posted
John, I think the problem with the word "bigot" is that you don't see those connotations, but many people do. I think that most people, if called a bigot, will think that you are equating them with racists and other similar groups. That's why people keep asking you to stop using it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you want from us? Do you want us to stop all proxy baptisms? Do you want us to go to great lengths to make sure that we don't do it for anyone who didn't want it (or probably wouldn't want it)? Do you simply want us to say, "Yeah, we realize that lots of people find it offensive, and we're sorry for that, but we think it's more important to obey God"? Something else?
A "do not baptise" list would be fine with me, as well as the removal of names like the Holocaust Victims, who never had a family member make the request. Oh, and every other person for whom no contact with the surviving family was made (not counting your Mormon ancestors, for whom I believe this practice was originally designed to begin with).
In other words, as long as procedures are enacted to ensure that people aren't baptised whose surviving family would not give recordable consent, then go ahead and do it. It's still insulting, but at least then it's completely kept to those who have to justify it between themselves, their god, and their family member's soul come whatever.
And don't say that's how it is now, because the original article proves pretty conclusively that it's not. Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Religious tolerance means that we respect others rights to practice their religion even when their practices and beliefs are contrary to ours."
quote:John, I think the problem with the word "bigot" is that you don't see those connotations, but many people do. I think that most people, if called a bigot, will think that you are equating them with racists and other similar groups. That's why people keep asking you to stop using it.
Then get a freaking dictionary and learn what the word means. I know the ignorant connotations of it, and I refuse to bow to that ignorance with my use of the word. I use it for what it means, not what you think it means.
Hell, people use the word "ignorant" instead of "rude" commonly nowadays, too. That is not going to stop me from using "ignorant" to mean "having a lack of knowledge," though.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I think is realistic is that you keep doing what you're doing, and respect our right to think you are self-centered arrogant jerks, and that what you do is HIGHLY offensive, and possibly dangerous.
I would prefer to be able to help you to see our perspective, but since you are dead sent against that I hope you will understand if others consider you to be and a self-centered arrogant jerk, who is HIGHLY offensive, and possibly dangerous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, that's why we have a Do Not Call Registry being pushed through Congress.
No, quite frankly, I don't want you to tell me about the possibility of $1000 giveaways. Just like I don't want to hear that Bill Gates is giving away money to whoever forwards this email.
Essentially, proxy baptism, to me, is calling me during my shower or dinner to tell me about this great deal on viagra.
No thanks.
Please stop calling.
This is why people got unlisted numbers, and caller IDs, and hide when they see JWs or Mormons knocking at their doors.
It's great that you think there's $1000 bills being handed away. Go get some for yourself. I won't hold you back, or even get in your way. Grab as many as you like. But, in the words of TomD (or was it Bob Scopatz?), get off my lawn.
You don't need to proxy baptize me for me to tell you I don't want it. I've done so. I'll likely do so again. I've known about the Mormon church, and though I find it interesting and admirable, it's not for me. I've made up my mind. That ship has sailed.
quote:What I would PREFER is you only baptize people by proxy who never had a chance at baptism.
Then here's a stickier question: what should we define as a "chance" at baptism? That could range from people who fully understood the Mormon church and then rejected it, to people who have the missionaries knock on the door and say, "Sorry, not interested."
quote:Hi there. I've been posting. Maybe I post in invisible text.
Don't worry—I've been reading what you're writing.
quote:What are your thoughts on the "do not proxy baptize until Millenium" list? Or am I totally misconstruing the concept of Millenium?
You know, I'm honestly not quite sure. The prophets have told us to do it now, so I believe that there's a reason to do it now. I don't see any compelling reason to wait, to be honest.
quote:In other words, as long as procedures are enacted to ensure that people aren't baptised whose surviving family would not give recordable consent, then go ahead and do it. It's still insulting, but at least then it's completely kept to those who have to justify it between themselves, their god, and their family member's soul come whatever.
And don't say that's how it is now, because the original article proves pretty conclusively that it's not.
Fair enough. I won't deny that there are people breaking the rules, but I really wish they would stop, because they're causing a lot of trouble.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then get a freaking dictionary and learn what the word means. I know the ignorant connotations of it, and I refuse to bow to that ignorance with my use of the word. I use it for what it means, not what you think it means.
I think you misread my post. I do have a freaking dictionary, thanks, and I use it more frequently than most people. I'm saying that the dictionary does not accurately reflect common usage in this case. Dictionaries are supposed to be descriptive—that is, they're supposed to reflect how people are using the word. And it's clearly evident that many people are using the word "bigot" in a sense different from merely "intolerant."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you wouldn't really be *waiting*. It'd be more, I dunno, triage. You're prioritizing the proxy baptisms.
Those you are totally unsure of would take precedence over those that you think are likely to reject.
In the end, you'd likely, according to your belief structure, have a higher percentage of takers by the Millenium... then you'd be able to get those with a little more solid evidence. Get the doubting Thomas's AFTER you have some wounds they can probe.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Paul, My problem is that I really don't know of any religions that believe God has command them to prevent other people from performing prayers and ceremonies on their behalf. Can you please tell me what religions require their members to prevent prayers or ceremonies to be performed on the behalf posthumously by members of another religion? Could you please give me references to reliable sources discussing these beliefs? Since Mormons are not the only ones that perform acts for the dead, (Catholics for example may light a candle to shorten a loved ones stay in pergatory, Jews may donate money in the name of a deceased person), these should be fairly common.
Unless another religion has specific commandments forbidding such practices, then I would say the word "contrary" was far more appropriate than the word "violate".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stalling cow, I think a do not baptize list is a great Idea. JohnL, I think a do not baptize list including everyone who never had the opportunity to reject being on the list a bad idea.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... my questions seem to have been put on the previous page without an answer... I guess I can't demand anyone answer them but I am genuinally interested.
quote:I'm saying that the dictionary does not accurately reflect common usage in this case. Dictionaries are supposed to be descriptive—that is, they're supposed to reflect how people are using the word. And it's clearly evident that many people are using the word "bigot" in a sense different from merely "intolerant."
By that logic, I would have to use the incorrect usage, including the incorrect usage of "ignorant" (as "rude") and terrorist (as "Islamic militant").
No thanks. I prefer to use the English language, not American Ignorant™.
Hobbes, I answered your question to me. I hope that's not what you're referring to.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
The problem is that this would require us to "judge" who was likely to accept and who wasn't, something most of us are unwilling to do. The Church "triage" guidelines already. People are permitted to submit names for temple work of their direct ancestors and people who have been dead for over 150 years (not certain about that time, I will have to look it up).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, you did indeed, and then I asked another question.
Though my main question the orginal one a little ways up the last page) is really adressed more at those who are Jewish and that's the one I really want answered.
posted
JohnL -- Is your point in using language to communicate thoughts and ideas or to massage your own ego? If your intent is to communicate, then choose the words which have the correct connotation and will cause the least misunderstanding. If it is to massage your ego -- stick with strict dictionary definitions and ridicule anyone who misunderstands you.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, and every other person for whom no contact with the surviving family was made (not counting your Mormon ancestors, for whom I believe this practice was originally designed to begin with).
John, this one is problematic because we often are baptizing people who lived in the 1700s, or earlier. To try and contact all their living ancestors would be, well, impossible. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, be realistic. Words change meaning. Responsible writers will understand the connotations of the words they use, and they will avoid words that have undesired effects. I can use the word "negro" and claim that it really just means someone dark-skinned, so nobody should be offended by it, but we both know I'd just be fooling myself.
quote:No thanks. I prefer to use the English language, not American Ignorant™.
I hope you realize how hilarious that sounds. English is a language of ignorance. People have been ignorantly shifting meanings for thousands of years. Challenge me all you want on other issues, but don't try to challenge me about words.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But bev, who else would you baptise from the 1700's? Haven't they already been taken care of (the Mormon ancestors)? If it's just to take care of them, why is it also being applied to people who are in no way connected, directly or indirectly, to the people who began the Church?
And Rabbit, you're asking me to redefine something that doesn't need redefining. Bigotry is the act of intolerance, and ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and terrorist is one who uses unjustified violence as a means to coerce governments and groups. Some bigots are racists, but not all bigots are racists. Some ignorant people are rude, but not all ignorant people are rude. Some Islamic fundementalists (let's use that instead of militant) are terrorists, but being fundementalist does not make them a terrorist. Dumbing down the language as a demand for communication removes the possibility of adequately expressing one's self. That limits communication, it doesn't enhance it. There's no need to "message(sic)" my ego about it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll challenge you about words all I want. I know English is the language of stilted meanings, and I refuse to contribute to that. If you begin to learn another language, the lack of descriptives in the English language should be abundantly clear, and my reasoning would make more sense. Americans are the worst offenders at stilting the language even more, especially those who have no other language background from which to develop vocabulary.
This isn't Rome, and I'm not going to "talk stupid" just because others do.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. When I personally go to the temple to do ordinance work for someone who has died, it is usually a name given to me, not one of my ancestors. Why? Because it is easier for me. Laziness, I guess. I have ancestors who need the work, and I have other family members working on them. From whence do the other names come? I really don't know. I am excercising trust there. But I can see their birth and death dates and even where they lived (if the info is known.)
I believe it was Cow who said:
quote: Well, you wouldn't really be *waiting*. It'd be more, I dunno, triage. You're prioritizing the proxy baptisms.
Those you are totally unsure of would take precedence over those that you think are likely to reject.
I think this is very reasonable. We've got plenty of names, and I do mean PLENTY, without dipping into a pool of people who have specifically rejected the proxy work. I am perfectly willing to let them wait. After all, it's what they wanted, right? Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of dumbing down the language, John. It's a matter of words slowly shifting in meaning. You've probably heard of the histories of the words "silly" and "nice." Go study linguistics and usage before you start making claims about what words should mean. Yeah, you're free to challenge me about words all you want, but the simple fact is that in this case, you are wrong.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, the reason you didn't get a response is because you didn't really ask a question, if "show me where I did that" was the question you're referring to. There are 14 pages of back-and-forth going over the multiple misunderstandings of non-Mormon thoughts on the issue, as well as many Mormon explanations and "I don't see the problem" posts. I seriously hope you are not asking me to examine each of them and pick out yours specifically to show where you are, in every attempt, beginning from the LDS perspective and working from there forward instead of a non-Mormon and working forward.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. To me their are only two logical possibilities. Either the Mormon's are right and God wants us to do these baptisms -- in which case our belief that these are only offered and not forced should be accepted. Or, Mormon's are wrong, these baptisms are unneccessary, God doesn't recognize them and they are a waste of our time.
You don’t allow for the possibility that Mormon’s are partially right? That their ceremonies have effects, but not the effects they think they do?
posted
Jon, you are doing everything but pulling the "my degree" bullshit openly on this issue. Does David (more degreed than you, mein freund) need to come in here and correct you before you freaking capitulate?
So, unless you're saying outright that my usage is incorrect, where I know for a fact that it is not, then do me a favor and get off the high horse.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't ask you to redefine anything. If one wants to communicate, one chooses the words with the correct connotation as well as the correct denotation. Whether you meant to commmunicate or not, you answered my question. When you decide that communication is more important than "correctness", I will resume reading your posts. I don't have time to waste on someone who posts to massage their own ego.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, guys, my husband actually used to feel very much as John does about words. He often came across to me and others as offensive. Still tends to at times. He has mellowed with time, though. I am someone who believes we all have our own inner "dictionary" where words have complex connotations. Some people's inner dictionary simply agrees with what is written officially.
I remember a friend who thought of "feelings" as a positive word but "emotions" as a negative, where as I thought of them the other way around. I think so many miscommunications come from having these different inner dictionaries. As for myself, I try to find out what words mean to the person I am talking to in an effort to understand them better and communicate effectively.
I, personally, can give John some leaniance because I believe him when he says he doesn't believe those words have those negative connotations. They honestly don't, for him. Very much like my husband and the offensive words he would use. At the same time, I do wish that he would be more accomodating to others because of the powerful (if unintended) effects of those words.
Kinda like asking us not to do proxy baptisms for some people who have expressly rejected it. We (LDS) should try to understand the powerful, if unintended, offense this practice has on others if we want to communicate effectively and understand them.
Proxy baptism=offensive Bigot=offensive
Right? Matter of perspective. We are all asking someone for a little curtousy on these matters.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, give me a freaking break, John. I can't count the number of times you've told people to get an education. The fact is that people consistently react negatively when you use the word "bigot." There's a reason for this. Go ahead and claim that the dictionary's on your side, but the fact is that the masses are not, just as the masses would not be on my side if I consistently referred to Blacks as Negroes. Ask David's opinion. I sincerely doubt he'd side with your prescriptive definition.
posted
Then it's a wonder anyone reads what you have to say, Rabbit.
Oh, gee, I didn't hide that insult enough. I must not be up to Rabbit's level of "insult ability." Too bad.
Go ahead and ignore me. You're not someone I'd have the energy to openly dislike, but your arrogance sure makes it easy if I ever decide to go that far. I'm sure you'll pray for me over it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pooka: If doctors, or even nuns, were baptizing babies on the sly, we'd figure it was of no effect.
Consistency always score points in my book.
quote:Though ironically, due to the "more the merrier" attitude toward proxy work name extraction, I think we wind up baptizing quite a few infants on our own. Which is still an abomination.
That alone seems to justify an end to the practice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also an abomination to baptize adults who does not have enough mental capacity for sin. Better stop and be safe I say. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes Paul you're right, it's our unique theology (our 'universe', if you like, just like one designed by a science fiction writer,) so we have set the rules, and it functions according to those rules. It seems to me that the conflict comes when people who have other theologies, try to introduce their rules into our theology's rules. It doesn't work. We 'know' the condition of the dead because it's our theology. You 'know' the condition of your dead because your theology has set the rules about that too. The things that you say happen to your dead when we do proxy work are irrelevant to our theology, because ours says that doesn't happen, just as what we do is irrelavant/unnecessary/ineffectual in your theology. Never the twain will meet.
Can you not see that you're trying to introduce YOUR rules into SOMEONE ELSE'S faith? Non-Mormons have said throughout this thread that they don't believe souls can choose after death. Rivka and Paul have both said that according to their beliefs, damage could be done to their and other Jewish people's souls because of proxy baptisms.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Proxy baptisms AREN'T irrelevant in their faith. I find it funny that you say "your dead" in referring to Jewish dead. You acknowledge that they aren't your dead. Yet you insist on messing with them.
You advocate keeping the theologies separate, yet YOU'RE the one who is intruding.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, Jon? No more "don't challenge my Lit degree!" comments? Just saying that the masses must be right? Can you seriously claim that "the masses" are using something properly? Or even at all?
Bev, I understand your point, and I usually give on the simpler words now, but this is an important discriminator between someone who openly hates because of ethnicity and someone who is openly intolerant and acting on it. Without keeping the two meanings separate, we would have no word for the act of intolerance, unless it bounced into the real of actual oppression, which is an extreme in another, different direction. In the end, it really is a matter of extreme as far as how it's used. Bigotry is rampant today, in a world where racism is greatly diminished. In fact, to equate bigotry with racism is to let those who are actively intolerant off easy with admitting their intolerance. It's not a matter of being PC (in case you couldn't tell by the way I speak), it's a matter of delineation and scrutiny.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What, Jon? No more "don't challenge my Lit degree!" comments?
C'mon John. Why are you baiting him? What does it contribute? You don't think it's possible that he may posess more knowledge than you in that department?
[ April 15, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be an abomination if it weren't for the fact that it is "offering" baptism. But it is true, that we don't do proxy baptisms for those known to have died under the age of 8. But like pooka said, I'm sure they slip in every now and then.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm not talking about the department. I'm sure he's a better editor than I. I'm talking about the reasoning for this specific issue. Even on this simple issue, people can't just say "oh, in that case, point taken."
And even that's hyperbole. I know bev seems to understand, and both you and Hobbes are taking my word for it and accepting.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I understand that you are carefully making that distinction. As an engineer, my husband feels it is very important to be accurate when speaking. For instance, to him saying "I don't like that" does not automatically mean, "I dislike that." If he dislikes it, he will use the word "dislike". Most people hear him say, "I don't like that" and assume he is saying he dislikes it.
You will keep using the word "bigot" and we will keep doing proxy baptisms. I can live with that arrangement.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I would PREFER is you only baptize people by proxy who never had a chance at baptism.
Which IS the goal. It's just that not all of the historical records of those born since 1830 specifically state "did or did not ever come in contact with Mormons who shared their gospel". The blanket approach is for completeness sake, just so nobody's left out.
If a person has made it abundantly clear (like you Paul, John, Kayla, Rivka, etc) that they reject LDS Baptism here and now, then nobody who is informed of this decision SHOULD attempt to proxy baptise them.
Perhaps a 'Do Not Proxy Baptise' list would, perhaps, be an appeasement? However, for it to be truly effective, the names submitted would have to be submitted ONLY by the individual whose name is on the form. In other words, no individual or organization could fill out the form on behalf of anyone else. Heck, for this to be done properly, it would probably have to necessitate a physical visit to an LDS Bishop where official paperwork and records could be made.
How things should be able to be done in a perfect world isn't the point. What would be REASONABLE is. For those who don't think LDS have the right to say who can be baptised, it would be hypocritical of them to say they speak for people other than themselves to officially say who CANNOT be Baptised.
posted
Going back to the actual topic, Rabbit, you've already told me about the $1000, I told you I'm not interested and now you're bothering me with it after I'm dead.
What I prefer is that all posthumous baptisms stopped because no one asked for them. What I demand is that people who have decidedly not chosen to convert be left in peace.
Am I missing something or does a baptism not make one a Christian? I honestly don't know and have only been to one in my life.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't think the Jews in Europe back in 1933 would have had access to a "Do Not Proxy Baptize" list so I think the whole idea is really stupid. I would personally refuse to my name down on such a list and simultaneously condemn anyone who tried to posthumously baptize me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, by quite a few of your comments, it's obvious you haven't read much of the thread.
In most protestant Christian denominations, Baptism is not a requirement for getting into 'heaven'. That mainly belief in Christ alone and acceptance of the sacrifice made in that way is the road to heaven. Those who willfully choose not to, or are wicked, will end up in hell. There is often just the two choices, and no inbetween.
LDS believe that heaven is layered into different 'kingdoms', and that while almost everyone will attain some level of 'heaven', only those Baptised with by one with their authority to do so will be able to attain the Highest/Best Kingdom, which is where God Himself resides. The only ones doomed to what is generally thought of as 'hell' are those who had perfect knowledge of God (not faith - true 100% knowledge) and willfully chose to rebel against it.
The Proxy Baptisms (done in LDS temples, and do not at all involve the physical dead body) are thought, by LDS, to be a way of giving those who never had the chance to hear their gospel or to accept Baptism in this life a chance of recieving it, so that they have a chance of attaining the Highest Kingdom.
Obviously, others in this thread have belief that while the LDS may believe themselves to be offering them a chance in good faith, that it could, acording to their own beliefs, actually damage their eternal souls and in some cases rip them away from their eternal rest.
posted
I'm sort of indifferent to the idea of a posthumous baptism, myself, as I don't see it really affecting anything if LDS are wrong, and I'd probably end up appreciating it if they (supplies!) end up being right.
But I have to say, it's somewhat disingenuous to equate a posthumous baptism, or even proselytizing, with spam. Spam is about $$$, from the guy that started the concept all the way down to the poor schmuck that has to call you during dinner to earn his paycheck. You are simply a means to an end.
The motive in posthumous baptism (and proselytizing) is ultimately altruistic. You may consider it misguided, annoying and arrogant, but the motive is pure. The practice wouldn't survive if it was inherently selfish. There's just too much out and out violent persecution for proselytizers (and too much stigma for posthumous baptizing) to have a selfish person allow themselves to be so put-upon.
If you can't see that, then you are letting your hatred of hassle put shades over your eyes.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
