I--"
*SMACK*
"You shut your mouth, granny."
"But you asked me a question!"
*SMACK*
"Now. Look what you've gotten us into, you dirty old woman. Give me your temple recommend."
"No--please...How else will I get access to the temple cafeteria's Monday special? Meatloaf and mac-n-cheese..."
*SMACKSMACK*
"AUGGH! I'm so, so sorry."
"We know, Sister Smith. We know. But there is a price to pay...a sacrifice to make..."
I've got no patience for this discussion, especially within the terms as Lisa's set them up. So...yeah. You get flippant.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For the record, I think it was done out of the spirits of love and arrogance.
It's not about her not following the rules. I really think this should call into question the propriety of the entire posthumous procedure.
[ December 19, 2006, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Agreement Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know I said I was leaving in my first post. I should have stuck to it.
But now I mean it.
*joins KQ*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You are the one that appeared to bring up people's intentions (contempt, etc.). If you don't think that people's intentions matter, why are you even bothering to bring them up?
To you, contempt is merely an issue of intent. Fine. That's bizarre, I think, but clearly you don't get that an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent.
That being the case, I hope that anything I post in the future will be judged by the same standard. By my stated intent, and not by the way it comes across to others.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I'm in the "I can't bring myself to care to terribly much" camp, but I often go to socials and picnics with the "I completely understand where you coming from" camp. I can't put this into a religious perspective, except in so far as I can assume to know how someone else views things. But I can put this into an individual respect perspective.
If my grandfather believed his whole life that apples are better than oranges and even went so far as to hunt people that viciously murdered those that thought apples are better than oranges, and then after he died, a group of orange lovers came over and changed his epoteth to read "Here Lies a Great Lover of Oranges!", well, I would be pretty darned upset.
I agree with those that say is is very disrespectful to the dead, regardless of intent or motivation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, there is a difference between smacking little old ladies and making sure that they know what the rules are ahead of time.
kq, if you have the time, I think it would be an interesting discussion.
This is also reminding me of the "On Prayer" thread - only carried to extremes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Somewhere in Salt Lake City, a little old woman who adored Simon Weisenthal's example of courage and perseverance is being "counselled" about her "misdeeds..."
"Sister Smith, why did you break our oath with the Israelites?"
"What-- young man, I--"
*SMACK*
Thanks for demonstrating what promises mean to you.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If any member of the Mormon church is willing to discuss this, which by looking at recent posts seems doubtful, I have one question:
Why sign the agreement? If this is out of love and there's no disrespect, why should the church agree not to do it? Why sign this 1995 agreement mentioned in the links?
Doesn't that suggest that somewhere, somebody in the church recognizes the disrespect and desecration this represents to the Jewish people?
Any why sign an agreement and make promises and then not abide by them? Even if this were done by an individual, not someone in the church, the ceremony is performed in the church, correct? So, have a list you check against anytime anyone comes in for the ceremony and tell your assumed little old lady, Scott - "hey, Sister Smith, this name is on a list we've agreed as a church not to perform this rite for. Sorry, but you cannot do it, the church will honor its agreement." That's not that hard and it's what any group that intended to honor its agreement would do.
Right now the feeling I get is that the church signed the agreement to make bad press go away, and never had any intention of honoring it. Whether that's true or not, you can't deny that's the impression that is out there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Or, since y'all claim to be willing to live by the agreement and there keep being violations, you could institute some type of check. I don't know how names are submitted, but perhaps ask people to verify that they are related to the person whose name they are submitting.
Give me a break, Scott.
[sincere]
There has been a mistake. I wish there hadn't been. The Church is trying its best, with *volunteers* who are generally very old, very technophobic, very GOOD Mormons who don't have a penchant for reading memos, or remembering them.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry. It's not worth much, because the more I read of Lisa and her ilk's abuse of Mormonism (like we're a monolithic, centrally controlled super-amoeba-zombie), the less I'm inclined to be sorry, and the more I'm inclined to give her type the finger.
And I'm still waiting for that opt-out list. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time. And given the fact that the church apparently has no interest in keeping existing agreements, it probably wouldn't mean much anyway.
kmb is absolutely right: this is about arrogance.
[edit: Darn you, Scott! *shakes fist* The whole thread you're flippant, until right the second before I post? ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Is it the fact that this name appeared in the IGI that is offensive, or the doctrine of proxy ordinances?
Church leaders do not approve every entry into the IGI. They do not police it or explicitly dump Jewish names onto it. They have agreed to remove Mr. Wiesenthal's name from the IGI.
I don't see how this is so offensive. If the church had outright refused, that would be offensive. But expecting the church to police the IGI to a degree that every single submission has to be approved by church leaders is lunacy. That's like asking wikipedia to proof-read and double check every single article, edit, reference, and comment submitted to their servers.
(General info on the IGI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index As you can see, records are obtained from all over... although it's interesting to note that even this article seems to have a negative view of the IGI.)
Whatever you may think of the LDS doctrine of proxy ordinances, there are logistical issues here that make it impossible for the church to enforce their agreement with the Jewish community to the degree that some Jewish people would like. If someone could link to a written copy of the agreement, it might clarify what has actually been agreed to by both parties. I doubt entry-by-entry policing of the IGI is in there.
Unlike other "minor and unimportant religious cult[s]" (quoted from the comments on the second link), the Mormon church does not control their members to a degree that makes total control of who submits what to the IGI possible, if Mr. Mr. Wiesenthal's name was submitted by a member of the church in the first place.
I do understand, however, how the LDS doctrine of proxy ordinances can be offensive, and I’m glad that Mormon leaders have agreed to remove the offending entry.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
perhaps I'm misunderstanding the mormon practice in question, but my initial interpretation is that this is fairly similar to someone of any religion actively evangelizing to you despite your protest/assurance that you are perfectly happy with your own religion (or lack therof).
I am fully aware that the primary motivation of the vast majority of those is love/concern (in their eyes) but it's also incredibly condescending to me because the whole basis is that I am wrong and just don't know it.
I don't think anyone is thinking that the Mormons in question are actively intending contempt, but they are indirectly showing it through this practice (especially where it has been expressly stated that this should not occur).
If I were walking down the street and someone splashed some holy water on me and said some prayers (even assuming it doesn't slow me down or muss my clothes) I would be insulted because I never asked for them to baptise me. I never expressed anything less than blissfulness at my own current spirituality etc...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To you, contempt is merely an issue of intent. Fine. That's bizarre, I think, but clearly you don't get that an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent.
I don't get how an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent either. Can you explain how?
I mean, "contempt" is an attitude the one holds towards something or someone, right? And thus a contemptuous act would be something that indicates such an attitude in the person committing the act. But if the intent of the person committing the act is such that it implies they have no such contemptuous attitude, how could the act still be contemptuous?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Darn you, Scott! *shakes fist* The whole thread you're flippant, until right the second before I post?
Yeah-- that's my MO, baby.
Flippant 'til I flip it, yo.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
When one side believes that acts done in the name of the deceased matter, then they have a right to be frustrated when a large organization continues to perform acts in the name of the deceased, even after they have agreed not to.
If it was a mistake, it's not the first. It seems that nothing was put into place to seriously attempt to keep the agreement that was made.
Still, though, the fact that it continues to happen is a mark of arrogance - both of the "we know best" variety and the "our agreement with you isn't important enough to us to hold to" variety.
To the "I don't see what's the big deal" crowd - the same argument can be made to defend racial slurs or sexual harrassment. It has been made clear that this practice is offensive. If the practice continues, it is because those doing it aren't considerate enough about those being offended to stop.
Saying "I don't see what's the big deal" is also a somewhat arrogant statement. It's implying that the feelings of others aren't significant, and that if they're offended it's their fault.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wonder Dog, if they can't cope with the logistical issues, they should put halt the process until they can cope with those issues.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: the more I read of Lisa and her ilk's abuse of Mormonism (like we're a monolithic, centrally controlled super-amoeba-zombie), the less I'm inclined to be sorry, and the more I'm inclined to give her type the finger.
What exactly constitutes Lisa's "ilk?" I mean, talk about offensive, Scott. Are you shooting that finger my way, too?
If the church had no way of controlling or policing the activity, then it should never have promised to do so. Again, I reiterate - the rites have to be performed in a temple, right? Then the person from the Temple who is responsible for recording the baptism checks the names and ensures they are not on the list. If the people doing this are too old or too technophobic to handle it, then someone else should do it who isn't too old or too technophobic!
Again, I'm not seeing the problem here.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I guess post humous circumcision would be out of the question for gentiles?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The official policy of the Church since 1995 is that the names of Holocaust victims and survivors are not to be added to the list of those for whom work can be done.
However, the Church's databases are in incredibly poor shape; it's not at all uncommon for duplicates of names and incorrect information to appear, and, as Scott's been pointing out, individuals can add whomever they want.
Oversight, to maintain the Church's promises, needs to be improved. Currently it's sporadic; there are only a handful of people in Salt Lake who occasionally run through the database and remove names. Obviously, this leads to a lot of names being removed in cases like this. Further, this promise needs to be made clear to members at the local level, whom, I have no doubt, are doing this with the best of intentions but quite likely have never heard of the pledge.
Weisenthal's name has been removed.. Indeed, the presence of his name on the IGI database does not necessarily imply that any proxy work has actually been done, despite what Lisa's links imply, particularly as his name appeared only a week ago and was taken down yesterday.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't get how an act can be contemptuous regardless of intent either.
Wouldn't it be like a stronger form of condescention? It's entirely possible to be unintentionally or unconsciously condescending. You might argue that contempt is such a strong sentiment that it would be difficult to be unintentionally or unconsciously contemptuous, but I wouldn't take it as a given.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place. A temple ordinance for and in behalf of those who are dead is important to both the living and the dead, as it allows the person the OPTION of accepting the ordinances of salvation.
Now perhaps Mr. Weisenthal has decided that he'd opt out of those ordinances and that he is happier walking a different path. No harm done, at least he had all the options on the table. But perhaps he is instead more informed as to certain eternal truths that he was NEVER exposed to in life.
I'm sorry but I would much rather the kind old man have the option of accepting salvation and eternal happiness rather then appease his fans.
Were I to die, and find out that I was on the right track but had missed the true way of God and part of that way was to have others vicariously perform those ordinances for me, I would be extremely upset if my family, friends, and in this case "admirers" got in the way of that process.
Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Why take offense when none was intended? When we perform these ordinances we don't chalk those people up as LDS or Mormons. We don't pretend that we are making them something they are not.
But those people who are dead NEED those ordinances done, and we happily do them as it draws us closer to those who are dead and it draws them to us.
This life is such of such a small duration how can you begin to use it as a means to dictate how we treat the person in the next one? You might as well say that because I wanted to be a paleontologist from kindergarten until 10th grade that I should be locked into that path and no other the rest of my life.
If we are in the wrong, certainly the person is not effected in anyway, if we are in the right, you are getting in the way of their happiness.
I understand that you believe in your religion and that Mr. Weisenthal is a hero and champion of that religion. My father walked into a Taoist shrine as a missionary and on the altar, no lie, were Guang Gong, The Buddha, The Virgin Mary, Christ, and Joseph Smith. The head monk said that they celebrate the truthfulness of all religion and even Joseph Smith said somethings they believed in. They felt they were honoring his memory, even if in my opinion they clearly do not understand the man and his words.
Would my father have been justified in being angry, calling the police and in some way getting them to seize the Christian icons they had upon their alters? I do not think so, let them worship as they see fit.
Its not as if Mormons are marching on Mr. Weisenthal's museum or any memorials and trying to assert that he is a Mormon now. I don't know why I even wrote all this, it obvious this discussion has been brought up before and its doubtful I brought anything new to the table. I would suggest approaching the situation from your opponents point of view and leaving emotion at the door. I think you will find there is no need to get bent out of shape or angry about this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
My contacts (I have friends who work at the Wiesenthal museum) say no.
If there were, would I still be outraged? Yes. Would I figure I had a chance in heck of getting anything done about it? No. Would it be a violation of the agreement? Not as I understand it.
quote:Wonder Dog, if they can't cope with the logistical issues, they should put halt the process until they can cope with those issue.
Amen. I'd rather if they just stopped making excuses and took care of the problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
Ohh true story, I'd like to know this too.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: I would suggest approaching the situation from your opponents point of view and leaving emotion at the door.
Which is what those against the practice have been hoping for, but with little success.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote: the more I read of Lisa and her ilk's abuse of Mormonism (like we're a monolithic, centrally controlled super-amoeba-zombie), the less I'm inclined to be sorry, and the more I'm inclined to give her type the finger.
What exactly constitutes Lisa's "ilk?" I mean, talk about offensive, Scott. Are you shooting that finger my way, too?
If the church had no way of controlling or policing the activity, then it should never have promised to do so. Again, I reiterate - the rites have to be performed in a temple, right? Then the person from the Temple who is responsible for recording the baptism checks the names and ensures they are not on the list. If the people doing this are too old or too technophobic to handle it, then someone else should do it who isn't too old or too technophobic!
Again, I'm not seeing the problem here.
I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site. Maybe he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling he doesn't much care that his church is doing the baptisms, so long as it isn't brought to light so that people of my ilk get upset about it.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Why take offense when none was intended?
BB outlines the Mormon side of the issue well; however, I think this is a bit stickier than that because for both sides rather important religious issues are at stake. I think that the Church's promise qualifies the normal imperative for temple work that LDS feel here.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But those people who are dead NEED those ordinances done...
That's only the case if your religion is true.
Added: Matt's clause about stickiness is basically what I'm trying, clumsily, to say.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Is it the fact that this name appeared in the IGI that is offensive, or the doctrine of proxy ordinances?
Church leaders do not approve every entry into the IGI. They do not police it or explicitly dump Jewish names onto it. They have agreed to remove Mr. Wiesenthal's name from the IGI.
I agree. Having experience submitting my own family names into the IGI myself, the Church leadership can take his name off of the records and all other Jews, but they cannot prevent these names being submitted by members again. The LDS church can take them off again once they learn that someone has submitted them again, but can't prevent it. There are millions of names being submitted each year, and there is a lot of duplicate names submitted. This is simply due to the fact that when you have hundreds of thousands LDS members researching their family history and submitting names, there is bound to be some crossover in lineage that occurs.
So, as Wonder Dog said, if you object to posthumous baptism overall, that is another discussion. But don't be too quick to assume that the LDS church is specifically ignoring their pledge or being contemptuos.
And as a strictly hypothetical question (from an LDS point of view) for discussion (hopefully not argument), WHAT IF a deceased Jewish person had the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them in the spirit world and decided they wanted to be baptized into the LDS faith, but found that they were unable to because they were Jewish during mortality and no one was allowed to perform their baptism?
I don't post that question to say that the LDS church should go against their pledge. I think it's important for them to keep their promises. I just ask that question for the sake of a slightly different angle of discussion.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
It would be difficult to know where to insert the dividing line in the genealogical record between those who can be baptized and those who can't.
The LDS Church has supposedly agreed not to perform baptisms for Jews who are not direct ancestors, but there's this thing called a "Family Group Sheet," which lists brothers and sisters of an LDS member's direct ancestor, and all people on that group sheet are likely to be baptized as a prerequisite to that family group receiving the posthumous temple sealing ordinance. Which of those brothers and sisters should be excluded from posthumous baptism, and why should the nature of their deaths or the outspokenness of another living descendant have any bearing on that decision?
We don't own our ancestors.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From jewishgen.org, the specific points of the 1995 agreement were:
*Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.
*Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
*Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
*Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.
*Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
*Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.
The church specifically made no promise that future problems wouldn't occur, or that future names would be added to the IGI. You may disagree with the policy, you might find it tacky, arrogant or even contemptous, but I see no evidence that the church is not acting in good faith to enforce its promises.
<edit>Man this thread moves fast. Here's a link to the page with the point by point agreement. Which, BTW, is predictably biased in its exposition.</edit>
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site.
Lisa, any member of the Church can imput names into IGI. Futher, merely imputing a name into IGI does not mean that a baptism has taken place.
It's my impression that Scott's technophobes are the elderly volunteers who are currently in charge of removing names that fall under the agreement. I think their ranks need to be beefed up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any possibility that a descendant of the man actually submitted his name and did the work?
If this were the case, would there still be this outrage? (Honest question).
I couldn't see in the original link where this was explicity stated. If it is the case that someone who can show actual relation to the man in question did the work and submitted the name, then there was no violation of the church's agreement. It seems like a lot of wasted outrage until this is actually answered.
I disagree. Whoever accepted the Mormon idea of that acception was wrong to do so. If a descendent of mine were ever, God forbid, to become a Mormon and tried to have my posthumously baptised, I'd come back and haunt her. It'd make Poltergeist look like Casper by comparison.
Weisenthal was a proud Jew who suffered because he was a Jew and did his best to avenge others who suffered for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish. No offspring of his has the right to okay the desecration of his memory.
If such a thing did happen, it would not be a violation of the agreement that the Mormons made. But it would be disgusting nonetheless.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How about this... Mormons do it but don't advertise they're doing it. It can't hurt anyone if they don't know.
Yes, they're doing it out of love. I think it's misguided but kind of sweet. But going out and listing it where people will find it doing geneological searches? You know that's going to offend people who don't share your beliefs.
Yes, I realize I'm saying "I don't care what you do as long as you don't flaunt it." This is a different case. This is taking someone precious to another person and saying "hey, he's one of US now. Even though he's dead. He's not one of You anymore. Doesn't matter what he did in life." If you don't put it on the net, then who's to get offended by it?
All this being said, if you want to baptise me after I'm dead, knock yourself out. (That is, assuming Methodist baptisms don't count.)
Pix
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Absolutely, I would. Do what you have to, or what you think you have to, to your own. Keep off of my people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If the church had no way of controlling or policing the activity, then it should never have promised to do so.
Controlling? Policing?
This is what we promised to do:
quote: *
Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church. *
Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed. *
Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family. *
Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church. *
Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy. *
Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:The church specifically made no promise that future problems wouldn't occur, or that future names would be added to the IGI.
SR, I think you're being a bit disengenuous here, because when things like this come up (as they did in 2000), it's this very agreement that the General Authorities cite when they order names removed. Specifically, this clause:
quote:*Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
quote:Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
This, I think, the Church needs to do a better job on.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Originally posted by BlackBlade: But those people who are dead NEED those ordinances done...
BlackBlade, I know you think that, but it doesn't matter to us how you feel about it. Those are our people. If some inquisitor tortures me because "You NEED that to help you avoid hellfire", should I be grateful?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Suppose we call the tail a leg.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your analogies of painting swastikas and peeing on the grave are completely ridiculous and unrelated. We feel the ordinance honors the person according to our understanding of the universe, you would rather we ignore all those who have gone before us for fear of insulting you.
Absolutely, I would. Do what you have to, or what you think you have to, to your own. Keep off of my people.
We're not ON your people in the first place. You act like we believe by doing these ordinances the person is hounded down by spirit missionaries who then proceed to force them into some baptismal font, dunk them underwater, and then strapped down and forced to endure a 2 hour film strip where they are told why they are wrong.
OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Can everybody do me a favor after I die and leave me the hell alone?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
Because the Church promised not to?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Suppose we call the tail a leg.
But Mormonism is a branch of Judaism. We've got witnessed historical accounts of Moses and Elijah and a bunch of other Jews visiting Joseph Smith and conferring on him the keys of their ministries.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Be sure to tell your children and grandchildren. They are the only ones who have the right to enter your name in.
I agree with Matt et. al. : It shouldn't have happened. I'm also sure the name was entered by some rank and file member and is not part of some vast conspiracy. The issue is how to police it, and whoever's job it is to police the database didn't catch it.
I also think that it depends a great deal on who submitted the name. If it is a descendent of the person in question, Lisa owes one the church massive apology.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I can understand being disgusted if you go against your promise not to baptize someone after they have died. But I don't understand disgust at performing a posthumous baptism for an ancestor of a different faith. I can understand disagreement and a disbelief toward the baptism, but not disgust. When an LDS person goes to get baptized for a descendant, even if from another faith, they do not go with contempt for their faith. They simply honestly believe that everyone should have a right to accept a baptism for them, knowing full well that this baptism means nothing unless the deceased person accepts the baptism in the spirit world. An LDS person is not trying to desecrate their religion.
If another faith had this same doctrine and tried to get baptized for me into their faith, after I died, I would not be offended, unless they promised me they would not do so. My LDS beliefs are not threatened if somebody else hopes or even wishes that I believed differently. I am quite used to other Christians believing I am lost and need to become a true Christian, but I don't find that disgusting. They are entitled to their beliefs.
I just think disgust, outrage, sacreligious, etc. are strong words for people that are generally trying to do good things with good intentions. You don't have to agree, but why is another person's different religious desires for you so offensive, as long as they are not breaking a promise or imposing on your rights?
If you had a descendant that was baptized for you after you died, and you strongly disagree with Mormonism, then why not simply look at them as you would a misguided child who is trying to help you clean, but actually makes a bigger mess? You don't get mad at that child...instead you understand the good intent behind it. Wouldn't that be a much better response than to make plans to haunt that descendant? (and no I don't think I'm misguided, but you're entitled to that opinion )
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
You mean besides the fact that you promised not to? Since that clearly doesn't count for much?
Because it will make you our enemies. Maybe you care, maybe you don't. But that's about the size of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think the technophobes he's talking about are the people who input the baptisms into the IGI site.
As has been pointed out-- no one was baptised.
I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world.
quote:Maybe he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling he doesn't much care that his church is doing the baptisms, so long as it isn't brought to light so that people of my ilk get upset about it.
Consider yourself corrected. We made an agreement-- we should stand by it. We should take steps to correct where we've made mistakes.
That said-- I don't really care about your, or anyone's, opinion in regards to proxy work or any other crazy Mormon practices. I care about God's opinion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
Suppose we call the tail a leg.
But Mormonism is a branch of Judaism. We've got witnessed historical accounts of Moses and Elijah and a bunch of other Jews visiting Joseph Smith and conferring on him the keys of their ministries.
It isn't funnier the second time, you know.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
It is interesitng that NOWHERE has ANYONE stated that Mr. Wiesenthal actually had ordinances preformed for him. The church has removed his name from the IGI, make it impossible for anyone other than a direct descendant to have ordinances perfromed for him. This is perfectly in line with thier agreement.
Once again, the IGI is a GENEOLOGICAL INDEX. It is NOT a list of people who have had ordinances performed for them by the Mormon church. Other people use the IGI for lots of different things.
Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can. Seriously, beyond anyone's objections to the doctrine, what else are the Mormons supposed to do?
(I think it's very interesting that this thread seems to be more about the doctrine of proxy ordinances than the statement made in the title "Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal" - the Mormons have seemingly done their best NOT to desecrate his memory, by removing his name from the IGI.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I also think that it depends a great deal on who submitted the name. If it is a descendent of the person in question, Lisa owes one the church massive apology.
When the devil has icicles hanging from his nose.
It was a nasty and disrespectful thing to do before the Mormons agreed to stop it, and it'll remain a nasty and disrespectful thing to do regardless of that agreement. It's already been confirmed that this was not due to your little loophole, Kat, but it wouldn't make it okay if it had been. As I said before, the only difference would be that it wasn't a violation of the promise you made.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place.
Clearly, you ignored the explanation you were given of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Not to mention my explanation, which I linked to.
What do I have to do, quote it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The violation of the promise is what I am concerned about.
The actual ordinance is under commandment, and the Lord's opinion takes precedence over yours.
However, if it wasn't a descendent then whoever submitted it should be properly ashamed of themselves, and I am glad the name was removed as soon as its inclusion was discovered.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Any as much as others would insist otherwise, the Mormon's appear to be keeping their end of the agreement. It seems to me that many people are having a hard time understanding what that agreement is really about. Call the Mormon church dishaonest over this is either a sign osseeking fault where there is none or simply not understanding what's really going on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
quote:If we are in the wrong, certainly the person is not effected in anyway, if we are in the right, you are getting in the way of their happiness.
This has been commented on already, but I'd like to reemphasize that "Mormons are wrong about their faith" does not mean that what they are doing is either meaningless or harmless. Many faiths believe that the actions of the living can affect the dead - including my own. It's actually kind of strange to think something can be wrong in only one way.
I don't actually believe that there is harm to the dead through the posthemous baptisms, but I don't disbelieve it, either.
However, I must comment on the irony of the original poster decrying this as a lack of religious respect and an expression of contempt and disrespect. Perhaps you can hold onto those feelings and decide not to make some of those expressions of contempt or disrespect concerning other religions in the future.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mormonism isn't a branch of Judaism.
Mormonism is the true church of Jesus Christ. There's no branching, there's no... division. We're the body, the legs, the arms, the hair, the eyeballs, the nose...the whole shebang.
quote:When the devil has icicles hanging from his nose.
Heretic. Jews don't believe in the devil.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can. Seriously, beyond anyone's objections to the doctrine, what else are the Mormons supposed to do?
Put something in place to make sure it doesn't keep happening?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Matt-
The church didn't agree to not do what Lisa wants them not to do. She wants them (as far as I can tell from her posts) to have promised not to allow any Holocaust victims (or survivors, or Jews in general, or anyone who doesn't in life express a desire) to be baptized. But that's simply not an agreement I think the church leadership would be willing to make, because of the ungovernability of it balanced against the imperative to do baptims for the dead.
All they promised was 1) we'll tell our members not to and 2) when they do we'll do our best to fix the problem. Perhaps they need to do a better job on (1), although as a trained FHC worker I was certainly aware of the policy from the training materials, and would encourage everyone I worked with only to do work for direct ancestors; I think they church leadership has been very reactive on (2). Honestly, with no disingenuity intended, I don't see where they are remiss in their obligations.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I've found the whole discussion fascinating, so thanks for posting the original links. I wasn't around for the earlier threads.
I've always thought it was a choice to become offended by anything, especially other people's opinions, actions, or arrogance. So you can choose to ignore it, realizing there are people who think and do differently from you--or you can waste emotional energy worrying about it. I don't know if that applies to this situation, but I try to remember it as often as possible.
*edit* I draw a line where people's actions or institutions trample on other's constitutional rights. I just don't see harmless actions/opinions as "foul".
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The violation of the promise is what I am concerned about.
The actual ordinance is under commandment, and the Lord's opinion takes precedence over yours.
Then how did you make the agreement in the first place. Did the Lord tell you to?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Lisa - the agreement was made by Mormon leaders, and it appears they've kept what they agreed to. Your rage seems misplaced.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Mormon leaders have policed this as best they can.
quote:Once again, the IGI is a GENEOLOGICAL INDEX. It is NOT a list of people who have had ordinances performed for them by the Mormon church. Other people use the IGI for lots of different things.
I don't think either of these are particularly true. The IGI is used for proxy work; it's not a confirmation that it's been done, but if your name is on it long enough, it will be. And certainly the Church has not done everything it could to keep the promise, particularly in educating the laity about it.
It's also fairly certain that his name was not in fact submitted by anybody related to Weisenthal. This is, again, a sticky problem, and I think finding a resolution is not served by blame or angry rhetoric.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I think there are two instances when it can be considered wrong for someone to practice a religious belief: 1) When they agreed not to through a promise or a contract. 2) When it infringes on rights, as wiggin stated.
You cannot compare torturing with posthumous baptism. Torturing someone because you honestly believe God wants you to is wrong because you are infringing on someone else's rights. Baptizing someone after promising not to is wrong, also, because keeping promises is important. But posthumous baptism in general does not infringe on anyone's rights. Speaking someone's name and getting baptized for them does not violate them in any way, unless you consider a difference of belief a violation. But if that was the case, then we wouldn't be allowed to speak, because most discussions I hear in the world every day are between people that disagree, sometimes passionately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
A filter would be fine. As I said, the agreement clearly excludes those with current Mormon descendants. So while I hate it, if a current member of the church could prove ancestry, then I accept that there's nothing I can do about that (except perhaps work on bringing said descendant back where they belong).
I'd actually be happier if there were simply a rule that you had to prove ancestry to add anyone to the list to begin with. Mostly for simplicity's sake.
(Oh, and could you do me a huge favor and drop the extraneous apostrophes? They're driving me nuts.)
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It isn't funnier the second time, you know.
It gets even funnier when you learn my last name and where my family comes from (which you won't). I have at least as much claim on any Jew who died in the Holocaust as any other Jew here. But when I think about it, I have no claim.
Many Holocaust victims were Jewish by ancestry, but that is no indication of how devout they were in life. Some victims may even have chosen to be Christians, just as my Great Great Grandfather did. That wouldn't have stopped the Nazis, and it didn't. There are some Christian Jews in those mass graves. It's silly for any modern-day rabbi to lay claim to them.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Who exactly has shown eveidence that Mr. Weisenthal's name was not submitted by relatives? rivka's contacts? How do they know?
We're taking a lot of people's comments at face value. All the sources agree, however, that his name has been removed.
To my knowledge, the Mormon church has made their agreement wiht the Jewish community part of thier official training for lay-people to become researchers. Do you want it re-hashed over the pulpit every week?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, it appears anyone can register and enter information. Was Mr. Weisenthal entered in a particular way that indicates it was an LDS member who put him in?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sure.
This agreement is no different, in terms of ethics, than the agreements we make with communist/Islamist countries in regards to proselyting.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the fact no ordinances were performed is crucial. His memory *hasn't* been desecrated if no ordinances were performed.
In some ways it means the system is working, because they can be caught if entered improperly before ordinaces are performed
I'm curious as to when this bit of the agreement was actually fulfilled...
quote:Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Lisa - the agreement was made by Mormon leaders, and it appears they've kept what they agreed to. Your rage seems misplaced.
How did they make such an agreement? I thought it was "under commandment".
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
rivka - Sorry abouy my wayward use of apostrophes... I have a lucurative deal with a company that gets paid a penny every time I use one.
Everyone - So, why don't they filter submissions to the IGI?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Who exactly has shown eveidence that Mr. Weisenthal's name was not submitted by relatives? rivka's contacts? How do they know?
Because they knew him and know his family.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Good point. And they're all aware that no ordinance was performed on his behalf?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe most of those involved understand that it is pretty unlikely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How did they make such an agreement? I thought it was "under commandment".
And part of that commandment, apparently, is that the church leaders may determine how the commandment is implemented and that other commandments may take priority.
This should not be a foreign concept to an observant Jew such as yourself. I believe you're the one who posted the story of Rabbis telling God that it was their job to interpret a particular piece of the Torah, not His.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
So is it his family that is outraged, or people who really really don't like the doctrine of proxy ordinances?
And is anyone willing to admit that the Mormon church has done what they previously agreed to do in these cases?
And still - why doesn't the Mormon church filter IGI submissions?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
Because it will make you our enemies. Maybe you care, maybe you don't. But that's about the size of it.
I know it would be wrong to make any assumptions about the nature of fellow members of your religion, or their conflicts with others of different religions, based solely upon the fact that you made that statement. So I won't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: If we broke a promise, I can at least agree that the church is in the wrong and needs to make amends.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:So is it his family that is outraged, or people who really really don't like the doctrine of proxy ordinances?
Both.
quote:And is anyone willing to admit that the Mormon church has done what they previously agreed to do in these cases?
And still - why doesn't the Mormon church filter IGI submissions?
You can't have it both ways.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
I'm trepidatious about posting because I feel like people are just waiting to pounce, but from what I gather, a promise was made, it was accidentally broken, it was rectified before the work was actually done and the LDS church is truly trying to keep it's promises.
For anyone who calls Mormons contemptuous, they probably don't know many Mormons. As has clearly been stated before, posthumous baptism is just a oppotunity to accept, not a granted conversion. The LDS posters in this thread, IMO, have tried to explain the practice pretty respectfully. It seems to me that lack of respect for the LDS religion is more prevalent here than the other way around.
If I were to die and find that Judaism, or any other religion, were indeed the way to eternal salvation and that, though I was strongly LDS all my life, I had been mistaken, I would hope that I would be able to receive the opportunity to follow that path.
Looking at it from a Jewish perspective I can understand how initially it may seem offensive, but I would hope that with more understanding of LDS beliefs a greater understanding would ensue.
That said, I really really don't want to argue, so I will try not to post further as I don't know how much good it might do.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Huh? The church didn't agree to filter the IGI. They agreed to remove offending entries. (Which, I guess, is a kind of post-submission filtering - note, however, that nowhere in their agreement do they state how quickly offending situations must be rectified) So... maybe they need to change thier agreement, but I can't see how they broke thier agreement. In fact, wouldn't the removal of Mr. Weisenthal from the IGI be proof of Mormon intention to honour the agreement?
Also, I agree with BlackBlade. If the church has broken their deal, they should apologize. It just doesn't seem to me that there is evidence they've broken their deal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place.
Clearly, you ignored the explanation you were given of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Not to mention my explanation, which I linked to.
What do I have to do, quote it?
Far from me to ignore it, but perhaps I did not understand it in the way you meant me to. If you can quote it that is greatly appreciated, but Ill look through the thread too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:And is anyone willing to admit that the Mormon church has done what they previously agreed to do in these cases?
And still - why doesn't the Mormon church filter IGI submissions?
You can't have it both ways.
Do you mean since the church isn't filtering the IGI it isn't living up to its agreement? Quoting from the earlier list, the church agreed to "Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy." They specifically did not promise to prevent all names of deceased Jews of ever getting on the list.
A filter would be problematic for the same reason that there are so many multiple records of individuals floating around in IGI space; searching against fuzzy or ill-defined records (is this the same person? the name's right, but the date of birth is a little different and the location is a neighboring town) is a heretofore unsolved problem in machine (and human for that matter) intelligence.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am going to quote a section of Lisa's blog, listed under your profile, and hope that this isn't too offensive.
Before quoting, let me state that I have no objection to this particular belief, but it seems awfully similar to the complaints that you have, Lisa, toward posthumous baptism (not counting ones done against a promise).
quote: At some stage, we're going to have to start taking responsibility for the other parts of the land God gave us.
Certainly, we have no interest in imposing direct rule over lands which are heavily populated by non-Jews. But it behooves us to make the point that this land is ours, even though we are content to allow the native populace to rule themselves.
Now I understand that this states that you are content to let them rules themselves, just as LDS people are content to let deceased persons choose whether to accept a posthumous baptism. However, it also states that God said the land is yours (which I actually also believe as an LDS person) and that it is very important to let them know that this land is yours. Now, by making such a statement, you are not infringing on someone's rights, just as posthumous baptism does not. But, those people could be very offended by such a religious statement that God gave you that land, just as people can get offended at the suggestion of getting baptized for their deceased ancestors.
Can I say it is disgusting and nasty to say the land is yours? (which, I actually will not, because I don't think it is nasty to say so).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
By that logic, you can consider every Christian sect a branch of Judaism, as well as Islam.
quote:OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
You're asking her to take into account your beliefs concerning the nature of the dead while *at the same time* ignoring her beliefs on the nature of the dead.
So, the question could easily be turned around. Rationally explain why you should continue your practice despite her concerns for the dead.
quote:The actual ordinance is under commandment, and the Lord's opinion takes precedence over yours
Not to be incendiary, but that's the same logic that Phelps' church uses, no? That the Lord's opinion takes ultimate precedence, so they can do as they wish as long as they're following what they believe God has ordained?
The "God said so, so I don't care what you say" argument is a bit much. A lot has been done and said in the name of God that many people wish could be undone.
quote:I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world
I'm sorry, but this argument just seems silly to me.
This is a database, right? A site that people can enter information into?
Can't someone write a filter with a whole bunch of names, so that when someone enters a name on the "do not use" list an error will pop up?
For instance: A person types in: "John Doe, DOB 02/02/1902, DOD 02/02/1952". Then they get an hourglass as the system checks against the list. Then a pop up tells them "We're sorry, this name cannot be entered into the database" with an explanation.
Doesn't seem like this would be too much to ask.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
So is this really a "Mormon's are disgusting, deceptive (and they like to desecrate) and don't keep their agreements" problem, or an IT/DB Admin problem? Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:searching against fuzzy or ill-defined records (is this the same person? the name's right, but the date of birth is a little different and the location is a neighboring town) is a heretofore unsolved problem in machine (and human for that matter) intelligence.
It seems in the spirit of consideration, there should be a "when in doubt, do not add until more research is done".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not to be incendiary, but that's the same logic that Phelps' church uses, no?
It's also the same logic Lisa (and here I'm being very specific to Lisa, not others) takes with regard to Israel, enforcing a particular law on someone based on a choice that someone's ancestor made, and several other things.
Lisa, at least, can't consistently disagree with the general principle that if God orders someone to do something others find offensive, that someone should do it anyway. She simply disagrees that the orders were actually given in this case.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I'm trepidatious about posting because I feel like people are just waiting to pounce, but from what I gather, a promise was made, it was accidentally broken
Given that this was not only foreseeable but actually foreseen, it goes from accidental to negligence, IMO.
And the church agreed to adequately educate its members, implying (if not stating outright) that they would do their best to keep this from happening again (and again and again and again). I do not believe much effort has been spent on that. What is wrong with something along the line of FC's suggestion? Include an "I believe this person should be added anyway, and here's why" explanation form option (which gets reviewed by an actual person).
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I agree with Rivka that an explanation form would be good, but suppose that person provides a good reason to add that person's name? I see the same problem arising, namely an objection to the name being added, regardless of the reason.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
AFAIK, the only reason that is supposed to override is if the person who is doing the adding is a descendant, neh? Seems like something that can be pretty easily proved or disproved.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
DaisyMae (and Rivka)-
The promise was not broken. You might think the church should have agreed to police the IGI, but they didn't for whatever reason, either because they felt they couldn't do it effectively or because they objected to the administrative overhead or some other reason entirely. They only agreed to take names down when requested, and to ask members not to submit names other than direct ancestors. That's all. Implications not withstanding.
Furthermore, if you look at the relative numbers, the first purging resulted in the removal of about 500,000 names; the second purging (five years later) resulted in a purging of appr. 20,000 names. While 20,000 in five years may seem like a lot, relative to the previous rate it's a dramatic decrease. I'd say the message has at least penetrated somewhat to see such a substantial decline. I read it multiple times during my training as a family history worker and informed all members I worked with about the policy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:For anyone who calls Mormons contemptuous, they probably don't know many Mormons.
I don't know that I'd use contemptuous, but my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs. So, I don't know that I'd agree with that assessment.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
So we have a constructive solution that could keep Jewish names off of the IGI, and prevent situations like these. It's still clear, though, that the original agreement between the Mormon and Jewish communities has not been broken - it could just be tightened up to make some people happier.
Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this? Somone has stated that these agreements appear in official handbooks, and have probably been read over the pulpit at least once. Big signs in geneological libraries reminding people not to submit Jewish names? And what about non-Mormons who submit to the IGI? (This is why a filter seems like the simplist solution.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It's also the same logic Lisa (and here I'm being very specific to Lisa, not others) takes with regard to Israel, enforcing a particular law on someone based on a choice that someone's ancestor made, and several other things.
And I've had my battles with her over that same logic.
I'm not a big supporter of "my God says it's okay, so I don't care what anyone else thinks" attitudes. That line of thinking can be used to justify a lot - from completely harmless customs to truly horrific acts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suppose this is where I remark that it's telling that the conclusion being leapt to quite frequently in this thread is willful urination on the memory of dead heroes, instead of an oversight that should not have happened and should be corrected...and we'll all pretend that the first part isn't happening, and only the second part matters.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
MrSquicky - I'm sorry the Mormon's you've met here seem to care little about others beleifs. Most of the Mormon's I know try to be very respectful of other's beliefs - although they may sometimes be a bit ignorant (but no more ignorant than anyone else).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's really hard for me to feel compassion for someone in one group who is getting upset at another group's arrogance to believe what they believe is true and then see comments from their side which basically express shock and horror at a member of their group joining thei other group.
So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
quote: Many faiths believe that the actions of the living can affect the dead - including my own. It's actually kind of strange to think something can be wrong in only one way.
Of non-believers? I haven't seen anything that shows this in this thread, nor have I ever heard of any faith where the actions of non-believers effect the status of a believer in the afterlife. Perhaps I have missed it, but if I could see elaboration on this, I would be grateful.
edit grateful, even.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this?
I was not specific enough. I have no idea in terms of how much effort has been put into education.
But every time (before this thread, and I am happily surprised that it's not being dismissed this time) that I or someone else has suggested a filter of the like previously, it has been met with whines that it's too much work.
(That includes requests made through official channels. Not by me, but by people I know.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, Check out the links to past conversations provided. I know rivka, at the very least gave an explanation of this.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
I see your point. Maybe Mormon leadership needs to hire some better DB people. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I am going to quote a section of Lisa's blog, listed under your profile, and hope that this isn't too offensive.
Before quoting, let me state that I have no objection to this particular belief, but it seems awfully similar to the complaints that you have, Lisa, toward posthumous baptism (not counting ones done against a promise).
quote: At some stage, we're going to have to start taking responsibility for the other parts of the land God gave us.
Certainly, we have no interest in imposing direct rule over lands which are heavily populated by non-Jews. But it behooves us to make the point that this land is ours, even though we are content to allow the native populace to rule themselves.
Now I understand that this states that you are content to let them rules themselves, just as LDS people are content to let deceased persons choose whether to accept a posthumous baptism. However, it also states that God said the land is yours (which I actually also believe as an LDS person) and that it is very important to let them know that this land is yours. Now, by making such a statement, you are not infringing on someone's rights, just as posthumous baptism does not. But, those people could be very offended by such a religious statement that God gave you that land, just as people can get offended at the suggestion of getting baptized for their deceased ancestors.
Can I say it is disgusting and nasty to say the land is yours? (which, I actually will not, because I don't think it is nasty to say so).
Go ahead. I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land. They show their anger by blowing children up. You aren't comparing that to me starting an angry thread on Hatrack, are you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: I see your point. Maybe Mormon leadership needs to hire some better DB people.
I can already see my tithing going up to 15% from 10.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
An honest question:
Do either of these religious beliefs take precedence over the other?
1) It is essential that all persons, whether in this life or the next, have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2) It is essential that deceased Jewish persons' names not be desecrated through their names being submitted for posthumous baptism into other faiths.
If deceased Jews are baptized posthumously, their belief is trampled on.
If Jews request that their deceased members not be posthumously baptized, then LDS persons' beliefs are being trampled on.
Is this an impasse?
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: I see your point. Maybe Mormon leadership needs to hire some better DB people.
I can already see my tithing going up to 15% from 10.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land.
More likely they are offended by the fact that you claim that God gave you the land.
quote:They show their anger by blowing children up.
No everyone who is mad at Israel blows children up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In such an impasse, the wishes of the deceased, as far as we can tell, should be the deciding factor. Family and friends should be the determiners of what that would be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:An honest question:
Do either of these religious beliefs take precedence over the other?
1) It is essential that all persons, whether in this life or the next, have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2) It is essential that deceased Jewish persons' names not be desecrated through their names being submitted for posthumous baptism into other faiths.
If deceased Jews are baptized posthumously, their belief is trampled on.
If Jews request that their deceased members not be posthumously baptized, then LDS persons' beliefs are being trampled on.
Is this an impasse?
No, of course it isn't. As is the case every time something like this comes up, wanting to do something to people is not equivilent to them not wanting people to do things to them.
Although, to be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that LDS should be prevented from doing this by anything other than a sense of respect for other people and their beliefs that they apparently lack.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Agreed. So the name was removed.
This case has been dealt with as it has in the past, as per the Jewish/Mormon agreement. If anything useful has come out of this thread, it's that there are people who'd like to add pre-submission filtering of the IGI to that agreement. I think that's a whole different issue than the accusation that "Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal".
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Lisa, I am not at all comparing your thread to the evil actions of those people. You have a right to post your thoughts here, they don't have the right to murder people. I would never compare the two.
I am comparing your belief that God gave you that land to my belief that God wants all people to have a chance at baptism into the LDS faith.
I am not degrading your belief, as I stated that I have no problem with it. You are entitled to that belief. I just don't understand how you can have that belief, while being so disgusted at an LDS person's belief.
I assume that even if the people in that land were not violent or evil, that you would still believe God gave you that land. My comparison has nothing to do with the type of people living in that land, but with your belief.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Go ahead. I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land.
I'm beginning to see the nature of Lisa's real beef. It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people. That makes a lot more sense.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They show their anger by blowing children up. You aren't comparing that to me starting an angry thread on Hatrack, are you?
I think he's comparing the actual beliefs, not the reactions to them. This is the first I've seen here where someone says that a belief is wrong because the reaction of the believers' enemies is less extreme.
And, just for the record, I don't think that the Mormon faith or the Jewish faith are true, and I'd be happy if they both kept their hands off my personal beliefs. But if I had to choose between someone in Utah taking a dip in a pool while spouting my grandma's name, and someone saying that my home is their property and I'm only allowed to live here out of the goodness of their hearts, I know which one I'd find more offensive.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
MrSquicky, we are not talking about doing things to people in posthumous baptism. If we were digging up bodies to do it, then that would be different. All posthumous baptism involves is speaking a person's name and saying we are getting baptised for them. This infringes on no rights that I am aware of.
Note that I think this is separate from the issue of making sure the LDS church follows-through with its commitments to not perform this work for people they agreed not to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, you are not doing things to people's bodies, but you are doing things to people.
It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of respect. And, as I said, based on my experiences with LDS here, I don't expect most of you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: [QB] I'm beginning to see the nature of Lisa's real beef. It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people. That makes a lot more sense.
I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
Marlozhan, you may not be doing something to the body; presumably you are doing something to the spirit. Why do you think that doing something to the body is worse than doing something to the spirit?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Squicky,
I'm not seeing it in those threads. Oh, well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I don't think anyone is saying that LDS should be prevented from doing this by anything other than a sense of respect for other people and their beliefs that they apparently lack.
Yep, they lack it so much that they agreed not to and, when someone did that either in error or in deliberate violation of the rules, they took the name down.
quote:my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs.
I'm not sure about LDS compared to the world at large, but they're generally more respectful towards others' beliefs than you are, judging solely from my experience at Hatrack.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On a lighter note... I've often wondered if my dogs are going to end up baptized. You see the Family Search free genealogy software also happens to be an excellent free tool for tracking canine pedigrees, although I've removed some of the information. I have e-mailed the files to other people and I know there are some pretty direct ways to send the info to the LDS site (hopefully I haven't accidentally clicked on the button)
I know there are supposed to be some checks and balances but I still find it amusing that it *could* happen.
AJ
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
As much as I disagree with MrSquicky's general bias against Mormons [really, dude, your bias and painting with your broad brush strokes were pre-existent and not just the result of what has taken place here at Hatrack], his analysis is correct.
LDS can hardly claim that it doesn't hurt anyone when we devote time and resources to it. It's a symbolic act that we believe has some sort of efficacy. Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
That said, I like much of what you said here, Marlozhan. You have been one of the most civil and productive contributors to this thread.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people.
Isn't that the argument from both sides?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And, as I said, based on my experiences with LDS here, I don't expect most of you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Your experiences with LDS here are unique, probably having a lot to do with your approach which frequently lacks the things you're apparently insisting on, respect and understanding.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, the way to get posthumous revenge would be for some Jewish synagogue to posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew. I mean, you have people who are considered Jews who are way further out in their beliefs, philosophies, religions (or lack of same). If athiests can still be considered Jews then surely there is some way you could get Joseph Smith in there, since he was at least, we assume, religious.
Look, nobody else that I know of minds what the Mormons are doing. They've been doing it for years. We don't believe there is any reality to what they are doing, so we don't need to pay any more attention to it than we would to meat sacrificed to idols. Not that Mormons believe in idols, of course. But it's the same principle.
Besides, in a way the Mormons are doing us all a helpful service, by compiling their massive database that they intend will encompass the entire family tree of the human race, when they are done. I had a distant relative who is a Mormon contact our family requesting what genealogical information we had, and in exchange she gave us very interesting data she had on some parts of our family tree we knew little about.
I think we can just grin and ignore what Mormons say they are doing with their super genealogy. After all, if you believe their beliefs are mistaken, then what they are doing means nothing. It must be costing them megabucks.
It might have shown better discretion if this Mormon "baptizing" of Simon Wiesenthal had not been given so much publicity, I will admit.
Just wait until they get around to baptizing the Patriarch, Abraham!
Catholics in a way try to impose their beliefs on everyone else too, by claiming that anyone who was ever baptized as in infant in the Catholic church remains a Catholic forever, even if later they choose to join a different church. This is showing disregard for the freedom of choice of individuals as well. But no one really cares. They can claim what they want. That is not going to make people who have converted to Protestant churches still be Catholics in fact.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This deserves re-quoting
quote: Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Zal, I didn't know much of anything about LDS (had one friend in college, but that was it) prior to coming to Hatrack. My descriptions of this thread were a result of watching a pervasive, but generally unconscious, disrespect towards other people's beliefs by many (but by no means all) of our LDS members.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just wonder what will happen when Mormons have the nerve to baptize Jesus Christ and make Him a Mormon. I bet there will be a firestorm then!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I see Rivka's link now, on the first page. Thanks for the info.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis: As much as I disagree with MrSquicky's general bias against Mormons [really, dude, your bias and painting with your broad brush strokes were pre-existent and not just the result of what has taken place here at Hatrack], his analysis is correct.
LDS can hardly claim that it doesn't hurt anyone when we devote time and resources to it. It's a symbolic act that we believe has some sort of efficacy. Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
That said, I like much of what you said here, Marlozhan. You have been one of the most civil and productive contributors to this thread.
Thanks. And I do agree that the Jewish faith has good reason for claiming symbolic damage and I respect their reasons for it. I guess I am just trying to wrap my mind around the other side, which is that the LDS faith also sees great symbolic harm if not all people are given a chance to accept or reject LDS baptism. I am not saying I have more of a right, I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance on my side of the argument. Both sides are important, and I don't think there is any easy solution to this.
Part of the solution, though, is not putting people's names on the records if they specifically request it (though this can get complicated when descendants from the same ancestry have different beliefs regarding proxy baptism. What do you do then?)
And please stop, those of you who continue to make blanket statements regarding my faith's level of respect, or what have you. I will not make such statements about anyone else, so please show me the same respect. I am trying to contribute to mature discussion here, and I just get accused of being incapable of having respect for others (I am only speaking to some).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
But how can you PROVE they "didn't want" it, they are dead.
The entire nature of the ordinance takes this into account. The person is still at complete liberty to reject or accept the ordinance. If conversion rates among the living are any example of the choice people take when offered I submit that those in favor of accepting outnumber those who are offended at even being given the option, the largest number most likely being those who choose no but are not upset either way. Even if 1 in every 1000 accept it that is such a blessing to them even if the other 999 say, "meh no thanks."
I can't help but see similarities to those in Utah who got upset when at an art museum there were depictions of the nativity from foreign artists using their culture. There were African Massai tribal nativities, feudal Korean depictions, etc. Maybe I am biased as my mom collects nativities including those kinds, but I was indignant that people would get bent out of shape over something like that.
"But Jesus was a JEW!!!!! Not an AFRICAN! Its a disgrace to who the man really was." It would be pretty easy for me to be snide and say, "Well if he had blond hair and blue eyes you would have said nothing." But I think those comments are just as useless.
And I already related the story of the idols from multiple faiths at the Daoist temple. Again this question phrased two different ways,
Should my father have demanded the idols be taken down and obtained a written agreement that the shrine would never display idols from other religions that are not in complete agreement with the tenets of Daoism?
Were the people who eventually got those nativities taken down from the art museum right to demand that only Jewish themed nativities be displayed in the museum?
The only point that I could find that would help me understand why Jews would be upset about all this is the idea "It is blasphemous to suggest that Jews cannot be received into heaven on Judaisms merits alone."
Well we could argue its blasphemous to suggest that we listen to you instead of our God. But apparently God is of the mind that it is better that the dead wait for the right time to have their ordinance work done, rather then offend you, the living, to the point that you will not even listen to the other virtues our religion offers.
I certainly hope that tempers cool and nerves are less high strung in the next life.
On a side note, I would be interested in hearing ideas as to how a spirit is harmed by actions done on this side by the living.
edit: Nevermind, Rivka has got me covered, but I am interested in hearing other takes.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I just wonder what will happen when Mormons have the nerve to baptize Jesus Christ and make Him a Mormon. I bet there will be a firestorm then!
No need. We believe that John the Baptist had the proper priesthood authority to baptize, so Jesus does not need to be baptized again. Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
I guess I don't want to say that I don't get what the "big deal" is, because I can certainly understand that this looks like insult to people of the Jewish faith. However, I do agree with the first part of your statement. If you're religious, then it's pretty safe to assume that you either are a Mormon or are not a Mormon. So if you believe that baptisms for the dead are just a bunch of bunk anyway, then I'm afraid I don't understand the logic behind being so angry over this, although I do understand the emotion behind it.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people.
Isn't that the argument from both sides?
Exactly. That's what I find so amusingly ironic about most of these sorts of inter-religious debates.
Of course, when this kind of reasoning snowballs into centuries of mutual attempted genocide, it becomes somewhat less amusing. But on a forum such as this, it's fantastic entertainment. Viva la Internet! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Look, nobody else that I know of minds what the Mormons are doing.
Now you do. I mind.
quote:
Catholics in a way try to impose their beliefs on everyone else too, by claiming that anyone who was ever baptized as in infant in the Catholic church remains a Catholic forever, even if later they choose to join a different church. This is showing disregard for the freedom of choice of individuals as well. But no one really cares. They can claim what they want. That is not going to make people who have converted to Protestant churches still be Catholics in fact.
Could I see something on this? I have never heard this and if we are doing it, we should stop. My understanding is that to be a member in full standing, one's baptism needs to be confirmed as an adult. (Adolescent, anyway.)
edit to add: Good to see you, BTW. I'm curious about your response to the "coat question" from the other thread.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Ah, thanks for the clarification, Squick. I should have been more civil and not taking that sideswipe at you. Funny how past history tends to flare up.
In terms of unconscious disrespect towards others beliefs, I think most of us suffer from that. I don't think it's confined to the Mormons on Hatrack or Mormons in general. And it's sad really.
At the very least, Hatrack has been good for all of us to bring some of these unconscious attitudes to the fore. I just wish we were all a little better at taking that into account in our discussion.
I had actually written this whole pedantic civility post earlier today for this thread, but decided against posting it. I think I've done it enough around here. I will say that people should go back an re-read my posts and rivka, MrsM, dkw and Belle's posts in the first thread on this subject. Some good stuff there, really. Much better than what we're seeing here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Libbie,
Rivka posted a link on the first page that details her beliefs as to why the Jewish dead apparently can't choose. In this context, I can intellectually see where she and Jews who have similiar spiritual beliefs are coming from.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
I think they mean meaningless to the person who is dead Dag, obviously the living have reasons for being upset, as evident in this thread. The dead person is not forced in anyway by the ordinance, in fact many argue the true purpose of the ordinance is to turn the minds of the living towards the dead.
I admit its a temptation to believe, "The dead couldn't possibly mind, why do you?"
But if there are religions that believes my acts can negatively effect the situation of a person already dead, it does introduce a dynamic that I was not aware of.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
But how can you PROVE they "didn't want" it, they are dead.
I would take the fact that people have chosen death over being baptized when they were alive and could make the choice to be pretty persuasive. The next of kin - friends and family should be able to make that determination.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Zal, I would totally agree that many people have a major problem with this and singling LDS out for it would be unjustified. I was reacting to a statement that said that the only people who think that LDS are contemptuous obviously don't many LDS. I took exception to this, as it runs counter to my experience here nad I wanted to make the point that most of what I've seen has been an unconscious form of disrespect that I'm sure most of the people exhibiting don't even realize they are doing it.
As someone who sticks up for "crazy" religious beilefs (the jedi thing from a while back comes to mind or the people who as a religious ceremony dipped pretzels in chocolate), I deal with the more overt mockery that people put out too (incidentally, lots of LDS mocking on both of those), but a lot of what I see is like this thread, where people come out with "This is an offensive desecration." and are met with people who aren't even trying to see their point but rather explain why they are wrong and things in a similar vein.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with not respecting other people's beliefs, if you are right about those beliefs being false, but I don't think people should claim that they do respect them when they clearly don't.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
Maybe it would be good to discuss how it does hurt people. If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion. If it does hurt someone, they don't see why, so some discussion on this might be helpful.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I've got to admit I'd find it terrifying to belong to a religion that believes that no matter how you live your life, once you die and for the rest of human history any lunatic, sociopath or con artist who finds out your name can radically effect the quality of your eternal afterlife. Yikes! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
edit to remove snarkiness
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
I honestly would not care if they performed their own version of posthumous baptism or what have you. It does not affect my own beliefs. I may find it annoying, but I wouldn't say anything about it.
Now, if they were pouring wine on a grave of my ancestor, I might object if I had a right to the property of that gravestone (or are gravestones public property? Not sure about that).
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
To answer your first question, being a Mormon, I can say I would be okay with it. Cuz either they are right and I'm "saved" or I'm right and it doesn't matter.
I would be very sad if somebody poured wine on my loved ones grave in the name of Satan. But it wouldn't matter. Satan doesn't save souls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
I was fine with it until you were actually physically desecrating the body or a memorial erected in their memory, neither of which Mormons do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's hardly a fair description Baron.
---
quote:If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion.
Is it out of disrespect for their religion? Probably not. Is it disrespectful of their religion? Yes, it is.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I've got to admit I'd find it terrifying to belong to a religion that believes that no matter how you live your life, once you die and for the rest of human history any lunatic, sociopath or con artist who finds out your name can radically effect the quality of your eternal afterlife. Yikes!
Are you implying that we believe that the baptism alone saves them? There is much more to it in our doctrine. Baptism is a necessary ordinance, but it means absolutely nothing if you have not exercised faith in Christ, repented of your sins and actually changed at a core level. We don't give free rides to heaven no matter your sins just because we performed a posthumous baptism. You are still the same spirit when you die and have to go through the same changing process as people do in mortality. The only reason we perform these baptisms for all deceased persons (who were not baptized by proper priesthood authority during mortality) is because we don't take it upon ourselves to judge who is worthy and who is not. We leave that judgment up to Christ. We just perform the work, and let that person, as well as God, decide whether or not the baptism actually accounts for anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe it would be good to discuss how it does hurt people. If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion. If it does hurt someone, they don't see why, so some discussion on this might be helpful.
My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
That's what I don't get.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Baron was actually talking about Judaism as it appears that "I" could influence the situation of a dead person in a tangible and adverse way.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Maybe we need a thread on the definition of respect.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Baron was actually talking about Judaism as it appears that "I" could influence the situation of a dead person in a tangible and adverse way.
If so, then nevermind. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Because I honestly hadn't thought along those lines and see why it may be an important point to raise.
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Yes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Because I honestly hadn't thought along those lines and see why it may be an important point to raise.
--j_k
You wouldn't be the only one Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew
No need. Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
*Waves dead chicken in direction of all theists, cursing them in the name of the IPU*
Hah. Eat hot atheist curse, theist scum. And you can't even take offense, because the IPU doesn't exist!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee,
What kind of logical process is really all that useful in matters of faith? I don't get your confusion. When the premise is a matter of faith, then what kind of logical proofs are there that can show that one 'assumption' is worse than the next?
If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
One of the more interesting aspects of this discussion is the place of outrage within the context of proselytization. After all, if the concern is legitimate that Mormons not baptize Jewish souls after death because of what could happen to their state in the afterlife, then how can Mormons, or anyone else, in good conscience proselytize when the results, in the eyes of many religions, will be that when that person dies he or she will die a permanent death, go to hell, or suffer some other kind of negative consequence?
While I understand that, from Rivka's point of view, Jewish souls don't have choice, does choice really make it o.k. for other religions to proselytize in this world when, from the perspective of another religion, luring someone away from the true church is akin to sentencing them to death or worse?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
People may not believe that X causes Y (In this case, posthumous baptism causing dead spirits to be given the choice of salvation). But that does not mean they also believe that X causes nothing.
Just because they don't believe X causes Y, it doesn't mean that they feel X has no effects. X may cause Z, for instance (posthumous baptism done in someone's name has negative consequences on their memory and their afterlife).
Just because one doesn't believe in the Mormon concept of the afterlife *does not* automatically mean they feel the act of posthumous baptism is harmless.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: If deceased Jews are baptized posthumously, their belief is trampled on.
If Jews request that their deceased members not be posthumously baptized, then LDS persons' beliefs are being trampled on.
Is this an impasse?
Yes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In such an impasse, the wishes of the deceased, as far as we can tell, should be the deciding factor. Family and friends should be the determiners of what that would be.
That's the problem. The Mormons don't care what the person's wishes were on the matter. They think the person might change his or her mind in the great beyond.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: But if I had to choose between someone in Utah taking a dip in a pool while spouting my grandma's name, and someone saying that my home is their property and I'm only allowed to live here out of the goodness of their hearts, I know which one I'd find more offensive.
Not to derail, but that blog post is a reaction to their interminable claim that they own our land. In any negotiation scenario, if A claims 100% and B claims 50%, B is screwed. And since God did give all that land to us, I figured it's about time we said so, even if it has no practical application at the current time.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
After reading this entire thread, I can tell you all that I have seldom been happier to be an atheist than today. This is insane. Not the topic of the thread itself, but the way some of you have begun attacking each other for your beliefs. The way you're nitpicking each other's personal beliefs and implying that yours is superior to theirs. Get over yourselves. Grow up. Stop acting superior to each other. Nobody here is superior.
Show a little respect for each other's beliefs, at the very least, even if you think they're completely stupid. At least respect the rights of other people to choose what they want to believe. If you want to have a civilized discussion about a controversial topic, then have one, but comments like these are disgusting and unworthy of people like you:
"If a descendent of mine were ever, God forbid, to become a Mormon and tried to have my posthumously baptised, I'd come back and haunt her. It'd make Poltergeist look like Casper by comparison."
"Keep off of my people."
"Because it will make you our enemies."
"That said-- I don't really care about your, or anyone's, opinion in regards to proxy work or any other crazy Mormon practices. I care about God's opinion."
"It isn't funnier the second time, you know." (this one in reference to a Mormon explaining his beliefs to you)
"my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs."
"I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land. They show their anger by blowing children up."
I want to puke all over the forum right now. This kind of talk is sickening. This kind of talk is why people start wars, and why some wars have never ended (Israel, I'm looking at you here). This kind of behavior is exactly why I and many of my fellow atheists believe that the world would be better off without religion. A shame it's too late to erase it from the human consciousness.
Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?
I'm getting off of Hatrack for a few days at least until this topic blows over. I'm so disgusted with some of you right now I don't even want to see your screen names.
Grow up and act like adults, in the name of all that's sensible.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Right. Because, you know, of all the rioting and bombs and people getting dead.
Drama queen.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
To put it another way, why don't Jews consider that what the Mormons are doing might have positive unintended consequences?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, the way to get posthumous revenge would be for some Jewish synagogue to posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew.
You know, Ron, I often find it hard to understand you. But never so much as now. Why the hell would we want "revenge"? Do you think that two wrongs make a right? Sheesh.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since God did give all that land to us, I figured it's about time we said so, even if it has no practical application at the current time.
Lisa, you outrageous instigator, have you ever considered that maybe God didn't give anybody that land, because perhaps God doesn't exist?
Even if he does, does he want your people to prolong a bloody and vicious conflict in his name? Does God like war more than he likes compromise and caring for your fellow people?
Ugh. With that, I'm out of here. I'll be around sakeriver if anybody needs to get hold of me. Tell me when this thread has sunk into oblivion and I'll be back.
Disgusting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: "Get over yourselves. Grow up."
"I want to puke all over the forum right now."
"This kind of behavior is exactly why I and many of my fellow atheists believe that the world would be better off without religion. A shame it's too late to erase it from the human consciousness. "
"Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?"
"I'm so disgusted with some of you right now I don't even want to see your screen names."
None of that was particularly respectful, either.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Can someone clear something up for me? What people are posthumously baptized?
Without knowing all the details, I lean towards Lisa's side. I think the idea of posthumous baptism, if the person being acted upon expressed no want of it, is sickening. It's assuming you know, and therefore have the right, to decide what God wanted for someone and take action. It makes me wonder how an LDS person would react if the situation were enacted on their relative by another religion.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
One of my co-workers is a Rabbi. He has quite a few requirements that we try and work around every day. He has afternoon prayers. He cannot work after dark on Fridays. He can't eat the food we bring in (which is really sad for me, I always bring good food to the potluck and I'd love to share it, but I don't keep a Kosher kitchen [mmm... bacon]).
You know what, though? Out of respect for his beliefs, the company gives him some really, really flexible hours and, whenever the department or the company buys food, they pay extra to have a trusted Kosher catering service bring him food or one of the managers runs out to one of the few Kosher restaurants in town and gets him something.
It is done out of respect. Sure, those Famous Dave's ribs the company bought won't kill him (unless a lifetime pork-free will cause him to go into shock or something) and he can always just not eat them, but our company has decided that he, like all of us, is important and it's important to make him feel welcome and respected. So rules are bent and people go out of their way. Everyone's happy and no one is being ignored because their beliefs are different.
We also have a few Hindu members on the staff. They always get vegetarian food for them as well.
Just an anecdote.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew
<guffaw> Right. And this is a cute quote from that page:
quote:"The eminent Jewish commentator and historian, Moses Maimonides --who lived in the 13th century--in a manuscript commentary on the Old Testament, reviews the blessings which Jacob pronounced upon his sons. He speaks of a certain Antenor, King of the Cimmerians, who lived 443 B.C. This Antenor he termed 'the chief Prince of Ephraim.'
That's just hilarious. As if Maimonides ever wrote any such thing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Sort of, in that it's something offensive that has prompted a strong reaction.
However,the Danish papers didn't react along the lines of: "Sorry, we didn't realize it was bad. It's really hard to prevent, though, seeing as we have no editors, and it will probably happen again. We don't plan on hiring any editors, so we'll apologize when it happens next time, too."
quote:Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
Why would they think their beliefs might cause harm? Or why would they not realize that actions may have unintended consequences?
In my mind, those are two separate things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Libbie, I'd be curious as to what you found that was so objectionable in what I said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee,
What kind of logical process is really all that useful in matters of faith? I don't get your confusion. When the premise is a matter of faith, then what kind of logical proofs are there that can show that one 'assumption' is worse than the next?
The thought process that has been put forth - several times by serveral people, some Mormons and some not - is that "if the Mormons are wrong, then it doesn't do anything."
It's not the belief that X does Y that's problematic, but the immediate leap from "if I'm wrong about this then it means nothing happens" rather than "if I'm wrong about this then I don't know what happens."
quote:If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
I am making no such point. I am asking why people have made the assumptions they have in the manner they have, in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with faith.
My opinion on posthomous baptism is pretty simple: 1) the Mormons should honor their agreement, and they seem to be doing so but could implement some technological means to do better. 2) I don't believe posthomous baptism does what Mormons believe it does. 3) I don't want it done for me. 4.) It is presumptiuous to do it against the recipient's wishes. 5.) If they truly believe God commanded them to do it, they should keep doing it (in accordance with 1 and while acknowledging 4). 6.) If done for me, I'll assume the person was trying to do something nice for me but that they did not, in fact, do so. 7.) Anyone who is more offended than 6 indicates is perfectly justified in being so.
None of this relies on the analysis I put forth in the generic logic example.
quote:Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
You were the first one to make this kind of claim, and you don't share their faith or their faith-based assumptions.
quote:To put it another way, why don't Jews consider that what the Mormons are doing might have positive unintended consequences?
You'd have to ask them, but I imagine because they believe they have additional information with which to choose between the assumptions. That's certainly consistent with my example and exactly the kind of thing that needs to be considered.
My whole example is not about what is true but why, when considering whether a given premise is true, only one alternative possible truth is considered.
quote:Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?
Apparently it's other atheists who know how to be civil and kind to fellow human beings. I see no evidence of this being true of you in your post.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Yes.
Gotcha.
--j_k
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
That is also why every Mormon thus far has answered the question, to those who have paid attention, "what if others did that same thing to you when you were dead" has been "I wouldn't care." The person who did it didn't have the authority to do anything, so they actually didn't.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am neither Mormon nor Jewish.
I would like to put my thoughts in here.
First, Simon Weisenthal was a great man. He was a man who refused to be baptised when it might have saved him pain and death, and witnessed the deaths of countless others who also refused. When that pain passed, he did not forsake his beliefs or his God. Instead he strove to give what earthly punishment he could to those who murdered people of that faith. Why did the murderers commit those crimes? For many reasons, but included among them was out of a religious righteousness.
So when a headline screams out that he was given a post-mortem baptism, yes anger flares first.
Do we believe that a White Supremist group that conducted ceremonies enslaving Dr. Martin Luther Kings' soul should be ignored? Would you want a Satanist to perform rights selling you soul to Satan so that when Satan came to power, you'd be amongst his favorites?
Yeah, the whole idea has an immediate shcck value that urges outrage.
But then we go into it a bit more.
1) This is not a baptism, but an opportunity for the dead to be baptised if they wished.
2) This probably didn't even happen to Mr. Wisenthal. His name was only put on the waiting list/geneolgy list actually.
3) This was a mistake that could not be helped.
4) It was a mistake made out of love, not disrespect or anger.
Great. That is much better.
But it still leaves some questions.
1) Its not a baptism, its an invitation to be pestered beyond the grave with evangelists. From the unitiated its simple Death-Spam. And they say some names get on there multiple times. Gee, where do we go to sign up for the Afterlife Nocall List?
2) This has to be the lamest, most unispired way to evangelize I have ever heard of. You sit safely in your seat, typing away at a computer, and see how many dead people you can put on a list? This is non-evangelizing. Its not as bad as a bad evangelist, but it is kind of cowardly. The dead people don't reject you. Well, not yet.
3) We can't do better. Its amazing that the church says it could not keep track of who all goes on the list, but somebody was able to quickly track down when Mr. Wisenthal was put on it. If this last chance at redemption is a true commandment from God, somebody needs to be sure they are doing it right.
4) It was done out of love. So were many cruel and nasty things. This is far from the cruelest or nastiest, but the love is not a complete answer. Further, how do we know it was done out of love? Simon Wisenthal is a big name. To be able to sneak it into the list might just make a misguided LDS member a bit over-proud. Is there a secret hit list of famous folks that someone out of touch with the true faith, is trying to secret onto the list?
Paranoid? Ridiculous? Probably, except his name keeps repopping up on the list.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
I'm not talking about whether a baptism lacked authority, and neither are people raising the "If we're wrong, it doesn't have any effect" defense. That defense is an attempt to see this issue from the perspective of someone else's beliefs, not Mormon beliefs. My question is why did so many people - not all of them Mormons - jump straight to this false dichotomy of thinking that non-Mormons will believe the baptism to be effectless if it doesn't have the effect Mormons believe it to have?
P.S., there's no "r" in my name.
P.P.S, to elaborate a little, as soon as someone is asking "why does this bother you" they are no longer dealing with the subject as Mormons look at it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Personally, I don't know which bothers me more:
That my father is on that list,
or,
that his father is not.
FWIW, the part that truly disturbs me in all of this is the assumption implicit in rebaptism -- that the prior ones were somehow not valid. I know in brief what the LDS church believes about priestly authority, but for many reasons I find that spectacularly arrogant and offensive. Moreso than the mere act of proxy baptism -- which I can at least intellectually conceive of as being done out of love. It's the assumption that it'd be at all necessary for any baptized Christian to actually need it that really gets my goat.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess people will just have to be offended by Mormons. We are pretty much used to it
I was pretty much disgusted that the LDS Church even made the agreement. The first reason is that I believe the practice was given by God in no uncertain terms (i.e. if we don't do this the whole world would be wasted and probably destroyed). Second, I knew that the agreement would not resolve anything and those who hate the practice, or Mormons altogether, will continue to hate the practice with or without the agreement. They wouldn't see that as an agreeable pact, but a weapon.
Therefore, I don't care what Jews, Baptists, Muslims, etc. feel about this. I know what God commanded. I just chalk this up to the LDS Church continually trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: To be honest, Mormons don't look at it that way Dragonee because of what they believe about authority. If it itsn't done by proper authority, than it isn't done at all and has no effect in this life or the next. Therefore, it comes from a religious belief. Can't speak for those who aren't Mormon who might also wonder about the "non-effects" of the afterlife.
That is also why every Mormon thus far has answered the question, to those who have paid attention, "what if others did that same thing to you when you were dead" has been "I wouldn't care." The person who did it didn't have the authority to do anything, so they actually didn't.
Of course, if the Mormons are "wrong" is the premise (hypothetically) being assumed, then it seems a little weird to assume results of an action based on a statement already assumed false. Otherwise you aren't actually "wearing the other person's shoes", as it were.
This goes only one way; if the Mormon's are right (and therefore their ideas about authority are correct as well) then they can shrug off others' actions.
-Bok
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I have decided that I am right and everyone else is wrong, so let's just end this thread now and all agree with me.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Is that cat in the box dead yet?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A lot of people in this thread seem to be working under the assumption that they're in possession of Absolute Truth.
That assumption is very much worth revisiting, at least for the sake of argument, as arguments are vastly more likely to remain civil in its absence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bob: You might find it interesting then that if a protestant becomes a catholic no rebaptism is necessary, but this is not so for Mormons.
Perhaps so much emphasis is placed on authority and process in regards to sacraments because without it people go off the deep end and just do whatever they please. We put alot of stock in the scriptures, "God's house is a house of order," "God is not the author of confusion," and "One God, one faith, and one baptism." I'm sorry it gauls you, it certainly is not our intent to come across as arrogant.
----
I keep hearing people say, "Do it without their permission," "Their" as in the dead. I feel like people keep missing the point. The dead cannot all visit us and GIVE consent one way or another so rather then assume none of them want it, which is also an option specifically condemned by God in our scriptures, we do it as much as possible.
I really think the church's agreement to in a limited extent not do work for those who are not related to the membership demonstrates a willingness to compromise rather then a rude stubbornness.
Pointing out that just because you do it out of love does not mean you are in the right is doubtlessly true, but when we are labeling an act as "desecration" and decrying it, respect for the rationale and execution SHOULD be made. You are not addressing Mormons who are torturing Jews all in the name of, "For your own good." Faulty comparisons to the inquisition do nothing but mess up the conversation.
I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place. Mormons are not saying to the person who is dead, "Glad I can save this heathens soul!" What would the dead say to us if in the end we all find out as Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ, "Well sorry, we didn't want your children mad at us."
The ordinance is not done in their name, it is done in the name of Christ for and in behalf of the person. In fact the member is addressed not the deceased.
If you had Catholic parents who baptized you as an infant and then you yourself decided down the road to convert to say Islam. Would you say to your parents, "I am sick that you would be so presumptuous as to assume that I would follow YOUR faith." No! If they graciously allowed you to decide on your own convictions you would respect their decision to follow theirs. The only difference in regards to the dead is that NOBODY can speak for them. You cannot even say, "They were SO pious in life there is no way they could change their mind" without doing them the disservice of describing them as stubborn and without respect for God.
Because thats really what you are doing. Jews are convinced that when I am dead I will find out Jesus was not really the messiah, if God wants to forgive me for this oversight I would be a fool to refuse it.
But I wonder if perhaps we as Mormons have plenty of work to do for our own ancestors without worrying about the ancestors of those who get angry when we do their work. I suppose I might concede that we easily have enough work to do until Jesus comes again and clarifies things.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: This has to be the lamest, most unispired way to evangelize I have ever heard of. You sit safely in your seat, typing away at a computer, and see how many dead people you can put on a list? This is non-evangelizing. Its not as bad as a bad evangelist, but it is kind of cowardly.
I think it's important to point out that Mormons believe every person who ever lived needs to be baptized in proxy if they were not in real life. (Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.) They believe baptism, and other ordinances, are required to be in God's presence. Spirit missionaries will evangelize to the dead and the proxy baptisms are not part of that evangelism. The baptisms allow people to choose to convert in death if they did not in life.
Is it arrogant? Sure, but no more so than any other religion that says you have to follow one certain path. Personally, I think the Mormon method of giving everybody a second chance is a lot nicer than faiths that say if you don't do whatever it is you have to do here and now, then you'll spend eternity in hell.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Will someone please explain this baptism authority thing to me? Like, why is it that other faiths' baptisms don't count? I'm pretty sure I understand why Southern Baptists don't count Catholic baptisms - it's because the child was too young to consent to the baptism, and Southern Baptists believe that someone has to be of a certain age in order to be baptized (they also will not baptize children who don't demonstrate an understanding of what baptism is and what a profession of faith is).
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:FWIW, the part that truly disturbs me in all of this is the assumption implicit in rebaptism -- that the prior ones were somehow not valid. I know in brief what the LDS church believes about priestly authority, but for many reasons I find that spectacularly arrogant and offensive. Moreso than the mere act of proxy baptism -- which I can at least intellectually conceive of as being done out of love. It's the assumption that it'd be at all necessary for any baptized Christian to actually need it that really gets my goat.
It definitely is arrogant, but it's an arrogance that's not unique to Mormons. Catholics won't accept a Mormon baptism (and they do accept baptisms from many other denominations). I believe Methodists do not accept a Mormon baptism, but do accept, for example, a Catholic one.
The distinction is doubly important because baptism cannot be conferred twice. Therefore, it's absolutely crucial to determine the validity of the baptism (although conditional baptism is available to accomodate uncertainty).
So it doesn't disturb me that someone believes that a particular baptism wasn't "good enough" and another is required, nor do I find it offensive. I do think the arrogance associated with that view should be acknowledged by Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, etc. who believe that some baptisms are not valid.
quote:I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place.
You should try very hard to see why, though, assuming you care about understanding others. You can do this and still disagree with them after you understand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: But that was my point, I think I understand why the disagree with it, and why the result might be very undesirable. But I usually reserve the phrase, "That makes me sick." When somebody does something that is just so wrong that they must have done some serious work to reach a mindset where they could be foolish enough to believe its good."
Maybe some feel that way in regards to Mormons, I'd like to think we are a bit better then that.
But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
BB, you take your faith very seriously. Others take their (different) faiths very seriously. Which is how I can understand the use of that phrase.
-pH
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I really don't see why people are, "sick" that proxy baptism takes place."
In the case of people who lived after 1900 or so, they knew the option was available, and chose not to be baptised as LDS. Baptizing them after their death is a way of "choosing" for people who have already chosen against you.
Looking at this from the perspective of someone who sees christians proclaim they believe that god gave us free will on a regular basis, I see LDS repabtism as working to undo the choices that people make while they are living.
Since, ultimately, what makes us who we are is the choices we make, when you undo an important choice a person made, and make a different one for him, you violate the memory of who that person was, as well as saying "The life he lived and the choices he made were wrong." When we're talking about something like faith, that seems to me to be ridiculously arrogant.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I hear a lot of people saying that a dead person can't give permission or say they don't want to be baptized after they die, because they're already dead. But doesn't the fact that they may have made their wishes explicitly clear while they're alive count for something?
Can I say, right now, that I do not wish to be baptized after my death? Because I'm saying it.
And I don't see why a simple filter couldn't be installed that if certain criteria were entered, the database would say that name couldn't be added.
It's been a long time (more than 8 years) since I was a database programmer, but I know I could have programmed something like that into my databases and software has only gotten better since, I know it's possible. And while it's being done, give people who care very much about things that are done in their names, even after they're gone, to put their own names on the filter.
Kind of a "do not call in the afterlife" list. And no, I'm not being flippant, I'm serious. I'm more than confident about my own set of beliefs, I will not require a Mormon baptism after my death, so do not desecrate my name after I'm gone, please.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I AM PROUD TO BE REDICULOUSLY ARROGANT. I DECLARE IT TO FROM THE ROOFTOPS. MY FAITH MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN YOURS. IF IT DIDN'T, I WOULD BE ANOTHER FAITH OR NO FAITH AT ALL.
Just thought I would get that out of my system. Like I said before, making an agreement that limits a religious practice that I feel God commanded to be done or be damned made me very uncomfortable. Not to mention, the agreement never made anything better between the two parties that made it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
It's a step in the right direction.
But someone is made sick by this (assuming she's not lying). You have a set of criteria for when you use the phrase "this makes me sick." There are two possibilities (assuming, again, the truth of the person being sick): 1) this act is so bad to her that, using your criteria, she has been made sick; or 2) she has different criteria for what types of acts make her sick.
The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is not the baptism - I've made my position on those as clear as possible at this point - but rather the inability (and, for some - not you - the unwillingness) to examine the issue from another perspective.
So take this as a given: a person is made sick by these baptisms. Work backwords from there: if she uses your criteria, then she thinks you "must have done some serious work to reach a mindset where they could be foolish enough to believe its good." Try to imagine other criteria that might support this conclusion. Ask - intending only to understand, not argue - if this supposition is correct.
Perhaps the sickening is based on a misunderstanding that you could correct. Perhaps you'll see a way in which the baptisms could be performed without giving offense (you won't, in this case, but it's certainly conceivable in a general sense with indeterminate participants).
You most likely won't come to such a conclusion. But you can at least disagree knowing the extent of the greivance in the others' eyes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" MY FAITH MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN YOURS."
I'm sure it does. But don't be surprised, if, at some point, this practice is outlawed, because your church refuses to be decent human beings about practicing its faith.
"Playing nicely with others," is a fundamental tenet of living in a multi-cultural society.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But don't be surprised, if, at some point, this practice is outlawed, because your church refuses to be decent human beings about practicing its faith.
As much as I dislike the practice, the Constitutional amendment that would be necessary to implement this would be so harmful as to spur to a lot of action.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
I know this might count for little, but the phrase is "baptism FOR the dead," not "baptism OF the dead." It is like giving a gift that can be accepted or rejected.
BB, I commend the way your arguments have been presented. You too, Marlozhan.
For that matter I commend those with differing views who have presented their arguments logically and respectfully.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I AM PROUD TO BE REDICULOUSLY ARROGANT. I DECLARE IT TO FROM THE ROOFTOPS. MY FAITH MATTERS MORE TO ME THAN YOURS. IF IT DIDN'T, I WOULD BE ANOTHER FAITH OR NO FAITH AT ALL.
Just thought I would get that out of my system. Like I said before, making an agreement that limits a religious practice that I feel God commanded to be done or be damned made me very uncomfortable.
So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?
Hell, why don't we just baptize everyone, and their religious preference be damned?
You need to consider, for a moment, that those of us don't share your religious affiliation may find this just a little bit out of hand. You ave no more authority to push religious services on people who may not wish it than I to push it on to you. I doubt you'd like very much if I interrupted your funeral to perform, say, a posthumous conversion ritual to make sure you could get into Heaven.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, I must say that, at least in the United States, making it illegal would be a violation of not only my freedom of religion, but freedom of speech. Sorry for so many commas.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?"
Well, at least in the United States, yes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As much as I dislike the practice, the Constitutional amendment that would be necessary to implement this would be so harmful as to spur to a lot of action."
I agree. I don't think its likely that such a law would survive for long in the current climate in the US. I do think such laws might someday be passed on the local level, or even state level, and survive for a while before being struck down.
I do also think that we're not too far away from a serious alteration of the structure of the US government, but thats anotehr thread entirely
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do think such laws might someday be passed on the local level, or even state level, and survive for a while before being struck down.
I bet such a law would be enjoined from being enforced the day it purported to become effective and would never be effective for a single day in this country.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Possibly. *Shrug*
People will do what they can to stop the practice if it becomes prevalent and disruptive enough. Whether thats through legislative action to prevent it, suing people who perform the ceremonies, or less ethical approaches, groups of people tend to not tolerate for long behavior that gets them as riled up as this behavior makes some people.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "So, because your faith matters more to you than someone else's, it gives you the right to hold holy services in their name when they might not want it?"
Well, at least in the United States, yes.
You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Allow me to clarify:
I am fully aware that the LDS is not the only Christian church to deny the validity of other domination's baptisms. I find all of it arrogant.
Something about posthumus baptism feels like an order of magnitude different to me.
Posthumus baptismal rites, from what I understand, involve someone who is an LDS member, perhaps a relative of the deceased, perhaps not, invoking that persons name in a religious ceremony. To be honest, I think the geneological website should do a better job of conveying this information to potential users.
In fact, it ought to be in bold letters on every page of that website. Something like:
WARNING: Entry of names into this list may result in the person being named in a religious ceremony without the knowledge or consent of that persons nearest living relatives. We strongly advise the user to obtain such consent prior to entry of names into this site.
Just a suggestion. And I mean, this should be a pop-up warning every time you hit "ENTER" on that site. With an "Are you sure?" after each one. And maybe a "Are you REALLY acting with the consent of this person's closest living relatives?"
At least for people who died in the last 50 years or so.
Also, I should warn you all. My one grandmother who is on that list -- If there's such a thing as physical bodies in the afterlife, approach her with caution. She will hurt you. (I'm only joking a little bit.)
My other grandmother -- you're on your own. Even if there is no physical existence, she'll probably hurt you. She'll hurt you so bad it'll probably mess up your living descendants. Best just leave her alone. Seriously, walk away and don't break eye contact until you're out of range.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I've been avoiding this thread, but I feel compelled to say that LDS do -not- believe that performing a baptism by proxy automatically means the person in the Spirit World will accept it, and then qualify as a "member".
Agency is believed to extend to the afterlife, however certain ordinances need a body to be performed. But the person is still given a choice to accept or reject it.
That said, if the person specifically requests such work not be done, then yes, I believe their wishes should be respected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
I can't tell if you're confusing the issue intentionally or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your legal conclusion is just wrong. You no more have the legal power to stop someone from baptizing you by proxy than you have the power to stop someone from praying for you. There might be a cause of action if the LDS church were saying that you had accepted it, but they're not saying that. They are reporting facts: on such and such a date, this ceremony was performed in the temple.
As for your comparison, I'm almost sure you see the difference between physical grave robbing and talking about someone. In case you don't, one is a crime (as is, most likely, interrupting a funeral to touch the body in some way) and the other is not. It's entirely consistent to ban one and not the other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People will do what they can to stop the practice if it becomes prevalent and disruptive enough. Whether thats through legislative action to prevent it, suing people who perform the ceremonies, or less ethical approaches, groups of people tend to not tolerate for long behavior that gets them as riled up as this behavior makes some people.
Yep. And I'd expect people who dislike the practice to still condemn such attempts as tyranical and violative of civil rights or risk being called hypocrites the next time they call on the First Amendment to prevent someone from stopping their desired forms of expression.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Out of curiosity, if you sued the LDS church in a civil court for damages (mental anguish, presumably, since "They caused my mother to burn in hell for eternity" is rather hard to prove) over this practice, is there any chance you'd get a jury trial, or would it get thrown out?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, if you sued the LDS church in a civil court for damages (mental anguish, presumably, since "They caused my mother to burn in hell for eternity" is rather hard to prove) over this practice, is there any chance you'd get a jury trial, or would it get thrown out?
I'd be surprised if it went to a jury, but it would be possible. I would bet most of my life savings that it wouldn't survive appeal if the jury found against them, assuming no contractual violations.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Just curious, if I were to burn paper money or food with a dead person's name on it (Buddhist tradition) how offended would people be? For me, if my Buddhist relatives don't burn paper money for me, I would be offended (even though I believe their ideas of the afterlife are wrong).
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You cannot call Freedom of Religion in to defend your actions because your actions purposefully intrude on the rights of another individual or their family. If, for example, you baptize a person posthumously who ordered not be in their Will, you've just superseded your legal authority over the estate of that person.
I guess I'm afraid I have no choice then to posthumously circumcise your remains. After all, my beliefs are more important than yours, and it's my Freedom of Religion to do so.
I can't tell if you're confusing the issue intentionally or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your legal conclusion is just wrong. You no more have the legal power to stop someone from baptizing you by proxy than you have the power to stop someone from praying for you. There might be a cause of action if the LDS church were saying that you had accepted it, but they're not saying that. They are reporting facts: on such and such a date, this ceremony was performed in the temple.
As for your comparison, I'm almost sure you see the difference between physical grave robbing and talking about someone. In case you don't, one is a crime (as is, most likely, interrupting a funeral to touch the body in some way) and the other is not. It's entirely consistent to ban one and not the other.
I was confused, as I got the impression is was more than reading off someone's name during the ceremony. I'll retract my comment about circumcision then, as that comparison is completely bogus.
Likewise, if it's an action that does not force acceptance but presents an option in the afterlife, than that too is different from what I thought it was, so I likewise retract my legal statement. Thank you for telling me more about it. I hate to spout stupid things.
However, I still believe it could be handled better. I appreciate the Church's intention, but why not contact the person's estate and get their ok? It would make the process slower, yes, but also much more agreeable. As it stands, though the ceremony is simple, it still seems somewhat rude, in the way that someone telling you that they'll pray you "come around" to their truth is rude.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Likewise, if it's an action that does not force acceptance but presents an option in the afterlife, than that too is different from what I thought it was, so I likewise retract my legal statement.
Why would you accept what the Mormons say about the issue? The mere choice could be damaging, according to some superstitions.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'd be surprised if it went to a jury, but it would be possible. I would bet most of my life savings that it wouldn't survive appeal if the jury found against them, assuming no contractual violations."
And, surprise, you just found a way that people could start suing to stop this practice without violating first amendment rights... contractual obligations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, surprise, you just found a way that people could start suing to stop this practice without violating first amendment rights... contractual obligations.
That's not a surprise. I doubt they've even violated the contract, and there's a serious chance it's not even a legally enforceable contract.
But it's certainly no surprise, and the vast majority of people they perform these on are not covered by such a contract even if valid.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I haven't read this whole thread (there aren't enough hours in the day), but I wanted to make sure a certain idea got out there ...
Mormons (like me) don't believe that we are actually baptizing the person whose name is used in the ceremony. It's more like we're performing a baptism that could be theirs if they want it, but it is entirely up to them whether or not to accept it.
For example, imagine I had a party with 100 guests, and I set out 100 platters of delicious pork rinds for everyone as a snack. Everyone has already eaten their main course, so no one NEEDS the snack. It's just put out for everyone, with little place cards on the platters, so that they can take one if they want it. (I might personally have a strong belief that pork rinds are the best snack EVER, and that EVERYONE should have some, but that belief is not enforced upon the guests.)
Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds? It doesn't seem like the same level of offense. Yes, it would be much more thoughtful to make a special provision for his dietary requirements, and if I were a more thoughtful host, I would try and find a way to do so. But that's a far cry from coercing him into breaking a serious religious conviction.
So I understand why this issue, in general, is distressing. But given the fact that no ordinances were performed in this case, AND even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it ... I don't think that the degree of panic and anger that I've seen in this thread is warranted.
Yes, this is an important warning sign to heed. There are still holes in our protections against these situations, and we need to repair them. But this is an accidental breakdown of the system that was caught before any real damage was done, NOT a malicious campaign to smear people's ancestors. It deserves an appropriate response.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it
Geoff, that's only reassuring to the people concerned about this if the Mormons are entirely right about the effect of these ordinances. So, while it would reassure a Mormon, it won't reassure anyone else. Therefore, their degree of upset is still appropriate based on their beliefs of what the ordinance does.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So I understand why this issue, in general, is distressing. But given the fact that no ordinances were performed in this case, AND even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it ... I don't think that the degree of panic and anger that I've seen in this thread is warranted."
What if the person who you are baptizing belonged to a faith that believes the ceremony you perform actually has an affect, regardless of your intentions?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I would not mind if Weisenthal makes it into the afterlife I will pray for him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds? It doesn't seem like the same level of offense.
It seems to me that your analogy demonstrates the opposite of what you meant it to do. The reason is that the orthodox Jew would, presumably, feel that a kitchen that has had pork rinds in it at any point is ritually unclean, and you have therefore (presuming he did not know that the pork would be served) tricked him into eating non-kosher food. (Granted, in this case he'd be fairly stupid to show up at your party at all without bringing his own food.) In other words, the pork rinds do him harm, religiously speaking, whether or not you force him to eat them. And, apparently, some people believe that this is exactly true of the ordinance thing, without even the mitigating factor that they can choose not to go to your party.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, explain the Mormon afterlife to me. I mean, if somebody's dead, but they haven't been baptized yet, and then somebody gets baptized for them or whatever...I mean, what happens up to that point? Are they hanging out in limbo? Are they just dead? What is going on?
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, Paul G., as for myself, I really don't care. As a Mormon my beliefs supercede any and all other people's considerations. Now, people are going to jump all over this, but I am not the only person to hold that kind of religious attitude toward their own faith and others. That is why I am more understanding and comfortable with an athiest that said "a pox on both your superstitious houses" than I am a religious person proclaiming they are offended. Sure you are. You don't believe the same things I do.
I mean, its not like other Christians haven't prayed for Mormons that they would "find the way" and "be saved" when we already believe we have. And, of course, they say that loud and clear and to our faces. There might be a degree difference as to how far Mormons go with that, but it amounts to the same idea. Pluralism is probably a good goal, but with pluralism comes the equally important consideration that it exists precisely because no one holds the same opinions.
I can understand why people can be offended. They have a different belief system than I do and so it seems the actions of a Mormon can effect their ancestors. So what is what I say. I believe more Mormons should say that exact thing and try not to defend such a holy and sacred responsibility as we see it.
I would rather risk making many enemies than bring down the wrath of God. That is exactly what the Scriptures say will happen if the Temple work isn't done. Remember, Earthly polygamy was halted to save the Temple work from ending. Yes, I am currently talking more to Mormons than the non-Mormons in this last paragraph.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I am a Jew, and not terribly familiar with baptism. I have a few questions. If it's easier, I would be happy with a link where I could find the answers.
1. Are Mormons the only denomination that performs baptisms of the dead? If not, are other denominations more careful?
2. Let's say the name of a dead person was not on the list because of an oversight. What do Mormons believe happens to them? I'm trying to understand why Mormons would do something that almost everyone would opt out of while living, if given the chance. They must believe the consequences are extremely harsh for those who don't go through baptism.
3. How far back can the baptisms go? For example, during the Middle Ages, many Jews chose death rather baptism. Could this affect them as well?
4. Given the volume of names that have been submitted, why can't the Mormons just work on those names for now? It seems to me that it would be trivial to at the end of every month, take the names that were submitted in the previous month, match them against the "do not baptize" list, and then release the results for those who feel like it should be done.
5. How much knowledge about a person do you need to have to submit their name? Are there any criteria (other than the agreement made in 1995) that disqualify someone from being added to the list? For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list.
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the person adding the name. If the name gets on the list, it should just take one descendant to remove it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Puppy,
quote:For example, imagine I had a party with 100 guests, and I set out 100 platters of delicious pork rinds for everyone as a snack. Everyone has already eaten their main course, so no one NEEDS the snack. It's just put out for everyone, with little place cards on the platters, so that they can take one if they want it. (I might personally have a strong belief that pork rinds are the best snack EVER, and that EVERYONE should have some, but that belief is not enforced upon the guests.)
Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds?
Yes, for the same reason we don't drink in front of Alcoholics. In doing so, you are mocking the severity of alcoholism.
In this posthumous offering, whether you intend to or not, you are mocking the seriousness of the Jew religion, of both Mr. Weisenthal and the Jewish community he left behind.
_____
It's kind of like your Dad's last article about how the University faculty would attempt to indoctrinate students away from the faith of their parents. It's especially insidious to do it in college, when the students are seperated from their parents. And in Weisenthal's case, it's insidious because it's the equivalent of knocking on doors, prosthelitizing at 3am.
[ December 19, 2006, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Are they hanging out in limbo? Are they just dead? What is going on?"
Some things we know from what we consider revelation and some things we don't. There are those who, because of deeds done in this life, are suffering damnation until the sins are purged or justice served. Others are hard at work teaching and getting taught, or doing other work related to both the living and the dead that has not been specified. Still others are simply resting from all the cares and problems of the mortal life. It depends on where the individual spiritually stands at the time of death.
Some say there is a hard division between "Paradise" and "Prison" - sort of a light Heaven and Hell concept. Others say they are co-mingled and only perceptions make up the difference. There is plenty of Scriptural justification for both views.
However, this is just one step in the progression of souls. Think of it as a very active Limbo. The real "afterlife" is the final Judgement. That will happen in a future that hasn't happened yet. Of course, that is a whole other discussion.
quote:1. Are Mormons the only denomination that performs baptisms of the dead? If not, are other denominations more careful?
Mormons are the only Christian religion to do this, although there was apparently some ancient Christians who seemed to have also done this (depending on if you accept the research on the topic or not). There are Christians that will very much "pray for you" to save your soul.
quote:2. Let's say the name of a dead person was not on the list because of an oversight. What do Mormons believe happens to them? I'm trying to understand why Mormons would do something that almost everyone would opt out of while living, if given the chance. They must believe the consequences are extremely harsh for those who don't go through baptism.
Whatever could not be done now will be done in the Millenium (or last 1000 years of Earth history). That will be a time when things are much more accessable and will have much more of Heaven's help. We don't believe that non-Baptism will be extremely harsh (but it will take away any chance of a person reaching the highest potential imaginable). However, we do believe that it will be harsh for the Earth if it isn't done.
quote:How far back can the baptisms go? For example, during the Middle Ages, many Jews chose death rather baptism. Could this affect them as well?
From a practical viewpoint it can go back to as far back as records exist. Religiously, it can go back to the time of Adam and Eve's children.
quote:Given the volume of names that have been submitted, why can't the Mormons just work on those names for now? It seems to me that it would be trivial to at the end of every month, take the names that were submitted in the previous month, match them against the "do not baptize" list, and then release the results for those who feel like it should be done.
That is because there are far more people who will do the work in the Temple than the names that are put in the system. One person can do as many names as is desirable or within chosen time frame. I really don't know how many names are actually in waiting or not, but it wouldn't be long before there would need to be more if extraction was halted. There really is no DO NOT BAPTISE list. That is under the descretion of whoever puts the names in. There might be an exception under the Jewish "agreement."
quote:How much knowledge about a person do you need to have to submit their name? Are there any criteria (other than the agreement made in 1995) that disqualify someone from being added to the list? For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list.
Again, there is no list of don't baptise. The only criteria that disqualifies is living and having been dead(I don't know how long, 10, 50 yrs?) a short time ago guideline. You are qualified if your birth, death, and proof of existance is put in.
As for the "For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list," Mormons don't see it that way religiously. After all, the whole point of Mormonism is that true authority to act in G-d's name was lost from the Earth. People are considered people worthy of salvation.
[ December 19, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?
quote:I know this might count for little, but the phrase is "baptism FOR the dead," not "baptism OF the dead." It is like giving a gift that can be accepted or rejected.
And working within the assumptions and beliefs of your faith, that's fine. But do you see that if one does not share them, it may not make much difference what you call it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I haven't read this whole thread (there aren't enough hours in the day), but I wanted to make sure a certain idea got out there ...
Mormons (like me) don't believe that we are actually baptizing the person whose name is used in the ceremony. It's more like we're performing a baptism that could be theirs if they want it, but it is entirely up to them whether or not to accept it.
Had you read the thread (or even the last page before your post), you would have seen that this point has already been made. Moreover, I (and others) have explained that your perspective on what's happening is not the same as ours.
A man believes it is morally incorrect to eat pork rinds; that grilled fish is the only true food. People who believe that neither pork rinds nor grilled fish should be eaten beat the man up repeatedly, but he never changes his mind. He even goes out of his way to find the people who beat him and his friends up and points them out to the police. All worn out, he collapses onto a chair. Then you put a pork rind in front of him.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and your perception of those actions doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Well, this thread was frustrating to read.
(And yes, that's all I'm going to contribute.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and yours doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
Occasional, when people are addressing that argument, they are not addressing a statement "we believe ours works." They are addressing a conditional statement "even if we're wrong, there's no harm."
"We're right" is an entirely different argument and not one being addressed by the question you responded to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and yours doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
No one is asking you to agree. Merely to be willing to look at it from someone else's perspective.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"No one is asking you to agree. Merely to be willing to look at it from someone else's perspective."
What is the difference? At least in this discussion?
Dagonee, you might be correct in the "We are right" is not properly answering the question. However, that is the assumption that Mormons seem to be answering the question from. Again, that would be very different from the reasoning of a non-Mormon (because you mentioned non-Mormons also say this). So, a Mormon must first get rid of the notion of "right authority" vs. "no authority" to get to the intention of the question. However, that isn't an easy thing to do from a religion where the only real religious question is about authority.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, Paul G., as for myself, I really don't care. As a Mormon my beliefs supercede any and all other people's considerations. Now, people are going to jump all over this, but I am not the only person to hold that kind of religious attitude toward their own faith and others.
Just because others believe that way does not make it any more right. If we could all force our religious practices on others because we believe strongly, our country would be a large war zone.
I'm sorry, but I find this arrogant, superciliousness aggravating. There's nothing more frustrating to me than an overzealous believer who knows what's better for me than I do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, like I said, God is more important to me than people's opinions. And Baptism for the Dead is more than simply a side issue, but a foundational belief and practice.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Okay, if the point I was trying to make has already been made and refuted, I withdraw it. I just ... I don't know, I'm not thrilled about some of the attitudes that a few of my fellow Mormons have taken in here, and from what I was reading at the time I posted, I thought my input might help. But if not, that's cool, I don't want to exascerbate the situation.
The only point I was really trying to make was that this mistake was clearly not maliciously meant, given the likely perspective of the Mormon making the mistake, and I think the conversation would benefit from less hysterics. I think that one still stands, even if the specific point I addressed is moot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, that isn't an easy thing to do from a religion where the only real religious question is about authority.
I get that. People who have that difficulty, however, should not offer defenses that require such a major paradigm shift if it's too difficult for them.
You, of course, haven't offered that defense, so this doesn't apply to you. If you're not going to discuss that defense on its own terms, you might be more effective by simply ignoring the posts that respond to it. Otherwise it gets very confusing keeping track.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I might believe that the ordinance is meaningless in every possible way and STILL be disturbed to find out that someone I don't even know is using my father's name in a religious ceremony.
It also wouldn't make it less disturbing to discover that the person using my father's name is some distant relative. There is not an LDS member among the people I consider to be sufficiently connected with his name and legacy to request rituals in his name, and therefore the LDS church couldn't possibly conduct this ceremony in any way that I would consider other than a grave insult and affront to his memory.
Sorry. I pretty much wish your church didn't have my father's name and would not use it ever, for any purpose, even ones you claim are potentially meaningless.
I have a very big soft spot for members of the LDS church. I have known and interacted with many and like almost all of them and consider them deeply spiritual and upstanding people. To my mind, this practice and specifically the use of my father's name, is ...well, I don't really have appropriate words to express what I'm feeling.
I'll get over it, but right now, I probably couldn't be nice to anyone who defends this, so I'm going to bug out for awhile. It's not your fault -- but it is a problem. Catch you in the fluff threads.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What exactly is the argument, here?
All the Mo's have said, "Yes, we need to do better at living up to our promises."
One article I read in the link Lisa provided stated that there were plans to put in a name filter-- this was in August 2006, I believe. There have been many mistakes that need to be rectified-- but we aren't going to hurry up about it just because you scream at us.
(Indeed, screaming at Mormons gets you just about nowhere. We are the Kings and Queens of passive aggressive behavior.)
Yes, baptism for the dead as an ordinance is overwhelmingly arrogant. But for that matter, so is the very base of Christianity-- accept Christ, and be saved. Otherwise...no. And, "No man cometh unto the Father except by me," etc.
Enormously arrogant. Also, enormously necessary.
Excuse me-- I've got an itch in my eyeball. So do you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: The only point I was really trying to make was that this mistake was clearly not maliciously meant, given the likely perspective of the Mormon making the mistake, and I think the conversation would benefit from less hysterics. I think that one still stands, even if the specific point I addressed is moot.
Agreed on both points.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Okay, I read rivka's explanation, and suddenly, that makes sense. No one had explained a worldview to me before in which a ritual that is intended to have only conditional meaning by the people performing it could actually have an unwanted UNconditional meaning for the person in whose name it was performed.
From a Mormon's typical perspective, the only available options seem to be "They want it, and YAY! we did it!" or "They don't want it, and [shrug] at least we tried to be nice. No harm done, I'm sure where they are, they understand." The third option of "Their descendents have a serious, highly-legitimate belief that our actions pulled their ancestor AWAY from God!" never came up for me before. So thank you. And sorry I didn't read it sooner. Tough day at work Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm having a long day at work myself. In that I'm still here . . .
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yes, baptism for the dead as an ordinance is overwhelmingly arrogant. But for that matter, so is the very base of Christianity-- accept Christ, and be saved. Otherwise...no. And, "No man cometh unto the Father except by me," etc.
Enormously arrogant. Also, enormously necessary.
Excuse me-- I've got an itch in my eyeball. So do you.
Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
An itch in my eyeball? Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what that's to mean.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
A filter would be fine. As I said, the agreement clearly excludes those with current Mormon descendants. So while I hate it, if a current member of the church could prove ancestry, then I accept that there's nothing I can do about that (except perhaps work on bringing said descendant back where they belong).
I'd actually be happier if there were simply a rule that you had to prove ancestry to add anyone to the list to begin with. Mostly for simplicity's sake.
Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare. Doing it via scans of such documents would be easier & take less space, naturally. It would also mean we'd have to increase our volunteer numbers tremendously to oversee such things.
On the other hand, I can also see the value in that. It would certainly go a long ways towards preventing a lot of the junk genealogy that gets submitted. I think that would go a long ways towards providing all-round better quality research. That, I can definitely get behind. That, and providing documentation indicating that these were ancestors, and also providing a signed form that indicates that permission was obtained from the closest living relative, where necessary.
Realisitically, in the short term, I don't see it happening, although I personally would love to see something along these lines happening.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world
I'm sorry, but this argument just seems silly to me.
This is a database, right? A site that people can enter information into?
Can't someone write a filter with a whole bunch of names, so that when someone enters a name on the "do not use" list an error will pop up?
For instance: A person types in: "John Doe, DOB 02/02/1902, DOD 02/02/1952". Then they get an hourglass as the system checks against the list. Then a pop up tells them "We're sorry, this name cannot be entered into the database" with an explanation.
Doesn't seem like this would be too much to ask.
There are already some filters in place. Obviously (to me, at any rate) they need to be improved. The filters will prevent work being done for people in certain geographical areas. Most people who do genealogical work don't know this because they don't submit ancestors from those geographic areas. There is no official posted list as it may change at any moment, depending on agreements in place with religious groups or political leaders. It's checked when the names are reviewed by the computer program called Temple Ready which approves or denies work as being ready to be done. If a person's location is on that list, then an error message pops up and that person's work is not submitted.
If Mr. Weisenthal had been born in Israel, for example, the only way to circumvent the location filter to submit his name for temple work would be to give erroneous location information.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And the church agreed to adequately educate its members, implying (if not stating outright) that they would do their best to keep this from happening again (and again and again and again). I do not believe much effort has been spent on that. What is wrong with something along the line of FC's suggestion? Include an "I believe this person should be added anyway, and here's why" explanation form option (which gets reviewed by an actual person).
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I agree with Rivka that an explanation form would be good, but suppose that person provides a good reason to add that person's name? I see the same problem arising, namely an objection to the name being added, regardless of the reason.
There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
rivka, I can understand why it appears to you that there isn't much effort made on our part to educate our members. There is, though.
In the publications that the church puts out to educate the members about how to do genealogy work, it always says "ancestors only". When we run the names through Temple Ready, the program that checks for duplications and runs the names through the existing filters, it says at the very beginning that the people we submit must be our ancestors. Most staff who work at family history centres and family history consultants who teach our members to do family history work stress that it's for ancestors only. Unfortunately, we do have some who think they can do whatever they want because... Really, the reason doesn't matter, at least not to me. The rules are in place for a reason, and a very good one as far as I and many others are concerned. We're working on educating people. We are trying. It's obviously not enough.
Those of us who follow and understand the rules are also, shall we say, not impressed by the idiots who do their own thing regardless of the consequences. Yeah, they're probably 80 and clueless, but still...
rivka, I read those other threads a while ago, and I remember reading what you wrote about your beliefs of the possible harm that could happen to you if someone did LDS temple work on your behalf. While I do not share your belief on that, I do appreciate what you wrote and your explanations. It's helped me to understand better your perspective and the possible perspectives of others. I've used it in training others in the hopes that it'll help them understand better as well.
Much work is currently being done to revamp and overhaul the existing database and how it's accessed. It takes time and it's not done. When it is, it is supposed to be better at preventing duplication (which is a huge problem at the moment) and filtering out those who aren't supposed to have their work done. Beta testing is supposed to start soon, although there's no official starting date for that.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this?
I was not specific enough. I have no idea in terms of how much effort has been put into education.
But every time (before this thread, and I am happily surprised that it's not being dismissed this time) that I or someone else has suggested a filter of the like previously, it has been met with whines that it's too much work.
(That includes requests made through official channels. Not by me, but by people I know.)
Depending on who they're talking to, it wouldn't be surprising that those people might not have any clue.
Unless you (the generic LDS you) actually work on genealogy and submit names to the temple, you probably don't have a clue what the process is. I doubt that many Hatrackers who are LDS have done much genealogy - it's usually done by the grey-haired crowed. Granted, there are a couple of exceptions, one being me. Everyone else pretty much doesn't know what's going on simply because they haven't taken an interest and educated themselves. Doesnt' mean that nothing's been done - only means they don't know about it.
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: I see your point. Maybe Mormon leadership needs to hire some better DB people.
They have, and they are. They're working on it.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
Go ahead. I don't care. No, seriously, I don't mind. I don't believe it'll have any effect on me in the afterlife at all.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: To be honest, I think the geneological website should do a better job of conveying this information to potential users.
In fact, it ought to be in bold letters on every page of that website. Something like:
WARNING: Entry of names into this list may result in the person being named in a religious ceremony without the knowledge or consent of that persons nearest living relatives. We strongly advise the user to obtain such consent prior to entry of names into this site.
Just a suggestion. And I mean, this should be a pop-up warning every time you hit "ENTER" on that site. With an "Are you sure?" after each one. And maybe a "Are you REALLY acting with the consent of this person's closest living relatives?"
At least for people who died in the last 50 years or so.
There are messages that ask you to confirm that you're a relative and you have permission, if necessary, but I have no problem with - and would like very much - if that message popped up more frequently and was so obvious that absolutely everyone who used that program would know exactly what policy is.
As I've said before, we're to do the ordinances for our ancestors only. If they're not our ancestor, we should not submit them. Period.
The other part, however, is that we're supposed to have permission of the closest living relative for anyone who was born in the last 110 years, or, if their birth date is not known, married in the last 90. If we don't have that permission, we're not to do it. Period. No exceptions.
If that time frame were extended to 150 years, for example, I would still have no problem with it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It also wouldn't make it less disturbing to discover that the person using my father's name is some distant relative. There is not an LDS member among the people I consider to be sufficiently connected with his name and legacy to request rituals in his name, and therefore the LDS church couldn't possibly conduct this ceremony in any way that I would consider other than a grave insult and affront to his memory.
Sorry. I pretty much wish your church didn't have my father's name and would not use it ever, for any purpose, even ones you claim are potentially meaningless.
Bob, in the case of your father, that means that your mother, if she's still living, would have to give permission. If she's not, then either you or one of your siblings would have to give permission. If none of your father's children are still living, then it goes to your father's parents, then your father's siblings, and so on. Some distant relative of yours is not sufficiently close in relations to your father to submit his name for ordinances on their own without seeking explicit permission.
That someone did anyone means that that person went against the rules. I really really wish people wouldn't do that.
Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
I'm having a long day at work myself. In that I'm still here . . .
Me, too. And I'm on the east coast, and my house will be empty when I get home.
I'm so pitifwull. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
Unless you are a Universalist, the ending to that is "but if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell for Eternity."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare.
I'm not clear on why it would take THAT many pieces of paper. Assuming (and I realize this can be a major assumption, depending on country and era of birth) there are birth certificates for everyone along the line of descent, wouldn't it only take those? (Granted, some instances would take dozens. But I wouldn't think those would be the majority at all.)
quote:There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
That's what I thought I had been told before. But in this very thread, Mormons have indicated otherwise.
quote:rivka, I can understand why it appears to you that there isn't much effort made on our part to educate our members. There is, though.
. . .
The rules are in place for a reason, and a very good one as far as I and many others are concerned. We're working on educating people. We are trying. It's obviously not enough.
Those of us who follow and understand the rules are also, shall we say, not impressed by the idiots who do their own thing regardless of the consequences. Yeah, they're probably 80 and clueless, but still...
rivka, I read those other threads a while ago, and I remember reading what you wrote about your beliefs of the possible harm that could happen to you if someone did LDS temple work on your behalf. While I do not share your belief on that, I do appreciate what you wrote and your explanations. It's helped me to understand better your perspective and the possible perspectives of others. I've used it in training others in the hopes that it'll help them understand better as well.
quote:Much work is currently being done to revamp and overhaul the existing database and how it's accessed. It takes time and it's not done. When it is, it is supposed to be better at preventing duplication (which is a huge problem at the moment) and filtering out those who aren't supposed to have their work done.
I'm glad to hear that.
quote:Depending on who they're talking to, it wouldn't be surprising that those people might not have any clue.
Fair enough.
quote:Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Great. When will that be up and running? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
I'm having a long day at work myself. In that I'm still here . . .
Me, too. And I'm on the east coast, and my house will be empty when I get home.
I'm so pitifwull.
Well, you've got me beat by three hours, but my apartment will also be empty when I get home. (That's actually why I'm here so late. I stay late on the night the kids are with their dad to make up for leaving early the other days.)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
rivka- what is the Jewish standpoint on a Buddhist burning paper money or food for a dead Jewish person?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We'd be against it. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no large database or centralized registry, so I'd imagine there's not much we could do about it.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
quote:Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
Unless you are a Universalist, the ending to that is "but if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell for Eternity."
This is true, yes. And however arrogant it is for a religion to proclaim it is the only way, most, if not all, religions give their members a choice of believing. It's not forced upon someone if they don't want it. Though, that, sadly, is not true, as plenty of families love forcing their children to believe as they do.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare.
I'm not clear on why it would take THAT many pieces of paper. Assuming (and I realize this can be a major assumption, depending on country and era of birth) there are birth certificates for everyone along the line of descent, wouldn't it only take those? (Granted, some instances would take dozens. But I wouldn't think those would be the majority at all.)
For me to prove my relation to my mother would take one piece of paper. My birth certificate. For me to prove my relation to my grandmother would take two pieces of paper - my birth certificate and my mother's birth certificate. For me to prove my relationship to my great great grandmother would take my birth certificate, my mother's birth certificate, and, if my grandmother's mother's name doesn't appear on her birth certificate, could also require, for example, a copy of a census record. But because that census record is not a primary document, it requires more documentation. So a will that lists my grandmother as a descendant. The will is also not a primary document, so this is still not sufficient proof. Especially since neither of those documents yet prove my great grandmother's date of birth, and we don't have a birth certificate on her, either. So, a copy of the family Bible would help, but it's also not a primary document, so still insufficient as far as proof goes...
Now, if we're talking about my great great grandmother, who came over from South Russia, which is now in the Ukraine, in 1874, I'd have to dig up probate records, the ship manifest listing her and her age, and other records just to prove her birth date and birth place, and I still haven't proved that I'm her descendant...
Birth, marriage, and death certificates are great pieces of information when they're available. They aren't always. Especially when we're talking about ancestors such as mine who wandered all over northern Europe before coming to Canada. (Netherlands->Germany->Prussia->South Russia->Canada). Then, to make it really good, I'd have to provide translations of those documents... English is no problem, but then there's plautdeutsch (Mennonite Low German), High German, Russian, Dutch, and possibly a couple of other languages thrown in for good luck.
Do you see how it can get very messy very fast?
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
That's what I thought I had been told before. But in this very thread, Mormons have indicated otherwise.
Yep, which is why I added a comment that, if the LDS person in question hasn't done a lot of work on genealogy, then they they haven't educated themselves and so they really don't know what the policies and procedures are.[/quote]
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Great. When will that be up and running?
If I were in charge... I'm not, and I don't have a clue. Sorry.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
And the ritual isn't the same thing as baptism, which implies a conversion of faith. Buddhism is actually tolerant of other religions.
You could be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time, as far as Buddhism is concerned. But Christianity forbids it.
I would personally consider any religious ceremony performed in my memory to be an affront on my beliefs, but there are degrees to the offence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I guess this is just a "me too" post. But I also think that the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism is the height of "our religion is better than your religion" arrogance.
Especially in the case of a person who distinguished himself by a great body of work that is predicated on his religious identity.
I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
There's an idea.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
What's left to unbaptize after the person's dead? Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And what's left to baptize in the first place?
It's the thought that counts... both ways.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'd say the distinction is that the people doing the posthumous baptizing think there's something left to baptize. If we were doing posthumous unbaptizing we'd have to be agnostics. "Just in case you're out there somewhere, we'd like to give you the chance to renounce your religion... you know, if it's wrong." Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
I don't personally believe that a proxy baptism would do any harm to me. I suppose the idea that someday someone's going to be using my name in a ceremony from a religion I don't belong to weirds me out a bit, but I'll be dead and I don't think it will matter.
I'll tell you what. Don't proselytize me now, and you can baptize me all you want after I'm dead.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think I'm going to follow Bob_Scopatz out of this thread.
I generally have a favorable view of all the Mormons I've ever met - they've been very nice people, and we've gotten along great. However, whenever I hear Mormons talk about this practice, I can't help but lose a lot of respect for them. It's not just the idea itself that makes me think less of them, but the means in which it is defended.
So, I'm bowing out before my opinions on folks are damaged more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be consistent with atheist beliefs, you'd have to unbaptise them when they were alive. Alas, the living are usually able to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it's a pretty bright idea; I'll start the ball rolling by unbaptising Scott R. Bone dry, I tell you! Who's next?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I've got a practical question about this doctrine. If the Jewish religion believes that baptism for the dead can have such a disastrous consequences on a person's soul, why haven't the radical Muslims adopted some sort of posthemous conversion-by-proxy ceremony? If I believed that, it would scare me way more than a car bomb.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Boundaries.
Only Mormons are qualified to say what Mormons mean by baptism. If they tell me they do posthumous baptisms in order to show contempt for people, I'll believe them; until then, no. We are free to be offended; we are not free to tell them what they meant.
We are free to be offended, but it'll do nothing but elevate our blood pressure. If Mormons ever posthumously baptize my late (Methodist) grandmother, I will consider it to be a sweet gesture, rather than an insult to her memory. To do otherwise wouldn't say much about Mormons, but it would say a lot about me, none of it good.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Rivka, now that you've introduced a new idea to me, I want to understand it a bit better ...
What I'm curious about is, what is it that determines if a posthumous event pulls someone closer to or further from God, or gives them pleasure or pain?
Is it a natural process that functions according to immutable laws? IE, X behavior in a person's name will always have Y effect, regardless of any seemingly-mitigating circumstances?
Or is it something that is subjective, and depends on the desires or interpretations of the departed soul, or of God? IE, this person was staunchly anti-government-welfare, so naming a soup kitchen after him would cause him pain, while doing the same thing for someone else might be the BEST possible thing?
Is there a perspective change involved in death that brings people into line, such that the same things cause them joy or sorrow? Or do people remain as highly individual as they are on Earth? Or, as suggested above, are their personal Earthly opinions entirely irrelevant?
Is there any difference, in your belief, between the posthumous fate of a Jew and a Gentile? Or do you believe it's pretty much the same circumstances for everybody?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Is there a perspective change involved in death that brings people into line, such that the same things cause them joy or sorrow? Or do people remain as highly individual as they are on Earth? Or, as suggested above, are their personal Earthly opinions entirely irrelevant?
Is there any difference, in your belief, between the posthumous fate of a Jew and a Gentile? Or do you believe it's pretty much the same circumstances for everybody?
I don't really know. Not many people come back to tell us about it.
Unlike many religions, we don't worry too much about the precise details of the World to Come. That there is one, and that it is a World of Truth is definite. Many of the details are a matter of educated guess or opinion. And metaphor. Lots and lots of metaphors.
Given that the next world is a world of Truth (I forget who said it, but "In this world there are no answers; in the next there are no questions" (that is, all questions are answered)), I think that while there would still be some individuality, good and bad would be far clearer, and thus those things which would cause pain or joy would be more universal than here. But each person's essence would remain, so precisely which bad thing would cause the most pain for that particular individual might vary. Someone with a strong Jewish identity, who gave up their life in the Inquisition, would likely feel more pain over a baptism than I would (not that I would be terribly happy).
It says that a righteous Gentile gets prime real estate in the next world, so I don't think our posthumous fates can be too different. (But being a "righteous Gentile" involves a different set of tasks than being a "righteous Jew.")
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i can't wait till g-d/allah/jesus/vishnu/cthullu comes down and tells us to hurry up and baptize all those folks that were never baptized/tells us we wasted our time and we should have been doing something else/turns us into frogs that feast on the flesh of others, eventually turning them into frogs as well.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: You were the first one to make this kind of claim, and you don't share their faith or their faith-based assumptions.
quote: I am asking why people have made the assumptions they have in the manner they have, in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with faith.
Um, the actions we are talking about are things occuring in the afterlife? Which is a matter of faith? Central to the debate? So, it's not just me?
Perhaps we are crossing wires or something, because if the discussion revolves around the effects in this world, then I have to confess, I see it as much ado about nothing, because it then just boils down to talk.
quote: Why would they think their beliefs might cause harm? Or why would they not realize that actions may have unintended consequences?
Either way, it depends on what you believe the nature of souls to be in the afterlife, which is something defined by sacred literature for both groups. To my mind, it's like asking, why don't Christians think that accepting Jesus into their hearts and following the Bible might have unintended negative, or unintended, consequences in the heareafter. It's just a tenet of faith that isn't really open to examination.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
quote:however arrogant it is for a religion to proclaim it is the only way, most, if not all, religions give their members a choice of believing. It's not forced upon someone if they don't want it.
Can you show where the dead are actually, literally, being forced to join Mormonism through the practice of proxy baptism?
quote:
An itch in my eyeball? Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what that's to mean.
The statement refers to the Savior's discussion about motes and beams in people's eyes.
quote:Alas, the living are usually able to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it's a pretty bright idea; I'll start the ball rolling by unbaptising Scott R. Bone dry, I tell you! Who's next?
Only TomDavidson has the authority to un-baptise me. Poseur.
Rivka, I still have the same problems with the concept of the Noachide laws that I did before.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
quote:The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
quote:however arrogant it is for a religion to proclaim it is the only way, most, if not all, religions give their members a choice of believing. It's not forced upon someone if they don't want it.
Can you show where the dead are actually, literally, being forced to join Mormonism through the practice of proxy baptism?
In this instance, no, they're not being forced to join. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Occasional insisted he had the right to force the re-baptism in the dead's name because his God is more important to him than mine, and therefore, supersedes my rights, when this was not the point of Christianity. While God calls on people to witness to others and tell them the truth, he never commands his followers to force those beliefs on them, either. Unless that's something new to Mormonism, but I doubt it is. Mormon's have always seemed, at the least, respectful and understanding, considering they were once too victimized. Heh... it's funny how the victims of abuse go on to abuse others, isn't it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, I';ll start over. You said (I added the numbers:
quote:The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either (1) your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or (2) your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
Why are those the only two choices? Why isn't there a "(3) or something else happens" in there?
More specifically, why do you say, "(a) your faith is right and (b) what the Mormons are doing is meaningless"? Why does (b) follow from (a)? (edit: to switch (a) and (b) - thanks, Karl)
This is what I didn't understand yesterday and still don't today. You've sliced the possibilities up into choices and presented those choices as if they represent every possibility. And they don't. So why do you think that they do?
[ December 20, 2006, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag, in your example, isn't the claim that "b" follows from "a", and not "a" from "b" as you have stated? (Just asking for clarification)
And I agree with your point. I'm beginning to think people are skimming and jumping in since it's been repeatedly shown that at least some people here believe in and can explain a third possibility. (i.e. that the Mormons are wrong and what they are doing is causing harm to the deceased.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, in your example, isn't the claim that "b" follows from "a", and not "a" from "b" as you have stated?
Yes. Blame the morning lack of caffeine. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee,
I didn't know you were referring to that post.
Now that Rivka has explained how she views things edit: (I should say, when I read her existing explanation), I understand why she feels the way she does.
Sorry for the confusion.
[ December 20, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My point was that Occasional insisted he had the right to force the re-baptism in the dead's name because his God is more important to him than mine, and therefore, supersedes my rights, when this was not the point of Christianity.
Actually, from a certain point of view, Christ did much the same thing that Mormons do with proxy baptisms-- vicarious work for those who are unable to accomplish a certain thing for themselvse. In this case-- he atoned for EVERYONE's sins whether they asked him to or not. He FORCED the issue of resurrection so that everyone will be ressurrected, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc.
So. You don't want to be baptised even after death. I can respect that-- I think we fallible human beings should respect it. I have no objections against NOT doing proxy work for person X, when person X has stated such a desire.
quote:While God calls on people to witness to others and tell them the truth, he never commands his followers to force those beliefs on them, either.
I'm not sure why you reiterate this, since you just noted that proxy baptism doesn't force anything on anyone... maybe I'm not understanding your point...
quote:Unless that's something new to Mormonism, but I doubt it is. Mormon's have always seemed, at the least, respectful and understanding, considering they were once too victimized. Heh... it's funny how the victims of abuse go on to abuse others, isn't it?
I don't buy the idea that proxy baptisms are an 'abuse' of any sort. So, no...not that funny.
(Also, a number of people on this board have been actual victims of abuse-- you may want to watch your stereotyping, hmm?)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe that following rivka's point of view - NOT doing work for the dead - is a serious failing of our obligations and has vast negative consequences. When we could and don't, it is cruel. I accept that negative effects are possible, but I don't believe it at all.
We should certainly live up to our promises and not when it is requested by those who care, the same way we don't proselyte in Muslim countries or in Isreal, but as much as it is possible and as much as we can, it is an act of service that we will be held accountable for not doing if we neglect it. It's walking away holding life-saving water from someone dying of thirst in a desert.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, I don't know how I feel about the Mormon church agreeing not to pray for certain people if, by their lights, they may be denying them a chance at heaven or something.
I do salute their willingness to compromise on an important tenet of their faith, but I'm not sure they should have ever made that promise.
Oh, well. It's not my problem. It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A clarification: The reason Catholics do not consider LDS baptism valid for a Catholic* is because of the difference in the beliefs regarding the nature of God. Specifically, it is not a trinitarian baptism.
*meaning that if a Mormon was converting to Catholicism he or she would be baptised.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:My point was that Occasional insisted he had the right to force the re-baptism in the dead's name because his God is more important to him than mine, and therefore, supersedes my rights, when this was not the point of Christianity.
Actually, from a certain point of view, Christ did much the same thing that Mormons do with proxy baptisms-- vicarious work for those who are unable to accomplish a certain thing for themselvse. In this case-- he atoned for EVERYONE's sins whether they asked him to or not. He FORCED the issue of resurrection so that everyone will be ressurrected, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc.
So. You don't want to be baptised even after death. I can respect that-- I think we fallible human beings should respect it. I have no objections against NOT doing proxy work for person X, when person X has stated such a desire.
quote:While God calls on people to witness to others and tell them the truth, he never commands his followers to force those beliefs on them, either.
I'm not sure why you reiterate this, since you just noted that proxy baptism doesn't force anything on anyone... maybe I'm not understanding your point...
I think we're talking oranges and lemons, because you're missing my point and I seem to be missing yours. I, for the last while, haven't been saying this practice in particular forces people to convert, but rather, expressing dismay at Occasional's belief that his religious beliefs may trump another's. That is what I've been talking about, or trying to, at least. Dag explained it's a choice awhile ago, and I understand it's not forcing anything. I, like Puppy said a while back, am just trying to puzzle out how someone can act like another person's beliefs don't matter.
Believe me, if the person wants it, go right ahead. I see no problem with the ceremony, just the way it's been handled for some people. I think more steps should be taken to be more cautious and make sure the person's living relatives are okay with it.
quote:
quote:Unless that's something new to Mormonism, but I doubt it is. Mormon's have always seemed, at the least, respectful and understanding, considering they were once too victimized. Heh... it's funny how the victims of abuse go on to abuse others, isn't it?
I don't buy the idea that proxy baptisms are an 'abuse' of any sort. So, no...not that funny.
(Also, a number of people on this board have been actual victims of abuse-- you may want to watch your stereotyping, hmm?)
*sighs* Again, that comment was NOT about proxy baptism, and has been taken out of context. Now, this has nothing to do with proxy baptism, for the record, so we can avoid getting that entangled into it, ok? Now, just before it, I said that Christ did not want His followers to force people to convert. This directly relates to the next line, as I'm saying that Mormons, while they do try to convert through missionary work and witnessing door to door (correct?), do not believe in forcing people to believe as they do, unlike what has been suggested by Occasional. Does this make sense now? I'm arguing against Occasional's stance on religious rights, NOT calling proxy baptism abuse.
As well, abuse was talking about abuse by institutions, not people. Dear God, I know better than to say that about people. I do have some sense, and I know someone who was abused, and she's the sweetest woman you'll ever meet. I should have made it more clear, but this was not on a personal basis, but rather, an institutional one. Lemme explain (and if I screw up, as this is by memory, let me know.)
Christians, during the first few centuries, were victimized by the Romans for believing differently, suffering abuse. Then, after gaining power through Emperor Constantine and becoming the powrful Catholic Church, they began wonderful abuses like the Inquisition. Thus, the abused become the abusers. I mean, look at the last few hundred years. Christians used Biblical references to support segregation, slavery, sexism, and opposition to interracial marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc. It's terribly saddening that the message of Christ's love for sinners gets lost, misused and abused to perpetuate hate, violence, and oppression. And that was my point.
[ December 20, 2006, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Hitoshi ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A clarification: The reason Catholics do not consider LDS baptism valid for a Catholic* is because of the difference in the beliefs regarding the nature of God. Specifically, it is not a trinitarian baptism.
*meaning that if a Mormon was converting to Catholicism he or she would be baptised.
But do you believe, and does Catholic doctrine state (which might be two different things, I realize) that a Mormon (or any other heathen) can get into heaven without a properly trinitarian baptism?
I'm curious about the tenets of other faiths regarding the necessity of ordinances. Do others on this board, particularly those who find proxy baptism offensive (Lisa, Belle, kmb, Bob), believe ordinances exist that must be received for salvation (presuming a belief in "salvation," which I recognize may not be true for all those I listed)? If so, how do you reconcile yourself to a God who would not allow someone into heaven because they didn't receive the ordinance on earth, regardless of their ability to receive such. It seems capricious, which is not an attribute I'd assign to a God who is "no respecter of persons."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yeah, I don't know how I feel about the Mormon church agreeing not to pray for certain people if, by their lights, they may be denying them a chance at heaven or something.
Don't worry about it. Most of us reckon that there will be a time, probably after the Second Coming of Christ, where this will all be made easier, and if any of those dead folks who have been put on Do Not Proxy lists want the ordinances done for them, they'll have a chance to actualy come and let us know.
Why don't we just wait until then and save ourselves all this hassle? We don't know, except that we've been commanded to do the work right now, inasmuch as we are able.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Catholics believe that a baptism is necessary to obtain the beatific vision, but that perfect natural (as opposed to the supernatural) happiness may be possible for those who are unbaptized.
There are, however, ways to receive baptism short of the formal rites of the sacrament of baptism.
This has a decent background. The Church teaches that all salvation is through the Christ and all who receive it are part of the Church. However, the Church extends beyond the temporal aspects - that is, someone who's never heard of Rome or the Pope or Catholics or Mass or the Gospel can be saved, but that this saving comes through Christ and the Church.
There are also teachings that full communion with the Church (i.e., being Catholic, going to Mass, celebrating the sacraments as appropriate, etc.) is the preferred or best path to salvation. But it's not the only one.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting. Thanks.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From the link, Dag, there is a certain inflexibility regarding those who do not receive baptism in this life (either by water, desire or blood) in that they are "perpetually excluded from the vision of God." Is this what you meant by being denied supernatural happiness?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
All the different views on baptism are so interesting! I always learned that baptism was a symbol; the "real" baptism that matters is spiritual, so it's not realy an issue if someone hasn't dunked you in water (or sprinkled water on you, if that's what you do). The real issue is the spiritual baptism. Physical baptism is a symbol of that the way a wedding ring is a symbol of a marriage.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am just trying to puzzle out how someone can act like another person's beliefs don't matter.
The real kicker is that in the Mormon belief system, we don't necessarily relinquish our hold on theological mistakes or character attributes even AFTER death.
There may be no epiphany in the (immediate) after-life that, "Oh, NO! I was wrong and the Mormons were RIGHT!"
Choice, contention, persuasion, etc, are still active in our existence even post-mortality.
People's beliefs, therefore, matter in an eternal sense, even if those beliefs are wrong. Mormons give respect to others beliefs as much as we can. That's why Mo's here have been saying, "I respect that you don't want to be baptised after your death. We need to put something in place for requests like that."
This point of view is wholly seperate from what I mean when I say I don't care how Belle, rivka, Lisa, kmboots, and Bob view proxy work as a doctrine. There is not a chance in the world that I'm going to let their beliefs about my beliefs co-opt my obedience to my religion. Which is as it should be, for everyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But do you believe, and does Catholic doctrine state (which might be two different things, I realize) that a Mormon (or any other heathen) can get into heaven without a properly trinitarian baptism?
I do. I belive that the Sacraments are important - signs and symbols of God's grace. Sacraments (and sacraments - small "s") are conduits through which God connects with us. I also believe that God in God's infinite love for all of Creation has other ways of connecting to us. In God's infinite wisdom, I know that He has a plan. A loving parent does not damn her children on technicalities.
"Official" Catholic doctrine: "Those who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I think that this is true whether they call it "God" or not.
I also believe - and this is not "official", though there is "room" for it - that God's efforts to be in relationship with us do not end at death.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Official" Catholic doctrine: "Those who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation."
Where is this quote from? Do you recognize a similar distinction to Dag between natural and supernatural happiness, and if so, what is intended by salvation in the passage you quote?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I am just trying to puzzle out how someone can act like another person's beliefs don't matter.
The real kicker is that in the Mormon belief system, we don't necessarily relinquish our hold on theological mistakes or character attributes even AFTER death.
There may be no epiphany in the (immediate) after-life that, "Oh, NO! I was wrong and the Mormons were RIGHT!"
Or vice versa, possibly.
quote:People's beliefs, therefore, matter in an eternal sense, even if those beliefs are wrong. Mormons give respect to others beliefs as much as we can. That's why Mo's here have been saying, "I respect that you don't want to be baptised after your death. We need to put something in place for requests like that."
I thank you for being respectful then. I have no problem with people being religious oor showing it in public or witnessing or anything like that. Believing is a great thing. My only problem is when people begin acting like their beliefs can trump mine because theirs are right, and that arrogance is what bothers me, not anything else. Otherwise, hey, we're all people. We all deserve respect, and since Mormons are usually respectful and are doig it for a good reason, I have little beef with it.
quote:There is not a chance in the world that I'm going to let their beliefs about my beliefs co-opt my obedience to my religion. Which is as it should be, for everyone.
And I agree. I'm not suggesting that, because someone takes offense to our beliefs, we let ourselves be steamrolled into not doing them. Just tweaking them enough to be respectful of the dead who it would be a problem for. Otherwise, go for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'll have to look up the quote...not sure the original source. I'll check...
The disctinction between natural and supernatural happiness is not one I recognize.
"Salvation" is not a word I usually personally use. "Heaven" for me means being in relationship with God. Being with God. "Hell" is being separated from or out of relationship with God.
*checked. Lumen Gentium (I never can remember which Vatican II document is which.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:From the link, Dag, there is a certain inflexibility regarding those who do not receive baptism in this life (either by water, desire or blood) in that they are "perpetually excluded from the vision of God." Is this what you meant by being denied supernatural happiness?
Yes. There is no real official teaching as to what that means. My personal beliefs on the subject are that we are given as much contact with God as we desire and as we can handle while maintaining our selves, and that the chief work of the atonement was not only about forgiveness but also about providing a way to reconnect us with God after the separation of the Fall.
kmboots's quote cpmes from the Vatican II council:
quote:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Another quote from the same council:
quote:They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.
Note the word "knowing" - this means more than merely having heard about it.
The teachings of a priest who "accepted no form of baptism other than by water and only within the Catholic Church as opening the way to salvation" were declared to be heresy in 1953.
So, in the link Dag provided it stated (under the section on infants who die without baptism) that:
quote:The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.
This means, as far as I can tell, that those who die without baptism can experience the influence of God, have knowledge of God, but cannot come into the presence of God.
Do you believe there are degrees of "heaven," i.e. degrees in relationship with God?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We can claim both because we know from Scripture that Christ and the Church are necessary, but we also don’t know how many people without a conscious and explicit knowledge of Christ may still be united to him in a way known only to God.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks both of you. Sorry to pester with questions; I really appreciate your candor.
To my understanding, the Mormon doctrine is quite similar (in fact the second Vatican II quote could have been quoted in my seminary class this morning, if one replace "Catholic Church" with "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"). Proxy baptism (and other ordinances as well) are viewed as necessary by LDS in order to reconcile the belief in a just God who cannot judge an individual by a law not known, with statements like those in John 3.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the difference is that while we think that the Sacraments must exist - we don't think we have to perform them on the unwilling. Or on behalf of specific members of the unwilling. We (at least I) figure that God has a way of working it out.
Of course we sometimes used to torture people until they got baptised (or died). We have come a long way.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"There is not a chance in the world that I'm going to let their beliefs about my beliefs co-opt my obedience to my religion. Which is as it should be, for everyone."
"My point was that Occasional insisted he had the right to force the re-baptism in the dead's name because his God is more important to him than mine, and therefore, supersedes my rights, when this was not the point of Christianity."
Actually, my point was Scott R.s point, and you agreed with him. I am not going to stop Baptisms for the Dead because of other people's beliefs. Scott R., I believe, will not either.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think the difference is that while we think that the Sacraments must exist - we don't think we have to perform them on the unwilling.
So if the Sacraments existed in some form, but no one on earth chose to receive them it would be no bar to the salvation of anyone? It seems very strange to me. From the wiki link and the Q/A link, it seems the rationale is that knowledge of the ordinances communicates truth about Christ, and that simply knowing the ordinances (rather than being an active participant, either in the flesh or by proxy) is sufficient for salvation. Is that an accurate interpretation?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "There is not a chance in the world that I'm going to let their beliefs about my beliefs co-opt my obedience to my religion. Which is as it should be, for everyone."
"My point was that Occasional insisted he had the right to force the re-baptism in the dead's name because his God is more important to him than mine, and therefore, supersedes my rights, when this was not the point of Christianity."
Actually, my point was Scott R.s point, and you agreed with him. I am not going to stop Baptisms for the Dead because of other people's beliefs. Scott R., I believe, will not either.
The crucial difference, however, is the respect he has. From my understanding, and do correct me if I'm wrong, Scott, was that he saw no reason to perform proxy baptism for those who didn't want it. I thought I'd read that somewhere in his posts; if not, my wires are getting hopelessly crossed with so many discussions going on in parallel.
We're not saying, "Don't do the service whatsoever." We're saying, "Please have respect for the people who don't want it done and abstain from doing it, or double your efforts to obtain compliance from the person's relatives."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he saw no reason to perform proxy baptism for those who didn't want it. I thought I'd read that somewhere in his posts; if not, my wires are getting hopelessly crossed with so many discussions going on in parallel.
Well-- to be perfectly clear, I see the reason for why the work needs to be done. But yeah-- if they don't want that work done, don't do it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, I guess Scott just said that. Still, I don't think me and Scott's position is as different as you think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not exactly. It is complicated. That the Sacraments exist is important.
Sidenote: Catholic doctrine is complicated - the answers (I think) are almost always, "not exactly." Part of the reason for this (and I am totally only speaking for myself, here) is that we (as a Church) freak out at the possibility that we have "gotten it wrong" - this threatens our "authority" in ways I really don't get. So when our understanding evolves - as I think it must - we have to somehow reconcile current understanding with medieval understanding. Which makes it complicated.
It also protects us from following every doctinal fad, which is a good thing. But it does mean that there is, sometimes, a disparity between "official" teaching and what some Catholics believe that is spanned with some very elaborate bridges.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmbboots, now if only people can realize that about Mormon practice and doctrine. The only difference is that we don't "freak out" about a threat to authority as much as simply don't believe we have all the answers - or that all the answers are perfectly understood.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But you will still say that your beliefs give you the right to do things to people that they don't (at least according to their relatives and previously expressed wishes) want done? Even at the cost of seriously distressing those loved ones?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I haven't decided on that yet. Depends on if I feel such things are a benifit or simply a PR stunt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Did you just call baptism for the dead a PR stunt? *blink*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
km,
Do you think that Christians should be able to proselytize to people if the result is that, sometimes, when the person converts, the relatives and friends express their displeasure with that person converting?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As for declaring Joseph Smith Jewish, I forgot that business about the lost tribes of Israel in Mormon teaching.
Have there been any popes yet who were posthumously baptized and made Mormons? Catholics practice baptism by sprinkling, while most fundamentalist Protestants insist that baptism by immersion is the only valid form. (The Greek word Baptidzo means "I immerse.") Come to think of it, what form of baptism do Mormons employ, in their baptisms for the dead? Sprinkling or immersion? If Mormons do not believe baptism by sprinkling is valid, then popes are fair game for posthumous, vicarious baptism by Mormons.
It is amazing how rapidly this thread has grown. Seven pages so far, and the first post was only yesterday!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
LDS baptisms are always done by immersion, wether for the living or dead.
And because of the whole authority issue, even if the ancient popes were baptized by immersion, it wouldn't change our view of their validity, and they would be just as fair game for vicarious baptism by Mormons.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Southern Baptists don't care so much about the physical baptism (sprinkling vs. immersion) since they only see the physical baptism as symbolic, but they think immersion is a better symbol.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just some responses to things brought up:
quote:Actually, from a certain point of view, Christ did much the same thing that Mormons do with proxy baptisms-- vicarious work for those who are unable to accomplish a certain thing for themselvse. In this case-- he atoned for EVERYONE's sins whether they asked him to or not.
Please note that not every Christian believes in universal atonement. I don't think that's a real important point here, but we're arguing about religious beliefs, we should be clear in what we're stating and that phrase seemed to imply universal atonement was something all Christisans believe, which is not true.
quote:Do others on this board, particularly those who find proxy baptism offensive (Lisa, Belle, kmb, Bob), believe ordinances exist that must be received for salvation (presuming a belief in "salvation," which I recognize may not be true for all those I listed)? If so, how do you reconcile yourself to a God who would not allow someone into heaven because they didn't receive the ordinance on earth, regardless of their ability to receive such. It seems capricious, which is not an attribute I'd assign to a God who is "no respecter of persons."
I absolutely, positively (can I state it more forcefully) do NOT believe baptism or any other action is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, not by any work that any man can do, it is a free gift by Christ and I don't think that any action I can do on Earth can earn that salvation for me.
Baptism is a symbol, a sign of the covenant and it's done out of obedience and to follow in the footsteps of Christ, but it's certainly not necessary for salvation. If I believed that, I'd have to believe that a person could be saved, schedule their baptism on Sunday but be hit by a bus and die on Saturday and then be turned away from heaven with a "so sorry, but you didn't get your hair wet in time."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm worried that both km and I are leaving a wrong impression. I don't think anything either of us has said is wrong, but it's very, very incomplete, especially about the seeming tension between the belief that the sacraments are necessary and the belief that those who have not received those sacraments via the temporal rites most are familiar with, as well as between the idea that all salvation is throught the Church and the idea that those who are not visibly part of the Church can attain salvation. These touch on almost every aspect of theology and implicate many teachings that are almost as complex on their own.
So please, form an impression from this, but don't think either of us has (or even attempted to) fully explain this aspect of our faith.
In other words, take away the "not exactly" before anything else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I believed that, I'd have to believe that a person could be saved, schedule their baptism on Sunday but be hit by a bus and die on Saturday and then be turned away from heaven with a "so sorry, but you didn't get your hair wet in time."
That's only true with respect to baptism as you define it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
pH are you sure about this:
quote:Southern Baptists don't care so much about the physical baptism (sprinkling vs. immersion) since they only see the physical baptism as symbolic, but they think immersion is a better symbol.
I ask only because when we planned on joining a Southern Baptist church together right after we married, they told my husband he'd have to be baptised again because he was baptised by sprinkling as an infant. They would not recognize that baptism as valid.
Then again, it probably had more to do with the infancy part of it than rather the method. If he'd been sprinkled as an adult, it might have been fine.
Needless to say, we didn't join the church - my husband's grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and baptised him and he could not be re-baptised as if his grandfather's act of love for him was not good enough. We're now at a church that reflects our own views - baptism is an important covenant symbol, but the method and manner are not nearly as important as the symbolism behind it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag is right. The "not exactly" is important. Doctrine is a complex thing - a mysterious thing. It takes a whole Church to even begin to glimpse it.
Another important point - see where Dag said, "received those sacraments via the temporal rites"?
I think an important distinction is between grace and the sacraments by which we receive grace and the sacraments and the rites by which we receive the sacraments. By which we receive grace...
They are not all the same thing. Think Plato.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Belle, the church I went to always stressed the baptism ceremony as a symbol. So they pretty much believed the same way that you did. So if he were to be rebaptized, it would be a symbolic ceremony, since the whole faith thing is the important part.
Edit: But Southern Baptist churches are also very holier-than-thou and will often try to tell you that you aren't saved "right." So they could very easily have given that impression.
-pH
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I absolutely, positively (can I state it more forcefully) do NOT believe baptism or any other action is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, not by any work that any man can do, it is a free gift by Christ and I don't think that any action I can do on Earth can earn that salvation for me.
I also don't feel that baptism (or any action on Earth) "earns" salvation. Salvation comes through the grace of Christ; that doesn't imply, to my mind, that there aren't conditions on salvation.
quote:If I believed that, I'd have to believe that a person could be saved, schedule their baptism on Sunday but be hit by a bus and die on Saturday and then be turned away from heaven with a "so sorry, but you didn't get your hair wet in time."
Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Joking about unbaptizing Mormons was kinda funny but I guess Rivka's link rubbed me the wrong way. Mormons are not trying to expand their ranks, or obtain any personal gain from proxy baptism. Though there are blessings promised one should not do the act purely because there is a benefit to it, they do it because God commanded it.
The process of identifying all of those who have lived in the past is a monumental task that IMO will never be completed until post 2nd coming. The people who work all day everyday do it as a labor of love, there is no malice in any of them.
I've done proxy work myself and I always felt very peaceful and happy doing it. I always imagined I would like to meet the people for whom I have acted as proxy because the names I have done come from all over the place. But the overwhelming sentiment I have gleaned from the non Mormon crowd is that I can expect to be given a harsh reception by those folks.
I dunno, Ill probably lurk around this thread, perhaps even post a bit more, I just wish that perhaps opponents of proxy baptism might soften alittle as I feel I have on this question. Its hard to be looked down on by people who you look up to.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
This is my understanding, but I feel like I'm missing something because it seems inconsistent. Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
It seems like you would get more people interested in your religion if you treated them and their beliefs with more respect. I would have problems talking to a missionary to gather more information about your beliefs. Proxy baptisms would be the elephant in the room.
On a slightly separate note, what do you believe happens if the name of a live person was accidentally submitted to the lists?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Did you just call baptism for the dead a PR stunt? *blink* "
No, I was talking about any agreements that co-opt religious beliefs or ordinances.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Yes, I can see easily how the intolerance of Mormons in insisting that non-Mormons not have their wishes respected after they pass on and indignation that others simply don't understand their motive could lead too misunderstanding and disagreement about Mormonism.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
It seems like you would get more people interested in your religion if you treated them and their beliefs with more respect. I would have problems talking to a missionary to gather more information about your beliefs. Proxy baptisms would be the elephant in the room.
On a slightly separate note, what do you believe happens if the name of a live person was accidentally submitted to the lists?
Thing is, not everyone believes that it is disrespectful. I understand that there are those who do, and personally, I try to respect their beliefs. It is not universal, however.
As for a living person who's been submitted... It's happened. It's not supposed to, it's not common, but it has happened. The ordinances were performed, but because the person was living, it had no effect and the ordinances were cancelled and removed from the list of completed ordinances.
But then, this is also why I, and most others advocate better quality research and following policies and procedures properly.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
Belle, do you believe once saved, always saved?
-pH
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: "Did you just call baptism for the dead a PR stunt? *blink* "
No, I was talking about any agreements that co-opt religious beliefs or ordinances.
Well, I am glad at least that you can own up to the insincerity in respecting other peoples belief. Respect is not a core value. It is just a PR stunt.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
On the previous page I said:
quote:Why don't we just wait until then and save ourselves all this hassle? We don't know, except that we've been commanded to do the work right now, inasmuch as we are able.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
I wasn't speaking specifically about outward actions. Do you believe that if someone dies without accepting Christ (regardless of outward manifestation) they are doomed? Regardless of whether they had any access to knowledge of Christ's existence in this life? Or do you think someone could somehow accept Christ's grace without a priori knowledge of Him?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
On the previous page I said:
quote:Why don't we just wait until then and save ourselves all this hassle? We don't know, except that we've been commanded to do the work right now, inasmuch as we are able.
Additionally, the sooner the actual ordinance occurs, the sooner the benefits thereof are realized. For instance, if someone were to have accepted the gospel, but remain unbaptized, they would not have (to my understanding of the doctrine) direct access to Christ. Only after they receive the ordinance (by proxy) would that occur. Thus, by delaying the work there is a penalty incurred, which is insignificant in the eternal scheme of things, but a penalty nonetheless.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Also, the necessity of doing ordinances for the dead right now underscores the importance of going through them ourselves, in life.
If we promoted a sense of "it doesn't matter, it'll happen eventually, don't worry about it", not only would that be out of character for Mormons in general, but it would also imply that our living ordinances were similarly pointless and unimportant, which in turn would have an effect on how seriously we would take all of our associated obligations.
Living rituals are a critical, central part of our faith. Learning to dismiss them would be very destructive to our way of life.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Another point that others have made that I should underscore: Baptizing people by proxy isn't about "making them Mormons". Some people seem to get the impression that that's what it's about, which just sounds strange and foreign to me.
In a very simplistic model of the Mormon worldview, there are basically these big obstacles between your average person and heaven. Doing rituals like baptism knocks down the obstacles. The person still has to walk the distance to get into heaven, but with baptism, etc, out of the way, at least they're not impeded.
Among the living, getting baptized is tied to adding one's name to the membership roster of the Church, but that's not the only thing that it is about, and among the dead, I'm pretty sure that membership in a specific organized church isn't part of the deal. Mormonism is only one incarnation of "God's Church", from an historical perspective. In the hereafter, I think that "being a Mormon" or "not being a Mormon" is just not an issue at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For instance, if someone were to have accepted the gospel, but remain unbaptized, they would not have (to my understanding of the doctrine) direct access to Christ. Only after they receive the ordinance (by proxy) would that occur. Thus, by delaying the work there is a penalty incurred, which is insignificant in the eternal scheme of things, but a penalty nonetheless.
To put this in the terms of this thread, we believe that failing to do proxy work for people now, instead of waiting to do it later, can cause suffering and anguish to the souls of those people who are waiting for their work to be done.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
A Rat Named Dog, your posts made a whole lot of sense to me. Thank you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Don't worry about that when it comes to me. I'll be completely honest with you and tell you that despite this posthumous baptism thing, I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
I look at my fellow Jews, and I'm constantly filled with shame at our passivity. If half of us had half the commitment to get off our tails and do things that Mormons have, the Messiah would be knocking on the door right now.
Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Don't worry about that when it comes to me. I'll be completely honest with you and tell you that despite this posthumous baptism thing, I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
I look at my fellow Jews, and I'm constantly filled with shame at our passivity. If half of us had half the commitment to get off our tails and do things that Mormons have, the Messiah would be knocking on the door right now.
Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
Thanks Lisa Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: <nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
Gawd, no. I think that people are, by nature, people. With the capability to choose good or to choose evil. And with the capability to repent should they choose evil. I don't even know what "devilish" means, except when it's followed by the phrases "sense of humor" or "good looks".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
quote:So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
That's cool, Lisa.
[ December 20, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
I'm not reading through this whole topic, but I don't really think that sensual and devilish belong in the same sentence! Sexual desire is NATURAL! How else can we reproduce, as we are not amebas. It's not an evil thing unless people don't control it or channal it properly. *wanders out of the topic before I say something rude as I am FRUSTRATED by modern Christinity*
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
LDS don't believe sexual desire is unnatural or evil, Synesthesia.
The definition of "sensual" used in this phrase refers to -only- being concerned with physical sensations of all kinds to the exclusion of seeing to other needs...only caring about filling the belly, sleeping, etc.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of don't see anything wrong with being sensual... Perhaps because I wish I could get more sleep. I never seem to get enough sleep. Still, it's nice to have the sensual and the spiritual together.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
Thank you very much.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for speaking well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity. So your objection to her hate-filled rhetoric and bigotry goes away when it's no longer directed at you?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They aren't thanking me for speaking well of Mormonism. They know I consider Mormonism completely false. They're just thanking me for backing off the complaints about the posthumous baptism. Chill out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
ElJay, if you'll notice what I thanked her for wasn't the part you quoted. It was the part where she said she'd back off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa
quote: Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
The ill effects of our sins. Every sin is an insult to God, and certainly we cannot simply say, "whoops, sorry won't happen again." As a very real law has been broken and there must needs be a consequence to every action.
Perhaps I misunderstand but in the law there are penalties outlines for every trespass. But there were commandments before the law as well and people knowingly sin against their better judgment all the time. What is God's reaction to those who die with offenses they have not made amends for i.e the entire human race.
Do you believe then that people are all born neutral with neither a disposition for committing sin nor a propensity for good?
If we are God's children I can understand that we have a potential for good and evil, but lacking the discipline God has, I can't see us being as perfect as he is.
ELjay: I decided that I was more concerned with thanking Lisa for putting some of my anxieties to rest, rather then casting it aside and tanking up the mantle of "Christianity's Defender."
Call it weakness, but I'd rather not keep debating everything wrong I see in other's opinions and by so doing ignore some of the good they are trying to accomplish. Your comment reminds me of the movie Dogma where the two angels kill all those execs for gross sins and then one of them tells the woman that she is free to go for not having done anything and then suddenly points a gun at her and says, "But you didn't say God bless you when I...." and has to be restrained by the other angel.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for speaking well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity.
Me, too. What's clear to me from Lisa's description is that she's not describing the religion I belong to, or most of the Protestants I've hung out with either.
Her description might apply to some members of other denominations, but I've heard the Mormons here make similar posts about some of their own members, so it's not like it's a distinguishing factor.
Frankly, her description sounds like a cartoon version of Christianity, or describing Judaism as a bunch of rules about housekeeping.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Could be. Like I said, it's the view from the outside looking in. I wasn't claiming any kind of authoritative view by saying it. Purely subjective.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
And likewise you cannot know that they were thanking Lisa for slamming others. I think it's an unfair conclusion to jump to.
------
Beverly isn't around to defend herself, but I can say with a reasonable amound of surity that she was thanking Lisa for the same thing I was.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
There's an edit at the bottom of my previous post.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa
quote: Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
The ill effects of our sins. Every sin is an insult to God, and certainly we cannot simply say, "whoops, sorry won't happen again." As a very real law has been broken and there must needs be a consequence to every action.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Repentence isn't just "whoops, sorry won't happen again". I talked about this here, only a week ago.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Perhaps I misunderstand but in the law there are penalties outlines for every trespass. But there were commandments before the law as well and people knowingly sin against their better judgment all the time. What is God's reaction to those who die with offenses they have not made amends for i.e the entire human race.
You pay for those. But not with "eternal hellfire" or any such idea. When you die, you become fully aware of what you did and all the implications of what you did. And your "proximity" to God (so to speak) is a function of how much or how little you conformed yourself to His Will.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you believe then that people are all born neutral with neither a disposition for committing sin nor a propensity for good?
Yes. Tabula rasa.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If we are God's children I can understand that we have a potential for good and evil, but lacking the discipline God has, I can't see us being as perfect as he is.
We're not. But we were never intended to be, either. God doesn't need to choose good; He is Good. For us, it's a matter of choice.
We don't hold with the idea that God started out as a man, you know. We hold that God existed before anything. That He created everything from nothing. That He is omnipotent (literally) and omniscient (literally), and that good and evil exist as concepts only relative to God. I know from things Geoff Card has posted that this is not the Mormon position, but it is definitely the Jewish position.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
That's how I took it. After all, I gave Mormonism the lie right in that post. Why would you think they'd take that as a praisefest?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then change my bemusement as follows:
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for part of a post that speaks well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity without commenting on the slamming.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then change my bemusement as follows:
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for part of a post that speaks well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity without commenting on the slamming.
sigh* very well.
Lisa thank you for your kind words concerning Mormonism and the fact you acknowledge we cannot argue this topic coming from our doctrinal backgrounds.
However it was rude of you to say such things about other Christian denominations, so much so it removes all value from the praise you offered my religion and therefore I discard it all in disgust.
Please acknowledge that you can say the good things you said in your post without necessarily saying the mean things about other Christians that you did, even if that is in fact your perception of things.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Baptism does not save anyone, of course. Baptism is a means of confessing Christ. Asking whether it is necessary is like asking whether confessing Christ is necessary. The thief on the cross beside Jesus, who confessed Him, was accepted by Jesus and assured that he would be with Him in Paradise. But it is undeniable that if the thief on the Cross had been given the opportunity, he would have been baptized.
It is interesting that the oldest Catholic churches in Europe and the Middle East have full-sized baptistries, designed for baptism by immersion. They are no longer used, but it is evident that at one time they were.
Baptism by immersion is the means that the Apostle Paul clearly was referring to when he said:
quote:"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—-because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him."
What we do in baptism is publicly identify ourselves with Christ in His death, burial, and ressurection, as we are buried in the water, then brought up out of the water in His name.
BlackBlade asked Lisa some good questions when he asked if it is not true that people have selfish, carnal, sensual natures. I would observe that I have yet to see a child that was not born selfish and prone to anger. I also observe that those individuals who were not sufficiently disciplined by their parents when they were children, only get worse as they grow older, and often become a burden to themselves, their associates, and all of society. When such individuals are convicted and brought to conversion by the gospel of Christ, they still have a very severe struggle to teach themselves the lessons of self-disciple that could have been so much more easily learned if their parents had taught them when they were very young.
I would also point out to Lisa that we all die. The fact that we all die proves there is sin in us. That is why we die. God did not intend that any humans should ever die, when He first created Adam and Eve. Even though Adam and Eve repented and were surely forgiven, God still banished them from Eden, and forbade them to have access to the Tree of Life, because He did not want sinners to be immortal. (See Genesis 3:22-24.)
It surely is undeniable that we need some radical change to take place in us, until all the results of sin are removed from us, and we can live forever, as God intended.
I know that many Jews, and Mormons, believe that we had a prior life, and our "souls" go on after death. For that matter, most Christians believe that our souls go on after death, having forgotten the clear Biblical teaching that death is an unconscious sleep, that is not ended until the Resurrection. And it is only God who is innately, naturally immortal: "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality...." (1 Timothy 6:15, 16).
In is only when Jesus returns that His people will be given immortality: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Corinthians 15:53, 54.) This immortality is derived from God, of course. We will continue to partake of the Tree of Life for eternity as a continuing witness that our immortality comes from God and forever depends upon Him. Only God has immortality, "unborrowed, and underrived."
[ December 20, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sadly, Lisa saying something insulting or rude about other's religion is what we've all come to expect.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual...
I think those are two of our better qualities, myself. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Blackblade, do you know what "bemused" means?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ELjay: I decided that I was more concerned with thanking Lisa for putting some of my anxieties to rest, rather then casting it aside and tanking up the mantle of "Christianity's Defender."
Call it weakness, but I'd rather not keep debating everything wrong I see in other's opinions and by so doing ignore some of the good they are trying to accomplish.
That's fine, but you should be aware that, to me at least, and apparently also Dagonee, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
quote: Your comment reminds me of the movie Dogma where the two angels kill all those execs for gross sins and then one of them tells the woman that she is free to go for not having done anything and then suddenly points a gun at her and says, "But you didn't say God bless you when I...." and has to be restrained by the other angel.
She called other Christians self-centered beggers who don't give a shit about anyone's salvation but their own. Your comparison is belittling.
-------
mph, I'm more than willing to believe you that bev probably meant the same thing you did. However, since she didn't quote what part she was referring to, I think she should be aware that it could easily be misinterpreted.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sigh* very well.
Lisa thank you for your kind words concerning Mormonism and the fact you acknowledge we cannot argue this topic coming from our doctrinal backgrounds.
However it was rude of you to say such things about other Christian denominations, so much so it removes all value from the praise you offered my religion and therefore I discard it all in disgust.
Please acknowledge that you can say the good things you said in your post without necessarily saying the mean things about other Christians that you did, even if that is in fact your perception of things.
My goodness, your sincerity overwhelms me. Up yours, too.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Wow, good feelings all around. Feel the love!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's fine, but you should be aware that, to me at least, and apparently also Dagonee, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
I don't know how it makes me feel - hence my approval of "bemused" - but I do know that the inconsistency of responses was noticeable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am going to Navjote everyone in this thread unwillingly into the Zoroastrian faith just to keep things interesting.
At least them Mormons have the common decency to wait for you to be dead, but I'm too moxious for that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A long time ago I decided to stop trying to stem the tide when Lisa or King of Men say something offensive about religion. It didn't do any good, and the moderators didn't put a stop to it, so what was there to do? The only thing that I could have accomplished accomplished was raising my own blood pressure, so I abandoned that fight. I suspect many others did as well. In fact, I know that others did.
In this thread, for the first time ever (in my recollection), Lisa said she'd back down from saying certain offensive things. That's a good thing, and I don't feel bad for thanking her for it, especially since the things she said were especially hurtful to me.
Not getting up in arms about the other offensive things that she said is not hypocritical, especially if we are not in the habit of taking her to task for every offensive thing she says.
Perhaps it would have been better if one of us got upset on y'all's behalf. Perhaps not. I'm not sure. But failing to do so was not hypocracy.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, do we all have to start paying tithe to support the Zoroastrian faith? Or is it sufficient if we just learn to fence, and grow asters in our garden?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
mph, please notice my initial phrasing -- "somewhat bemused." BB's and bev's responses to Lisa struck me as a bit odd, considering how rude her post was to non-LDS Christians. Your post made it very clear what you were reacting to, and didn't give me pause.
While I understand that if everyone called Lisa on every offensive thing she ever said the board would crash due to the traffic overload, I do find responding positively to her post without specifically deliniating what you are responding to somewhat bemusing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sigh* very well.
Lisa thank you for your kind words concerning Mormonism and the fact you acknowledge we cannot argue this topic coming from our doctrinal backgrounds.
However it was rude of you to say such things about other Christian denominations, so much so it removes all value from the praise you offered my religion and therefore I discard it all in disgust.
Please acknowledge that you can say the good things you said in your post without necessarily saying the mean things about other Christians that you did, even if that is in fact your perception of things.
My goodness, your sincerity overwhelms me. Up yours, too.
I don't know what to say to you. You complain that I thanked her for what I agreed with without stating my objections to what I did not agree with. I already stated why I did not mention the things I disagreed with and then wrote a response that took both sides into account. I can't pretend I was excited to write it, I don't know why you felt it necessary to insult me in such a crass manner.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You complain that I thanked her for what I agreed with without stating my objections to what I did not agree with.
Actually, I didn't. I said that if you were not agreeing with her entire post you should make it clear what part you were agreeing with. That is all.
Your response was written in response to Dagonee, or at least he's who you quoted. I had not made any clarification of my post before you wrote it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
mph, I had the last post on page 8, and since it was in response to you I want to make sure you saw it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, do we all have to start paying tithe to support the Zoroastrian faith? Or is it sufficient if we just learn to fence, and grow asters in our garden?
I took care of all the details. Y'all blessed by the hand of Ahura Mazda himself.
Which is apparently the way to be. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You complain that I thanked her for what I agreed with without stating my objections to what I did not agree with.
Actually, I didn't. I said that if you were not agreeing with her entire post you should make it clear what part you were agreeing with. That is all.
Your response was written in response to Dagonee, or at least he's who you quoted. I had not made any clarification of my post before you wrote it.
My apologies I should have been clearer in that I was addressing the both of you.
edit: And obviously the parts of her post I was agreeing with.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Zoroastrians drive Mazdas?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, Ahura Mazdas.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: She called other Christians self-centered beggers who don't give a shit about anyone's salvation but their own. Your comparison is belittling.
No, I didn't. I don't really care about "salvation", so I hardly would have. My point wasn't about that at all. It was the vicarious nature of what I see other Christians doing. Vesting everything in priests, instead of acting as individuals. But whatever.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
ElJay, just to clarify, there were things in that post that I didn't like. I chose not to comment on them under the circumstances. On the whole, I'd rather not participate in the intense emotion going on here. Sorry my response was vague. I have edited the post to include the specific things I was responding to.
Edit: One of the reasons I didn't put the exact quote I was responding to was that so often the very same sentance would say something I liked and didn't like at the same time, and the things I liked were dispersed throughout the post. It would have been tedious to sufficiently "tease out" what exactly I was responding to. But for the sake of those offended, I tried my best.
[ December 20, 2006, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:A long time ago I decided to stop trying to stem the tide when Lisa or King of Men say something offensive about religion. It didn't do any good, and the moderators didn't put a stop to it, so what was there to do? The only thing that I could have accomplished accomplished was raising my own blood pressure, so I abandoned that fight. I suspect many others did as well. In fact, I know that others did.
In this thread, for the first time ever (in my recollection), Lisa said she'd back down from saying certain offensive things. That's a good thing, and I don't feel bad for thanking her for it, especially since the things she said were especially hurtful to me.
Not getting up in arms about the other offensive things that she said is not hypocritical, especially if we are not in the habit of taking her to task for every offensive thing she says.
Amen, amen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quidscribis:
I would like to acknowledge your post in reply to my earlier post and thank you for your frankness. I can understand the "it shouldn't happen, but it does" and I can also appreciate the desire for better safeguards in the system...including a more forthright statement of purpose on the geneological site. Thanks a bunch!
Scott R:
quote:This point of view is wholly seperate from what I mean when I say I don't care how Belle, rivka, Lisa, kmboots, and Bob view proxy work as a doctrine. There is not a chance in the world that I'm going to let their beliefs about my beliefs co-opt my obedience to my religion. Which is as it should be, for everyone.
Could you point to what portion of my beliefs about how proxy baptism works are incorrect?
I think you're making some assumptions about my opinion, and I'd also like to know what part of my description of the situation is in error.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa
I think you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding about the function of clergy in Christianity, as well as the duty that Christians understand they have with respect to sharing Christ's teachings. It does vary a bit among various denominations, but I can't really think of a single denomination that invests a priestly class with the responsibility for things that are the responsibility of every single Christian.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
Why do both Christians and Muslims feel the need to convert people all the time? Why can't you just leave us alone?
--I know this is unrelated and coming out of nowhere. I'm just incredibly tired, feel free to ignore me and get back to whatever you were talking about... I'm not planning to read nine pages of posts, as interesting as they may be...
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Bob, I don't see a point in denying that things happen that shouldn't. It makes more sense to me to admit that there are holes in the system and work on plugging those holes, which, in this case, includes educating those submitting names to the temple on proper policies and procedures. Fortunately, the Church is working on it. Unfortunately, it takes time, and certainly more time than you or I would like. Also unfortunately, it means changing the behaviors of some people who are very very set in their ways and are convinced, erroneously, that they can do whatever they want regardless. But then, those types exist everywhere.
Anyway, thanks. I wasn't sure how that post would be received. I'm still sorry it happened to your father.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why do both Christians and Muslims feel the need to convert people all the time?
I can't speak for all Christians and Muslims, but for me, it's because I believe that God has commanded us to do so.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think part of the problem here is that some well-meaning people, who are also very sweet, fail to understand that something they do with love in their heart could possibly be viewed as offensive. When someone does take offense, it seems to come as a great surprise and then the reaction is "well, if they only understood, they wouldn't be offended."
Problem is, there ARE parts of it that truly are offensive. I suspect the reasons people don't take offense are many, but among them is simply being willing to look beyond it.
After being rather offensive about this myself, I actually think this is one of those things about LDS that I'm just going to have to ignore if I'm ever to maintain friendships with LDS members.
I suggest to my LDS friends here at Hatrack, however, that the doctrine underlying the call to baptize Christians who were already baptized really IS extremely offensive. Not in the afterlife, but in the here and now. Perhaps this topic should be among those that you all just refuse to discuss in open forums.
Your call, really. I'm just throwing that suggestion out there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why are you so offended by it again? I get why the Orthodox Jews are, but I'm confused why other faiths are.
(Orthodox)Jews--the soul can't choose so proxy baptizing causes it pain.
Mormons-- proxy baptizing the dead is basically just like going door to door in real life, the soul can choose.
(Most?)Christians--the soul is dead/sleeping until the second coming, at which time Christ decides the fate of the soul. So, the baptisms don't matter?
Agnostics--who knows? Let's just concentrate on living life as well we can. Baptisms probably don't matter.
Not trying to instigate or beat a dead horse, just don't understand why anyone other than the Jews are so upset.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Could you point to what portion of my beliefs about how proxy baptism works are incorrect?
I think you're making some assumptions about my opinion, and I'd also like to know what part of my description of the situation is in error.
Here's your opinion:
quote: I suggest to my LDS friends here at Hatrack, however, that the doctrine underlying the call to baptize Christians who were already baptized really IS extremely offensive. Not in the afterlife, but in the here and now.
I'm saying that if God says to me-- "Go thou and do baptisms for thine ancestors," as much as I respect you and Belle and Rivka, and even knowing that you'll be offended because of my actions, I'm still going to do proxy work. (With all previous disclaimers applicable-- do I need to repeat them?)
I'm not calling your knowledge of the doctrine incorrect; I'm not saying that you've misrepresented Mormonism. I'm just holding myself to God's standards rather than yours.
As everyone should do.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Storm, it's possible to think something has no effect and still be offended by it. I don't know how many times I've said that, but it obviously isn't getting through.
Just like the example I put on the very first page - I don't think it harms my grandfather physically or even spiritually if someone ruins his grave site by spray painting his marker, or tearing up the ground but it would still hurt me. If somone baptises my grandfather in proxy, it doesn't hurt him, or even affect him - but I still find it a desecration of his memory. This was a man who loved God, lived a Christian life and knew about Mormonism and rejected it - when we talked about such matters he told me how he invited Mormon missionaries into his home and spoke with them about their faith, he always said how he admired their dedication to evangelizing their faith but he did not accept or believe their doctrine. He made that choice, and of course I think it was the correct one because I've made it myself.
The choice he made in his lifetime and the dedication to living out his own Christian beliefs should be respected. I see baptism by proxy as profoundly disrespectful, akin to tearing up a grave site. Same as with my husband's baptism as an infant - to be baptised again was, to him, the same as spitting on the memory of his grandfather who baptised him. Would it have hurt anything for my husband just to get dunked and get it over with? My husband refused to join a church he otherwise loved, because they would have insisted on him being re-baptised. It was that important to him. The idea that someone would come along without his consent and baptise him after his death, frankly, disgusts me. As has been pointed out before, some of the people put on the database chose death over conversion. To be baptised, even in proxy, after their death seems to belittle their enormous sacrifices to remain true to their own faith.
If that isn't clear to you, I don't know what else to say since I've explained my position on this multiple times and frankly, I'm a little tired of getting asked the same question over and over. Even if you don't agree or understand, at least appreciate that some of us do care.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't really respond to that because it's obvious it's an upsetting topic to you, and having a discussion with you about it would be distressful to you. I don't want to upset you or anyone else.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Please understand, I'm not saying being offended is wrong. I'm saying I don't understand (with the exception of Jews).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I consider baptisim a sacred covenant with God. I have been baptised. It is part of my identity, and it is important to me. It is offensive to me to suggest that my baptisim doesn't count, isn't good enough, wasn't done correctly or by the correct authority, etc. It is even more offensive to suggest that the baptisims of my ancestors, who are dead and cannot defend their own faith, don't count.
If there was a Don't Re-Baptise list, I would put myself on it. Especially since I have a cousin who has converted to Mormonisim, and our family geneology is well documented. I fully expect that after our mutual grandparents have been dead long enough they'll be submitted for proxy re-baptisim, even though they personally wouldn't have wanted it and their closest living relatives (their children, my dad and aunts and uncle) wouldn't approve. Because my cousin is the type of person (not the type of Mormon, she's always been this way) who believes she knows better than everyone else, and combining that with y'alls emphasis on how important this is, I have no doubt she'll do it anyway, even though they won't meet the "closest living relative approves" bit.
In the end, do I think it really matters? No. And I won't get up in arms over it, beyond expressing my opinion on a message board. If there were people in my family who had died for their faith, I imagine I'd feel it was a lot more important, and I'd raise as big a stink against it as I could and check the database regularly and try to get names removed if and when they showed up. Because if an ancestor of mine had suffered torture or died rather than convert, it would be my responsibility as their descendant to do that to honor their memory.
As it is, I think re-baptisims are offensive but ultimately meaningless, so I won't take any steps beyond making that feeling known and signing up for a don't re-baptise list if one ever becomes available, (Unlikely, I know.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Do you find people coming to your door proselytizing offensive?
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Out of curiosity, what do you believe if a living person who doesn't believe or doesn't fully understand the belief system is baptized?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm just holding myself to God's standards rather than yours. As everyone should do.
This is another reason I now consider myself an atheist, actually. After years of hearing this sort of thing, I realized that God's standards as given are considerably lower than most human standards, less practical, and certainly less rigorously justified.
I think we'd have a much better world if people lived up to HUMAN standards, and obeyed only those standards of God that also met those criteria. We'd have to sit down and identify which human standards we'd like to uphold, but the beautiful thing about that is that you can talk to humans and get their reasons, something that not everyone believes you can do with every given God.
--------
SS, would your opinion of this action change if the hypothetical religion doing it believed that everyone for whom proxy baptism was performed changed religions after death? Not necessarily because they were forced to, but because the religion believed that the truth of their worldview was made obvious and self-evident after death, so that no one in his right mind -- and everyone is given a right mind after death -- would choose otherwise?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom--
Are you an athiest now? I thought you had decided on agnosticism.
I should have a database...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm calling myself an atheist, although I'm no less agnostic than I was. I just realized that at the level at which I was agnostic, I was just as agnostic about the existence of flying pink elephants; they could exist, but I think it's incredibly unlikely. I find it occasionally useful to briefly believe in God every now and then, just because it's comforting when things seem overwhelming, and I still try to set aside an hour or two a week to express my gratitude to the universe at large -- not because I think IT benefits from that expression, but because I think being aware and thankful of the good things in your life (both the ones you are and the ones you are not directly responsible for) is valuable -- but I've been convinced by other arguments that the "default" position for a skeptic is not strong agnosticism but weak atheism.
In other words, no one says "I'm leaving my options open about a race of immortal vampires who live invisibly among us;" they either believe in such a race or they don't -- but even the ones who don't would change their minds if given new evidence. We wouldn't call the latter group "agnostic" about invisible vampires just because they'd change their minds if they met an invisible vampire.
------
That said, for one very specific definition of "agnostic" -- and for one very specific definition of God -- I am clearly and definitionally agnostic. The kind of God that provides no physical proof of His existence and does not interfere in obvious ways in the world is a God that I believe we cannot prove or disprove; I've further concluded that the existence of such a God is only remotely relevant if there is in fact an afterlife of some sort. Since Pascal's Wager is fundamentally broken, and since a God which would punish disbelief while acting to preserve the possibility of disbelief is by my standards profoundly evil, the logical response is to act as if such a creature does not exist, while granting intellectually that the possibility is open. Basically, Occam's Razor kills that verson of God, something that would no doubt dismay Occam himself.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
People coming to my door presumably don't know who I am. They don't know if I'm already a Christian or not, or already religious or not. If they say they want to talk to me about God and I say thank you but I'm happy in my religion and they say okay and go away, no, I don't find that offensive. Proxy re-baptism is carrying out a ceremony in a person's name that that person didn't agree to and doesn't have a chance to say no to. Except, of course, those who were approached in life and have already said no, and the re-baptism is performed anyway. I know that Mormons believe that the spirit has the ability to accept or reject the re-baptism. That doesn't change the fact that the act of performing the ceremony is offensive.
I have less of a problem with the idea of re-baptisms being performed for people who died before Joseph Smith started Mormonism, because you could argue that those people never had the option of chosing Mormonism. I still don't like it, but it's somewhat less rude.
My former church was big on outreach, but we stressed that we were trying to reach the unchurched. We felt that we would be failing in our mission if we grew just by people switching churches because they liked our service better. Our goal was to reach people who were not currently attending any church. Because the people who were already practicing a religion? They were okay, and even if it was a different religion we respected that. They made their choice. And God gave us free will, so we could make those choices.
If proxy baptisms were performed without names, and they said something like "for those in the spirit world who have accepted the missionaries teachings," I'd have no problem with it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Salvation is individual, not collective. Baptisms must be performed by the proper authority, and for each person individually.
In other words, ElJay's proposal would be meaningless without changing core doctrine. Since we believe the core doctrine is true, it would a terrible betrayal of our obligations.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, I'm well aware of that, kat. It wasn't a proposal, it was an example. I'm just answering Storm's questions, since he seems to be honestly trying to understand how someone who isn't Jewish but finds proxy re-baptisms offensive feels.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: SS, would your opinion of this action change if the hypothetical religion doing it believed that everyone for whom proxy baptism was performed changed religions after death? Not necessarily because they were forced to, but because the religion believed that the truth of their worldview was made obvious and self-evident after death, so that no one in his right mind -- and everyone is given a right mind after death -- would choose otherwise?
I don't believe that's the case here, though, even in the Mormon world view, but you know what? It doesn't matter because non-Mormons believe Mormons are wrong about the nature of the after life, so why do they care? Intrinsically built in to almost every religion is the idea that every other religon has it wrong. From the perspective of everyone but Mormons and Jews, it's just a little old lady sitting in a room talking to air. Why this matters so much when an individual's name is used doesn't compute with me because it's not like they're cursing the name or denying what they were in their former life any more than any other religion does. Implicitly built into every religion is that if a person spiritually saw things truly, he would be a member of the 'true' religion.
quote: Proxy re-baptism is carrying out a ceremony in a person's name that that person didn't agree to and doesn't have a chance to say no to.
They're dead. What does it matter? From your perspective as a non-Mormon, it doesn't do anything.
Even saying that the act somehow denies that their religion was true when they were alive is meaningless because this is what all religions do in one capacity or another, so what's the problem?
quote:
Except, of course, those who were approached in life and have already said no, and the re-baptism is performed anyway. I know that Mormons believe that the spirit has the ability to accept or reject the re-baptism. That doesn't change the fact that the act of performing the ceremony is offensive.
It just does not compute to me why using a person's name is such an awful thing.
quote: My former church was big on outreach, but we stressed that we were trying to reach the unchurched. We felt that we would be failing in our mission if we grew just by people switching churches because they liked our service better. Our goal was to reach people who were not currently attending any church. Because the people who were already practicing a religion? They were okay, and even if it was a different religion we respected that. They made their choice. And God gave us free will, so we could make those choices.
Nevertheless, your church had a core doctrine of right and wrong, and truth. There's no way that it could say nothing was true and be a functioning church. But leave that aside. You know that a lot of religions aren't that way, that they believe that if you don't do certain things or believe certain things, that salvation isn't going to happen for your or any dead person. In their opinion, being a Christian or whatever is wrong in this life and the next. If you asked them about a particular dead person, I'm sure they would say that. The fact that they don't bother is because it's a de facto truth that doesn't need speaking of.
Thank you, by the way, El Jay, for talking to me about this. Again, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I'm just trying to understand, to have a dialogue about something that I don't understand.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Do you find people coming to your door proselytizing offensive?
I don't like people invading my space. But I'm a lot more offended by the people who picket and hand out pamphlets in Ybor City yelling, "Sex is not love, people!"
Also, I really don't think it helps your case to say "God said we should do this, and it's very important" while at the same time claiming that since the person is dead, it shouldn't matter.
-pH
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
katharina, salvation and baptism are two different things. Baptism is always only individual. But your statement that salvation is individual, not collective, is not entirely correct. We are collectively saved in Christ, for He took responsibility for the whole human race collectively when He took humanity upon Himself. Thus Paul wrote: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:18) But of course we also do have to acknowledge and accept it individually. God has in fact saved all human beings and forgiven all the sins humanity has ever commited or will ever commit. But God does not force anything on us, even salvation; so He allows us to choose whether to embrace it or reject it. The good news of the gospel is such good news because it says all humanity has been saved, Christ has redeemed us all, and has made available every spiritual resource we need in order to reform our hearts and lives. The inexplicable tragedy as that some people choose to opt out.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Thank you, by the way, El Jay, for talking to me about this. Again, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I'm just trying to understand, to have a dialogue about something that I don't understand.
You're welcome. Always a pleasure. Although at this point, if you don't understand why I think using a dead persons name is bad, I don't htink there's anything else I can say to try to explain it better.
Although I do like pH's second paragraph. I think it is much more truthful to say, as Scott R, for example, does, that we're sorry that you don't like this but we believe God commanded it so we're going to do it anyway. When it gets down to it, that's fine. I can't stop it, and I wouldn't want to. But I will continue to not like it. And if any of you end up in influential positions in the church later in life, I'd appreaciate it if you would see about getting that do not baptise list going, eh?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Thanks, ElJay. I've been trying to think of a similar example of that, but nothing comes to mind at the moment. I see the big issue as other people seeing how much the ceremony means FOR YOU. So whether or not they actually believe that it affects the dead, the offensive part is that YOU think it does, and YOU are performing the ritual with this belief.
Does that make sense?
-pH
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The old saying is that your civil rights end where my nose begins. Well, obnoxious as it may seem to me for Mormons to think they can vicariously baptize the dead and supposedly make Mormons of them in the afterlife, it really does not impact my nose in any way. If their doctrine is true and valid, then our objections might have substance; but if we believe that what Mormons do is meaningless, then why should we care? Of all the reprehensible things that some people do in the name of religion, vicarious posthumus baptism is one of the least objectionable.
It's like those ads we hear for having a star named after someone in a star registry that is "preserved in the U.S. Copyright Office" (which just means that they are publishing and claiming copyright for their "star reegistry" book.) Astronomers pay no attention to it. The company has no status to name stars. They're just making money on a totally vain enterprise. There is no reason to prosecute them. They are not committing any crime.
[ December 21, 2006, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I don't like people invading my space. But I'm a lot more offended by the people who picket and hand out pamphlets in Ybor City yelling, "Sex is not love, people!"
I'm not sure the situation is quite analogous.
quote: Also, I really don't think it helps your case to say "God said we should do this, and it's very important" while at the same time claiming that since the person is dead, it shouldn't matter.
Well, I'm not a Mormon, so that's not what I'm claiming.
I'm basically saying that someone sitting in a room, basically praying that your dead whatever's soul see the light, doesn't have any meaning for me in a spiritual sense. So, I don't care.
In this world, them doing so, privately, doesn't do anything to the dead person's name. The living don't know about it unless they look for it, I believe. It doesn't, thus, have any real meaning to me beyond that, to me, it's a kind gesture from someone of another religion who, of course, believes that their religion is correct and that others should adopt it.
Let me say something to the 'We find it offensive and you should stop' argument. I'm not clear on why so many people are using this argument. Clearly, it's pretty silly to live your life for other people. I mean, if more chicks slept with me because I wanted them to, that would be awesome. I find it offensive that they don't find me more awesomer. *flex*
Sadly, they don't find me being offended to be very persuasive. So, as a trump card, I think most people don't look at being offended as a real reason to do or not do something, unless they see a reason to do or not do something.
Now, I guess you could argue that the situation above isn't exactly analogous to someone doing something offensive to someone else, but I would argue that reasonable people understand that 'offense' is a very subjective term, and that, barring obvious candidates like making someone listen to Tony Danza singing, it's not reasonable to suppose that everyone will see why you find something objectionable and, thus, have a reason to stop what they are doing.
So, barring a reason to stop what they are doing, why would they stop doing something just because you find it offensive? People just don't work like that and it's kind of crazy to me to think that just by saying that one is offended, you can expect someone else to stop what they are doing.
Now, of course, the person who is offended can say that if the other party doesn't capitulate, they're going to think less of them or get real sad or whatever, but I suggest this kind of emotional blackmail, because that's what it is, isn't something that should be used except in the most direst of emergencies, and that a far wiser course of action might be to tone down the rhetoric to saying something like,'I don't agree with your viewpoint'.
Like, I find people getting 'offended' to be offensive, but I"m not going to say that, because then feelings will be hurt, and then how does that really help anyone. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: I don't like people invading my space. But I'm a lot more offended by the people who picket and hand out pamphlets in Ybor City yelling, "Sex is not love, people!"
I'm not sure the situation is quite analogous.
You were asking about being offended by door-to-door missionairies. I said yes. I find them offensive, BUT I find the crazy sex is not love people a lot MORE offensive.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Two things, Storm. First, most people aren't saying "I find it offensive so you should stop doing it." They're saying they find it offensive and why, and that they wish Mormons wouldn't do it, but most people realize that it isn't going to stop.
Second, it's not someone sitting in a room praying for the dead person's soul. From what I understand, the person being baptised as proxy for the dead person goes through the actual ceremony of baptism, and speaks the name of the person they're representing. I'm pretty sure you won't see the difference, but the symbology of it seems quite different to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I hear you.
Well, thanks all for the conversation. TTFN.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I am neither a Jew nor a Mormon, however I believe that this kind of thing is very disrespectful and relates to the reason why I tend to avoid organized Religion: I don't like being forcefed doctrine.
However, I am not placing blame on any person or group yet. As of now I'm giving the LDS Church the benefit of the doubt; I believe that the Church in general did not want this to happen, and sincerely do wish to uphold their signed agreement. However it appears that there are individuals (as there always will be) who are a little more extreme that deface the name of those they represent. I'm not sure how this thing can be avoided in the future, as I realize it may be difficult to place checks on the adding of names. However, if it's possible and a reasonable request, I do agree with a few of the above posters that it should be done. I'd like to believe that respect can be shown towards everyone; both to those who do not wish to have their beliefs trampled upon, and to those who may be unfairly criticized for something they themselves did not actually participate in.
On a final note, however, let me summarize my feelings with a lame analogy I am an agnostic male who happens to love having long hair. Parts of my description truly infuriate some people in this country, but alas, it is who I want to be. I love myself the way I am. If when I die, a group of people decided it was to my benefit to buzz my hair and bestow upon my tombstone "A Devout Catholic", I would be extremely upset. Well, maybe not; depends on what happens after I die. But I know right now that I'm upset at the thought; I hope no one ever has to have their wishes desecrated upon their death.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It's like those ads we hear for having a star named after someone in a star registry that is "preserved in the U.S. Copyright Office" (which just means that they are publishing and claiming copyright for their "star reegistry" book.) Astronomers pay no attention to it. The company has no status to name stars. They're just making money on a totally vain enterprise. There is no reason to prosecute them. They are not committing any crime.
But what if someone "bought" a star for someone who devoutly believed that stars have their own names and spent their life trying to get people to stop the whole naming stars thing.
Or if someone was to dedicate a cross burning in your name ("just in case they want that") or get you a posthumous ACLU card.*
*not making other comparisions between the Church of LDS and either the KKK or the ACLU. Or star naming companies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The old saying is that your civil rights end where my nose begins.
I'm pretty sure no one has spoken favorably of using gov't force to stop the PBs. Paul made a kind of implicit threat that if they don't stop, someone will try to stop them. He also mentioned contract enforcement favorably, but I'd have a hard time seeing that as a civil rights infringement. Hitoshi thought PB wasn't covered by freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but changed his mind. I think this was because he had been under the impression this involved more than a ceremony using the name.
The starter of the thread explicitly (and not at all surprisingly) said she is againts government coercion in this matter.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Most likely, many of you will outlive me. If you feel the need to baptize me, feel free. Be aware of this: If you do it, I will haunt you. Your TVs will mysteriously seek out episodes of Law and Order at three am, and the milk in your refrigerators will go sour as soon as they are opened. Toilets will flush mysteriously, and there will be a marked increase in birth defects in your general proximity.
Actually, I'd be living my dream-afterlife, getting to go all grudge. *makes weird grudge noise and helps wash people's hair*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bob -- you have shown a lot of distress that Mormons don't share your opinion about what your baptism means. Do you also feel offended that atheists and agnostics don't believe what you do about your baptism?
Posted by Me, Myself, and I (Member # 10003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Most likely, many of you will outlive me. If you feel the need to baptize me, feel free. Be aware of this: If you do it, I will haunt you. Your TVs will mysteriously seek out episodes of Law and Order at three am...
Could you make our TV play BSG at 3am instead?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, so MMI is Jonathon. Can't say I'm surprised.
Posted by Me, Myself, and I (Member # 10003) on :
We don't know who Jonathon is, but he isn't the only one who loves BSG.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Me, Myself, and I:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Most likely, many of you will outlive me. If you feel the need to baptize me, feel free. Be aware of this: If you do it, I will haunt you. Your TVs will mysteriously seek out episodes of Law and Order at three am...
Could you make our TV play BSG at 3am instead?
NEVER!
YOu will also hear the "cha-chong" noise repeatedly just as you are about to drift off to sleep, and you will dream of Janet Reno folk dancing naked.
Posted by Me, Myself, and I (Member # 10003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: If when I die, a group of people decided it was to my benefit to buzz my hair and bestow upon my tombstone "A Devout Catholic", I would be extremely upset. Well, maybe not; depends on what happens after I die. But I know right now that I'm upset at the thought; I hope no one ever has to have their wishes desecrated upon their death.
Perhaps a better analogy would be if someone stood over that person's grave and said a prayer, such as, "We offer you the opportunity to become a devout Catholic." That seems a little more analogous.
Your analogy implies that baptism for the dead involves physical contact with the dead and that LDS people consider the person converted once the ordinance is performed, both of which are not true. A person baptized by proxy is not considered a devout mormon anymore than a non-mormon. They now just have the choice to become one. If you still disagree with that, that's understandable and you have the right to believe it, even if we don't.
Posted by Me, Myself, and I (Member # 10003) on :
Olivet, your last threat is particularly frightening.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But what's being done is NOT just a prayer. It's a ceremony.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
lol!
Just to be clear, I'm not bothered at all about the baptisms for the dead, I just saw the opportunity to make creepy supernatural threats and I had to take it.
Besides, I'm pretty sure you can't do it for me after I'm gone, because I did the discussions.
(I was going to say Ewan McGregor folk dancing naked, partly because I think he'd be game for the gig and partly because it seems like a dream I might have, but then inspiration struck. )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead. The living stand-ins say the words and perform the appropriate motions for those who have already died.
At least, this is my understanding, and that helps me also understand why certain non-LDS members find this more troubling than just saying a prayer would be, or an old lady saying things aloud while alone in a room. It sounds more like a pageant or a play [with the main characters being those of the dead], but with ritually invested meaning to those who observe it.
---
My own preference would be to be on the "do not baptise" list, but I can understand that this is not something many members of the LDS Church might feel they could respect. I don't mind so much the actual practice of it, but I do find myself far more troubled by other aspects of culture that come out in discussions surrounding this practice.
---
Edited to add: On rereading, that last sentence sounds ominous and judgmental. I didn't mean for it to be. I just mean that there is an element of ... hmmmm ... no good way to say it, but perhaps just what seems to be a common habitual stance towards others that bothers me more than the ceremony itself. I think this is in large part because I was quite zealously meek ("fiercely submessive!" as the Prairie Muffins say ) at one time in my life, and I dislike that part of what I remember of myself back then. Whenever I read these discussions, I am reminded of that part of myself which I'd rather not claim anymore, regardless of whether it actually applies to those in front of me.
[ December 21, 2006, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead.
Sounds a bit like necromancy to me, come to think of it. Are you Mos sure you're not a witchy-type cult?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Bob -- you have shown a lot of distress that Mormons don't share your opinion about what your baptism means. Do you also feel offended that atheists and agnostics don't believe what you do about your baptism?
Not speaking for Bob, but it seems to me that an important difference is that no atheist or agnostic, to my knowledge, will attempt to 'overwrite' his baptism with one of their own, after his death.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It is a ceremony where the physical bodies of the live people act as stand-ins for the bodies of those already dead.
Sounds a bit like necromancy to me, come to think of it. Are you Mos sure you're not a witchy-type cult?
Well, of course not. There are no dead bodies there. Only live bodies acting out the possible future wishes of people who were once alive, but whose bodies are now dead.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And it comes to pass that I remember that we are discussing this at Hatrack, and that our host has asked us to not be specific about details of the LDS faith, and that I know "temple matters" are things considered sacred (i.e., not to be spoken of in casual conversation), so ... I might well have been too specific above.
I am not going to edit or delete it myself just yet, but should there be a request from anyone to do so, I would comply immediately. The judgment of whether that is offensive is not mine to make (I haven't a good enough perspective, I think), but I'll abide by the wishes of those who might be offended.
Of course, if any mopderator chooses to edit/delete for me, I wouldn't complain -- far from it. Again, if it is bad, it should be dealt with. I do think we can't have the discussion sensibly without that level of detail (although that seems sufficient, to me) if we are to understand one another, but maybe that just means that the discussion shouldn't be had here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right. Magical rituals involving the spirits of the dead, especially ancestors of the partakers in the rite, intended to aid those spirits in the afterlife as well as discharging a duty of the participant to his god. If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary.
Edit: I apparently cross-posted this while CT was writing. I should point out, perchance, that my original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in line with the usual baby-eating jokes. Even so, I think there is a point to consider, here, namely that a lot of Christian rituals would be considered rather disgusting if a Christian encountered them outside his own faith. Take Communion, for example; ritual cannibalism by proxy, giving the participant some of the qualities of the person being eaten - classic paganism, that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think "necromancy" carries with it the general connotation of actually summoning the spirits of the dead to be present, usually for the reason of personal gain [of the living participants].
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
quote:Main Entry: nec·ro·man·cy Pronunciation: 'ne-kr&-"man(t)-sE Function: noun Etymology: alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events 2 : MAGIC, SORCERY - nec·ro·man·cer /-s&r/ noun - nec·ro·man·tic /"ne-kr&-'man-tik/ adjective - nec·ro·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
The LDS don't believe (AFAIK, which is limited, admittedly) that the spirits of the dead are actually present at the ceremony. There may be individual beliefs or faith-promoting rumors otherwise, but as I understand the official position, it is that the ceremony is done just to have those actions and words "recorded," as it were. The spirits don't have to be present for the record of the event to take place.
Using the word "necromancy" casts entirely unwarranted connotations on the practice, in my opinion.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Although there have been some stories of spirits witnessing their baptism out of a sense of joy and anticipation, that isn't the majority of such stories. Far more are about spirits coming to someone and pretty much lambasting that person for not doing the work for them. Any and all of these stories are not official doctrine and represents personal experiences if anything at all. Just some thoughts on the topic.
"If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary."
One person's Miracle is another person's Magic.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal
Well look on the bright side, at least the person who entered it into the data base probably spelled it (his name) right.
EDIT: added "(his name)" for clarification.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I would usually consider necromancy as being 'magic involving the spirits of the dead', but who am I to argue with a dictionary? On the other hand, what phrase would you use to describe the Mormon ceremony from the point of view of someone wanting to classify various Christian magics? (I realise that this presupposes a belief that Christian rituals are just another form of magic, no more or less effective than a shaman's rain-dance. Still, I would suggest that even a Christian might find this a useful thought experiment to do.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Right. Magical rituals involving the spirits of the dead, especially ancestors of the partakers in the rite, intended to aid those spirits in the afterlife as well as discharging a duty of the participant to his god. If you came across that in an African tribe, you'd call it necromancy, or anyway you would if you were a Christian missionary.
Don't you dare presume to know what a Christian missionary would or would not do. There is nothing "magical" about them and your definition of what constitutes necromancy is ridiculous.
The Chinese have for thousands of years participated in rites that they believe "assist" their ancestors and even the spirits of strangers who are dead. In fact they believe if they do not do them the dead suffer. A small group of them actually attempt to become possessed by the spirits of the dead and THAT COULD be described as legitimate necromancy. The practice of proxy baptism and all proxy ordinances is not designed to be a medium of communication with the dead, or a means by which to obtain power from the dead.
The level of disrespect for which you treat religion galls even me sometimes KOM and that takes SOME doing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Edit: I apparently cross-posted this while CT was writing. I should point out, perchance, that my original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in line with the usual baby-eating jokes. Even so, I think there is a point to consider, here, namely that a lot of Christian rituals would be considered rather disgusting if a Christian encountered them outside his own faith. Take Communion, for example; ritual cannibalism by proxy, giving the participant some of the qualities of the person being eaten - classic paganism, that.
Oh, for sure. *nods
I am still astonished at how blase I was as a child at being reminded on every Sunday that I was consuming the Body of Christ. Of course, transubstantiation is much more complicated than "you're eating dead flesh, from a guy that died 2000 years ago," but at that age, this was my level of understanding. And because it was presented to me as something we all do, something very normal, just a part of Sunday like getting dressed up or wearing my patent leather shoes, then I was fine with it.
How odd, actually, looking back.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, BlackBlade, you have to understand that if you don't believe in the Christian god, then any Christian ritual commanded by that god is precisely and exactly 'magic' : An attempt to coerce reality by supernatural means. In this case, a reality in which I do not believe, but that's irrelevant. A shaman's dance to heal the sick by removing the daemon infesting the victim's spirit is likewise an attempt to change a reality in which I do not believe (the daemon, that is, not the sickness). I understand that you consider there to be a sharp division between evil magic and good ritual; but I'm not bound by your categories. Any attempt to influence the supernatural is magic as far as I'm concerned, including prayer.
As for missionaries, I don't need to presume anything at all, I can just point to the historical records of how they classified various pagan practices.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, just for the record, many Christian rites have nothing to do with influencing God or trying to get God to do something.
edit to add: of course, some do. Mostly we try to influence God to influence us.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Do any of them involve Hello Kitty, glitter, and a banjo?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...if I use my imagination, I might could come up with something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would venture to guess, however, that those rituals are done for the good of the participant's soul, such as (for example) confession and penance. Again, this is an attempt to change a supernatural reality, to wit, the destination of your soul. Magic.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"KoM, just for the record, many Christian rites have nothing to do with influencing God or trying to get God to do something."
I have a hard time believing this. I suppose there is the idea of bringing things to memory, but even that is usually with the idea of pleasing God for our involvement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*snorfles* at Storm Saxon
snorfle = would have been spewing liquid through my nose if I had been consuming a beverage at the time.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Hmmm...if I use my imagination, I might could come up with something.
Sweet!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, BlackBlade, you have to understand that if you don't believe in the Christian god, then any Christian ritual commanded by that god is precisely and exactly 'magic' : An attempt to coerce reality by supernatural means. In this case, a reality in which I do not believe, but that's irrelevant. A shaman's dance to heal the sick by removing the daemon infesting the victim's spirit is likewise an attempt to change a reality in which I do not believe (the daemon, that is, not the sickness). I understand that you consider there to be a sharp division between evil magic and good ritual; but I'm not bound by your categories. Any attempt to influence the supernatural is magic as far as I'm concerned, including prayer.
As for missionaries, I don't need to presume anything at all, I can just point to the historical records of how they classified various pagan practices.
Start pointing then, you might start with Matteo Ricci,
But see I am pretty neutral in regards to the Chinese Daoists attempts to be possessed. Though I think the results are at best strange and at worse quite terrifying, and though the act involves self mutilation I would not say the men and women who undertake this rite are attempting to accomplish evil.
Not only that a daemon is arguably quite different from the dead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I think "necromancy" carries with it the general connotation of actually summoning the spirits of the dead to be present, usually for the reason of personal gain [of the living participants].
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
quote:Main Entry: nec·ro·man·cy Pronunciation: 'ne-kr&-"man(t)-sE Function: noun Etymology: alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events 2 : MAGIC, SORCERY - nec·ro·man·cer /-s&r/ noun - nec·ro·man·tic /"ne-kr&-'man-tik/ adjective - nec·ro·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
I think a quick source of misunderstanding here is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the second definition. There's nothing even inherently "better" about the first definition rather than the second one.
It appears that KOM is working from a definition 80% from #2 and 20% from #1. That is magic and sorcery, that happens to be associated with dead people.
While BB is working from a definition 100% #1.
As a point of amusement, I may note that a Webster's definition where many people would shy away from definition #1 would be:
quote: Main Entry: 1gay Pronunciation: 'gA Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French gai, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gAhi quick, sudden 1 a : happily excited : MERRY <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song> 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color 3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS 4 a : HOMOSEXUAL <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar> synonym see LIVELY - gay adverb - gay·ness noun
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Not only that a daemon is arguably quite different from the dead.
Completely irrelevant. My shaman was another example of what I consider magic.
quote:But see I am pretty neutral in regards to the Chinese Daoists attempts to be possessed. Though I think the results are at best strange and at worse quite terrifying, and though the act involves self mutilation I would not say the men and women who undertake this rite are attempting to accomplish evil.
Completely irrelevant. I didn't say your necromancy was evil either. I just pointed out that it's magic.
quote:Start pointing then, you might start with Matteo Ricci.
quote:For Elmslie, anyone who deals with the spirit world is a 'witch-doctor'.
quote:To be sure, Elmslie does not claim that the local doctors, who are here treated in the single category of 'native doctors', are incapable of healing people. He argues instead that not only is their treatment based on false suppositions and religious beliefs, but also morally dangerous, dirty, 'obscene'.
This applies to medicine rather than religion, but no worries - priests were even less popular than healers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...actually attempt to become possessed by the spirits of the dead and THAT COULD be described as legitimate necromancy. The practice of proxy baptism and all proxy ordinances is not designed to be a medium of communication with the dead...
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Although there have been some stories of spirits witnessing their baptism out of a sense of joy and anticipation, that isn't the majority of such stories. Far more are about spirits coming to someone and pretty much lambasting that person for not doing the work for them.
It may not be *designed* as a medium of communication, but evidentially at least someone believes that the spirits do appear and communicate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Bob -- you have shown a lot of distress that Mormons don't share your opinion about what your baptism means. Do you also feel offended that atheists and agnostics don't believe what you do about your baptism?
Not speaking for Bob, but it seems to me that an important difference is that no atheist or agnostic, to my knowledge, will attempt to 'overwrite' his baptism with one of their own, after his death.
I was replying to Bob's comments that only dealt with normal, in-the-flesh baptisms.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So the idea of these posthumous baptisms has been bouncing around the old noggin for a while now, and I have to say, from a personal perspective, I love it.
I am an atheist to the core. Not a remotely spiritual bone in my body. I have absolutely no faith in any religion whatsoever.
According to nearly every religion, I'm pretty screwed. Oh well. I don't believe them anyway.
But according to Mormonism, after I die I won't be damned eternally! I'll only be damned temporarily, and I might be able to be saved via a posthumous baptism. Sweet! I say, bring it on! On the off-chance that I'm wrong, I will happily accept such a baptism and follow God's law from then unto the end of time. I think this is just about the coolest, and kindest, religious custom I've ever seen.
Is there somewhere the living can go to request a posthumous baptism, when the time comes? I know I sound a bit flippant, but I'm actually seriously asking.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
CT, the description you gave for the temple ceremony is not a problem. There are aspects of the temple ceremony we don't talk about outside of the temple, but describing it in generalities is okay, and you did not step over the line. Thank you for your thoughtfulness, consideration, and willingness to delete if necessary. It isn't.
As for if the person's spirit is at the ceremony or not... It's not required, but we do believe that if the spirit accepted the gospel, they likely are there rejoicing as it's done. If the spirit didn't accept, then they'd have no reason to be there. Does that make sense?
And there are many, many people who say that they feel the spirit of the person they're doing the work for present at the time.
For the record, Belle, Eljay, and others, I do understand why you find it offensive. Of course I disagree with you based on my religious beliefs, but I can understand it anyway in my own limited way. I'm sorry it offends you. I wish it didn't. I don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better, short of not doing these ordinances at all, which would go against everything we believe in. There's no good way to win. Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal
Well look on the bright side, at least the person who entered his name into the database probably spelled it right.
Score one for lem!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better."
Make an opt-out list. When proselytizing, let people know this list is available if they decline to convert. Then you leave out the people who make conscious decisions not to join your church.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " don't know that there's anything we can do to make it less offensive other than the policies and procedures that are already in place and enforcing them better."
Make an opt-out list. When proselytizing, let people know this list is available if they decline to convert. Then you leave out the people who make conscious decisions not to join your church.
An opt-out list kind of goes against the whole LDS idea of posthumous baptism. If the church did such a thing, there would be many people who do not have a full understanding of the doctrine that choose to sign-up for this list. We believe everyone will be taught the doctrine in the spirit world to its fullest. We believe there may be some people who will reject it in this life, due to insufficient knowledge or other circumstances, who may change their minds once they learn the fullness of the doctrine. We would hate to say to them: "Sorry, but you signed that list in mortality, so I guess you're out of luck."
Of course, those of you who find posthumous baptism offensive will find this probably more offensive, which is fine. I am just explaining one possibility why the LDS church does not have an opt-out list.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:An opt-out list kind of goes against the whole LDS idea of posthumous baptism. If the church did such a thing, there would be many people who do not have a full understanding of the doctrine that choose to sign-up for this list. We believe everyone will be taught the doctrine in the spirit world to its fullest. We believe there may be some people who will reject it in this life, due to insufficient knowledge or other circumstances, who may change their minds once they learn the fullness of the doctrine. We would hate to say to them: "Sorry, but you signed that list in mortality, so I guess you're out of luck."
Then there isn't a clean solution. In such circumstances, shouldn't you privilege the decision one has made while living. If the LDS Church doesn't do this, isn't it tantamount to going against a person's dying wish? If the Rivka is correct, then you are torturing a dead person by giving them this choice.
[ December 21, 2006, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But according to Mormonism, after I die I won't be damned eternally! I'll only be damned temporarily, and I might be able to be saved via a posthumous baptism. Sweet! I say, bring it on! On the off-chance that I'm wrong, I will happily accept such a baptism and follow God's law from then unto the end of time.
But this is just a variant of old Pascal, and suffers from the same problem: The chances are just as good that you're wrong in a different way, and that the baptism ceremony will actually add to your torments in the afterlife.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
So I have a question about arrogance and conviction. If you believe something so strongly that you have no doubts that it is true, i.e. you consider it factual knowledge, while respecting that other people have the right to worship and believe as they please, do you consider that arrogance or conviction?
I have heard the word arrogance used before in this thread, and am wondering if the two words get confused. Do you think it's bad to know that you're right (without going around saying it all the time and wholeheartedly respecting others' rights to believe as they please)?
Maybe Mormons are arrogant, because many of them, including myself, believe to have the fulness of the gospel of Christ. If so, then like Occasional said, I must settle for being arrogant.
But again, if I am, and I decide not to be arrogant, then I would be going against something I believe so fully that it would be to go against my very being. I could no sooner decide that posthumous baptism and other LDS doctrines are incorrect than I could deny that I currently exist. And I don't say this to flaunt that I have all truth. It's just that all of us have core beliefs so deep that to deny them would only be to lie to ourselves. And one of these core beliefs is allowing others to believe as they choose, because I believe God gave us the right to choose such things. And I don't believe posthumous baptism to go against rights, but we have already established it is not an issue of rights, but of respect, which brings us back to the same discussion we've been having for 10 pages.
So take this post as a discussion about arrogance and conviction, not necessarily about the baptism subject, since I can't think of anything new to say that hasn't already been said.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Marlozhan,
I actually mean the true sense of arrogance, to claim for oneself a rule that doesn't belong. In this case, in posthumous baptism, you are claiming authority over the mortal's live wishes. Whether it's yours to claim, I don't know, but at best, it is suspiciously paternal, and at worst you are setting yourself up as a god and in the process bringing pain upon the dead.
It's your decision, but we live in a religiously plural world, and taking the hard line on this is what causes holy wars, unless you expect Jews to be passive while you torture their dead.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Good to know, quidscribis. Thanks.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know something... I don't like the posthumous baptism thing. I think it's disrespectful. I get that they're going to keep doing it despite that, and I hope that at the very least, they've learned that there's a reason why people find it disrespectful.
But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
The world to come is a world of Truth. It's a world where we will see the world in truth. Having someone offer baptism at that point is actually far less of a big deal than someone knocking on my door today and trying to talk to me about this stuff.
No one is "torturing our dead". For crying out loud. Yes, someone were to portray me as a Christian after I'm dead, that would probably cause me pain in the next world. But knocking on my grave (so to speak) and saying, "Here you go, just in case," while it's incredibly insensitive to those of us still alive, isn't anything to us once we're dead.
I'm tempted to delete this thread. Not that I ever would, but it's tempting.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: And I don't believe posthumous baptism to go against rights, but we have already established it is not an issue of rights, but of respect, which brings us back to the same discussion we've been having for 10 pages.
The thing is, Mormons can keep things to themselves. They did it with polygamy for a time. This should have been the same thing. And I think it wasn't because y'all simply didn't get how anyone could be offended by it.
Once it was pointed out to you that it was offensive, the proper thing to do would have been to say, "We're sorry it offends you", and made the entire process invisible to outside eyes. That this wasn't done smacks of more than just arrogance.
But whatever. It'd be nice to think that at least some of you get it now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In our defense, it isn't like the church puts our press releases, and the temples are closed to the public. It isn't meant to be done in public. That the IGI is public is both unavoidable and public service, since lots of people outside of the church use it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
I don't believe I ever said it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I made it clear the last go-round that it was my view. I have since discovered that while it is certainly not the majority view, it is one that has some backing. (Afraid I don't recall from whom -- I had that conversation with my rav at least a year ago.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In our defense, it isn't like the church puts our press releases, and the temples are closed to the public. It isn't meant to be done in public. That the IGI is public is both unavoidable and public service, since lots of people outside of the church use it.
I hear what you're saying, but the two can be kept separate. The genealogy information and the baptisms. I don't really think it's unavoidable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But I disagree with Rivka. Her view is not the only Orthodox Jewish view, and in this case, I don't really think it's even a mainstream one.
I don't believe I ever said it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I made it clear the last go-round that it was my view. I have since discovered that while it is certainly not the majority view, it is one that has some backing. (Afraid I don't recall from whom -- I had that conversation with my rav at least a year ago.)
Okay. I only posted this because some people, like Irami, were assuming it to be global. It wasn't meant as an attack against you, and I hope you didn't take it that way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've been thinking about this thing quite a lot, and I think I have an analogy that might work to explain a bit of what I've been feeling.
I was head of an organization when one of the early originators of that organization passed away. The board and I decided amongst ourselves that we should do something to honor his memory. My first thought after that was to ask the man's widow for permission and to ask her to approve the statement that would be used at our annual meeting and in the newsletter. I sought her approval even though I knew that the man was one of our founders and, at least up to his retirement a few years ago had been a tireless booster of the organization.
I made sure to talk directly to his widow before writing up anything, then I sent her the completed writeup and she approved it.
Now, see, I realize this may not be a perfect analogy, but it may serve to illustrate what I consider proper behavior when using the name of a person who has died in the recently-enough to have left surviving immediate kin such as a spouse or adult children.
In the situation I've described, we felt we were honoring the person, and we have assurances from those who knew the couple that both the deceased man and his wife would have been pleased with the memorial we planned.
Now, see, I wish that there was some way to convey a like sentiment to the folks who do the proxy baptisms without knowing for sure that they have the widowed spouse's approval, or barring a surviving spouse, then the approval of the deceased children. It's a courtesy, to be sure, but it is also something that does more than hit a raw and sour note if done without that personal contact. If I'd gone ahead and honored that man without ever talking to his wife, it would have been wrong. I hope, first, that everyone sees that and can at least understand that idea, if not actually agree with it.
I feel like my family has been wronged by the person who used my father's name in a ceremony. Not because it did or did not have meaning, but because it was simply the wrong thing to do from a basic standard of behavior point of view. Politeness and consideration.
See, that's sort of what surprises me most about this coming from LDS folk. I have never met an LDS person who was not scrupulously polite and considerate. But now I find out that on something I consider sort of basic, the general position is somewhere between "oh, gee, that shouldn't have happened, sorry" and "we answer to a higher power and we'll continue to do this."
I know a few (quidscribis most notably) at least see that there could be reason for upset on my part and (whether they agree or not) at least acknowledge a need for change.
I can honestly say that the other reactions disappointed and surprised me. In fact, I got downright angry, and took it out on someone (elsewhere) in a way that I regretted shortly thereafter. Suffice it to say I was not my usual nice self and got into some of the other things I dislike about the doctrine that backs up this particular practice. I'll not repeat any of it here as I have simply decided to go back to ignoring that aspect of the issue.
The part that still feels bad to me is the failure to contact surviving immediate family. I consider myself sort of a basic-level person when it comes to social graces. I figure if I know better than to do this, pretty much everyone should. It crosses a line that it seems to me is more than just obvious, but obviously basic.
And yet, I seem to gather that this problem gets more-or-less of a wink and a nod from the LDS hierarchy. A "tsk tsk, we told them not to, but oh well, what can you do with octogenerian grandmothers who're set in their ways" <insert tossed up hands here.>
And that, seems to me, just isn't enough.
It's sort of what I want to write to President Hinkley. That and the whole issue about not having adequate notices on the website of the purpose of the database.
But really, I think it's something that I'd like to present in the form of a heartfelt letter to those grandmothers. Not in anger -- I think I'm mostly past that -- but to let them know how it feels to have your father's name used without your knowledge. Even if it is for the purpose of a high honor or to meet a commitment from God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bob, I asked you earlier, but I guess you didn't see it, so I'll ask again.
You said (I'm paraphrasing here. If I get it wrong, I apologize) that you were deeply offended by LDS doctrine of (non-vicarious) baptism and what it ipmlies about your religion and the people who performed your baptism.
Are you similarly offended by what the beliefs of, say, atheists, Jews, and Muslims imply about your religion and the people who performed your baptism?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mph,
I'm sorry, but I can't discuss that without getting myself into trouble I don't really need. In truth, I ignore it in ALL other faiths, including LDS, unless it comes up in a way that is more "in your face" than normal.
Remember, however, that I am married to a clergy person and that implies that I have more than just a passing interest in this issue.
I can't really be objective about it, so I try to ignore it, when I can. And I end up apologizing in the aftermath when I can't. I'd rather stick to just ignoring it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can't speak for Bob, of course, but since I feel very close to what Bob has mentioned myself I can answer that for myself....
Not really.....unless they tried to posthumously convert me as well. Even in a "just in case" type of situation.
Part of what bothers me is the specificity of it. I don't care what people think of my religious views, but at least while I am alive I can express them, and disagree with anyone who says I believe otherwise.
It just feels like the Mormon Church is saying " Well, since they won't convert NOW, wait until they are dead and we will try it later.". If I wanted to baptized I would do it in life, but once I am dead the Mormon Church acts like they have a right to have a say in where I go and what I do in the afterlife, and that bothers me a lot.
I understand WHY they feel it is necessary, but it doesn't make it a lot less bothersome to me. Your religious views have nothing to do with mine, and I prefer to keep it that way.....and "offering" me a choice later doesn't make up for the impopriety of it in this world, IMO.
It's like signing me up for a book club against my will....if MY faith feels like a baptism matters, and my faith declares that only MY religion has the right/obligation to do so, you ARE violating my faith and religion when you perform your ritual. Even if I say "no" in the afterlife, the ritual has been done, possibly placing my soul at risk.
And involving yourselves in my faith, my religion, and my salvation without invitation is NOT OK with me, regardless of how noble your intentions were at the beginning.
Kwea
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not sure why our marriage implies anything about your level of interest. Opportunity for discussion of the relevant doctrine is, of course, greatly increased.
Speaking for myself, I feel similarly about the belief that my baptism is invalid/ineffective/a figment of my imagination no matter whose it is. The LDS are, as far as I know, the only religion who would make the presumption of doing something about it without my consent, so that's an extra layer of <something> over and above the general attitude of disregarding it.
I feel simililarly about, say, Baptists, who would require me to be re-baptized if I wanted to join their church. Which is one of the reasons that if the UMC were to dissolve for any reason and I needed to find a new denominational home Baptists would not be on the list of possibilities, even if I agreed with everything else in their doctrine.
I'm also offended by clergy in my own denomination who, when a young person who was previously baptized has a moving experience (for example at church camp) or witnesses another teenager or adult being baptized and wants to experience it for themselves re-baptize the person instead of explaining why we don't re-baptize. In that case, in addition to the offendedness there is a side helping of anger/frustration that the clergyperson is acting contrary to our own clearly stated doctrine. And if the clergyperson in question doesn't really believe the doctrine, but is closer doctrinally to another denomination but joined the UMC because of guarenteed appointments and the solvent pension plan, you can add extra anger and even disgust to the mix. (And yes, I have a few specific people in mind as I type this.)
So if your question was intended to get at whether this emotional reaction is an anti-LDS thing, it is not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
DKW -- that doesn't really answer my question, but I won't pursue it any further.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Your choice. I must not be quite understanding your question, but I'd be happy to answer if I can.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's a question about something specific that Bob said, and he said he doesn't want to discuss it, so I'll drop it.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Now, see, I wish that there was some way to convey a like sentiment to the folks who do the proxy baptisms without knowing for sure that they have the widowed spouse's approval, or barring a surviving spouse, then the approval of the deceased children. It's a courtesy, to be sure, but it is also something that does more than hit a raw and sour note if done without that personal contact. If I'd gone ahead and honored that man without ever talking to his wife, it would have been wrong. I hope, first, that everyone sees that and can at least understand that idea, if not actually agree with it.
I feel like my family has been wronged by the person who used my father's name in a ceremony. Not because it did or did not have meaning, but because it was simply the wrong thing to do from a basic standard of behavior point of view. Politeness and consideration.
See, that's sort of what surprises me most about this coming from LDS folk. I have never met an LDS person who was not scrupulously polite and considerate. But now I find out that on something I consider sort of basic, the general position is somewhere between "oh, gee, that shouldn't have happened, sorry" and "we answer to a higher power and we'll continue to do this."
I know a few (quidscribis most notably) at least see that there could be reason for upset on my part and (whether they agree or not) at least acknowledge a need for change.
I can honestly say that the other reactions disappointed and surprised me. In fact, I got downright angry, and took it out on someone (elsewhere) in a way that I regretted shortly thereafter. Suffice it to say I was not my usual nice self and got into some of the other things I dislike about the doctrine that backs up this particular practice. I'll not repeat any of it here as I have simply decided to go back to ignoring that aspect of the issue.
The part that still feels bad to me is the failure to contact surviving immediate family. I consider myself sort of a basic-level person when it comes to social graces. I figure if I know better than to do this, pretty much everyone should. It crosses a line that it seems to me is more than just obvious, but obviously basic.
And yet, I seem to gather that this problem gets more-or-less of a wink and a nod from the LDS hierarchy. A "tsk tsk, we told them not to, but oh well, what can you do with octogenerian grandmothers who're set in their ways" <insert tossed up hands here.>
And that, seems to me, just isn't enough.
It's sort of what I want to write to President Hinkley. That and the whole issue about not having adequate notices on the website of the purpose of the database.
But really, I think it's something that I'd like to present in the form of a heartfelt letter to those grandmothers. Not in anger -- I think I'm mostly past that -- but to let them know how it feels to have your father's name used without your knowledge. Even if it is for the purpose of a high honor or to meet a commitment from God.
The church leaders DO take this sort of thing very seriously. They don't just wink and nod. They stress, over and over again that permission must be received from the closest living relatives. They stress, over and over again, that we're to do work on our ancestors only. They stress, over and over again, that we're not to do private little extraction projects like taking everyone with the same last name in a town and doing ordinances for them. Those rules are in all the handbooks as well as in the software as a splash-type page. (I still agree that we need more training and more obvious in-yer-face type stuff, though.)
Most of us in the church who do genealogy know the rule and follow it. It's the few who think they're a power unto themselves who don't bother following it. They're the ones that the rest of curse and shake our heads at and lecture and, at times, yell at.
There are a number of discussion lists for family history center workers, family history consultants, and basically everyone else involved in the leadership end of family history in the church. This topic comes up frequently. Everyone, so far in the years I've been on those lists, agrees that it's a problem and the rules need to be followed, with the exception of new people to the callings, and they're quickly taught.
It's the rogues...
On those lists, we discuss ways of getting the rules across, educating people better, making sure everyone understands the whys and wherefores in the hopes that it'll help them listen, understand, and then follow the rules. We know it's a huge concern. We know it's important. We're trying.
I know this isn't any comfort to you, Bob, as far as your father is concerned. I just thought - hoped - it might help to get a bit of a sense of what goes on behind the scenes.
As far as my comments of it's usually the old and grey who do these things, I don't offer it as a way of excuse but just as an explanation. I don't think it's okay to do ordinances on someone without permission of the closest living relatives, and I don't give it a wink and a nod, nor do the leaders. We tend to get rather irritated, angry, and upset that, once more, people are screwing up in ways that affect other people and they're too stupid to get this through their thick skulls.
When it happens on my watch, I tend to start lecturing people into submission. Well, I try to give them examples and reasons why it's damaging, too. Not saying that that's the most effective approach, but it seems to be my default setting.
Most of the LDS people here at Hatrack have probably never done any genealogy, which most people tend to leave until they're old and grey and retired. Most of the LDS people at Hatrack, therefore, really don't understand what those rules are. Personally, I think that's why some of them have said some things that are, shall we say, a bit more confrontational than necessary. They don't understand. They haven't learned yet. That doesn't help as far as this discussion is concerned, but hopefully it'll help to put things in their proper perspective.
As far as writing a letter to President Hinckley, why not? I don't think it can ever hurt for us to be reminded of where we've crossed the line and why it's not a good thing. It might help to serve as a reminder that additional training or something needs to be done. Personally, I would love to see some of these sorts of letters put into the next handbooks to further help get this across, or perhaps read at General Conference, or maybe posted in every family history center. That might be what it takes to help some people finally get a clue.
We, as LDS members who do temple ordinances, need to have far more tact regarding this than we do at present.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Thanks, quid.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks quid...
That really does help.
If I do write that letter, I also would acknowledge that I understand that this is something the church leadership recognizes.
Thanks for being patient and explaining!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
No problem. I don't mind in the slightest.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dana -- I've been thinking of your last post, and I have a question about it.
I myself would be upset to find out that somebody in my church was performing baptisms not occurance with our doctrine. I would similarly be even more upset if I found out that this person had joined our church for ulterior motives.
What I don't understand, however, is why you are offended when other religions have different doctrine concerning baptism than yours does. Or rather, when their doctrine concerning baptism differs in specific ways.
Do you get similarly offended when other religions have differing doctrines concerning, for example, the role of the Savior, the nature of God, or the relationship between of faith, works, grace, mercy, and justice?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm really not sure offended is the right word. You'll note that in my post I put "<something>" in place of "offence" because I'm still trying to figure out what it is exactly. Baptism, because it's such a central and important thing, as well as a personal thing, has a different emotional response for me than a lot of other doctrines.
In fact, I'm sure offended is not the right word for how I feel about the difference in doctrine. You believe one thing, I believe something else, other people believe something else again. No cause for offence. However if, for example, a Baptist friend, knowing my beliefs on the matter, offered to re-baptize me because according to his belief my baptism was invalid, I would be offended. The same as if someone told me that Bob and I are not really married and offered us a real (according to his/her belief) wedding.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That makes a lot more sense. Thank your for your respsone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Thanks quid...
That really does help.
Thanks for being patient and explaining!
Agreed 100%. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
I’ve been trying to read through this whole thread, but I just don’t have the time right now. So someone may have already said what I’m about to say. But it needs to be said so here goes. (Well maybe it does not HAVE to be said but I’m going to anyway.):
Has it occurred to anyone that Helen Radkey may have been the one who submitted Simon Wiesenthal’s name? That is the first thing that occurred to both my wife and I when we heard about this thing.
Think about it for a minute. Helen Radkey has motive and opportunity. She has everything to gain by stirring the bucket and calling more public attention to her crusade against the Mormon Church. As for opportunity, anyone can do a temple submission. You don’t have to be a member of the church to send in a submission.
And consider this. She said, “I have been checking the IGI since September, a year since his death, and knew that his name would appear and it did.”
(You may think I have a suspicious mind. Well, I do. No question about that. The question is: am I suspicious enough?)
I’m not sure if it is possible to track down just who it was who submitted Mr. Wiesenthal’s name. Each submission is supposed to have the submitter’s name and address on it, but it would be very easy to use a fake name and address.
The church as an organization and the members as individuals have nothing to gain by submitting the names, for temple work, of those persons whom we have already agreed not to submit.
Of course, it is possible that a misguided member of the church did submit the name. If they did, then that person was in the wrong. But we can’t force people to behave themselves. And we can’t even force them to become familiar with the proper procedures. But we do continue to try to get them informed.
At any rate, whether it was submitted by an enemy full of deceit, spite and malice or a member full of ignorance, misplaced do-gooditry and self congratulations, that is the person who has insulted the memory of Mr. Wiesenthal. Don’t beat up on the Church over this thing. The folks administering the DB yanked the name off the IGI just as soon as they became aware of it, and they would have done that whether or not it hit the news. (I know. Because I’ve had a name removed from it before - with no fanfare nor world-wide news coverage.)
Some folks seem to think that we are always sneaking around trying to pull something over on someone. We are not.
What I’d like to see happen is that the Church publish, to the whole world, the name of the person who did the submission in question, and let public opinion slap that person around. (And if the name turns out to be fake, that would at least tell us something about the person who did the submission.) The church ought to let it be known that it is going to do that with every inappropriate submission from now on. That would put a stop to that kind of shenanigans. I mean come on, anyone who submits names like Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler deserves to be publicly ridiculed. (I’m not making this up. Those names have actually been submitted before.)
Anyway, fortunately the vast majority of members who do Family History and Temple work are focusing on their own ancestors - just as they should be. We have enough to do in that regard to keep us busy. We are just not all that worried about the rest of the human family because we know that God is going to sort it all out eventually in His own due time. He is going to see to it that all the T’s get crossed and all the I’s get dotted and all the loose ends get knotted. And that everyone who wants to acknowledge Him as their Savior gets to do so in the proper manner. Eventually.
Sam
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its certainly within the realms of possibility, which would also give credence to the argument that there need to be stronger filters and database management to the whole process which apparently is already being done.
Helen Radkey strikes me as somebody who is intentionally disingenuous about her motives. Her statement, "There shouldn't be one single death camp record in those files," stinks of this.
As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I mean come on, anyone who submits names like Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler deserves to be publicly ridiculed.
Mickey Mouse, certainly, but in LDS theology does Hitler not get the chance to repent in the spirit world and be baptized? And if not, who makes the decisions about which human beings are too rotten to make the list?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think, actually, that the point she is making is that there could never be a member of the church, with or without an ancestor in the camps, who had the authority to speak for the dead.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Has it occurred to anyone that Helen Radkey may have been the one who submitted Simon Wiesenthal’s name? That is the first thing that occurred to both my wife and I when we heard about this thing.
Oh, good God! Don't tell me, and the Mossad was responsible for 9/11, too. Paranoid much?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Think about it for a minute. Helen Radkey has motive and opportunity.
According to what's been said here, everyone on the planet had opportunity. Only the fact is that 5 years after the Mormons pulled half a million Jewish Holocaust survivors out, they had to pull out another 20,000. Y'all must think we care about you a lot more than we actually do if you think any of us are going to sit there and plug our own people into your database.
You don't seem to get that it offends us. Fine, you're going to keep doing it. I get that. But it's offensive. It's always going to be offensive. And trying to shift the burden from those of you who don't care that it's offensive by accusing your accuser just smells.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: (You may think I have a suspicious mind. Well, I do. No question about that. The question is: am I suspicious enough?)
Not really. The question, as I see it, is whether your motive is merely to try and excuse the Mormon church, or whether you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: I’m not sure if it is possible to track down just who it was who submitted Mr. Wiesenthal’s name.
Yet another flaw in the system. The idea that a system so "important" to the entire religion doesn't have so much as an easily-hackable password to get in just blows my mind. Requiring registration doesn't even require someone to okay the registrations. But there'd be a record.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Each submission is supposed to have the submitter’s name and address on it, but it would be very easy to use a fake name and address.
And without even bothering to check and see who is recorded as having submitted this one, and without even asking them if they did what the record says they did, you're ready to accuse someone else of entering it just to make y'all look bad? Is it paranoia, or is it delusions of importance?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: The church as an organization and the members as individuals have nothing to gain by submitting the names, for temple work, of those persons whom we have already agreed not to submit.
And yet they've done it before. Some here have claimed that it's simple ignorance of the rules. But that's not good enough for you, right? You have to set up a strawman where either it was entered with malice aforethought, just to get those pesky Jews, or it was a conspiracy, probably plotted by the Zionist Occupation Government.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Helen Radkey strikes me as somebody who is intentionally disingenuous about her motives. Her statement, "There shouldn't be one single death camp record in those files," stinks of this.
As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
She's 100% correct. You don't have a right to put a Jew who died as a Jew into your ceremonies just because one of the poor guy's descendents abandoned Judaism. Sure, you'll do it anyway. Sure, it's not covered in the 1995 agreement (but then, neither were the 20,000 records that snuck in between 1995 and 2000). But from our point of view, it's absolutely wrong, and you can't expect us not to say so.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dana, just so you know....your explanation to mph was exactally what I was feeling as well. I just didn't phrase it as well. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Is Muhammed in there? I'm just curious. I'd simply love to hear what the imams have to say about that. I expect it would make the Cartoon Riots look like a picnic in the park.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
Well, just to take it out of the realm of speculation, there certainly are members of the church with ancestors who were killed in the death camps. My best friend is one of them. She is a Jew who converted to Mormonism.
However, out of respect for her family's wishes she has never submitted (and never will submit) the names of her ancestors for temple work, other than that of her own father, who was not a Holocaust victim.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Yeah, someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Yeah, someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
IC, well nvm then.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Lisa, if you are offended by the fact that someone tried to submit Mr. Wiesenthal’s name after the church agreed not to do that, then I’d say that your outrage is justified.
But if you are offended by our doctrine of vicarious work for the dead and our doctrine that God will eventually seal together, as families, all mankind or else the whole purpose of earth’s creation would be wasted -- if this doctrine is what offends you, then nothing we ever do is going to please you.
(If that is the case then perhaps you are also offended by the concept that through His atonement Jesus Christ preformed a vicarious work for all of mankind, past present and future, in that He saved all mankind from the fall - a work that had to be vicarious since no human could save himself from the fall.)
As for me being paranoid, I know for a fact that the church has enemies. I know for a fact that there are those who are willing to lie and do just about anything to discredit the church. I know for a fact that the very existence of the church offends some people. I have met some of them. But I came to grips with the fact about 30 years ago that I am never going to be able to please everyone, and I stopped letting it bother me.
I had a boss once who was a born-again-Christian and who had the attitude that things like abortion and the Mormon Church were such abominations that he and other born again Christians were justified in doing whatever it took to eradicate such abominations. I’m not making this up. He told me to my face that that was his attitude.
So maybe paranoid is not the right word. Maybe it is just a realistic view of how the world is. Not everyone likes us. Oh well. We try not to give offence, but when your very existence is an offense, what can you do? You can use appeasement only so far.
As for whether or not Helen Radkey submitted that name, I don’t know. I merely suggested that as one possibility that ought to be considered. Because I have a nasty suspicious attitude.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Yeah, that someone was me; no I don't think that rioting and killing are pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church. Rather I think that in both cases there is a large religious group taking offense, feeling violated by a group of people who are arrogantly asserting one of their most fundamental rights. The response is not the same, but I think the situation is illuminating in its parallels (certainly more so than, say, pissing on someone's grave, which I think someone used earlier).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: But if you are offended by our doctrine of vicarious work for the dead and our doctrine that God will eventually seal together, as families, all mankind or else the whole purpose of earth’s creation would be wasted
<yawn> So you're going to use this as an excuse to recapitulate everything over and over again?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: if this doctrine is what offends you, then nothing we ever do is going to please you.
Have you read through this thread? Yes, I know. You're going to keep doing things that offend us, and we're going to keep on being offended, and that's life. I'd do the same thing in your position. To me, the difference is simply that we're right and you're wrong, and that's obviously not an argument that's going to mean anything to you.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: (If that is the case then perhaps you are also offended by the concept that through His atonement Jesus Christ preformed a vicarious work for all of mankind, past present and future, in that He saved all mankind from the fall - a work that had to be vicarious since no human could save himself from the fall.)
Yes, of course I'm offended by that. Differently, because it doesn't involve you messing with my people directly the way the posthumous baptisms do. But of course I'm offended at the idea that I, or any other human being in all of history, is "fallen" at birth. It's a really horrible idea, made horribler by the fact that our holy books have been misrepresented to try and support it.
As long as you're asking.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: As for whether or not Helen Radkey submitted that name, I don’t know. I merely suggested that as one possibility that ought to be considered. Because I have a nasty suspicious attitude.
Because the best defense is a good offense, I think you mean.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Yeah, that someone was me; no I don't think that rioting and killing are pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church. Rather I think that in both cases there is a large religious group taking offense, feeling violated by a group of people who are arrogantly asserting one of their most fundamental rights. The response is not the same, but I think the situation is illuminating in its parallels (certainly more so than, say, pissing on someone's grave, which I think someone used earlier).
On the contrary. The pissing parallel is a lot stronger. The pisser may not want to do anything except perform a natural function. But we're the ones getting pissed on, which is the reason that we're the ones getting pissed off.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because the best defense is a good offense, I think you mean.
Would that be why you instantly jumped to the "Zionist Occupation Government" crap?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Keep it up, Dag, and I'll let someone else be in charge of my fan club.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: messing with my people
Where do you keep "your people." Did you build a fence around them to keep the Mormons out? Got any black folks in there?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Did you build a fence around them to keep the Mormons out? Got any black folks in there?
Yes to both.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I can understand being paranoid, or, better yet, reasonably suspicious. What I can't really understand is why the church hasn't implemented reasonable standard security measures on the website. If it is a source of embarrassment, and it can be used by the church's enemies pretty much anonymously (so, that it's also equally "reasonable" to suspect that some well-meaning, rule-breaking Mormon did the dead), then it seems like fixing the problems ought to be a priority.
I'd like to understand the reasoning behind NOT fixing it that doesn't involve the motive of just having as many names as posssible, and damn the consequences.
Certainly it's not a lack of funds...I can name you companies that'd fix the whole problem for under $1 million, and give you tech support thrown into the bargain. The LDS church could find that kind of scratch by delaying a building program for a month or two. Besides, I'm betting there are probably Mormons with tech skills who would do the job for a lot less than $1 Million.
And if it's more a budgetary thing -- justifying the expense and maybe having to fund it over a year or so -- then it'd be cool with your detractors to at least be working on it.
It's really quite simple: 1) require people to sign up and get a user name and password and have a legit e-mail address before they can actually enter names into the database. This isn't foolproof, but it's a start.
2) As people enter names, you check the date of birth and death (or whatever info you have). If the person died less than X years ago, you put up a flag and send the submitting person a warning page that makes them verify their relationship to the deceased. Or...have a separate submittal process for names of people who died more recently -- like they'd have to be submitted in person at a temple office, with backing documentation showing that the person submitting is the closest living relative. Or, just don't take names of people who have been dead less than X years. Pick a method and implement it. If it doesn't work out, implement a different one.
3)Use DMV-like software to check for potential duplicates and names that shouldn't be put on the list. This technology exists now and it's readily available. Call UTAH DMV, seriously. It's not that hard.
btw, I'm also interested in the answer to Hitler thing. I wouldn't have immediately assumed that putting Hitler's name on the list was done maliciously or in jest. If he is barred, how far "down" the list of Nazis does the "ban" go?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
btw, Lisa, thanks for editing the thread title.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Bob, what you say has loads of merit. I don’t know all the details of what the church has done and is planning to do about more security in this regard. But I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
As for the Hitler question, I would be happy to say more about that, but I just don’t have time right now. Maybe I can this weekend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Keep it up, Dag, and I'll let someone else be in charge of my fan club.
For the avoidance of doubt: your manner of expressing your dislike for others' posts is usually offensive, and often more offensive than the posts you take offense to. You often exhibit the exact behavior you complain about and you have little respect for the beliefs of others. You often misrepresent what others have said and put words in their mouths. Further, you invoke anti-Semetism inappropriately; your invocation of ZOG in response to Samuel's speculation is a prime example of this.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
There is some misunderstanding regarding the online database and how it's used. Let me clarify a few things.
If someone wants to submit a name for temple ordinances, they can either do it on paper or by disk at one of the temples (either in person or by mail). If it's submitted on paper, then someone at the temple transcribes it onto a computer and then runs it through TempleReady, the program that checks to make sure there's sufficient information and also runs it through a filter to make sure that it hasn't already been done and it's not in one of the unallowed locations. If it's on disk, then it goes through TempleReady, but at the submitter's local family history center usually or at the temple. Hopefully (and not always), an additional program is used as a bridge to access the database online - this is not at this point required.
The change that's happening is that TempleReady will go online so that the checks will all go through the online database and whatever filters are there, which will be improved on what is in place now.
For the last few years, new family history centers have not been installed in North America, but instead have been installed in other parts of the world. This, because there are enough family history centers in North America to provide internet access for enough people, many of whom already have internet access in their homes.
In the rest of the world, not so much.
For example, Sri Lanka received a family history center a year ago, complete with high speed internet. It's in Negombo, an hour to an hour and a half north of Colombo. It's about five or six hours from Kandy, another congregation in the interior of the country. This family history center provides internet access to local members who otherwise do not have internet and have never used a computer.
India similarly received a bunch of family history centers over the last couple of years, and I believe Pakistan received one as well.
All this is to get the rest of the LDS members in the world up to speed with computers and internet access so that, if not everyone, at least most members or a lot of members will have access to the same online database and programs.
At present, the online database is for finding information only. It's not, at present, for submitting names to the temple for ordinances. The security you're talking about at present, Bob, isn't required because of how the database isn't being used.
However, even at present, in order to access information on the LDS temple ordinances on the online database, not just birth, marriage, death information, a person has to provide their LDS record number and date of confirmation. No record number, no confirmation date, no access to LDS data.
Back to TempleReady. At present, when a person runs names through that program, if the person is born within a certain time period, (last time I used it) you have to indicate how you're related to the people you're submitting.
Now, for Hitler. Yep, he's had his temple ordinances done. So have a lot of European royalty and a whole lot of other people. We, as mere mortals, do not make it a policy to withhold temple ordinances regardless of their righteousness/evilness. We believe that people will have the option of accepting or rejecting ordinances after they die based on their worthiness to do so, which is between that individual, Jesus Christ, and God.
Yes, I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us would agree that Hitler is evil (if you believe in evil) and doesn't deserve a chance in ... But that's between him and God and Jesus.
Not my business. I have my own stuff to worry about. I hope that makes sense to you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Quid:
I'm going to be like you when I grow up.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
That's a huge compliment. Wow. Thanks. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: messing with my people
Where do you keep "your people." Did you build a fence around them to keep the Mormons out? Got any black folks in there?
As a matter of fact, yes. And Asians and pretty much any ethnic/racial group you can think of. Why?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: btw, Lisa, thanks for editing the thread title.
NP. I thought, considering where things have gone, that it was unnecessarily incendiary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:For the avoidance of doubt: your manner of expressing your dislike for others' posts is usually offensive, and often more offensive than the posts you take offense to. You often exhibit the exact behavior you complain about and you have little respect for the beliefs of others. You often misrepresent what others have said and put words in their mouths.
I agree with this.
You often so thoroughly discredit whatever you are purporting to defend that I wonder sometimes if you aren't deliberately sabotaging whatever cause it is.
[ December 27, 2006, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<shrug> The world is full of all kinds of people. Different people get upset at different types of expression.
I take it you're resigning from the Lisa fan club as well?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am resigning from nothing. Take the above comment as an observation. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: <shrug> The world is full of all kinds of people. Different people get upset at different types of expression.
I take it you're resigning from the Lisa fan club as well?
Ill attend meetings when occasion permits but I won't pay dues Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: messing with my people
Where do you keep "your people." Did you build a fence around them to keep the Mormons out? Got any black folks in there?
As a matter of fact, yes. And Asians and pretty much any ethnic/racial group you can think of. Why?
Are there any people whom you would exclude from the list of your people?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When I used "my people", I was referring to Jews. Pardon me if I was unclear. Your question, then, seemed to be asking whether there were any Jews who are black. That's the question I was answering, and I suspect it was the question that Rivka answered as well.
Do you have a problem with me looking at the Jews, as a group, as "my people"?
There are even, if I can trust what I've read in this thread, Jews who are Mormons. They're still Jews. Just Jews who are doing the wrong thing. And my wish for them is that they realize their error and return to God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa, I don't think you even want to avoid being tacky and unclassy. You don't come off as a righteous warrior for God - you come off as someone who uses religion as an excuse to act badly and be proud of yourself for it.
You know how one of the rebuttals to the accusation that religion makes humans do bad things is that humans do bad things anyway and religion is just the excuse? You're like the living embodiment of it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't think I act badly, kat. I think I'm blunt. I think I'm unwilling to tolerate crap. I'm often a bit undiplomatic, but I don't think diplomacy is always appropriate.
I'm not a fan of the extreme view that tact and diplomacy are only ways of weaseling around the truth, but sometimes they are.
I'm sorry that my bluntness isn't to your taste. There are people who actually like it. Not that that's why I'm blunt. I just am.
As far as "tacky and unclassy" goes, I suppose it was tacky and unclassy for me to make the comment I did about Carter in the RIP Ford thread, just as an example, but then, I despite Jimmy Carter with every fibre of my being, and I wasn't striving for class when I wrote that.
And what does religion have to do with it, btw? I walloped Rabbit when she posted her views about enslaving everyone for the good of "society". That wasn't about religion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: You would find yourself in good stead with your anticarter attitude if you ever move to Taiwan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with what Kat and Dag have said, and admire both of them for how they said it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: You would find yourself in good stead with your anticarter attitude if you ever move to Taiwan.
Really? They don't like him either?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There are even, if I can trust what I've read in this thread, Jews who are Mormons. They're still Jews. Just Jews who are doing the wrong thing. And my wish for them is that they realize their error and return to God.
Lisa, when you say someone is a Jew, and that they will always be a Jew--do you mean Jew in the religious sense, or Jew in the genetic sense?
A person who practices Judaism (in one of its many forms) could be called a Jew, and anyone who is of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could be called a Jew. Do you hold it is mandatory that all who are Jews genetically should be practitioners of Judaism, or they are doing the "wrong thing" and need to get right with God? In addition, do you hold that anyone who at any time was a practitioner of Judaism, and then changes his mind and decides to join some other religion, must be doing wrong and in need of getting right with God, even if he is not Jewish genetically?
What is most important to you--being a Jew genetically, or being a Jew by profession of faith and by practice?
I'm just trying to clarify exactly what you are saying.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: You would find yourself in good stead with your anticarter attitude if you ever move to Taiwan.
Really? They don't like him either?
Not since he recognized the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of China instead of the Republic of China. The rest of the UN basically followed suit.
They name their dogs after Carter in Taiwan, and if you have ever seen how the average Taiwanese person treats their dog, you would understand why its a significant insult.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There are even, if I can trust what I've read in this thread, Jews who are Mormons. They're still Jews. Just Jews who are doing the wrong thing. And my wish for them is that they realize their error and return to God.
Lisa, when you say someone is a Jew, and that they will always be a Jew--do you mean Jew in the religious sense, or Jew in the genetic sense?
Asked and answered, Ron. Or was that over on AI Jane?
We have aspects of a nation, but nation is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a religion, but religion is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a race, but race is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a culture, but culture is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a lifestyle, but lifestyle is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a philosophy, but philosophy is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a tribe, but tribe is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a legal system, but legal system is not an accurate description of us.
We have aspects of a family, but family is not an accurate description of us.
We are all of those things, and we are none of them. We are sui generis, and cannot be forced into one of your convenient little boxes. We are defined by the Torah; not by any particular term you may try to use for us.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A person who practices Judaism (in one of its many forms) could be called a Jew, and anyone who is of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could be called a Jew. Do you hold it is mandatory that all who are Jews genetically should be practitioners of Judaism, or they are doing the "wrong thing" and need to get right with God?
A Jew is someone who stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah, or who is descended matrilineally from someone who was there, or who has converted to Judaism according to the law given us by God, or is descended matrilineally from someone who did so.
And yes, the Torah is binding on every such person, regardless of the creed that person may espouse.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In addition, do you hold that anyone who at any time was a practitioner of Judaism, and then changes his mind and decides to join some other religion, must be doing wrong and in need of getting right with God, even if he is not Jewish genetically?
"Jewish genetically" is a fallacious term. But yes, if someone converts to Judaism according to the law, that person is a Jew, and is as obligated to follow God's Torah as any other Jew. Again, regardless of what creed he may choose to believe in at some future time.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What is most important to you--being a Jew genetically, or being a Jew by profession of faith and by practice?
False dichotomy, Ron. I don't accept the terms of the question.
[ December 28, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: A Jew is someone who stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah, or who is descended matrilineally from someone who was there, or who has converted to Judaism according to the law given us by God, or is descended matrilineally from someone who did so.
Really? I know you just said you're not a tribe. But I thought that that group of people at Sinai were the Hebrews, or the children of Israel. The Jews, I've always understood, were the tribe of Judah (mixed in w/ members of some other tribes who weren't lost to the Assyrian or Babylonian captivities), a smaller subset of that larger group at Sinai. (Sorry for the clumsy phrasing--I'm not telling, I'm asking.)
Are all members of all 12 tribes of Israel now considered Jews, even though they were not named Jews at that time?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes. As the royal line is part of the tribe of Yehudah (Judah), all Jews became known as Yehudim (Jews), a term which was never used to refer solely to members of a single tribe. It was simply a new name for the same group also known as Yisraelim (Israelites).
Yehudim == Yisraelim
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's very interesting, and one of the things I've been wondering about lately.
Thank you, rivka.
Actually... now that we're on the subject, you mentioned that the "royal line" was from Judah. Was that in keeping with tradition after David/Solomon? (King Saul was from Benjamin) Or is there a theological reason for it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
God gave the kingship to David and his descendents. And confirmed that to Solomon. Which is why the messiah will be descended from those two.
But Judah had been intended for the kingship from the start. It was Judah who went ahead to Egypt to prepare the way for us. It was Judah who took the responsibility (sanely) to protect Benjamin when the brothers returned to Egypt. It was Judah who acknowledged Tamar's righteousness when she accused him.
He always had what it took to be king. It was his descendent Nachshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, who when we were standing at the Red Sea, didn't wait for it to open, but accepted God's word through Moses that it would, and started in even before it split. And kept going until the water was up to his neck. Only then did the waters split.
Judah and his descendents are the Jewish paradigm of what a king should be.
The name Judah, comes from the Hebrew word which means "thank" or "acknowledge" or "admit" or "confess". We're the ones who recognize God, and Judah epitomizes that attribute.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So then why was it Benjamin's Saul who was the first to be appointed king of Israel?
I mean I fully understand Genesis 49:10 to state without reservation that Judah is in charge of things until Shiloh comes,
But 1 Chronicals 5:1-2 states without reservation that the "birthright" remains with Joseph.
I guess I misunderstand what the entitlement of the birthright entails as opposed to the blessings Judah was promised.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks again quid!
I appreciate the information and correction!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then why was it Benjamin's Saul who was the first to be appointed king of Israel?
Good point. According to Maimonides, there can be kings from other tribes. But they're subordinate to the king from the tribe of Judah. Had Saul not messed up, his dynasty could have continued, but David would still have become king, and Saul's dynasty would have served them.
The same was true of Jeroboam I, and the same was true of Jehu. Both kings were anointed by prophets of God, and both could have founded dynasties of good kings. Both tanked.
We have a tradition that there may be two messiahs, as well. Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David. The former would be subordinate to the latter. And though we call him ben Yosef, he's really ben Rachel. Descendents of both Joseph and Benjamin are in this category. Jeroboam, for instance, was from the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean I fully understand Genesis 49:10 to state without reservation that Judah is in charge of things until Shiloh comes,
Or until the Messiah comes to Shiloh. The Hebrew is ambiguous.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But 1 Chronicals 5:1-2 states without reservation that the "birthright" remains with Joseph.
I guess I misunderstand what the entitlement of the birthright entails as opposed to the blessings Judah was promised.
Ah. The birthright in this context is the double inheritence that the firstborn gets. Hence Joseph having two tribes descend from him, rather than just one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of the messiah, are there any prophecies concerning what happens after he restores Israel to Jewish rule?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Thanks for the responses, rivka and Lisa.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: On the subject of the messiah, are there any prophecies concerning what happens after he restores Israel to Jewish rule?
Lots. Was there a particular detail you wanted to mock, or were you just interested in general mocking?
Uprooted and Scott, anytime.
Oh, and Scott, I haven't forgotten. It sits in my email and mocks me. I just keep forgetting! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: On the subject of the messiah, are there any prophecies concerning what happens after he restores Israel to Jewish rule?
Lots. Was there a particular detail you wanted to mock, or were you just interested in general mocking?
Rivka totally rocks.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Bob, anytime.
And I totally echo teh Rivka rocks bit. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: And yes, the Torah is binding on every such person, regardless of the creed that person may espouse.
When you say "binding," are you talking about secular laws as in you don't believe in religious freedom, or are you talking about the soul being accountable to God but is free to worship how the individual chooses?
Should religious laws have secular hold over someone who abandons Judaism?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: And yes, the Torah is binding on every such person, regardless of the creed that person may espouse.
When you say "binding," are you talking about secular laws as in you don't believe in religious freedom, or are you talking about the soul being accountable to God but is free to worship how the individual chooses?
Should religious laws have secular hold over someone who abandons Judaism?
It isn't a matter of "should" or not. Freedom of choice means the freedom to do right or do wrong. It doesn't mean that your opinion of what's right and wrong necessarily matters.
What I mean by binding is that God commanded us to do certain things. A Jew who doesn't do those things is doing something wrong. He has full freedom to act wrongly, but nothing he does or chooses can change the fact that it's wrong.
In practical terms, today, that doesn't mean a lot, since no one can be forced to do the right thing. But right remains right and wrong remains wrong, and the Torah is binding on all Jews regardless of anything they may do or choose.
Edit: By way of illustration, there's a Catholic cardinal named Aaron Lustiger who is Jewish. He could have become the Pope, actually. But he's a Jew, and he'll die a Jew, and he'll be judged by God as a Jew. A Jew who has the mitigating factor that he was sent to a Catholic family to keep him safe from the Nazis when he was only 14, and they took advantage of that to get him to abandon Judaism, but a Jew nonetheless.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, I haven't forgotten. It sits in my email and mocks me. I just keep forgetting!
I can't remember how far along 'Shipmates' was when you got it... I'm almost to the end of the first part of Chapter 1...
Anyway, your comments are very welcome, when you get around to...er...commenting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you have an updated version, you might as well send it along.
If nothing else, it'll be higher up in my email queue. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks for those posts Lisa, very illuminating.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'll send it along when I finish with it...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: That's a huge compliment. Wow. Thanks.
Not as big as it seems...he'll NEVER really grow up. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lisa....just so you know, it is just as presumptuous to speak of people as "still Jews" once they have decided to change religions as it is to wait until they are dead and then baptize into a religion they had not chosen. Particularly if the only reason they were considered Jews in the first place is that someone generations ago had converted, and they had not chosen being Jewish themselves.
Mind you....I know it central to your religion. I know it isn't likely to change, regardless of if it offends anyone else. Changing that would negate a whole aspect of your religious views, and the result wouldn't still be Judaism....
Sound familiar?
Pot, meet kettle. I do realize they aren't the same thing, but they are far more similar that you would seem to admit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Lisa....just so you know, it is just as presumptuous to speak of people as "still Jews" once they have decided to change religions as it is to wait until they are dead and then baptize into a religion they had not chosen.
Um... no. As I pointed out to Ron Lambert in another topic, we aren't just a religion. A Jew is a Jew, Kwea. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
Edit: I take it back. It wasn't in another topic; it was up higher on this page. I assumed it was another topic, because I figured that otherwise, you'd have already known that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand why a beleagueared minority would want to make the definition of a member as broad and ironclad as possible in order to survive as a people, but you're wrong about a Jew's ability to convert to another religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
katharina, I believe Cardinal Lustiger still (well as of the 1980s) still considers himself a Jew.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Kat, I'm not. And how kind of you to join us here on this river, instead of trying to carry the fight over to another one. Oh, my bad. You've actually elected to do both.
A Jew can convert to Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism, Atheism, or the Church of Bob. It doesn't change the fact that he's a Jew, and is judged by God as a Jew.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um... no. As I pointed out to Ron Lambert in another topic, we aren't just a religion. A Jew is a Jew, Kwea. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
And a Mormon posthemous baptism is an invitation, not a conversion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa: You're wrong about that. He's a Jew as many things, but by religion, he's Catholic.
I am not going to presume I know the mind of God and how he will judge anyone.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Um... no. As I pointed out to Ron Lambert in another topic, we aren't just a religion. A Jew is a Jew, Kwea. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
And a Mormon posthemous baptism is an invitation, not a conversion.
If they say so. It's still a desecration of our dead, and it's still offensive.
And just as Occasional said about the posthumous baptism thing, frankly, I don't care if you're offended by the fact that converting to your religion doesn't change a Jew in God's eyes (except in a negative sense).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not offended by you thinking that. I even understand the lack of qualifiers.
You are wrong, of course. And it isn't necessary to be so rude about it. Yelling doctrine at people is not excused because what you're yelling is doctrine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If they say so. It's still a desecration of our dead, and it's still offensive.
Really? An invitation that the person can willingly accept is a desecration?
The word is basically meaningless then.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa: You're wrong about that. He's a Jew as many things, but by religion, he's Catholic.
I am not going to presume I know the mind of God and how he will judge anyone.
I am. He told us. If Aaron Lustiger goes bowling, then he's a bowler. If he got baptized a Catholic, then he's a Catholic. Neither one makes the slightest difference to the fact that he's a Jew. He continues to be bound by Jewish law, like any other Jew. When he prays to JC, it's not the same as when a non-Jew prays to JC.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know you are presuming to know the results of divine judgment. You're wrong to do that, as well.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kat, don't you mean "You're wrong to do that, in my opinion"?
I'm not, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Lisa....just so you know, it is just as presumptuous to speak of people as "still Jews" once they have decided to change religions as it is to wait until they are dead and then baptize into a religion they had not chosen.
Um... no. As I pointed out to Ron Lambert in another topic, we aren't just a religion. A Jew is a Jew, Kwea. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
Edit: I take it back. It wasn't in another topic; it was up higher on this page. I assumed it was another topic, because I figured that otherwise, you'd have already known that.
No, I wouldn't.
I would know that you believe it is more than that. There is a difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A Mormon says, "We have performed a rite that person X (who is dead) may accept or decline the results of." This is desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a dead man, and disgusting.
Lisa says, "Person Y (who is alive), who not only converted to Catholicism but made conscious choices and enormous sacrifices along the way to becomeing a Bishop, is either a victim of brainwashing or an idolator." Either you think this is not desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a living man, or disgusting, or you think it is ok to do one or more of these things because you happen to be right.
If the former, then your definitions are as useless and inconsistent as any I've seen. If the latter, then all your earlier posturing about the placing of Weisenthal's name on the list being contempt is hypocritical. You'd have done far better to simply complain because you think the Mormons are wrong.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
You don't just claim jurisdiction over one generation, but over all their descendants, none of whom have any choise in the latter!....and then you have the balls to be offended over a ritual for the dead that the Mormons do?
Because the dead can't choose....just like the decendants of Jews can't.
Right?
At least I am consistent....I realize think that BOTH are offensive to people who don't have the same faith.
(((edited to say I posted this before reading Dag's post....but am now pissed that he said what I meant before I did! Stop it man, you're stealing my thunder!!! )
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not sure why anyone would bother engaging Lisa on this.... she doesn't admit to any possibility of error in her religious beliefs. Talking to someone like that about religion is the height of uselessness.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Edit: I take it back. It wasn't in another topic; it was up higher on this page. I assumed it was another topic, because I figured that otherwise, you'd have already known that.
No, I wouldn't.
I would know that you believe it is more than that. There is a difference.
You would have, at the very least, known that. And it seems you didn't. But I don't accept your revision of what I said.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A Mormon says, "We have performed a rite that person X (who is dead) may accept or decline the results of." This is desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a dead man, and disgusting.
You forgot "foul".
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Lisa says, "Person Y (who is alive), who not only converted to Catholicism but made conscious choices and enormous sacrifices along the way to becomeing a Bishop, is either a victim of brainwashing or an idolator." Either you think this is not desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a living man, or disgusting, or you think it is ok to do one or more of these things because you happen to be right.
One thing involves doing something. One does not. You're a lawyer, Dag, you work that out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They both involve doing something. You speak English, you work that out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
Can be, but doesn't have to be.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You don't just claim jurisdiction over one generation, but over all their descendants, none of whom have any choise in the latter!....and then you have the balls to be offended over a ritual for the dead that the Mormons do?
No balls, sorry. And I didn't make the rules. Don't blame me for saying what they are. That's like equating the person who put Wiesenthal's name in the Mormon system with the person who found it. Or with Joe Mormon on the street who didn't do anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Because the dead can't choose....just like the decendants of Jews can't.
Except that in the case of the Mormons, they can choose not to deprive those dead of their choice. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a Jew remains a Jew regardless of what choices he may make. I'm not God, Kwea, and you blaming me for what He said is kind of silly.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: (((edited to say I posted this before reading Dag's post....but am now pissed that he said what I meant before I did! Stop it man, you're stealing my thunder!!! )
Thunder? I thought that was gas.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A Mormon says, "We have performed a rite that person X (who is dead) may accept or decline the results of." This is desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a dead man, and disgusting.
Lisa says, "Person Y (who is alive), who not only converted to Catholicism but made conscious choices and enormous sacrifices along the way to becomeing a Bishop, is either a victim of brainwashing or an idolator." Either you think this is not desecration, showing contempt, peeing on the memory of a living man, or disgusting, or you think it is ok to do one or more of these things because you happen to be right.
If the former, then your definitions are as useless and inconsistent as any I've seen. If the latter, then all your earlier posturing about the placing of Weisenthal's name on the list being contempt is hypocritical. You'd have done far better to simply complain because you think the Mormons are wrong.
++
Very well spoken. This "once a Jew, always a Jew" stuff makes me uncomfortable anyways... seems like a short hop and skip to how some Islamic faiths never allow you to convert to another religion on pain of death.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I engage her because the more Lisa talks, the more she discredits herself.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Very well spoken. This "once a Jew, always a Jew" stuff makes me uncomfortable anyways... seems like a short hop and skip to how some Islamic faiths never allow you to convert to another religion on pain of death.
Except that we've been saying it for forever, and have yet to harm someone because of it, let alone kill someone. Your comparison is odious and shows a serious lack of judgement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This "once a Jew, always a Jew" stuff makes me uncomfortable anyways
"Once a Jew, always a Jew" doesn't make me unfomfortable at all. In some ways I happen to think it's true. We just disagree on what the duties of a Jew who has converted to Catholocism are. That's fine.
As I stated earlier, merely having a belief that includes the implication that those with other beliefs are wrong is an inherently arrogant act. I have no problem with that arrogance.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I engage her because the more Lisa talks, the more she discredits herself.
Except that on the other river, the moment someone else spoke up on my side, you stopped. Because bottom line is, Kat, this is personal, and has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong about that, too. I stopped on sake because your blatant hypocrisy was finally so obvious that further drawing out was not necessary. You as emperor are flapping in the breeze.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So it's not rudeness now that's bothering you? But some imaginary hypocricy? Do you know what the word means?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
This is, for me, the same issue with baptism by proxy. "Surely he would choose this if...", especially in the case of someone who has clearly examined the options and made informed choices, is what bugs me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
Can be, but doesn't have to be.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You don't just claim jurisdiction over one generation, but over all their descendants, none of whom have any chose in the latter!....and then you have the balls to be offended over a ritual for the dead that the Mormons do?
No balls, sorry. And I didn't make the rules. Don't blame me for saying what they are. That's like equating the person who put Wiesenthal's name in the Mormon system with the person who found it. Or with Joe Mormon on the street who didn't do anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Because the dead can't choose....just like the descendants of Jews can't.
Except that in the case of the Mormons, they can choose not to deprive those dead of their choice. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a Jew remains a Jew regardless of what choices he may make. I'm not God, Kwea, and you blaming me for what He said is kind of silly.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: (((edited to say I posted this before reading Dag's post....but am now pissed that he said what I meant before I did! Stop it man, you're stealing my thunder!!! )
Thunder? I thought that was gas.
No Lisa...the smell is all you.
YOU claim x and y. I don't. You saying your faith believes GOD claims it, and you are merely the mouthpiece doesn't make it any less offensive, Lisa.
Nor does you lack of respect for others.
Remember, I agreed with you about finding it offensive. I still do, as I knew what it involved before this thread was ever started. But I understand why they feel it is necessary.
I just don't agree, at all.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own position.
You first statement says it all about BOTH set of beliefs, Lisa....
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: My real point it that any time someone claim something for another person, particularly if it is something that person hasn't chosen for himself, it can be construed as offensive.
Can be, but doesn't have to be.
I find it highly educational that you don't see the potential similarities between these two sets of beliefs.
Paul.....you would be right if I was trying to get Lisa to admit being wrong. I'm not.
I am just pointing out discrepancies. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Except that we've been saying it for forever, and have yet to harm someone because of it, let alone kill someone. Your comparison is odious and shows a serious lack of judgement.
The lack of killing is covered by the "hop and skip" part. Don't really see why the comparison itself is odious. By implication of my statement, many Islamic faiths also believe "once a Muslim, always a Muslim" without killing.
This would seem to be amusing if a Jew converted to Islam and then to atheism. They would then be considered to be both a Jew and Muslim, while really being neither.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's a long list of things you are doing wrong. Pointing out one does not deny the existence of others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
You're reading that into it. I'm saying that he is a Jew in every way. I don't care what his faith is. I don't care what he believes. That doesn't change who he is.
Sheesh.
Edit: I suspect that the reason you don't get the distinction is that your religion is a matter of faith. So you look at things that way. I don't, though. Don't assume that I mean what you'd mean if you said the same thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Except that we've been saying it for forever, and have yet to harm someone because of it, let alone kill someone. Your comparison is odious and shows a serious lack of judgement.
The lack of killing is covered by the "hop and skip" part.
Nice to know the value you put on human life. Killing is a small thing. Just a hop and a skip. Gah.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: This would seem to be amusing if a Jew converted to Islam and then to atheism. They would then be considered to be both a Jew and Muslim, while really being neither.
He'd be a Jew.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No arguments. He'd also be an atheist.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No arguments. He'd also be an atheist.
So? And my point would still be that despite his atheism, he's still bound by Jewish law just like any other Jew. His freedom of choice doesn't change that. It merely means that he has the freedom to choose to refuse his responsibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So it's not rudeness now that's bothering you? But some imaginary hypocricy? Do you know what the word means?
Oh, it's very much real.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Why would the atheist care if he were truly an atheist? I don't think he/she would find it offensive in the least.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a problem with opinion that he is a Jew. I don't even have a problem with the opinion that he is a bad Jew. Although he doesn't seem to think so. I do have a problem with the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
You're reading that into it. I'm saying that he is a Jew in every way. I don't care what his faith is. I don't care what he believes. That doesn't change who he is.
Sheesh.
Edit: I suspect that the reason you don't get the distinction is that your religion is a matter of faith. So you look at things that way. I don't, though. Don't assume that I mean what you'd mean if you said the same thing.
I am not assumning that you mean he is Jewish as a matter of faith. I am bothered by the implication that the family that took him in forced something on him that he doesn't want. Assuming those people did him a disservice, when he, as an adult who has givin it a great deal of informed thought, does not think so, is the arrogance that bothers me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That question sounds a lot like the ones several Mormons were asking at the beginning of this thread, Stephan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lisa: What does a trivial difference in religious doctrine have to do with my values?
For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
Some Muslims are doing it now, some Christians did it during the Inquisition, Jews just never got around to it since they never got the upper-hand. Just because "your people" (your words) never got a chance to practise repression does not mean the seeds of it are not there.
Stephan: He wouldn't, he would rightfully just find both sides to be absurd.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa, your blindness concerning your own hypocrisy makes your opinion on everything suspect.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No arguments. He'd also be an atheist.
So? And my point would still be that despite his atheism, he's still bound by Jewish law just like any other Jew. His freedom of choice doesn't change that. It merely means that he has the freedom to choose to refuse his responsibility.
Why should he be bound by Jewish law anymore than Islamic law?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, maybe not everything.
If she said she liked a flavor of ice cream, and it happened that she liked the same as me, OF COURSE she would be right. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That question sounds a lot like the ones several Mormons were asking at the beginning of this thread, Stephan.
The difference in my mind is because family members WILL find it offensive, I know I would even though I know offense is not meant, if the deceased were baptized. However someone who makes the choice to give up religion, or change religion here on Earth? Why would they be offended?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Why should he be bound by Jewish law anymore than Islamic law?"
According to judaic theology, if you are a jew, you are subject to the laws of judaism. Once you are a jew, that is binding for the rest of your life. THe rightness or wrongness of your actions, in god's eyes, depends on how closely you follow the laws that you are subject to.
The doctrine itself is similar, as far as I understand it, to catholic doctrine.
I think its just as rude to tell someone that "you are really jewish," as it would be for one christian to tell a christian of another sect "thats not really christianity."
But I do think that the doctrine is substantially different then practicing posthumous baptism. The doctrine lisa is talking about is what we believe god thinks and does, and does not require any human action.
The way she expresses this understanding of god's will isn't really any less offensive then posthumous baptism, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Assuming those people did him a disservice, when he, as an adult who has givin it a great deal of informed thought, does not think so, is the arrogance that bothers me.
So I'm arrogant. But I stand by what I said. If he is Catholic with full consent, then he's an unrepentent idolator. But if he's a victim to a degree, due to the way he was raised, then there are mitigating factors.
I'm not making this up. Google "tinok shenishba" if you like. And it doesn't apply only to people like Aaron Lustiger. It applies to people like Paul, and even to people like me, since we were both raised without understanding what Judaism really is.
My religion views him as a victim. So I say he was a victim. You don't like it because you don't like the fact that the church has been doing this kind of thing for centuries and centuries. Aaron was far from the only Jewish kid this happened to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Lisa: What does a trivial difference in religious doctrine have to do with my values?
For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe)
Are you so sure about that? It would depend on the circumstances and the context, and I probably wouldn't think the person was less moral than I am, but don't jump to conclusions. You don't know me.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa, your blindness concerning your own hypocrisy makes your opinion on everything suspect.
Ah. That'd be the "hypocrisy by declaration" that you think has some validity because you've said it several times? Gotcha.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You don't like it because you don't like the fact that the church has been doing this kind of thing for centuries and centuries.
kmboots was pretty darn explicit about why she didn't like it:
quote:the implication that we can't believe his own statements about what his faith is and what he wants his faith to be. That we "know better" for him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't like it because calling him a victim assumes that, as a grown adult, he is incapable of making an informed choice for himself. He isn't a kid anymore. He has endorsed this choice - and for all we know it may have been a choice freely made - over and over again as an adult who knows his own mind.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
I expanded the quote since you clearly are fudging the context. From the whole sentence, it is clear that I have no beef with someone that is religious and yet doesn't look down on people of other faiths. It has also been clearly demonstrated (by kmboots and...well yourself at the beginning of the thread) that believing that a person who has made an informed choice as to their religion (or lack of it) is actually wrong and should convert to your religion is deeply disrespectful and foul.
By telling them, condescendingly they are really still a X (where X is Jewish or Muslim) and immoral by disregarding the law of their former faith, is the first step along the path.
I'm just glad that not all religions practice this sort of thing.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Is it really different from the many Christian faiths that say someone converting away from them will burn forever in Hell?
What is the Mormon view on those who convert away?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't like it because calling him a victim assumes that, as a grown adult, he is incapable of making an informed choice for himself. He isn't a kid anymore. He has endorsed this choice - and for all we know it may have been a choice freely made - over and over again as an adult who knows his own mind.
But denying that he is a victim makes him fully culpable. I don't believe that he is.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: What is the Mormon view on those who convert away?
That they are denied the blessings they would have received by keeping their covenants.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
I dunno, but so far you've said that my comparisons are odious, stem from bad judgment, and that I'm an anti-religious bigot.
So far, all I've discussed is religion in general (making pretty sure that my points apply equally to Jews and Muslims). I don't think you have the high ground when it comes to badmouthing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For someone that is religious, it is a short walk from believing that someone that converted away from your faith is not as moral as you (which even you do not believe) to someone that is less than human. Then it is a short walk to believing that you can do anything you want to them, including killing them.
So speaks an anti-religious bigot, who views all religion as basically lethal. Not interested.
I expanded the quote since you clearly are fudging the context.
That's an odd lie, considering that anyone can look at what I posted and see that I didn't omit anything. Or did you not notice that I'd merely added a comment in the middle of that paragraph? If that's the case, you might want to be a little more careful in the future before you accuse someone of fudging anything.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: From the whole sentence, it is clear that I have no beef with someone that is religious and yet doesn't look down on people of other faiths. It has also been clearly demonstrated (by kmboots and...well yourself at the beginning of the thread) that believing that a person who has made an informed choice as to their religion (or lack of it) is actually wrong and should convert to your religion is deeply disrespectful and foul.
Who on earth ever claimed any such thing? If Aaron Lustiger asked to convert to Judaism, we'd say no. We'd welcome him back, and probably throw a party for him. But he can't convert to Judaism, because he never stopped being Jewish.
We don't seek converts, Mucus. We discourage them, in fact.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves. How is that different from Jewish belief?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's very different, Stephan. We don't have hell.
[ December 28, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's very different, Steven. We don't have hell.
Stephan, not Steven.
I know, but I'm trying to perceive both religions from the outside. Having your soul destroyed, or spending up to a year in punishment is pretty hellish to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So you disagree with something that my religion says. I disagree with a whole lot that your religion says. Should I badmouth you personally because of it?
I certainly haven't tried to badmouth you personally. If you point out where, I will amend it.
Rivka, I imagine that God will end up taking "mitigating circumstances" into consideration for all of us.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rivka, I imagine that God will end up taking "mitigating circumstances" into consideration for all of us.
Certainly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves.
I disagree with that statement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Scott, I haven't forgotten. It sits in my email and mocks me. I just keep forgetting!
I can't remember how far along 'Shipmates' was when you got it... I'm almost to the end of the first part of Chapter 1...
I just checked, and that's not the name of what you sent me.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:From what I understand of Mormon theology those who deny Jesus and the gospel (I assume including those who were once Mormon) will end up in the same place as adulterers, murderers, and thieves.
I disagree with that statement.
Correct me if I'm wrong please, I'm always fascinated by other religions. Do you have a source to contradict it?
I'm just working off of wiki and the description of the Telestial Kingdom and the Spirit Prison it mentions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who on earth ever claimed any such thing? If Aaron Lustiger asked to convert to Judaism, we'd say no. We'd welcome him back, and probably throw a party for him. But he can't convert to Judaism, because he never stopped being Jewish.
Thats just playing with semantics. In the case of that theoretical atheist, the only simple thing to say would be that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, and then to atheism. As far as he is concerned, he would have to convert back to Judaism to become a Jew. Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
And them imagine that he was also responsible for the religion of every one of his ancestors...
You'd get exponential growth in the number of his religions, a clearly unmanageable mess.
The only clear thing to to is just take their actual choice, what they say they believe is what they really are. A simple and non-condescending classification method.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
It wouldn't matter. The others would be mistaken. This is the same argument I've heard often from atheists. "Your religion claims to be true, and this contradictory religion claims to be true. They can't both be true, therefore, they're both false." Fallacious.
Your objection isn't to me, Mucus. It's to what my religion says. Fine. Duly noted.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Of course, in this situation, it is you who is wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Of course, in this situation, it is you who is wrong.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction. A: It can be. M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A: No it isn't. M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' A: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! A: Yes it is! M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause) A: No it isn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are you still posting? You haven't said anything new in three pages.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something. See? It's possible to disagree with someone without doing it like a parrot and just saying, "You're wrong". You should try it sometime.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know whether to cheer or boo at seeing Lisa treated with the sort of tactics she uses against everybody else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Otherwise, imagine the mess that would result if there were a thousand religions that followed the same policy of "once an X, always an X" and he switched to each in turn.
It wouldn't matter. The others would be mistaken. This is the same argument I've heard often from atheists. "Your religion claims to be true, and this contradictory religion claims to be true. They can't both be true, therefore, they're both false." Fallacious.
Your objection isn't to me, Mucus. It's to what my religion says. Fine. Duly noted.
A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000. If we assume that the human race will live forever (well, until the heat death of the universe) and that a new religion can be created everyday. Then the probability of each religion being correct can be described as a kind of limit, lim x->infy 1/x = 0 Granted, there may be one of this infinite array of religions that is correct, but the probability of picking the one that is correct is essentially 0. Thus, any rational classification scheme cannot rely on the hope that you picked the one religion that is correct and follow their naming scheme. Rather, you have to define one that can treat all equally and fairly.
B) Indeed. That we can agree on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000. If we assume that the human race will live forever (well, until the heat death of the universe) and that a new religion can be created everyday. Then the probability of each religion being correct can be described as a kind of limit, lim x->infy 1/x = 0
This is just silly.
With six billion people on earth, the probability of of meeting a person who happens to be me is 1/6,000,000,000 per person met.
And yet, many people have managed to meet me, despite the staggering odds.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Short explanation: Read the next sentence. But substitute "person" for "religion", and "someone you met" for "correct"
Lengthy explanation: There is nothing in what you said that contradicts me. There are six billion people on Earth. Randomly, each has a 1/six billion chance of meeting you. However, each of those six billion people does meet someone. Let's assume on the low end that every person meets only 10 people in their life. Then the expected number of people that have met you is (1/six billion)*(six billion)*(10) = 10.
However, what I said was is more akin to meeting one specific person. (e.g. what is my probability of meeting you specifically randomly), that would be (10 * 1/6,000,000,000) which for all pragmatic intents and purposes in my life is zero. Meaning it is much more rational to live my life expecting to never meet you, then hoping that one of the people I randomly meet happens to be you.
Edited for verbosity
[ December 28, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Read the next sentence. But substitute "person" for "religion", and "someone you met" for "correct"
Um. OK...
But substitute "person" for "person" and "someone you met" for "someone you met".
----
The point stands. The odds of meeting me are no more zero than the odds of knowing which religion is true are zero.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well actually, I didn't say zero, I said
quote:lim x->infy 1/x = 0
.
Thus, I am perfectly justified in saying my odds of meeting you are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0" just as my odds of picking the correct religion are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0".
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The real problem with this analogy is that atheists are worth extra points, so they probably get exposed to far more religious ideology than do people who just play it smart and pick one, for cryin' out loud.
It's like cell-phone plans. At some point, you just become convinced that there's no basis on which to make an informed decision, so you go back to pulse dialing and visiting people in person. Which, of course, makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to their religion.
It's a vicious circle.
Best to avoid the whole thing. Pick a theology you can live with, and then start trying to convert others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa: You've proven your hypocrisy. You've shown yourself to be a poor example of a citizen and a poster. You've been egregiously wrong. And that's it.
None of that is new.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Thus, I am perfectly justified in saying my odds of meeting you are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0" just as my odds of picking the correct religion are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0".
Well, I'll agree that you're just as justified.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something.
Hmmm.....no, you haven't. Debunked the hypocrisy, that is. I am not saying I don't understand your position, but I am saying it is very similar to the positions others took regarding the baptism issue earlier in this thread.
You don't see any hypocrisy, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
And simply stating that you have debunked something isn't the same as actually doing so, Lisa. You reasons for believing you have are religiously based, and unprovable to anyone who isn't the same faith as you.
It is hypocritical to take such offense at one, and then completely expect everyone to agree with you about the other, simply because your faith requires them to do so.
Just like the beliefs of the Mormons you mocked earlier.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000.
Doesn't work that way. The probability of mine being correct, for instance, is 99%. The probability of all of the others together comes out at about 1%. You're giving them all equal weight, and that's a mistake.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa: You've proven your hypocrisy.
No. You've asserted it, but that isn't the same thing. I dismiss your assertion out of hand. If you have some substance, I'll listen to it. And then I'll either show why you're wrong, or I'll try and fix it, or I'll explain why hypocrisy is correct in the given case. What I won't do is merely dismiss it out of hand. I'm only doing that because your bald assertions are silly. They demean you, and they amuse me.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You've shown yourself to be a poor example of a citizen and a poster.
I should be more like you, right?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You've been egregiously wrong. And that's it.
Does it take a lot of work to come up with content-free posts? I mean, did you write this with actual content, and then delete all of the content and leave the accusations? Or did you just do the content-free thing first?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wish I could be surprised at your lack of class or positive contribution.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something.
Hmmm.....no, you haven't. Debunked the hypocrisy, that is.
If you read just a tad more carefully, I said that I debunked her claims. I didn't debunk the particular claim of hypocrisy, because she never did anything more but assert it. You can't debunk an assertion, Kwea. You can mock it. You can dismiss it. You can ignore it. But you can't debunk it, because that requires it to have content to begin with.
As far as your accusation of hypocrisy, it's based on you equating things that aren't the same. You know they aren't the same, but you feel they're close enough. I disagree. Since I disagree, it can't possibly be hypocrisy on my part. I could be wrong about it, but not hypocritical.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am not saying I don't understand your position, but I am saying it is very similar to the positions others took regarding the baptism issue earlier in this thread.
I get that you think it's similar. I don't.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You don't see any hypocrisy, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
And you see hypocrisy, but that doesn't mean it is there.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And simply stating that you have debunked something isn't the same as actually doing so, Lisa.
Nice. Kat can shriek her accusations without any content whatsoever, and you're cool with that. But you give me a hard time for saying I've debunked something when you don't think I have?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It is hypocritical to take such offense at one, and then completely expect everyone to agree with you about the other, simply because your faith requires them to do so.
But I don't care if people agree with me about the other. Why do you think I do? I mean, I'd like people to, because it's true, but I don't need them to, and I certainly don't expect them to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I wish I could be surprised at your lack of class or positive contribution.
Waaahhh... Kat's being mean to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think 'hypocrisy' is the word you're looking for, here. Lisa finds Mormon religious behaviour offensive, and does not care that her own offends; both are perfectly consistent manifestations of that faith you lot are so fond of in other contexts. This is what a 'choice to believe' looks like; this is precisely why faith without evidence (yes, Lisa, I know you think you have evidence) is so dangerous. And ridiculous. And other things ending in -ous.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fabulous?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
serendipitous?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was thinking more of 'gangrenous'.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
marvelously gangrenous?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
or gangrenously marvelous?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lisa, I don't care if you see it, or agree with it. I just think it is close enough for others to see it, and consider for themselves if it meets their standards for hypocrisy.
As far as why I might consider that you care?
How about the fact that you re once again posting on a public board about these issues. If you really felt no need for validation you wouldn't care enough to discuss it....if you call what you usually do here discussion, that is.
I wasn't giving you a hard time, but telling you that I didn't think you had debunked anything. I still think you haven't. I also stated that I find it odd, although not surprising, that your personal beliefs allow you to dismiss any allegations of being rude or offensive....or to even bask in the pleasure of being those things, as evidenced in many, many thread here on Hatrack over the past year....but you balk at anyone else using religious beliefs to do anything you find offensive.
THAT is hypocritical, IMO.
And I know I am not the only one to think so.
Rather than continuing to suggest I need to read more thoroughly, perhaps you should consider how effectively your chosen methods of "communication" are (when debating things that you don't care about with people whose opinions don't matter, of course) at getting your points across.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
AS is your ability to do so without the benefits of religion, KoM.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Show me the point I missed responding to, and I'll respond.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
And here I was thinking the hauty attitude of many an atheist is probably the biggest obstacle to persuading the religious to join them, well, that and having a lack of evidence on their side.
while I agree with you that whining about rudeness does not advance your arguements in anyway perhaps you might consider KOM why you are so often called on for being impolite.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
Wow. The irony makes it hard to breathe in here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hatrack religion thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Again, mph, if you would kindly show me which post I did not respond to, I will gladly do so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And here I was thinking the hauty attitude of many an atheist is probably the biggest obstacle to persuading the religious to join them
In all seriousness, I think the biggest obstacle facing atheists who wish to recruit is the lack of communal ritual, closely followed by what appears to be for many people a possibly biological need for an anthropomorphic universe. Until atheism can provide a societal experience equivalent to religious gathering and can either eliminate the need for or find acceptable substitutes for opiates of purpose, it will always face enormous difficulties in countries where religious societies exist and can provide these benefits.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I feel reasonably convinced that I responded to those posts. If the response wasn't what you wanted, well, I can't help that. Now perhaps you might care to point to a post with an actual argument in it, as opposed to whining.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And preferably without deleting posts, at that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Show me the point I missed responding to, and I'll respond.
Pretty sure you never responded to my last question, but I'm ok with that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
'Point', rivka dearest, not 'post'. When you post something that contains an argument, I'll respond.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Uh-huh. I had one, but I didn't really think you were going to acknowledge it.
No matter.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Oh, I remember her 'point.' It was that your interest in the details of messianic prophecies in Judaism was motivated by a desire to mock and not by a sincere interest to know more. As I recall, it was a point well taken by several participants in the discussion.
I'll give you an example where there was an argument you sidestepped with mockery. It's really old and I can't find it--the only reason that I'm using such an ancient example is because it's the only time I ever tried to participate with you in a discussion on religion, and decided thereafter not to bother--I've stuck to conversing with you on less controversial matters, which has been far more congenial. Why I'm responding to this now I have no idea.
Anyway, you were asking why Mormons would mourn the death of a missionary who was killed during his mission. Wouldn't that be a cause for celebration, you asked, since he should be, according to our doctrine, receiving a glorious eternal reward?
I responded as if you were seriously interested in the answer to that question, rather than just using it to push buttons. I posted a scripture that says that we should live together in love, insomuch that we mourn the death of those who pass.
Your response was something along the lines of "I'd like to thank Uprooted kindly for preaching at me" or something similarly dripping with sarcasm.
But the fact is, my post did address the point you were asking about, and you did not acknowledge that; you simply descended into mockery. Within our doctrine, which, yes, teaches that there is an eternal reward for righteousness, there is a reason and explanation for mourning. Those of us who didn't know the missionary love missionaries in general and mourn the loss of one of their number.
So yes, KoM, I'm sure that many more could give examples of your using this technique that you attribute to us deluded theists. Go ahead and refute away; you are certainly entitled to express your beliefs. Just don't be disingenous about your methods.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: but you balk at anyone else using religious beliefs to do anything you find offensive.
<shrug> I posted several pages ago that while I view, and will continue to view, the practice of posthumous baptisms of Jews as deeply offensive, I wasn't going to rail against it any more, precisely because I know I'd do the same thing in their position.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
How hypocritical of me.
And then I changed the name of this topic, because I felt it was too strong, given the way the topic had gone. I don't regret at all having called it what I did when I started it. But I learned a little something, and I changed it.
None of which should suggest for a moment that I find posthumous baptism any less offensive than I did at the start of this thread. But it does sort of make your accusations of hypocrisy seem a little dumb.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
How about this then, KoM:
By the sheer volume of your sarcastic mockery in the past, to a great many of us, you have made yourself unworthy of serious response on this topic in general.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000.
Doesn't work that way. The probability of mine being correct, for instance, is 99%. The probability of all of the others together comes out at about 1%. You're giving them all equal weight, and that's a mistake.
I'm sure that many members of other religions would give their own faith a >=99% confidence rating/weight as well, so this hardly makes yours unique from an objective external POV.
Tom Davidson: That makes a lot of sense. The human need for ritualized social behavior is very strong. However, that just explains why some religions are popular, not that they are necessarily more correct than others. I may note that in Asia, certain religions have less contact with their followers (i.e. not every Sunday). One consequence of this is increased social gatherings outside of religion. Another consequence is the sometimes quick growth of Western religions when initially introduced (as an example, the events leading up to the Taiping Rebellion).
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Just as I thought it would be obvious that when you love someone and they leave you, you miss them and you mourn. Thanks for your response.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Oh, I remember her 'point.' It was that your interest in the details of messianic prophecies in Judaism was motivated by a desire to mock and not by a sincere interest to know more. As I recall, it was a point well taken by several participants in the discussion.
And actually, I was going to answer KoM's question. But I didn't want to undercut Rivka, because she did have a valid point.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lisa, I do appreciate changing the name of this thread. I also read your post earlier, so I know what it said.
I just found it ironic that you started this thread at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, for one thing, I didn't know that Mormons saw posthumous baptism as an invitation. I understood it, as I think most people do, as them actually claiming that they're converting the people they do it to. Try a little intellectual exercise and tell me whether you still find it ironic given that I thought that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Just as I thought it would be obvious that when you love someone and they leave you, you miss them and you mourn. Thanks for your response.
I'd actually assumed that when you wrote "I posted a scripture that says that we should live together in love, insomuch that we mourn the death of those who pass", that the ending clause was part of the quote. Just because "insomuch" isn't a word you find people using very often. And since you'd written that, I was trying to figure out what KoM was thinking when he responded to you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, for one thing, I didn't know that Mormons saw posthumous baptism as an invitation. I understood it, as I think most people do, as them actually claiming that they're converting the people they do it to. Try a little intellectual exercise and tell me whether you still find it ironic given that I thought that.
Yes. Not as ironic, but still somewhat.
Then again, I find a lot of things ironic. Usually about myself, or the situations I find myself in YMMV. Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
It was a paraphrase from memory, but "insomuch" actually is part of the quote, now that I've looked it up. Not to beat a dead horse, but since it's come up I'll quote it correctly: "Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die. . ."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm tempted to start charting the number of times you sidestep via mockery, or rely solely or even primarily on mockery, in questions of religious issues, KoM. Unless my memory is seriously flawed, past behavior suggests that within a half-dozen religious threads I'd have a wealth of evidence.
It's not your only method, far from it. Occassionally you do leave out open or veiled mockery, scorn, contempt, sarcasm, condescension, or disgust from your words and tone in posts discussing these matters...but very occassionally, you do not.
The most open hypocrisy in this thread, aside from Lisa's acknowledged hypocrisy, is yours about sidestepping via mockery. But at least Lisa's matches her stated beliefs and goals, whereas your does not. That actually puts you over the top in that particular contest Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The most open hypocrisy in this thread, aside from Lisa's acknowledged hypocrisy,
Acknowledged by whom?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: is yours about sidestepping via mockery. But at least Lisa's matches her stated beliefs and goals,
Which is sort of the antithesis of hypocrisy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'll certainly cop to mocking people; but I see a useful distinction between using mockery as a tool to get people to reexamine their own position, and using it merely to sidestep arguments. If I have indeed been doing the latter, then I am at fault; but I'd like to see some examples before I believe it. It's not as though any of us are unbiased observers, after all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:using mockery as a tool to get people to reexamine their own position
I doubt you've been as succesful at this as you think.
Becaue of your mockery, people tend to dismiss everything you say on the subject of religion. The same argument which might get me to reexamine my position when made by somebody I respect will immediately be dismissed if it came from you.
Is that a mature or reasonable reaction? Perhaps not. But I doubt I am alone in this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, perhaps you wouldn't call it hypocrisy...but to criticize (quite...sharply, too) someone for doing what you acknowledge, if you were them, you'd probably be doing yourself certainly appears contradictory, at least.
------
KoM,
I question your sincerity, to put it bluntly, when you say mockery is a tool to get people to reexamine their own position. One of the things you've frequently commented on is the inability of many religious people to think critically about their own religion. Or am I mistaken, and you've not commented on that before?
Given that, any reasonable person would wonder what you intend mockery to be a tool for, since you and I are both aware that people in general often respond badly to mockery about deeply-held beliefs on anything, and deeply held beliefs on spirituality in particular.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
KoM, you are under the delusion that you are speaking truth when you are simply being a jerk, and a boring one at that. You have one subject that you harp on constantly with all the finesse of a seal in a desert. You are fooling no one.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:all the finesse of a seal in a desert.
*snerk* Lovely imagery, kat. Thanks! Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KoM,
You've been here 2.5 years. In all that time, how often has using "mockery to get people to reexamine their position" actually resulted in anything other than a negative opinion of the person doing the mocking?
Seriously...either you are the world's worst empiricist, or you were bitten by poisonous quixote flies.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm always suspicious of any altruistic-labelled intent that serves double duty as a big, creamy ego pudding.
I've had a couple servings of that myself of late, but it's much much better to acknowledge that's what's on the menu.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The last few posts have had some really interesting metaphors.
edit: I can't spell
[ December 29, 2006, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think I have succeeded in taunting my gall bladder into violent rebellion as of late, thus my obsession with the big, fat, and creamy.
Dang it. I'm down to dry Cheerios and glasses of club soda.
*morose
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Have you tried microclusters, raw organ meats, and shellfish?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*fisheye
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously...either you are the world's worst empiricist, or you were bitten by poisonous quixote flies.
Or he's just full of it. Creamy ego pudding, that is.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Ew. Gall bladder rebellion is nasty. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Wrong thread, BB. Edit: Good catch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Wrong thread, BB. Edit: Good catch.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I really really wish people wouldn't do that. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)