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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please understand, I'm not saying being offended is wrong. I'm saying I don't understand (with the exception of Jews).
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
