quote:And who are you to judge who's proud and who's righteous?
That's the same damn question I've been asking those making excuses for proxy baptism, Jon. Who are they to judge whether people who they are not have made the choice?
quote:Who are you to decide that it's "ecumenical pride" and not something else?
I'm a human being, with all the same rights and privileges as every other person, no matter their faith. My soul is my own, and I reserve the right to call anyone telling me that it is not to go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can still get the same ideas across and be more considerate to the people you are talking to. Many people have made the same arguments as you, and people don't get so mad at them. Ever wonder why?
Same with missionaries. If they go around proclaiming that they have the truth and everyone is wrong, they are going to be much more offensive than if they try to understand the person they are talking to and find common ground. There is a big difference in the deliverance of the same message.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it? Is it really only a few fringe churches continuing the insult? If so, why not cut them off and end the insult as coming from the LDS church?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who are they to judge whether people who they are not have made the choice?
Just checking, do you realize that none of us claim they have made any decision? Only providing for the possibility that they might?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do they continue doing it when people have already made it clear the insult of it? You asked me why I don't change—why doesn't the Church?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it? Is it really only a few fringe churches continuing the insult? If so, why not cut them off and end the insult as coming from the LDS church?
Are you talking about the specific Holocaust victims situation in regards to proxy baptism, or all proxy baptism? I don't know why Holocaust victims have been on the list after the church said it wouldn't happen. I also don't know what the church will decide to do about it. I just try to not offend myself, it is the best I can do. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Holocaust victims is just a group that was large enough to ilicit an agreement from the Church. Are you seriously saying you've never heard from anywhere else the insult of proxy baptisms? If not, allow me to be the first to inform you that many more people than just Holocaust victims find it incredibly insulting.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I speak in all honesty when I say that before reading this thread I had no idea that people found the practice so offensive. I just hadn't talked to anyone about it who thought it was. I had heard a bit about the Holocaust victims and remember wondering why it bothered them, and that was that. To my knowledge, I have never done proxy work for a Holocaust victim or for someone who specifically requested not to have the work done. I am concerned that it offends people so much. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that because some people find what I say offensive, I should change how I say it?
Yeah yeah, it's a logical trap. If anyone criticizes you for being offensive and tells you to change, then they're proving your point for you, etc, etc ... so why doesn't the hypocrisy work both ways, John? When you criticize Mormons for being insulting and offensive, doesn't that behoove you to avoid committing offenses yourself? Or is your argument that only one person at a time is allowed to be offensive and insulting, and you've got the conch?
quote:Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it? Is it really only a few fringe churches continuing the insult? If so, why not cut them off and end the insult as coming from the LDS church?
It wouldn't be individual units of the Church who did this, it would be individual members, most of whom would have been acting in ignorance. I have trouble seeing the value of cutting large groups of people off from a religion they love and are devoted to in an attempt to appease your personal evaluation of a very few individuals' offensiveness.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pat, do you realize the arrogance of that statement? Do you realize that is exactly what I'm talking about? How is that any different from the "save the savage" missions of old?
I guess it might seem arrogant to you, but that's not how it went down at all.
I didn't go over to save any savage. Is it hard for you to understand that there might be people different from you who are actually looking for a message from God. A message that answers a lot of their questions?
Do you think there is a reason why people are joining our church in record numbers?
People are looking for the truth, John. It's supply and demand, Buster. As it is, we can't get enough missionaries out in the field to meet the demand.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't go over to save any savage. Is it hard for you to understand that there might be people different from you who are actually looking for a message from God. A message that answers a lot of their questions?
This was certainly the case with me. I was "found" by some sister missionaries tracting door to door. I got baptized LDS 6 months later. And I don't consider myself a savage, even though I do live in New Jersey.
( to Trogdor)
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it okay for your religion to be "true to its beliefs," but not for me? I don't change who I am because this is who I am. If you don't like it, then ask me to leave or have me booted. It's really convenient that what I have to say is pretty much okay with those who agree with what I say, and a great deal of hemming and hawing—a whole page in this thread—when not. What I'm saying is that if you want to understand how other people feel about proxy baptisms, to think about how you feel after you read a post of mine that you disagree with. Then multiply it by about 200.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disagreeing with you is fine. Lots of us disagree here. It is the delivery that becomes problematic. And I don't think you'd have to change yourself much to be a little more sensitive to others in that delivery.
Do you feel we should not do proxy baptisms at all? Or only for those who have requested it? Do you feel that we should not send out missionaries?
quote: What I'm saying is that if you want to understand how other people feel about proxy baptisms, to think about how you feel after you read a post of mine that you disagree with. Then multiply it by about 200.
Oh, I know that. With proxy baptisms, it's a touchy subject that I'm not sure we can solve in a thread here at Hatrack. I hate the people who go against the church and make the rest of us look bad. (That doesn't mean that I disagree with proxy baptism).
These are some of the same reasons why my ancestors were driven out of their homes and forced to walk until their feet were bloody just to find more shelter. Sometimes your beliefs make you unpopular. I've faced that all my life.
Anyway...
Regarding truth.. I believe that God has one finite truth. I believe he knows that truth. I believe he shares that truth with those he chooses, like prophets and apostles. I believe I follow that truth as given through them. That's all.
Just like you're statement on your site says you're not going to apologize to anyone you think is a bigot, I'm not going to apologize for something that I believe in so strongly that I really have no doubt in my mind about its veracity.
Throw stones. I'm not gonna change.
[ April 13, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to ask a question. If Jewish leaders asked really nicely, again, for the LDS to stop the practice of posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims, is there anyone here who believes that the practice should continue? And that if it did continue, that's a good thing?
I'm also curious as to how a person can be baptized posthumously without someone who knows at least the significant details of their life putting their name forward in temple. In other words, it seems like a very deliberate act...picking this particular person and putting their name on the roles (or however it works).
I was led to believe by much of what was said last year when this came up in relation to my own (very very Catholic) ancestors in Italy and one particualr cousin who is an LDS convert -- that the selection of names is not random.
Was I mistaken? Are there people who just pull out lists of names from unverified sources and submit those for posthumous baptism in the LDS church?
Are there criteria that are used before a name is brought forward?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, you're going to have to learn to deal with John as is. He's a great asset to Hatrack, and knowing him like I do, he's not going to change, nor does he need to.
Take heart in knowing that if his delivery pisses you off, he really doesn't mean it that way. Promise.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, much of the time I do agree with what you say, but wince when I hear you say it.
It's like listening to an album you like with the volume up so loud it hurts your ears. Turning down the intensity goes a long way toward making the message more easily received.
That said, let me use you as an example, if you don't mind.
John often says and does things on this board that ruffle feathers. People disagree both with what he says and how he says it - but I think the underlying root is that many people feel that his self-assured "I am right, you are not" attitude is offensive and grating. John doesn't see why he should change, because that's "who he is".
The Mormons perform proxy baptisms that ruffle feathers. People disagree both with the concept and how it's presented - but I think the underlying root is that many people feel that the self-assured "We are right, you just don't understand" attitude is offensive and grating. The LDS Church doesn't see how it can change, because it's a basic foundation stone of their religion.
BUT, flip side.
John *can* (I believe) take his opponent's point of view and see that he is being offensive and insulting (at times). Personally, I feel he doesn't care so much whether he is or not.
Many Mormons on this board have not been able to take a non-Mormon point of view and see that they are being offensive and insulting in their practice of proxy baptism. I hope this is not because they *can* but don't *care* to. I think it is possible [edit] for them to see the other side, though, because those same Mormons are intelligent, rational people who should be able to step out of themselves long enough to see the other side of things.
I think both John's attitude and Mormon proxy baptism are forces of nature, though, that likely won't go away. No matter how many people are offended.
posted
Oh, I care, Cow. A lot. It's how I handle it that people don't agree with. My own reasons and rules aren't the topic of debate, though. And if they were, I'd stay out of it and just watch the show. I'd warn against anyone who tried to make me sound overly benevolent, though.
I like you, too, bev.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, John, I wouldn't mind your offensiveness nearly so much if you didn't get offended at others also. But, hey, that's just the way it is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have to admit than whenever you get on my nerves I remember when you were playing that boy at Endercon, and then you're just a big, cuddly, teddy bear for about another 6 months.
posted
It may also be that the Mormons who understand how the non-mormons feel have said their peace and the debate moved on to "is baptism for the dead offensive in general". What else is there to say?
Do people have to repeat it over and over again? What Mormons here have been defending is the general practice and not the specific instance with the Holocaust victims.
Survey to all the Mormons here:
A Jewish organization has requested that no Jewish Holocaust victims be baptized for the dead, and those that were, be taken off the list.
Should the church comply or not?
Do you think the church would comply?
My answers: yes and yes
The church really doesn't care about PC, but it does care about the religious views of others and their freedom of religion. Many times Mormons and Jews stood together against religious persecution, and they would do it again. The LDS church would defend anyone's right to practice their religion. I've seen articles in our church magazine praising the virtues of Islam right after 9-11.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
The "who are you to judge" thing is weird. To answer Bob's question, no, there isn't a selection of "this person needs it and this person doesn't." EVERYBODY gets it. Everyone. That's the goal. That's the opposite of judging among individuals.
As far as I can tell, the objections break down into two categories:
1. Those who do not believe in the rightness of the ceremony, but that it DOES or MAY have efficacy for the souls of those dead. 2. Those who don't like being thought to be wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went through the last time the proxy baptism thread, so I haven't kept up completely.
Has anyone questioned why the current Jewish leaders have the right to deny proxy baptism to victims of the Holocaust?
It keeps coming up how arrogant the Mormons are that they would baptize someone who has died when they can't consent, but aren't the Jewish leaders doing the same?
This isn't meant to be antagonistic. It's an honest question.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an honest question, and I can only answer it this way - the Jewish people of today have a better cause to say what is right for thier deceased ancestors than do non-jews. Because Jews know more about their faith,and more about what is considered right and proper for people of that faith than you do. Just as mormons would have more authority to say what should be done or shouldn't be done for mormon dead, than jews would.
If you are not Jewish, and you do not have the understanding and viewpoint of someone of the Jewish faith, then I think you should respect what the Jewish people have to say on this matter. I dare say they have a better idea of what is offensive to them than you do.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to be clear, they have not promised to baptize no Holocaust victims. They have promised not to baptize any Jewish people unless their surviving immediate family consents.
That means 2 things: 1) Some Holocaust victims can potentially be added to the database under this agreement. 2) Even Jewish people who were not Holocaust victims should not be added to the database barring the exception above.
The reason the Holocaust victims were removed is because their was a list of them that made it relatively easy. The reason Holocaust victims were the center of the controversy is because the circumstances of their death highlight the reasons for the practice casuses offense. However, the offense exists absent the Holocaust.
posted
Just as an aside, I was with my therapist yesterday, who along with being an MSW, LCSW holds a master's in theology and is at work on her PhD in theology.
I told her about these discussions,and then told her we also had a thread and discussion about Peter and what the Rock means and she laughed and said since we were busy covering all the oldest and best worn debates, we may as well take on the role of women in the church. Anyone game? Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Beverly, I'm talking about the baptisms. If the LDS church knows that what they're doing is openly offensive, why do they continue to do it?
I would disagree here. My eyes have been opened by just how offensive proxy baptisms can be, however, I would not say it is openly offensive. It is selectively offensive. Until I see other data, it is easier for me to believe that the vast majority of the people (who know the whats and whys of proxy baptism) are indifferent. Although I don't have the numbers, I would even be willing to bet that there are more people who think the strides the LDS faith has made in genealogy outweighs the *offenses.*
Lets move back to the select offended. First point: For all the different histories and numbers of people alive, dead, and yet to live, there are always going to be people who are offended by you. There are always going to be people who hate for some reason. There are always going to be a group of people who find your existence, your values, or your practices morally offensive.
I once had a doctor tell me, "There are always going to be people who hate me. People hate me because I am rich, because I am a doctor, because I am American, because I am white, because I am male, because of a lot of other reasons. I, on the other hand, have always hated people from Beaver (Utah). I can not change what other think about me, but I need to focus on how I feel about others."
The church should not change its’ group behavior with regards to baptisms or converting because some people find it morally offensive. If everyone did that, eveyone would be static. Now, if there are people who are extremely agitated, the church, as a public entity, should accommodate them. We shouldn't proselyte where there are "no-soliciting" signs or baptize people who have left instruction not to receive the ordinance. We should also not baptize someone when a legal representative of the deceased tries to stop the ordinance.
If what the church told the Jewish leaders was "lip service," then that disresctful attitude should be exposed. The church doesn't need to apologize for the practice. The intent is good. The fruits are good. It is arrogant, but the church never pretended to be anything but the restored complete truth. If a select froup objects, we should still do the geneaology work, keep it on file, and move on to all the names we have yet to do.
posted
kat, I don't know about you, but my church IS my family. And if my grandchildren are of a different faith or not of any faith then they would not be able to answer for my religious beliefs because they wouldn't understand them.
IN other words, I'd rather an unrelated Christian speak up for my wishes in regards to religious ceremonies than a grandchild who is not of my church.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have to admit I'm floored. And a little skeptical.
I mean, I love my church and am often hurt by my family, but I'd still trust my brother more than Member Number 058347 in the Seattle Fifth Ward.
---
When you say church, who do you mean? Baptists? Presbytarians? Mainstream Christianity? Your local congregation? Me? *twinkles* Because "unrelated Christian" would apply to Mormons as well.
posted
As an addition to my last (substantive) post), the Jewish leaders who signed the agreement apparantly agreed with the idea that living descendents, and no one else, should have some say in the matter. I don't know if they were taking what they could get or not, but as long as the LDS Church lives up to the agreement, those people (and the people they represent) have sort of waived their moral authority to object to the practice.
quote:The Holocaust victims is just a group that was large enough to ilicit an agreement from the Church. Are you seriously saying you've never heard from anywhere else the insult of proxy baptisms? If not, allow me to be the first to inform you that many more people than just Holocaust victims find it incredibly insulting.
This is one of the foundational doctrines of the church. The church exists to fulfill a threefold mission: Proclaim the gospel, perfect its members and redeem the dead.
People of differing backgrounds often find things that other people do offensive. This in itself is not reason to discontinue the practice, whatever it may be.
In the specific case of proxy baptisms there is no reason whatsoever to discontinue the practice if the names are being submitted by descendants of the people concerned. In the case of Jews who would like the LDS church to stop baptizing holocaust members, their wishes can certainly be respected as refers to those whose ancestors have not submitted their names. Otherwise, they simply have no basis for objection. After Bill dies his country club or his dentist or anyone else who knew Bill might want to have some say in the disposition of Bill's legacy, but unless Bill specifically grants one of these rights to do so in his will their wishes make not iota of difference.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about religious beliefs and the applicability of religious ceremonies. Certainly I'd trust my immediate family on other personal issues, like whether or not I'm an organ donor. Or where I would like to be buried.
But for things that are specific to my religous faith, then I would want someone who understands my POV to speak up for that. Someone who shares them. Mormons wouldn't count, because you obviously don't share my same view of baptism and salvation. Jews wouldn't count.
My point is that jews know more about what is offensive in the jewish faith than mormons do. Just having a blood tie to someone doesn't mean you understand their deeply held religious convictions. Only someone else of that faith can even begin to try, of course no one person can completely know the religious status of another.
Frankly, you can stuff your suggestion that you're skeptical - what's the point in debating with you if you think I'm not being honest in what I say here? I represent myself as who I am and I represent my beliefs honestly and forthrightly. Take your self-righteous judgment of the statements I make and shove them.
Yes, I'm being petty - so far I think this thread has been wonderful and I appreciate the well mannered, thoughtful posts of everyone on every side - jews, agnostics, athiests, mormons, protestants. But I feel like your only purpose is to bait me, and that is something that gets my hackles up.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I need to take a second and say that while you hold views that most closely resemble my own, I would agree with Belle and Kayla that it would really help if toned down your... uh.. tone a little bit.
Believe me, no one understands where you're coming from in your battle to help people to understand where we're coming from. And while you may not purposely mean to cause offense, you've done it a few times in this thread when you could have easily avoided it.
Belle's views are her own, and frankly I think she's shown a great deal of restraint, thoughtfulness and love in her posts. It seems like you're mocking her belief system, even though I know that's not your intent.
posted
I should model Belle's tone instead? Which one - the "shove them" statement or the proudly petty one?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: Your disbelief at a person's personal opinion is what is irksome. It's the umpteenth time you've had that exact reaction to someone's post. Skepticism, disbelief, and scoffing are all considered rude when directed at someone's assessment of themselves.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to explain why family members wishes are more important, I think religious affiliation dies when the person does, but family ties do not.
I don't think there's any such thing as "LDS" after this life. That kind of distinction and division is here because it's a tool and it's useful, but it doesn't matter after. It's not a matter of offering a "Mormon" baptism, but baptism with the authority of God.
So, it's like giving power of attorney to a political party instead of your daughter, and then retiring to Bali. The political party is a distinction that just won't matter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yes they should comply, only from a public relations perspective.
No I don't think they will. Redeeming the dead is too important to the church leadership--more important then what people think. There is definite motive. The church also has a suggested past of hiding what it does from the public. Whether it is the Mountain Meadow Massacre or the continuation of polygamous sealings in the temples, church leadership seems to be either too slow to act (until after the fact) or willing to do God’s will over and above public opinion and stated church position—for the short term anyway.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm not saying her tone is perfect. If you would remember, I did this same thing to her the last time we had this discussion a year or so ago.
We had a grand old fight, her and I. In the end, we both promised to work on being nicer. I've chosen to mostly stay out of this discussion, and while she hasn't, she's been true to her words we had a in that discussion.
But every one has a breaking point, and I can see how she came to say what she did. I don't agree with what she said, but I can see why she would say that.
Saying that you're 'floored' by a person's strongly held bellefs just doesn't contribute much to a discussion. That's all.
And I'm perhaps the biggest hyprocrite in this. All I do is say things that make people mad. I appreciate it when people take me aside and tell me I'm out of control.
Don't get mad at me, Kat. Just use the feedback in the, tone, it was offered.
[ April 14, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bottom line is that Latter Day Saints do baptisms for the dead because we believe God has commanded us to do them. If you find it offensive that we follow the commandments of God as we understand them, when doing so inflicts no real harm on anyone, then maybe you need to evaluate your own tolerance and respect for other individuals beliefs.
If I must make a choice between offending God or offending a friend who I respect, I hope I will choose to offend the friend everytime. If you find that proud and disrespectful, I'm sorry. I had hoped that other religious people would understand that choice, but I will not change it even if you don't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not mad, Trogdor. I don't think you're right, and I think Belle wigged out completely, and I have to admit I was honestly shocked that she'd pick a stranger to make a decision like that for her over a descendant, but I'm not mad.
For the record, and there are testimonies around here to prove this if you want to put out a call for them, I'm a lot more amenable over e-mail.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, you're better than this. And whatever she asserted her tone to be, she has clearly tried to be polite througout this entire thread, and at least mostly succeeded. I believe you are capable of giving the same effort.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you find it offensive that we follow the commandments of God as we understand them, when doing so inflicts no real harm on anyone..."
Rabbit, you are in almost all ways more reasonable than this.
Saying "I know better than you do, and do not respect your decisions in life" does real harm, even if it's harm that someone else can choose to ignore.
It's true that someone, by choosing to be the bigger and nobler person, can overlook the slight -- but it's both disingenuous and selfish of you to pretend that no slight at all is inflicted.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to Trogdor)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
No matter how many people are offended.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
