I'm always surprised that he's still alive.
Don't think Mitt can do anything about this.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews
QuoteWiesel to Romney: Tell Mormons to stop baptizing dead Jews
Prominent Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has called on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to "speak to his own church" and ask them to stop performing posthumous proxy baptisms on Jews.
The demand, reported on the Huffington Post website, comes after members of the Mormon church, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), baptized the dead parents of famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, an act that provoked a storm of criticism and led to an apology from the church.
The site also reported that Wiesel's name, as well as those of his father and maternal grandfather, had been entered into a database for the deceased, sometimes an early part of the process leading toward posthumous baptism. The members involved apparently were unaware that the Nobel Peace Prize winner was still alive.
"I think it's scandalous. Not only objectionable, it's scandalous," Wiesel, 83, told the HuffPost.
Wiesel told the site that the situation has gotten so out of hand that the most prominent Mormon in the country should speak out about it.
Immediate condemnation
"I wonder if as a candidate for the presidency Mitt Romney is aware of what his church is doing. I hope that if he hears about this that he will speak up," Wiesel said.
The Wiesenthal case brought immediate condemnation from the Jewish community.
"We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples," Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Los Angeles-based Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement on the group's website. "Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon church."
LDS officials in Salt Lake City were quick to apologize Monday, telling the Salt Lake Tribune that the Utah-based faith "sincerely regret(s) that the actions of an individual member ... led to the inappropriate submission of these names," which were "clearly against the policy of the church."
"We consider this a serious breach of our protocol," spokesman Scott Trotter said in a statement, "and we have suspended indefinitely this person's ability to access our genealogy records."
Moral obligation
In the practice, known as "baptism for the dead," living people stand in for the deceased to offer that person a chance to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the afterlife, according to an account in the Tribune. Mormons believe it is their moral obligation to do the temple rituals, while those on the other side can choose whether to accept the action or not.
According to the HuffPost, negotiations between Mormon and Jewish leaders led to an agreement in 1995 for the church to stop the posthumous baptism of all Jews, except in the case of direct ancestors of Mormons, but some Mormons failed to adhere to the agreement. Wiesel was among a group of Jewish leaders who campaigned against the practice and prompted a 2010 pact by which the Mormon Church promised to at least prevent proxy baptism requests for Holocaust victims. Wiesel said that proxy baptisms have been performed on behalf of 650,000 Holocaust dead.
advertisement
The Huffington Post said it had reached out via email to the Romney campaign for comment. In an email accidentally sent to the reporter, spokeswoman Gail Gitcho suggested that the campaign ignore the request.
Good parts all redacted! :o
The way to get the Mormons to stop doing this is to have Congress threaten to take away the church's tax-exempt status. Suddenly, by amazing coincidence, there will be a revelation from God to the Prophet Thomas Monson that Mormons no longer need to conduct baptisms of the dead.
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
I agree, but for some reason a lot of people get really offended when the Mormons 'baptize' their ancestors. A branch of my family is Mormon so naturally lots of my ancestors were baptised but... I don't give a rat's ass. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
I could see how some Jewish people would object, it could be seen as a denial of their faith.
But the Jews believe that the Mormon religion is bullshit, so why do they care when someone performs a ritual they see as meaningless? :hmm:
P.S. I know we had a thread about this once before.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
I could see how some Jewish people would object, it could be seen as a denial of their faith.
Newsflash mongers: eveything about Christianity is a denial of their faith.
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:37:18 PM
I agree, but for some reason a lot of people get really offended when the Mormons 'baptize' their ancestors. A branch of my family is Mormon so naturally lots of my ancestors were baptised but... I don't give a rat's ass. :hmm:
Yeah, if your an atheist you don't care and if religious surely you believe that your relative's beliefs in life are what matters and what God will judge.
Romney just lost the Jew vote for the Republicans. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
I could see how some Jewish people would object, it could be seen as a denial of their faith.
Newsflash mongers: eveything about Christianity is a denial of their faith.
I thought Christianity was more like Judiasm gone in the "wrong" direction? In that many of the original Christians thought Jesus was a prophesied Jewish "savior", while most of the Jewish faith just thought "nah, not that dude"?
Some people get annoyed when the memory of their parents is co-opted by a dangerous cult.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
I could see how some Jewish people would object, it could be seen as a denial of their faith.
Newsflash mongers: eveything about Christianity is a denial of their faith.
Yes, but this is in a way an
active denial of their faith, modern Christians claim to be tolerant and for the most part have dropped the whole 'Jews killed Jesus' stuff, but in some ways this could be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history.
OK on the continuum from neutrality to what the Nazis it isn't very far along at all, but it's a bit nearer to the Saudis bulldozing all remaining archaeological evidence of Jewish settlements in the Arabian peninsula
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 14, 2012, 07:45:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:37:18 PM
I agree, but for some reason a lot of people get really offended when the Mormons 'baptize' their ancestors. A branch of my family is Mormon so naturally lots of my ancestors were baptised but... I don't give a rat's ass. :hmm:
Yeah, if your an atheist you don't care and if religious surely you believe that your relative's beliefs in life are what matters and what God will judge.
That only applies if you somehow think their cult baptisms have a real effect on you in the afterlife.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:53:05 PM
dropped the whole 'Jews killed Jesus' stuff, but in some ways this could be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history.
OK on the continuum from neutrality to what the Nazis it isn't very far along at all, but it's a bit nearer to the Saudis bulldozing all remaining archaeological evidence of Jewish settlements in the Arabian peninsula
:mellow:
In what ways could it be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:53:05 PM
dropped the whole 'Jews killed Jesus' stuff, but in some ways this could be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history.
OK on the continuum from neutrality to what the Nazis it isn't very far along at all, but it's a bit nearer to the Saudis bulldozing all remaining archaeological evidence of Jewish settlements in the Arabian peninsula
:mellow:
In what ways could it be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history?
The way I described.
edit:really the only valid answer to the question, it to ask our elderly nazi hunter what he feels about that view.
I'm just guessing having had large members of your extended family murdered because of their faith/ethnicity and places of worship, records, religious books and cemeteries destroyed, then this might be seen as a continuation of that process in some way.
So, the Mormon baptism of Mr. and Mrs. Weisel destroyed evidence of their Jewishness? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 14, 2012, 07:25:22 PM
Don't think Mitt can do anything about this.
Apart from having been a Bishop in an organisation that does stuff like that and not resigning there isn't much he can do about that. But he can do something about this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
QuoteMore questions are being raised about presidential candidate Mitt Romney's religion after it was revealed that he helped baptise his adamantly atheist father-in-law years after the man had died.
Edward Roderick Davies was Ann Romney's father and died in 1992 after living as a staunch atheist all his life.
Recently-discovered records show that, in keeping with their controversial tradition of posthumously baptising non-Mormons, a ceremony was held to invite Mr Davies into the Church of Latter Day Saints one year after he died.
The practice of performing baptisms for the dead has drawn criticism after the Mormon church began doing so for well-known Catholics- including former popes- and Jews- including Holocaust survivors.
According to the religion's official website, the baptisms are seen as a way to offer those souls an option of joining the Church even once they have died. A key point is that it is seen as an option- as the souls are believed to have the ability to either accept or reject the baptism.
Mitt's wife Ann converted to Mormonism when she was 17 years old, shortly after she had started dating her husband-to-be.
Because Mitt was in France doing his missionary work at the time, his father George Romney helped usher Ann into the religion and arranged for missionaries to teach her about the faith.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F01%2F28%2Farticle-2093241-1180AED5000005DC-701_306x423.jpg&hash=bcdae5aabdd4ea9eb95003eb6f6a250ff6f10ae4)
Edward Davies, shown here in his youth, was a staunch atheist and believed organized religions to be 'hogwash'
Shortly after Ann converted, her two brothers followed suit and converted as well.
Mr Davies died in 1992 and his wife died a year later. When she was on her deathbed, however, she asked her sons to help her convert to Mormonism, and she was baptised just before she died.
Unlike his wife, Mr Davies had no such last-minute requests for religious salvation.
He remained true to his convictions and considered organized religion 'drudgery' and 'hogwash'.
Ann's brother Roderick is quoted as saying that their father 'considered people who were religious to be weak in the knees'.
His well-known distaste for religion didn't stop members of his family from baptising him by proxy a year after he died, however.
The proxy baptisms are typically done with a member of the dead subject's family standing in for them at the ceremony and going through the actions on the deceased person's behalf.
Because all three of Mr Davies' children had been long-time members of the religion at that point, any of them could have been the proxy.
Little else is known about the specifics of the 'special family meeting' which resulted in Mr Davies' baptism, except that it took place in the famed Salt Lake Temple in Utah on September 13, 1993. Whether or not Mitt Romney was present is unknown, but it seems likely that his wife Ann certainly was.
The Romney family's pride in converting members of the Davies family to their religion is well-documented.
When Mitt was disheartened after having a difficult time converting the French to Mormonism while he was doing his missionary work, his father George wrote him a letter saying that their work with the Davies family was more important anyhow.
'I was thrilled to stand in for you in connection with (Ann's brother) Jim's baptism,' the elder Mr Romney wrote on March 6, 1967.
'This makes two converts here that are certainly yours so don't worry about your difficulty in converting those Frenchmen!
'I am sure you can appreciate that Ann and Jim are each worth a dozen of them, at least to us.'
So, yes, If you think it is ok to baptize dead atheists into mormonism I don't think you object to baptizing dead joos into mormonism.
I'm with Yi here. Also I thought Wiesel was dead.
Personally, I'm cool with members of any and every faith letting me into their heaven.
I think they should stop because it is stupid.
I can see how it's pretty offensive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
I can see how it's pretty offensive.
I think it is a lot less offensive than the default of damning nonbelievers to hell.
Which is more offensive...this or marines posing in front of SS banners? :hmm: Let's ask Berkut.
I don't see what the big deal is. It seems like Mormons are giving people a second chance in case they got the whole religion thing wrong during their lives.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:53:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:41:25 PM
I could see how some Jewish people would object, it could be seen as a denial of their faith.
Newsflash mongers: eveything about Christianity is a denial of their faith.
Yes, but this is in a way an active denial of their faith, modern Christians claim to be tolerant and for the most part have dropped the whole 'Jews killed Jesus' stuff, but in some ways this could be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history.
OK on the continuum from neutrality to what the Nazis it isn't very far along at all, but it's a bit nearer to the Saudis bulldozing all remaining archaeological evidence of Jewish settlements in the Arabian peninsula
They aren't Christians.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:26:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
I can see how it's pretty offensive.
I think it is a lot less offensive than the default of damning nonbelievers to hell.
Yeah but that doesn't exist in Mormonism. I think the Jewish view would be that they weren't damned to hell and died for their Jewishness only for that to be kind of desecrated after the event. It's the spiritual equivalent of exhuming your nan from a Jewish cemetery.
Also Mormon's don't have hell, they've got Perdition but I think there are 6 people in there - like Judas. They've a very attractively wide and liberal idea of redemption. Their afterlife is a multi-tiered heaven. The lowest level was so glorious that Joseph Smith said if people saw it they'd kill themselves to get there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 10:41:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:26:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
I can see how it's pretty offensive.
I think it is a lot less offensive than the default of damning nonbelievers to hell.
Yeah but that doesn't exist in Mormonism. I think the Jewish view would be that they weren't damned to hell and died for their Jewishness only for that to be kind of desecrated after the event. It's the spiritual equivalent of exhuming your nan from a Jewish cemetery.
Also Mormon's don't have hell, they've got Perdition but I think there are 6 people in there - like Judas. They've a very attractively wide and liberal idea of redemption. Their afterlife is a multi-tiered heaven. The lowest level was so glorious that Joseph Smith said if people saw it they'd kill themselves to get there.
Then they are grabbing everyone up to heaven anyway. Not something to actively care about let alone get vocally offended unless one wants to score political points.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:58:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2012, 07:53:05 PM
dropped the whole 'Jews killed Jesus' stuff, but in some ways this could be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history.
OK on the continuum from neutrality to what the Nazis it isn't very far along at all, but it's a bit nearer to the Saudis bulldozing all remaining archaeological evidence of Jewish settlements in the Arabian peninsula
:mellow:
In what ways could it be seen as actively rewriting the Jewish faith out of history?
The way I described.
edit:
really the only valid answer to the question, it to ask our elderly nazi hunter what he feels about that view.
I'm just guessing having had large members of your extended family murdered because of their faith/ethnicity and places of worship, records, religious books and cemeteries destroyed, then this might be seen as a continuation of that process in some way.
Perhaps in an emotional way but certainly not from a rational point of view. Sure you might not like a group of people telling you that you had it wrong all along - but to equate people who are still taking steps to secure your "eternal salvation" as equivalent to Nazis who wanted to wipe out your existence? :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:47:32 PM
Then they are grabbing everyone up to heaven anyway. Not something to actively care about let alone get vocally offended unless one wants to score political points.
I don't think that's Elie Wiesel's point, or the Rabbi quoted in the article, or the Jewish groups who have previously asked the Mormons to stop doing this.
My Mormon relatives have probably done this to most of my family, which doesn't bother me - in part because I don't really care about many of my ancestors. On the other hand if they were to do it to someone who I knew was deeply religious, or who had been attacked for their faith, or, for example, my gay uncle I think I'd feel differently.
QuotePerhaps in an emotional way but certainly not from a rational point of view.
Religion's about faith and identity. It's emotional to the core. And I can very easily see how this could cause offence to religious people. Especially Jewish leaders and especially those, like Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust.
QuoteSure you might not like a group of people telling you that you had it wrong all along - but to equate people who are still taking steps to secure your "eternal salvation" as equivalent to Nazis who wanted to wipe out your existence?
Well the Mormons don't need to do it for eternal salvation. But I can see where DWM's coming from. This is posthumous forced conversion.
Elie Wiesel not political?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:06:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 10:47:32 PM
Then they are grabbing everyone up to heaven anyway. Not something to actively care about let alone get vocally offended unless one wants to score political points.
I don't think that's Elie Wiesel's point, or the Rabbi quoted in the article, or the Jewish groups who have previously asked the Mormons to stop doing this.
My Mormon relatives have probably done this to most of my family, which doesn't bother me - in part because I don't really care about many of my ancestors. On the other hand if they were to do it to someone who I knew was deeply religious, or who had been attacked for their faith, or, for example, my gay uncle I think I'd feel differently.
QuotePerhaps in an emotional way but certainly not from a rational point of view.
Religion's about faith and identity. It's emotional to the core. And I can very easily see how this could cause offence to religious people. Especially Jewish leaders and especially those, like Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust.
QuoteSure you might not like a group of people telling you that you had it wrong all along - but to equate people who are still taking steps to secure your "eternal salvation" as equivalent to Nazis who wanted to wipe out your existence?
Well the Mormons don't need to do it for eternal salvation. But I can see where DWM's coming from. This is posthumous forced conversion.
I don't really see how the Holocaust is applicable here. I completely understand the vigilance and never forget attitude as essential to preventing another such tragedy on such a scale...but the actions of Mormons hardly seem to rise to the same level. Hell for most people they are a wacky religion no one pays much attention to unless they start trying to have multiple wives and forcing children to have babies.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:11:32 PM
Elie Wiesel not political?
You can be political and not about scoring political points.
Anyway this came up because it turned out that someone in the Mormon church had done a proxy baptism on Simon Wiesenthal's parents and on Elie Wiesel's.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:11:32 PM
Elie Wiesel not political?
To add to this. How is it not political to make such a statement and bring in the name of a current Republican hopeful? :yeahright:
How is that anything but an attempt to sway hearts and minds on the election?
I don't get the offense.
You think Mormonism is a BS religion hence a Mormon baptism does nothing. Especially when it doesn't even involve the person in question.
Let's say an atheist/jew/spaghettimonsterist gets posthumously baptized . . . if in a hundred or two hundred years people look up said person for genealogy reasons, what's the chance of them being (wrongly) identified as Mormons?
Actually, don't many genealogists refer to Mormon records, because they have rather thorough scorekeeping for their mumbo-jumbo?
When my oldest sister was in her Mormon phase over in the States, she wanted to let our dad father be poshumously baptized, but my mom was absolutely against it, because she wanted no association with "those nutters".
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:20:25 PM
I don't really see how the Holocaust is applicable here. I completely understand the vigilance and never forget attitude as essential to preventing another such tragedy on such a scale...but the actions of Mormons hardly seem to rise to the same level. Hell for most people they are a wacky religion no one pays much attention to unless they start trying to have multiple wives and forcing children to have babies.
Well that's why I'd link it more to forced conversion of the Jews.
The way I see it is that if you're a believer you're ending someone's Jewishness and converting them to the faith after they've died - so what the Mormons are doing, on their terms, is I think objectionable. From a Jewish perspective of non-believers I think it's more that these were people who were attacked and killed for their religious identity, for someone to then be saying they're changing that after they've died is just very offensive. As I say it's like exhuming a body from the Jewish cemetery and giving it a Christian burial.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
To add to this. How is it not political to make such a statement and bring in the name of a current Republican hopeful? :yeahright:
How is that anything but an attempt to sway hearts and minds on the election?
QuoteRomney "is now the most famous and important Mormon in the country," Wiesel said. "I'm not saying it's his fault, but once he knows, morally he must respond. . . . He should come out and say, 'Stop it.' "
I think that's a fair point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:26:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
To add to this. How is it not political to make such a statement and bring in the name of a current Republican hopeful? :yeahright:
How is that anything but an attempt to sway hearts and minds on the election?
QuoteRomney "is now the most famous and important Mormon in the country," Wiesel said. "I'm not saying it's his fault, but once he knows, morally he must respond. . . . He should come out and say, 'Stop it.' "
I think that's a fair point.
In general? Maybe. In an election cycle? Shady at best.
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:43:00 PM
But the Jews believe that the Mormon religion is bullshit, so why do they care when someone performs a ritual they see as meaningless? :hmm:
It is idolatry which they take really freaking seriously. They do not view it as meaningless if you read your OT ;)
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:34:58 PM
In general? Maybe. In an election cycle? Shady at best.
Okay. But in that case I'd ask more about the person checking the database than Wiesel for his response after finding out that his and Wiesenthal's parents have been baptised.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:25:01 PM
Well that's why I'd link it more to forced conversion of the Jews.
The way I see it is that if you're a believer you're ending someone's Jewishness and converting them to the faith after they've died - so what the Mormons are doing, on their terms, is I think objectionable. From a Jewish perspective of non-believers I think it's more that these were people who were attacked and killed for their religious identity, for someone to then be saying they're changing that after they've died is just very offensive.
Except that the Jews and pretty much everyone else in the world but Mormons don't buy into that - so why raise the fuss? Besides most religions are offensive to other religions as at their core they deny the truth of other faiths. That's Religion 101.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:25:01 PM
As I say it's like exhuming a body from the Jewish cemetery and giving it a Christian burial.
It isn't all like that. There's no desecration occurring here. The Mormons are just including in their ranks people who would reject that label.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2012, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:43:00 PM
But the Jews believe that the Mormon religion is bullshit, so why do they care when someone performs a ritual they see as meaningless? :hmm:
It is idolatry which they take really freaking seriously. They do not view it as meaningless if you read your OT ;)
Don't they only care if Jews do it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:37:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:34:58 PM
In general? Maybe. In an election cycle? Shady at best.
Okay. But in that case I'd ask more about the person checking the database than Wiesel for his response after finding out that his and Wiesenthal's parents have been baptised.
Same story for both, no? After all, this is the sort of stuff that people research during campaigns. No need to give such political minded efforts legitimacy by espousing their cause.
Yeah, its not like exhuming someone. By the Mormons writing in their little database that so and so is now a mormon it doesn't change that in official records, the records of the religion they actually believe in, for all anybody they care about is concerned, they remain untouched as what they were.
Its not like me coming along and chopping off your arm and saying "Ha! Now you're an amputee!" its me writing down somewhere that you are one...it doesn't change that you're not one bit.
If a Mormon called on Jewish leaders to change their religious practices because they offended Mormon sensibilities, I'd think most people here would take the position that the Mormon should shut the fuck up and let the Jews practices their faith as they see fit. I see no reason to not think that the reverse should't apply as well.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:38:05 PM
Except that the Jews and pretty much everyone else in the world but Mormons don't buy into that - so why raise the fuss? Besides most religions are offensive to other religions as at their core they deny the truth of other faiths. That's Religion 101.
Lots of religious groups have asked the Mormons to stop this, including the Catholic Church, and they had an agreement with Jewish leaders not to do it except in the case of direct ancestors. They've all asked the Mormons to do it precisely because even though they don't believe the Mormon view, they still find it offensive.
QuoteIt isn't all like that. There's no desecration occurring here. The Mormons are just including in their ranks people who would reject that label.
It's the spiritual equivalent. One's desecrating a shell of a corpse after all. Depending on your perspective the proxy baptism's desecrating someone's memory, or spirit, or soul.
QuoteSame story for both, no? After all, this is the sort of stuff that people research during campaigns. No need to give such political minded efforts legitimacy by espousing their cause.
No. Assuming this was politically motivated she's looking for famous controversial dead people the Mormons have posthumously baptised. Wiesel's responding to being told this has happened to his parents. There's a world of difference.
I'd be happy if someone remembered me after I was dead.
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2012, 11:43:36 PM
If a Mormon called on Jewish leaders to change their religious practices because they offended Mormon sensibilities, I'd think most people here would take the position that the Mormon should shut the fuck up and let the Jews practices their faith as they see fit. I see no reason to not think that the reverse should't apply as well.
But I can't think of a comparison. Most religious practices happen among and between the faithful. I like the agreement reached that this is okay if the Mormons are doing it to their immediate ancestors. But trawling the history of Judaism (or any other faith for that matter) for prominent posthumous converts that have no connection to the Mormon church is far more distasteful.
If the Jews practiced, I don't know, posthumous bar mitzvah's I think it'd be as offensive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2012, 11:43:36 PM
If a Mormon called on Jewish leaders to change their religious practices because they offended Mormon sensibilities, I'd think most people here would take the position that the Mormon should shut the fuck up and let the Jews practices their faith as they see fit. I see no reason to not think that the reverse should't apply as well.
But I can't think of a comparison. Most religious practices happen among and between the faithful. I like the agreement reached that this is okay if the Mormons are doing it to their immediate ancestors. But trawling the history of Judaism (or any other faith for that matter) for prominent posthumous converts that have no connection to the Mormon church is far more distasteful.
If the Jews practiced, I don't know, posthumous bar mitzvah's I think it'd be as offensive.
Sure, I see why Jews would be offended by this, but then Jews and Moslems should be offended that I eat pork, but too fucking bad.
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2012, 11:59:15 PM
Sure, I see why Jews would be offended by this, but then Jews and Moslems should be offended that I eat pork, but too fucking bad.
Of course not. But you're doing that to yourself. If you decided to wrap a Jewish corpse in bacon then, yeah, I think they'd have a right to be offended and ask you to stop even if you thought it was an essential religious right.
As I say though I'm not certain what purpose this serves within Mormon theology because it isn't necessary for eternal salvation. I think the family angle is that because of the multi-tiered heaven your ancestors will be at a lower level than you. Why you'd then also want to promote Wiesenthal's parents is beyond me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
No kidding. I have no problem with my religious relatives praying for me. If a stranger wants to baptize me when I'm dead, awesome. Hell, if I'm right, it doesn't matter (and if the Jews are right, then I doubt YHWH is going to be pissed at the Jewsoul baptized against his will); if I'm wrong (or they are) maybe it makes me look better to Elohim and his billion wives, and I think we'll both need all the help we can get with Space God.
It sounds like the equivalent of someone like Viking getting his panties in knot because some goof said, "America is a Christian nation".
incidentally, doesn't Catholicism have something similar with the concept of the Harrowing of Hell, and Christ saving the Patriarchs? I mean, they are theoretically the ancestors of the Jews.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
They died because they were Jews, and baptizing them or memory as Mormons is offensive.
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:37:18 PM
I agree, but for some reason a lot of people get really offended when the Mormons 'baptize' their ancestors. A branch of my family is Mormon so naturally lots of my ancestors were baptised but... I don't give a rat's ass. :hmm:
Some people do. That's the issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:37:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:34:58 PM
In general? Maybe. In an election cycle? Shady at best.
Okay. But in that case I'd ask more about the person checking the database than Wiesel for his response after finding out that his and Wiesenthal's parents have been baptised.
I'm interested in knowing why the Mormons are continuing to do it when they were ordered in 1995 in an out-of-court settlement to knock this shit off with Holocaust victims.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2012, 11:20:25 PM
I don't really see how the Holocaust is applicable here. I completely understand the vigilance and never forget attitude as essential to preventing another such tragedy on such a scale...but the actions of Mormons hardly seem to rise to the same level. Hell for most people they are a wacky religion no one pays much attention to unless they start trying to have multiple wives and forcing children to have babies.
Unfortunately, that "whacky religion" happens to be running the most expensive, comprehensive and complex geneological project in history, costing them unknown millions of dollars a year. Their records facilities are in Utah mountains, with EMP shielding that would make the Pentagon blush. This isn't some family tree project; this is designed to last for centuries.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2012, 11:25:01 PM
The way I see it is that if you're a believer you're ending someone's Jewishness and converting them to the faith after they've died - so what the Mormons are doing, on their terms, is I think objectionable. From a Jewish perspective of non-believers I think it's more that these were people who were attacked and killed for their religious identity, for someone to then be saying they're changing that after they've died is just very offensive. As I say it's like exhuming a body from the Jewish cemetery and giving it a Christian burial.
It's no different than the forced baptisms of Jews during the various phases of the Inquisition. It's another form of forced conversion; it just happens to be a posthumous one.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 03:23:31 AM
incidentally, doesn't Catholicism have something similar with the concept of the Harrowing of Hell, and Christ saving the Patriarchs? I mean, they are theoretically the ancestors of the Jews.
Well that's rather different. There you've a dogma that Christ died and in the three days before the resurrection he descended into hell and brought the Patriarchs up to heaven. That is, fundamentally, a story.
Baptism by proxy involves looking for actual people rather than simply distant religious figures and then someone becoming them for a religious ceremony during which they're baptised.
The harrowing of hell is a dogma, like the story of the good thief. Posthumous baptism's a religious practice that often affects people with living descendants who know about it, so it's more akin to, as the name suggests, baptism or confirmation.
I don't think I, or anyone else would mind if the Mormons just had a story that God trawls the lower heavens to look for non-Mormons who'll get promoted.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to get kicked out of Heaven because some asshole retroactively converted me to Mormonism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 03:41:29 AM
It's no different than the forced baptisms of Jews during the various phases of the Inquisition.
Well, other than the part where they have to actually go through the ceremony, and then are persecuted if they stick to their true religion.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2012, 05:30:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 03:41:29 AM
It's no different than the forced baptisms of Jews during the various phases of the Inquisition.
Well, other than the part where they have to actually go through the ceremony, and then are persecuted if they stick to their true religion.
And the torture, and the being turned over to the Spanish crown for execution for treason. Otherwise, yeah, exactly the same. So, except for the actual harm done to people, and forcing them to act against their beliefs, this is the Inquition all over again.
Behind closed doors, Romney himself is no doubt using hot pokers to extract confessions of heresy from dead Jews.
Quote from: Caliga on February 14, 2012, 07:29:45 PM
The way to get the Mormons to stop doing this is to have Congress threaten to take away the church's tax-exempt status. Suddenly, by amazing coincidence, there will be a revelation from God to the Prophet Thomas Monson that Mormons no longer need to conduct baptisms of the dead.
Interesting. I wonder if the Pope would have the same revelation about ritual cannibalism if the Congress decided to take away the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status?
Of course, either measure would require amending the Constitution to provide Congress the power to define religion, but that couldn't be that hard, could it?
Very, very weak troll. You can do better. I've seen you do better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:53:32 AM
Well that's rather different. There you've a dogma that Christ died and in the three days before the resurrection he descended into hell and brought the Patriarchs up to heaven. That is, fundamentally, a story.
Baptism by proxy involves looking for actual people rather than simply distant religious figures and then someone becoming them for a religious ceremony during which they're baptised.
The harrowing of hell is a dogma, like the story of the good thief. Posthumous baptism's a religious practice that often affects people with living descendants who know about it, so it's more akin to, as the name suggests, baptism or confirmation.
I don't think I, or anyone else would mind if the Mormons just had a story that God trawls the lower heavens to look for non-Mormons who'll get promoted.
I think you are splitting theological hairs. The fact of the matter is that no one is actually harmed by this wacky bit of religious activity, and, in fact, if people like Wiesel didn't publicize the practice, few would even know about it, just as few probably know about all of the "pagans" supposedly force-converted by Jesus.
To me, what the Mormons are doing is the equivalent of the Catholics saying prayers for the dead. There is no harm intended, but they don't ask the descendents if they'd like those prayers said.
This seems to me by far less offensive than several religions claiming Im going to hell because I like dudes.
The only problem I can see with this is potential defamation if Mormons now went on to claim these people are Mormons.
And religions all the time claim what happens to people who are nonbelievers after they die. Hell, catholicisms has the entire special level of hell for virtuous non-believers. And until recently the holy mass lithurgy included a prayer for Jews to convert.
So Sheilbh and CdM, both raised catholic, of all people protesting this is fucking hilarious.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 07:08:14 AM
Interesting. I wonder if the Pope would have the same revelation about ritual cannibalism if the Congress decided to take away the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status?
Of course, either measure would require amending the Constitution to provide Congress the power to define religion, but that couldn't be that hard, could it?
I was making a refefence to Mormon history here. :) At one point the Mormons refused to allow black men to be priests or bishops or something. Congress threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status on the basis of racial discrimination, and suddenly the Prophet of the LDS Church at the time had a revelation from God that black men should be allowed to have those leadership positions. This was in the late 1970s IIRC.
Quote from: Caliga on February 15, 2012, 07:39:55 AM
I was making a refefence to Mormon history here. :) At one point the Mormons refused to allow black men to be priests or bishops or something. Congress threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status on the basis of racial discrimination, and suddenly the Prophet of the LDS Church at the time had a revelation from God that black men should be allowed to have those leadership positions. This was in the late 1970s IIRC.
Is that the currently popular myth? I hadn't heard that one. Was this mythical Congressional threat actually supposed to have been issued in 1978, or was it supposedly issued earlier and the Mormons just responded in 1978?
I suppose Congress could have issued a threat and it never made the news, but I'd have to see a serious source before I believed that one. Passing laws aimed at punishing specific people or organizations isn't Constitutional, either.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 07:38:09 AM
And religions all the time claim what happens to people who are nonbelievers after they die. Hell, catholicisms has the entire special level of hell for virtuous non-believers. And until recently the holy mass lithurgy included a prayer for Jews to convert.
So Sheilbh and CdM, both raised catholic, of all people protesting this is fucking hilarious.
Eat shit and die, you fucking ass cocknibbling faggot nigger.
At least Yi and garbon and the rest's dismissive attitude on this issue is simply because they're inconsiderate assholes, but don't take out your fucked up adolescence on us because you were swallowing man milk in Catholic communist 14th century Poland, you antisemitic filth.
:face:
Do the posthumous conversions actually hurt anyone in a direct sense? No, they do not. But it is an act rife with symbolism and meaning, and such acts matter. I can see why Wiesel and others would find it offensive.
Firstly, it evokes memories of the historical forced conversions of Jews, and the suggestion that their religious beliefs are wrong, and needed to be corrected (and that bring up a whole host of historical baggage of discrimination right there). Secondly, these were people who were murdered for being Jewish (ironically in a society where religious conversion was not enough to save you), and thus it's a rather large slap on the face. Thirdly, it runs counter to the principles of pluralism and religious freedom of our society - the right to respect others beliefs, and not to force them into something they cannot consent too. And while any of these points may not have any effect on the dead, they certainly do on their descendants.
Are there more offensive things to do than forced conversions of dead Jews? Yup. But it seems reasonable to me that Wiesel is calling them (and Romney, perhaps their most notable and newsworthy member right now) out on it.
When Ed and grumbler die, I'm going to swap out their names in the Ohio State and Michigan Alumni Association directories respectively. After all, they'll be dead and it's no big deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 08:28:25 AM
When Ed and grumbler die, I'm going to swap out their names in the Ohio State and Michigan Alumni Association directories respectively. After all, they'll be dead and it's no big deal.
HEY.
That would be funnier if I was an Alumni.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 15, 2012, 08:16:05 AM
Do the posthumous conversions actually hurt anyone in a direct sense? No, they do not. But it is an act rife with symbolism and meaning, and such acts matter. I can see why Wiesel and others would find it offensive.
Firstly, it evokes memories of the historical forced conversions of Jews, and the suggestion that their religious beliefs are wrong, and needed to be corrected (and that bring up a whole host of historical baggage of discrimination right there). Secondly, these were people who were murdered for being Jewish (ironically in a society where religious conversion was not enough to save you), and thus it's a rather large slap on the face. Thirdly, it runs counter to the principles of pluralism and religious freedom of our society - the right to respect others beliefs, and not to force them into something they cannot consent too. And while any of these points may not have any effect on the dead, they certainly do on their descendants.
Are there more offensive things to do than forced conversions of dead Jews? Yup. But it seems reasonable to me that Wiesel is calling them (and Romney, perhaps their most notable and newsworthy member right now) out on it.
I don't believe the LDS claims that their actions have any effect whatever on the descendents of these Jews. Sure, if these people decide to get offended, then they will be offended, but that is a result of their own decision, not the intent of the LDS. I don't think the LDS intends to offend, and I don't think a reasonable person would agree that their actions actually create any offense or harm for the descendents of people posthumously baptized into the LDS. The Catholic Church has its Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, and the Anglican Church even adds (or added; maybe they've dropped) Turks to the list of those prayed for!
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 08:28:25 AM
When Ed and grumbler die, I'm going to swap out their names in the Ohio State and Michigan Alumni Association directories respectively. After all, they'll be dead and it's no big deal.
HEY.
That would be funnier if I was an Alumni.
An alumnus would know that the singular of "alumni" isn't alumni."
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 08:28:25 AM
When Ed and grumbler die, I'm going to swap out their names in the Ohio State and Michigan Alumni Association directories respectively. After all, they'll be dead and it's no big deal.
HEY.
That would be funnier if I was an Alumni.
An alumnus would know that the singular of "alumni" isn't alumni."
I'm my own special category.
The main arguments advanced by the "offensive" camp--it's offensive because Elie was offended, and it's offensive because it reminds Jews of the Holocaust and forced conversions--are darn good arguments and I'm close to being convinced. Monger's argument that it will rewrite history is also darn good, just not as darn good as these two.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 08:41:01 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 15, 2012, 08:16:05 AM
Do the posthumous conversions actually hurt anyone in a direct sense? No, they do not. But it is an act rife with symbolism and meaning, and such acts matter. I can see why Wiesel and others would find it offensive.
Firstly, it evokes memories of the historical forced conversions of Jews, and the suggestion that their religious beliefs are wrong, and needed to be corrected (and that bring up a whole host of historical baggage of discrimination right there). Secondly, these were people who were murdered for being Jewish (ironically in a society where religious conversion was not enough to save you), and thus it's a rather large slap on the face. Thirdly, it runs counter to the principles of pluralism and religious freedom of our society - the right to respect others beliefs, and not to force them into something they cannot consent too. And while any of these points may not have any effect on the dead, they certainly do on their descendants.
Are there more offensive things to do than forced conversions of dead Jews? Yup. But it seems reasonable to me that Wiesel is calling them (and Romney, perhaps their most notable and newsworthy member right now) out on it.
I don't believe the LDS claims that their actions have any effect whatever on the descendents of these Jews. Sure, if these people decide to get offended, then they will be offended, but that is a result of their own decision, not the intent of the LDS. I don't think the LDS intends to offend, and I don't think a reasonable person would agree that their actions actually create any offense or harm for the descendents of people posthumously baptized into the LDS. The Catholic Church has its Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, and the Anglican Church even adds (or added; maybe they've dropped) Turks to the list of those prayed for!
This.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
Agreed. Never got the outrage over this. If the Mormons want to do virtual posthumous baptism of my grandparents, let em knock themselves out. This doesn't even reach the level of prayers before high school football games.
I suppose should we leave this up to Berkut on whether or not it's something worth worrying about.
I kind of dig Elie Wiesel's doggedness though. I could see him refusing to die just to show up those Mormons.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 10:06:31 AM
I kind of dig Elie Wiesel's doggedness though. I could see him refusing to die just to show up those Mormons.
:D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 10:06:31 AM
I kind of dig Elie Wiesel's doggedness though. I could see him refusing to die just to show up those Mormons.
I keep thinking Eli Wallach when I see Elie Wiesel written.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nndb.com%2Fpeople%2F735%2F000022669%2Fwallach.jpg&hash=cd53c268c34ed72c07a7ef7e75622a615a43e73d)
I can definitely see Tuco refusing to die out of spite! :lol:
Fitting, because Eli Wallach is still alive, well into his 90s and still actively working in show business.
I think he is waiting for Clint to go first (Van Cleef IIRC is long gone).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 09:42:02 AM
The main arguments advanced by the "offensive" camp--it's offensive because Elie was offended, and it's offensive because it reminds Jews of the Holocaust and forced conversions--are darn good arguments and I'm close to being convinced. Monger's argument that it will rewrite history is also darn good, just not as darn good as these two.
One is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith. That is the choice of faith.
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
It's even more abhorrent that they're doing it with Holocaust victims; those Jews were murdered during the Holocaust specifically because they were Jews: that's just not a deligitimization of a person's Jewry, it's a deligitimization of the Holocaust itself. They agreed to not do it in 1995, and they're still fucking doing it.
And yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
My paternal grandmother was a devout Catholic, and my grandfather spent many, many years involved with the Knights of Columbus; I attended both their Catholic funerals, which were celebrations of their lives embracing their Catholic faith, and I know they'd be incredibly pissed if they were baptized into the Mormon faith post-mortem for some bullshit plan to retroactively baptize every person that ever lived. It's not just a Jew thing; it affects everybody the Mormons are co-opting in death. Even the Sioux. Dances With Wolves is now christened Mitt With Wolves!
And for the rest of you atheist/agnostic fuckwits and antisemitic homo-fuckers with hang-ups that condescendingly look down your noses on those wishing to follow their faith, and to be remembered as a member of that faith, go fuck yourselves and your over-educated, cynical, secular-sanctimony.
You may not have a problem with your own shit being connected to the Mormons after you're dead, but don't give Jews and others shit about it. Your cynicism does not void their validity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
It's even more abhorrent that they're doing it with Holocaust victims; those Jews were murdered during the Holocaust specifically because they were Jews: that's just not a deligitimization of a person's Jewry, it's a deligitimization of the Holocaust itself. They agreed to not do it in 1995, and they're still fucking doing it.
Only to the extent that you allow it to be. What some people do in their personal chronologies doesn't matter me much. Just like I don't care much when Michael Moore makes blockbuster movies with outright lies that are sold as documentaries. And that's probably even more damaging than this - as the damage of this is only to the extent that one allows oneself to consider it damaging.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AMAnd yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
Why would he care? He'll be dead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
And for the rest of you atheist/agnostic fuckwits and antisemitic homo-fuckers with hang-ups that condescendingly look down your noses on those wishing to follow their faith, and to be remembered as a member of that faith, go fuck yourselves and your over-educated, cynical, secular-sanctimony.
You may not have a problem with your own shit being connected to the Mormons after you're dead, but don't give Jews and others shit about it. Your cynicism does not void their validity.
I don't think it has anything to do with that as I'm certainly not telling people how they can feel. Just that I'm skeptical of this suddenly rising up as an issue again while targeting a Presidential candidate...and then just expressing my general feeling that it isn't at all like the desecration of a grave.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
It's the delegitimization of an individual.
The Wiesels are no longer legitimate Jews?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
And for the rest of you atheist/agnostic fuckwits and antisemitic homo-fuckers with hang-ups that condescendingly look down your noses on those wishing to follow their faith, and to be remembered as a member of that faith, go fuck yourselves and your over-educated, cynical, secular-sanctimony.
When we all die eventually, atheists are going to have the last laugh from heaven at all you religious folks.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2012, 10:50:27 AMWhen we all die eventually, atheists are going to have the last laugh from heaven at all you religious folks.
I'm not particularly religious, but I do find that religious tolerance is going out of style, which is a shame.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2012, 03:19:22 AM
It sounds like the equivalent of someone like Viking getting his panties in knot because some goof said, "America is a Christian nation".
Quote from: Treaty of TripoliArt. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
It is an insult for the simple reason that this is a deliberate violation the most fundamental values of the individual being baptized and is intended as such by those performing the ritual. The person being baptized was not a mormon in life so this is a violation of the deceased's personal values during his lifetime and, for those people who belive crap like that, it matters to them.
The only thing the dead have is their reputation, actions like this attempt to sully that reputation and show a monstrous disregard for the dead.
Yeah, like I said you, have some asshole bitching.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2012, 10:53:46 AM
It is an insult for the simple reason that this is a deliberate violation the most fundamental values of the individual being baptized and is intended as such by those performing the ritual. The person being baptized was not a mormon in life so this is a violation of the deceased's personal values during his lifetime and, for those people who belive crap like that, it matters to them.
The only thing the dead have is their reputation, actions like this attempt to sully that reputation and show a monstrous disregard for the dead.
Violation of fundamental values? This is just PC-babble Puffin. Not like you at all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 10:00:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
You really think it's a big deal? Sounds like nothing to me. It's not like they're digging up Elie's parents and sloshing water on their skeletons is it? What's the harm if a bunch of white guys in long johns proclaim this or that Jew baptized?
Agreed. Never got the outrage over this. If the Mormons want to do virtual posthumous baptism of my grandparents, let em knock themselves out. This doesn't even reach the level of prayers before high school football games.
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2012, 10:53:46 AM
It is an insult for the simple reason that this is a deliberate violation the most fundamental values of the individual being baptized and is intended as such by those performing the ritual. The person being baptized was not a mormon in life so this is a violation of the deceased's personal values during his lifetime and, for those people who belive crap like that, it matters to them.
I don't understand how you insult dead people by giving their "spirits" the chance at eternal... whatever benefit Mormons get.
Mormons don't think that including dead people on the IGI makes them Mormons. It just makes it possible for the dead to become Mormons if they wish.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 11:20:15 AM
Mormons don't think that including dead people on the IGI makes them Mormons. It just makes it possible for the dead to become Mormons if they wish.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2012, 10:53:46 AM
The only thing the dead have is their reputation, actions like this attempt to sully that reputation and show a monstrous disregard for the dead.
Fred Phelps and his clown factory show monstrous disregard for the dead and sully their reputation. This isn't quite the same.
Perspective, people, perspective.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
No question it is boorish and tactless. But no more so than ordinary proselytization, which just about every religion does.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
Actually, Marti, it is nothing like telling off-color jokes. The LDS church has stated (since 1995) that no member can baptize anyone not related to them by blood. Church officials don't know who exactly is related to whom in their congregations, so they cannot prevent the
alleged posthumous baptism of people not related to existing members, but it isn't like they were
deliberately telling off-color jokes. It is more like someone used the word "niggardly" to describe a budget allocation, being told it is racially offensive, agreeing not to use it, and having someone in their employ use the word "coward" and thus upset the beef industry.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
In the same way that forbidding Muslim honor killings or teaching evolution in a class with fundies is obnoxious.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
And yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
Why the fuck should I care about it? I will be dead.
On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AMOne is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith. That is the choice of faith.
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
I am (according to AnchorClanker) agnostic, and I agree with this message. Everyone should be able to follow their religion in private or public as long as they don't violate other people's personal rights.
I have left instructions for my chronicler to mark mart as 'hetreosexual'.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
And yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
Why the fuck should I care about it?
Of course you wouldn't - gays are doing it all the time themselves. "Historical figure X? Yup, totally gay." ;)
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
'hetreosexual'.
Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?
Quote from: Syt on February 15, 2012, 11:47:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
And yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
Why the fuck should I care about it?
Of course you wouldn't - gays are doing it all the time themselves. "Historical figure X? Yup, totally gay." ;)
Actually it's the opposite. It's the heteros coopting dead gays by saying that everybody must have been straight unless there is an overwhelming evidence that he or she wasn't. ;)
Quote from: Syt on February 15, 2012, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AMOne is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith. That is the choice of faith.
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
I am (according to AnchorClanker) agnostic, and I agree with this message. Everyone should be able to follow their religion in private or public as long as they don't violate other people's personal rights.
How are they violated? Aren't people allowed freedom of speech?
Anyway, this is entirely different, as someone said. The mormons are NOT "rewriting history" by claiming that so-and-so was Mormon in life, or believed in the Mormon doctrine and whatnot.
What they are doing is bizarre and kinda weird but I can't see any harm being done in it. It's like praying for someone who isn't part of your religion, or the Catholic Church considering you a Catholic if you were baptised even if you subsequently denounce the church (you are merely excommunicated if you do, but still a Catholic).
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 11:47:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
'hetreosexual'.
Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?
Wait, did my iPad autocorrect fuck up or somefink?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 11:47:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
'hetreosexual'.
Is that someone who is homo on the inside, straight on the outside, or vice versa?
Wait, did my iPad autocorrect fuck up or somefink?
I hate writing on an iPad. I am getting a small laptop next, no more of this crap. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.
That's only because vM's server is more powerful than the one in Provo.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
I do not really see it. The baby was born into that religion. It is like how you are forced to be a Polish citizen just because you were born to Poles in Poland no matter how limiting on your freedom to choose your national identity. I could see this point if it locked you in for life but you can always leave.
But on topic yes it would be worse if the Mormons were capturing Jewish babies and baptising them. But they are not doing that.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
saying that everybody must have been straight unless there is an overwhelming evidence that he or she wasn't. ;)
Isn't that a pretty reasonable perspective to take?
Most people were in fact straight, right?
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
What exactly is the violation of religious freedom involved in infant baptism?
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 12:01:57 PM
Isn't that a pretty reasonable perspective to take?
Most people were in fact straight, right?
Who the hell knows. Sexual preference identity is a really new thing. Most of the Greeks who were getting it on with men and boys would identify heterosexual today. So likewise it is difficult to split up people into modern sexual catagories unless it is so obvious it beats you over the head like Hadrian.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.
This is a huge issue with regard to archived material, as I and Money have pointed out, though he said it better than I did.
The Mormons have one of the most robust, well thought out data retention plans, whereas many government seem to have much worse, ad hoc, non-integrated systems throughout different government departments.
What if in 300 years time the Mormon database is the only surviving, easily interrogatable database of any significance ?
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
Oy Vey
I research alot of family history and personally I hate the Mormon database. It is the wikipedia of genealogy, they just let anybody put crap in that thing.
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2012, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.
This is a huge issue with regard to archived material, as I and Money have pointed out, though he said it better than I did.
The Mormons have one of the most robust, well thought out data retention plans, whereas many government seem to have much worse, ad hoc, non-integrated systems throughout different government departments.
What if in 300 years time the Mormon database is the only surviving, easily interrogatable database of any significance ?
Watch Part 2, Chapter 11 :
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/
Their archives make Mt Thunder look amateurish.
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2012, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
On the other hand, if by the time I die I become someone who is remembered for something special 300 years from now, then surely there will be enough records of me so Mormon "history rewriting" won't do much good.
This is a huge issue with regard to archived material, as I and Money have pointed out, though he said it better than I did.
The Mormons have one of the most robust, well thought out data retention plans, whereas many government seem to have much worse, ad hoc, non-integrated systems throughout different government departments.
What if in 300 years time the Mormon database is the only surviving, easily interrogatable database of any significance ?
Oh no, the future might think Mormons were everywhere!
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 11:32:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
Actually, Marti, it is nothing like telling off-color jokes. The LDS church has stated (since 1995) that no member can baptize anyone not related to them by blood. Church officials don't know who exactly is related to whom in their congregations, so they cannot prevent the alleged posthumous baptism of people not related to existing members, but it isn't like they were deliberately telling off-color jokes. It is more like someone used the word "niggardly" to describe a budget allocation, being told it is racially offensive, agreeing not to use it, and having someone in their employ use the word "coward" and thus upset the beef industry.
Marti? :huh:
Are you now saying that some Mormons
aren't in fact deliberately postumously baptising Jewish people? That's quite a different matter from saying that they
are doing it, but it's not really offensive.
Which is your position?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 11:26:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
No question it is boorish and tactless. But no more so than ordinary proselytization, which just about every religion does.
I'd consider it more boorish and offensive, because there is no element of consent involved. But I agree that it doesn't rise above boorishly offensive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
Oy Vey
Personally I was more offended by the photos my parents took of me as a child. At least I was when I a Teenager. Back then, lots of shit offended me. I'd get so full of righteous indignation I'd be like Viking at a prayer Breakfast
"It is an insult for the simple reason that this is a deliberate violation the most fundamental values of the International House of Pancakes! The only thing that pancakes have is their reputation, actions like this attempt to sully that reputation and show a monstrous disregard for the international character of the establishment and the pancakes therein!"
Quote from: Syt on February 15, 2012, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AMOne is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith. That is the choice of faith.
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
I am (according to AnchorClanker) agnostic, and I agree with this message. Everyone should be able to follow their religion in private or public as long as they don't violate other people's personal rights.
Except that Seedy is arguing that Mormons should not be able to register their non-Mormon relatives with IGI in spite of such registrations being a religious belief (maybe obligation, I cannot tell).
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2012, 12:01:40 PM
I do not really see it. The baby was born into that religion.
I don't get this. How can you be "born into a religion?" Isn't a religion a matter of belief? Babies don't have beliefs. Arguing that they are members of a religion because someone else says so is exactly what the Mormons are being accused of.
quote]It is like how you are forced to be a Polish citizen just because you were born to Poles in Poland no matter how limiting on your freedom to choose your national identity. [/quote]
I don't believe that citizenship is at all comparable to religious belief, and I don't believe that, absent belief, one can be "forced to be" a member of a religious group.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
I don't get this. How can you be "born into a religion?" Isn't a religion a matter of belief?
The same way you are born into anything. It is often also a matter of culture, ethnicity and tradition.
I do not get this stupidity act you play sometimes. You know damn well how people are born into religions.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Are you now saying that some Mormons aren't in fact deliberately postumously baptising Jewish people? That's quite a different matter from saying that they are doing it, but it's not really offensive.
Some Mormons are alleged to have posthumously baptized Jews who are not related to them, just as some cathloics are alleged to have had sex with minors. That's a far cry from saying that "the Mormon church" is doing the one or "the Catholic Church" is doing the other. In both cases, the church agreed that they were not going to promote the practice any more, and in fact were going to forbid it.
In both cases, it is alleged that the practices still happen. When it does, though, it seems to be an issue of individual misconduct, for which it is hard to hold a presidential candidate of that religion responsible merely because he follows that religion.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2012, 12:01:40 PM
I do not really see it. The baby was born into that religion.
I don't get this. How can you be "born into a religion?" Isn't a religion a matter of belief? Babies don't have beliefs. Arguing that they are members of a religion because someone else says so is exactly what the Mormons are being accused of.
One is born into a religion by being the child of and raised by parents who have a particular religious belief and who are members of a particular religious community.
I do agree with you that religious belief is quite different than citizenship. The former is often much easier to change then the latter which of course makes being born into a religious family less onerous then being born Polish.
edit: late to the dance.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
I don't believe that citizenship is at all comparable to religious belief, and I don't believe that, absent belief, one can be "forced to be" a member of a religious group.
Why not?
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Are you now saying that some Mormons aren't in fact deliberately postumously baptising Jewish people? That's quite a different matter from saying that they are doing it, but it's not really offensive.
Some Mormons are alleged to have posthumously baptized Jews who are not related to them, just as some cathloics are alleged to have had sex with minors. That's a far cry from saying that "the Mormon church" is doing the one or "the Catholic Church" is doing the other. In both cases, the church agreed that they were not going to promote the practice any more, and in fact were going to forbid it.
In both cases, it is alleged that the practices still happen. When it does, though, it seems to be an issue of individual misconduct, for which it is hard to hold a presidential candidate of that religion responsible merely because he follows that religion.
Have I said anywhere that I hold the Mormon Church, or Mitt, accountable? You are adressing arguments I'm not making.
I am merely addressing the issue that *when* Mormon people - whether on their own initiative or not - baptize *other people's* dead, Jewish relations, it is no mystery why it's offensive to the living relations. In the case cited in the OP, someone attempted to list someone who is still alive for "posthumous baptism"! :lol: Obviously this is not a case of folks listing their own relations.
Hell, the Mormon Church agrees with me. They say it's against their policy and have issued an apology.
Moreover, I merely find posthumous baptism somewhat boorish and offensive, nothing even approaching having sex with minors in terms of severity.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Are you now saying that some Mormons aren't in fact deliberately postumously baptising Jewish people? That's quite a different matter from saying that they are doing it, but it's not really offensive.
In both cases, it is alleged that the practices still happen. When it does, though, it seems to be an issue of individual misconduct, for which it is hard to hold a presidential candidate of that religion responsible merely because he follows that religion.
Not sure what you are basing that on. From the article.
QuoteWiesel was among a group of Jewish leaders who campaigned against the practice and prompted a 2010 pact by which the Mormon Church promised to at least prevent proxy baptism requests for Holocaust victims. Wiesel said that proxy baptisms have been performed on behalf of 650,000 Holocaust dead
.
That implies that there is some form of "request" that is made to the Mormon Church in order for the ritual to be performed and that the only thing the Mormon Church has promised is that they will prevent such requests in the case of Holocaust victims.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 11:11:52 AM
The outrage is that they know it offends people and keep on doing it. It is sort of like telling an off-colour joke: no intent to offend at first, but if somebody says it isn't an appropriate joke for that company, telling more of the same rises to the level of obnoxiousness.
In the same way that forbidding Muslim honor killings or teaching evolution in a class with fundies is obnoxious.
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2012, 12:47:08 PM
The same way you are born into anything. It is often also a matter of culture, ethnicity and tradition.
I have no idea what you are arguing here. You appear to be saying that you are "born into a religion" like you are "born into a family" (since one is "born into a religion" "The same way you are born into anything"). In my case, that is just wrong. I was clearly born into my family, but my father was catholic and my mother Methodist, so which religion was I (and my sibs) "born into?" One sib is catholic, one Mormon, one Methodist, and the rest nonreligious. For the nonreligious, is "non-religion" the "religion" their kids are "born into?"
QuoteI do not get this stupidity act you play sometimes. You know damn well how people are born into religions.
I know nothing of the kind; that you "know damn well how people are born into religions" and insist that it is thus a universal truth says nothing about religions, and nothing about me, but everything about your own thought process. I don't understand rejecting thought processes as intolerant as yours constitutes a "stupidity act."
Maybe people don't just blindly "know" all these universal truths like you, and thus ask questions. But maybe, just maybe, that it isn't
us that are stupid.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
It offends them yet we keep on doing it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:01:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2012, 12:47:08 PM
The same way you are born into anything. It is often also a matter of culture, ethnicity and tradition.
I have no idea what you are arguing here. You appear to be saying that you are "born into a religion" like you are "born into a family" (since one is "born into a religion" "The same way you are born into anything"). In my case, that is just wrong. I was clearly born into my family, but my father was catholic and my mother Methodist, so which religion was I (and my sibs) "born into?" One sib is catholic, one Mormon, one Methodist, and the rest nonreligious. For the nonreligious, is "non-religion" the "religion" their kids are "born into?"
QuoteI do not get this stupidity act you play sometimes. You know damn well how people are born into religions.
I know nothing of the kind; that you "know damn well how people are born into religions" and insist that it is thus a universal truth says nothing about religions, and nothing about me, but everything about your own thought process. I don't understand rejecting thought processes as intolerant as yours constitutes a "stupidity act."
Maybe people don't just blindly "know" all these universal truths like you, and thus ask questions. But maybe, just maybe, that it isn't us that are stupid.
You were born into the mixed religious beliefs of your family. Even you can see that right?
What about babies given up for adoption? My God, we aren't born into anything. We may not even be on this earth.
Mormons have the right to posthumously baptize anyone they want, and people have the right to find that offensive.
Seems kind of simple to me.
I wish the Mormons told the Jews to kiss their ass, they were going to baptize every single holocaust victim. Not because I like to offend Jews, or Holocaust survivors, but because I think these kind of bizarro religious exercises are pretty funny and deserve more attention. It's not like the Jews don't have their own set of religious functions that are just as logically bizarre, if not so outwardly offensive to non-Jews.
Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
One is born into one's faith, one follows his faith if he wishes, one lives his life according to his faith if he chooses, he weds under the sanction and brings his children into the world under his faith. That is the choice of faith.
For another faith to come around and say, "Meh, we're putting you on our books" and co-opting you into their faith postmortem is offensive, invasive and perverse. It's the delegitimization of an individual. That's not a choice of faith.
It's even more abhorrent that they're doing it with Holocaust victims; those Jews were murdered during the Holocaust specifically because they were Jews: that's just not a deligitimization of a person's Jewry, it's a deligitimization of the Holocaust itself. They agreed to not do it in 1995, and they're still fucking doing it.
And yeah, Marty: they're doing it with fags--dead fags are baptized into the faith, too. So you'll be remembered as a straight Mormon 300 years from now. When we search "cock-nibbling antisemitic toe suckers" on Ancestry.com, we won't find you.
My paternal grandmother was a devout Catholic, and my grandfather spent many, many years involved with the Knights of Columbus; I attended both their Catholic funerals, which were celebrations of their lives embracing their Catholic faith, and I know they'd be incredibly pissed if they were baptized into the Mormon faith post-mortem for some bullshit plan to retroactively baptize every person that ever lived. It's not just a Jew thing; it affects everybody the Mormons are co-opting in death. Even the Sioux. Dances With Wolves is now christened Mitt With Wolves!
And for the rest of you atheist/agnostic fuckwits and antisemitic homo-fuckers with hang-ups that condescendingly look down your noses on those wishing to follow their faith, and to be remembered as a member of that faith, go fuck yourselves and your over-educated, cynical, secular-sanctimony.
You may not have a problem with your own shit being connected to the Mormons after you're dead, but don't give Jews and others shit about it. Your cynicism does not void their validity.
First of all a minor quibble: no one is born into a religion, they are raised in a religion.
That being said, I agree with most of this. If nothing else, one lives on in the imprint they left on the world. One has the opportunity, while alive, to alter that imprint. Once you are dead you no longer have control over it. To then alter someone else's imprint after death is akin to slandering one who cannot speak up in his defense.
QuoteDances With Wolves is now christened Mitt With Wolves
Dances Mitt Wolves?
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 12:56:09 PM
Have I said anywhere that I hold the Mormon Church, or Mitt, accountable? You are adressing arguments I'm not making.
Yes, i am addressing the issues raised in the thread, not just issues you have raised in the thread. Not everything I write will be about you.
QuoteI am merely addressing the issue that *when* Mormon people - whether on their own initiative or not - baptize *other people's* dead, Jewish relations, it is no mystery why it's offensive to the living relations. In the case cited in the OP, someone attempted to list someone who is still alive for "posthumous baptism"! :lol: Obviously this is not a case of folks listing their own relations.
Here, again, you are using terms I am not sure I understand. "Other peoples' dead" is one of them. Who owns the dead? At what point to they get to say that prayers (or other religious observances) for their dead are "offensive" in more than the "I am personally offended" sense? What if the "other people" disagree? What if some are offended by the religious rite and others are not? Is one offended person enough to make the religious rite "offensive?"
I don't much care if people are offended by actions of others that are not intended to offend, and would not offend the "reasonable person" on whom we hand so much of our law. It will happen whether I care or not, of course.
QuoteHell, the Mormon Church agrees with me. They say it's against their policy and have issued an apology.
Exactly the point I made! :smarty:
QuoteMoreover, I merely find posthumous baptism somewhat boorish and offensive, nothing even approaching having sex with minors in terms of severity.
Quite so - and both practices have been rejected by the respective churches.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
You were born into the mixed religious beliefs of your family. Even you can see that right?
I was? Didn't know that. I have never had any religious beliefs of which I am aware. But if you say I was born into them, then I must have been, because you know a hell of a lot more about my family and my beliefs than I do, right? Even you can see that right?
Quote from: Maximus on February 15, 2012, 01:21:59 PM
First of all a minor quibble: no one is born into a religion, they are raised in a religion.
I understand the distinction you are making. But that distinction is not true of all religions. Some Jews would say that to be a Jew you must be born a Jew. A particular distinction a person I know who converted to that faith finds bothersome to say the least.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
You were born into the mixed religious beliefs of your family. Even you can see that right?
I was? Didn't know that. I have never had any religious beliefs of which I am aware. But if you say I was born into them, then I must have been, because you know a hell of a lot more about my family and my beliefs than I do, right? Even you can see that right?
:rolleyes:
down the rabbit hole with semantics again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2012, 10:53:46 AM
It is an insult for the simple reason that this is a deliberate violation the most fundamental values of the individual being baptized and is intended as such by those performing the ritual. The person being baptized was not a mormon in life so this is a violation of the deceased's personal values during his lifetime and, for those people who belive crap like that, it matters to them.
The only thing the dead have is their reputation, actions like this attempt to sully that reputation and show a monstrous disregard for the dead.
Violation of fundamental values? This is just PC-babble Puffin. Not like you at all.
Well yes. And referring to Joan's perspective comment; this is equivalent to giving a Jew and Christian burial when it was well known that a Jewish burial was wanted. It is an issue of religious freedom to allow each person to choose his or her own rituals. I think this is an issue not only as a matter of mere desecration but for the people that actually believe this shit this is a real violation of their freedom of religion as well as an intentional violation of their wishes in life.
Quote from: Maximus on February 15, 2012, 01:21:59 PM
First of all a minor quibble: no one is born into a religion, they are raised in a religion.
Exactly, except I would say that it could be multiple religious or none at all.
QuoteThat being said, I agree with most of this. If nothing else, one lives on in the imprint they left on the world. One has the opportunity, while alive, to alter that imprint. Once you are dead you no longer have control over it. To then alter someone else's imprint after death is akin to slandering one who cannot speak up in his defense.
I am not sure how one "alters an imprint," but I don't think that what the LDS is doing constitutes any change in any imprints. You used to be a member, though, IIRC, so I'll take your word for it if I am wrong. My understanding that this "baptism" thing is supposed to just allow (but not force) the deceased's spirit to accept salvation. It seems pretty inoffensive to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
You were born into the mixed religious beliefs of your family. Even you can see that right?
I was? Didn't know that. I have never had any religious beliefs of which I am aware. But if you say I was born into them, then I must have been, because you know a hell of a lot more about my family and my beliefs than I do, right? Even you can see that right?
:rolleyes:
down the rabbit hole with semantics again.
:lmfao: You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see! Even you can see that right?
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Mormons have the right to posthumously baptize anyone they want, and people have the right to find that offensive.
Seems kind of simple to me.
Yeah.
Being associated with the LDS isn't much better than being insulted post-mortem by the Westboro clowns.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
:lmfao: You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see! Even you can see that right?
No, silly rabbit. You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing. Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit. Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally. But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into.... :P
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Not because I like to offend Jews, or Holocaust survivors, but because I think these kind of bizarro religious exercises are pretty funny and deserve more attention.
No, you like to offend Jews. You've demonstrated that before, usually by predicating it with "not because I like to offend Jews...", Costanza.
QuoteIt's not like the Jews don't have their own set of religious functions that are just as logically bizarre, if not so outwardly offensive to non-Jews.
What do the Jews do to offend you? Not answering the phone on Yom Kippur?
QuoteI think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
Stalin had his ideas, too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:02:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
It offends them yet we keep on doing it.
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
I can think of quite a few, just as I can think of quite a few differences between those two and proclaiming a dead Jew baptized.
My point, and it seems now you agree, is that a party taking offence is not in and of itself enough for us to judge an act as something to be condemned.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:25:51 PM
Yes, i am addressing the issues raised in the thread, not just issues you have raised in the thread. Not everything I write will be about you.
Seems at least somewhat logical to assume that you are not just blathering generally when you respond, directly, to me and quote me.
QuoteHere, again, you are using terms I am not sure I understand. "Other peoples' dead" is one of them. Who owns the dead? At what point to they get to say that prayers (or other religious observances) for their dead are "offensive" in more than the "I am personally offended" sense? What if the "other people" disagree? What if some are offended by the religious rite and others are not? Is one offended person enough to make the religious rite "offensive?"
You don't understand how people have dead relatives? :huh:
QuoteI don't much care if people are offended by actions of others that are not intended to offend, and would not offend the "reasonable person" on whom we hand so much of our law. It will happen whether I care or not, of course.
Versus
QuoteExactly the point I made! :smarty:
...
Quite so - and both practices have been rejected by the respective churches.
Which is it? Something no reasonable person would find offensive, or something that is so obviously offensive that the Mormons themselves have rejected it?
As to the "reasonable person" - seems to me you are using that as a code-word for your own opinion. Given that the Mormons themselves acknowledge it's offensive, what are you basing your opinion on?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:57:15 PM
My point, and it seems now you agree, is that a party taking offence is not in and of itself enough for us to judge an act as something to be condemned.
What do you think makes an act worthy of condemnation?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 12:03:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Incidentally, if you want to point fingers, the practice of baptising babies who are unable to consent is infinitely more offensive and violating an individual's religious freedom than what Mormons are doing.
What exactly is the violation of religious freedom involved in infant baptism?
Are you kidding me? If it violates someone's religious freedom when they are baptized into a religion without their consent
once they are dead, surely this is a greater violation when this is done to them while they are still alive.
What is a greater violation? Having sex with a corpse or having sex with an infant. Both are unable to consent but the latter is clearly much more horrible.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:02:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
It offends them yet we keep on doing it.
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
But wouldn't this be more like telling off color jokes in private where the only people listening all say they love them their off color jokes?
It's not like the LDS is going around beating people up over what they are doing - absent someone going and asking, there probably isn't even anyway to find out if your deceased relative is on some piece of paper (or computer disk) somewhere as being posthumously baptized.
I don't think it is a great analogy for that reason. The LDS would be perfectly content to keep all this completely out of the public eye, so far as I can tell.
Would you be upset if I told you I was writing down the name of your great grandfather on my personal list of Berkutian worshippers? Or better yet, would you be offended if I did so and didn't even tell you about it?
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
Are you kidding me? If it violates someone's religious freedom when they are baptized into a religion without their consent once they are dead, surely this is a greater violation when this is done to them while they are still alive.
What is a greater violation? Having sex with a corpse or having sex with an infant. Both are unable to consent but the latter is clearly much more horrible.
Wow, baptizing an infant is just like have sex with the said infant? Once again you are the master of analogies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
What do you think makes an act worthy of condemnation?
Plenty of things, but in this context whether a reasonable person would take offense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:03:04 PM
Are you kidding me? If it violates someone's religious freedom when they are baptized into a religion without their consent once they are dead, surely this is a greater violation when this is done to them while they are still alive.
What is a greater violation? Having sex with a corpse or having sex with an infant. Both are unable to consent but the latter is clearly much more horrible.
Wow, baptizing an infant is just like have sex with the said infant? Once again you are the master of analogies.
Wow, you are just master of logic.
If I am saying that A is to B as C is to D, that does not mean I am saying A is similar to C.
Edit: And btw, the fact that you are a father of a child you are having sex with does not make it somehow permissible.
This all boils down to a simple fact we have rehashed thousands of times before when talking about religion - religions are allowed to do shit noone else can get away with if they are old enough and "it's a part of a tradition". Whether it is mutilating little boy's dicks or painfully slaughtering animals or violating religious freedom and autonomy of babies because "they are born into religion" (whatever that means), they get away with it. Mormons and scientologists get a lot of crap not because their crap is more offensive and weird but because they haven't been around for as long as the other, older scams.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Not because I like to offend Jews, or Holocaust survivors, but because I think these kind of bizarro religious exercises are pretty funny and deserve more attention.
No, you like to offend Jews. You've demonstrated that before, usually by predicating it with "not because I like to offend Jews...", Costanza.
No I haven't, and you saying so doesn't make it so Crankypants.
So there.
Quote
QuoteIt's not like the Jews don't have their own set of religious functions that are just as logically bizarre, if not so outwardly offensive to non-Jews.
What do the Jews do to offend you? Not answering the phone on Yom Kippur?
Not a thing, I don't find much of anything they do offensive. A very passive religion, compared to most.
Not keen on the selling military secrets to the Chinese though!
Quote
QuoteI think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
Stalin had his ideas, too.
Some of them were pretty good, too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
I can think of quite a few, just as I can think of quite a few differences between those two and proclaiming a dead Jew baptized.
My point, and it seems now you agree, is that a party taking offence is not in and of itself enough for us to judge an act as something to be condemned.
Certainly I'd agree. It isn't an entirely subjective test. That would be drawing the net far too widely.
That being said - it isn't entirely free of subjective factors either. You look to the entirely of the situation.
The example you gave of proclaiming honour killings a bad idea is a good one. Irrespective of the beliefs of anyone, is there a good policy reason for this? Sure. Murder is against our laws. Given that fact, whether someone finds it subjectively a good idea or not is irrelevant. The subjective beliefs of those who think honour killings are a good idea are trumped.
Contrast with baptizing dead Jews. Some mormons think it's a good idea, but objectively? It makes no difference. OTOH people generally accord the presumed wishes of dead folks and actual wishes of their relations a certain amount of deference in matters such as organ donations, burial rites and the like. It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:05:35 PM
Or better yet, would you be offended if I did so and didn't even tell you about it?
I am not sure that works in this context. Isnt' Seedy's argument based on the fact that is public? If you want to make a list of Berkutian worshipers and kept it private I would think about this issue differently - and perhaps suggest a mandatory Psych assessment but that is getting off topic. :D
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:05:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:02:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
It offends them yet we keep on doing it.
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
But wouldn't this be more like telling off color jokes in private where the only people listening all say they love them their off color jokes?
It's not like the LDS is going around beating people up over what they are doing - absent someone going and asking, there probably isn't even anyway to find out if your deceased relative is on some piece of paper (or computer disk) somewhere as being posthumously baptized.
I don't think it is a great analogy for that reason. The LDS would be perfectly content to keep all this completely out of the public eye, so far as I can tell.
Would you be upset if I told you I was writing down the name of your great grandfather on my personal list of Berkutian worshippers? Or better yet, would you be offended if I did so and didn't even tell you about it?
From what I understand, the geneological records are public.
Wasn't sure how this thread made it to 11 pages. Read a few pages & I'm still not sure, other than the simple fact that it's Languish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
What do you think makes an act worthy of condemnation?
Plenty of things, but in this context whether a reasonable person would take offense.
Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context. Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.
I suspect what you are really saying is that from your point of view you would not find it offensive. But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect. :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:11:10 PMFrom what I understand, the geneological records are public.
So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
:lmfao: You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see! Even you can see that right?
No, silly rabbit. You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing. Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit. Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally. But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into.... :P
I think you are missing though that what does it mean to be part of the religion if it isn't your belief. I mean I believed in God, heaven and hell because most of the adults in my life said so. Was I really a Christian though? My mother was an atheist (was since she was a young teen) and we only went to church on holidays like easter and christmas.
And then also there's the whole - we don't really know what babies believe but I doubt they can believe in such intangible objects like God and religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context. Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.
I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive. But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect. :)
A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:11:10 PMFrom what I understand, the geneological records are public.
So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?
I'm not saying anyone cannot do it. The Mormons can baptize 'till the cows come home. Freedom of expression and all that.
I'm saying that those who find it boorish and offensive have a valid point of view. Or are you saying that something
cannot be boorish and offensive, because it's on the Internet? If so, Languish will have lost half its point. :D
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
Contrast with baptizing dead Jews. Some mormons think it's a good idea, but objectively? It makes no difference. OTOH people generally accord the presumed wishes of dead folks and actual wishes of their relations a certain amount of deference in matters such as organ donations, burial rites and the like. It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
:wacko:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context. Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.
I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive. But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect. :)
A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.
This would be a good point if CC were arguing that Mormons should be prevented from doing the baptisms.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
:lmfao: You got caught saying something stupid, so you are acting the weasel again, I see! Even you can see that right?
No, silly rabbit. You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing. Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit. Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally. But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into.... :P
I think you are missing though that what does it mean to be part of the religion if it isn't your belief. I mean I believed in God, heaven and hell because most of the adults in my life said so. Was I really a Christian though? My mother was an atheist (was since she was a young teen) and we only went to church on holidays like easter and christmas.
And then also there's the whole - we don't really know what babies believe but I doubt they can believe in such intangible objects like God and religion.
I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.
Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
Why the constant need to overstate what the Mormons did? They didn't convert anybody. They recited some mumbo jumbo in relation to a dead person.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
I can think of quite a few, just as I can think of quite a few differences between those two and proclaiming a dead Jew baptized.
My point, and it seems now you agree, is that a party taking offence is not in and of itself enough for us to judge an act as something to be condemned.
Certainly I'd agree. It isn't an entirely subjective test. That would be drawing the net far too widely.
That being said - it isn't entirely free of subjective factors either. You look to the entirely of the situation.
The example you gave of proclaiming honour killings a bad idea is a good one. Irrespective of the beliefs of anyone, is there a good policy reason for this? Sure. Murder is against our laws. Given that fact, whether someone finds it subjectively a good idea or not is irrelevant. The subjective beliefs of those who think honour killings are a good idea are trumped.
Contrast with baptizing dead Jews. Some mormons think it's a good idea, but objectively? It makes no difference. OTOH people generally accord the presumed wishes of dead folks and actual wishes of their relations a certain amount of deference in matters such as organ donations, burial rites and the like. It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
Not buying it, sorry.
You are leaving out a critical component - actually two of them that I consider to be relevant to whether someone should be offended by that actions of others:
1. Is the person taking the action intending to offend? and
2. Does the action itself actually have some tangible effect on the person who is potentially the victim of the offense?
I think it is pretty clear the Mormons are not trying to offend anyone, and while their religious beliefs are pretty bizarre, it is also clear that their intent is actually very benevolent.
2. It doesn't hurt anyone. The dead cannot be offended, since they are dead and as far as we can tell, they don't seem to care at all. In fact, on the off chance that the Mormons are right, the only possible tangible effect on the dead is positive. If the Mormons are wrong, they are making completely empty gestures. The living have some claim to harm, since it is their relatives memory being impugned to some degree, although I think the LDS Church has acknowledged that and taken very reasonable measures to mitigate any possible offense.
Heck, I don't even think the LDS says that baptizing them makes them Mormons anyway, unless they actually convert in the afterlife. More like it just makes them eligible or something.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:11:10 PMFrom what I understand, the geneological records are public.
So is internet. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post stuff on the internet because "someone may go there and find it offensive"?
I'm not saying anyone cannot do it. The Mormons can baptize 'till the cows come home. Freedom of expression and all that.
I'm saying that those who find it boorish and offensive have a valid point of view. Or are you saying that something cannot be boorish and offensive, because it's on the Internet? If so, Languish will have lost half its point. :D
I think the general consensus is that:
1. This is largely a non-issue.
2. This is not really different from the general exclusiveness that is in the very nature of most religions (I find it more offensive if someone post mortem says I went to hell than if they said I went to their heaven, even if I didn't want to).
3. Calling on a political candidate who happens to be a member of a religion (but not a church official with any clout in the organization) whose members sometimes engage in questionable practices to "put an end to it" is an idiotic political stunt of a moron. It's like calling on a Catholic Presidential candidate to "put an end to pedophilia among priests".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
Why is some form of "reasonable person" test necessary in this context. Just as Berk argues for the freedom to believe he has worshipers dont people also have the right to condemn acts they find offensive.
I suspect what you are really saying, that from your point of view you would not find it offensive. But that is something else altogether than a reasonable person test - with the greatest of respect. :)
A reasonable person test is necessary because we have granted far too much deference in the public sphere to people claiming to be oppressed or offended.
But why must someone's right to say they condemn something meet a test of "reasonableness" whatever that might be and yet the people commiting the condemned act are free to act as they wish. Are you really going to balance freedom of religion (on both sides if you think about it) and freedom of expression in that way.
In any event I would say this does pass a reasonable test, I just think it is a bit odd that such a thing would enter into the equation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
Why the constant need to overstate what the Mormons did? They didn't convert anybody. They recited some mumbo jumbo in relation to a dead person.
I'm using it as a short form. They purport to do some sort of mumbo jumbo that has the effect of allowing the dead person to convert.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:16:58 PM
I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.
Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews.
My father was religious and has only become more so on his own. No where did you actually have anything to say about how babies can be believers - which is kinda crucial to the whole being born into a religion. If you are baptized before you have coherent thoughts - where's the belief at?
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:05:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 01:02:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
How is it in any way "the same"? :huh:
It offends them yet we keep on doing it.
Can you see any distinction between repeatedly telling off-colour jokes to an audience when you've been told some find them inappropriate, and telling people that honour killings are bad?
I can think of some.
But wouldn't this be more like telling off color jokes in private where the only people listening all say they love them their off color jokes?
It's not like the LDS is going around beating people up over what they are doing - absent someone going and asking, there probably isn't even anyway to find out if your deceased relative is on some piece of paper (or computer disk) somewhere as being posthumously baptized.
I don't think it is a great analogy for that reason. The LDS would be perfectly content to keep all this completely out of the public eye, so far as I can tell.
Would you be upset if I told you I was writing down the name of your great grandfather on my personal list of Berkutian worshippers? Or better yet, would you be offended if I did so and didn't even tell you about it?
From what I understand, the geneological records are public.
So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.
That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.
The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.
Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:16:58 PM
I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.
Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews.
My father was religious and has only become more so on his own. No where did you actually have anything to say about how babies can be believers - which is kinda crucial to the whole being born into a religion. If you are baptized before you have coherent thoughts - where's the belief at?
That is because nowhere does my argument depend on babies being believers.... :P The point is only critical if you ignore the tenants of the Jewish faith held be some Jews that one is in fact born a jew and one also buys into the semantics of Grumber. Both mistakes I have avoided assiduously in this debate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:16:58 PMAlso, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews.
But that's ex-post-facto, isn't it. Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:21:49 PM
So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.
That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.
The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.
Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!
Some pretty big assumption seemingly made out of whole cloth there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:16:58 PM
I think what you just said supports the notion that one is born into a religion in sense that they are born into a family with particular relgious beliefs (or not) and a community of friends, neighbours and other family members that have religious beliefs (or not) and all of that tends to shape what you yourself will believe.
Also, the argument sidesteps the fact that some people believe they literally have been born into a particular relgion - eg some Jews.
My father was religious and has only become more so on his own. No where did you actually have anything to say about how babies can be believers - which is kinda crucial to the whole being born into a religion. If you are baptized before you have coherent thoughts - where's the belief at?
That is because nowhere does my argument depend on babies being believers.... :P The point it only critical if you ignore the tenants of the Jewish faith held be some Jews that one is in fact born a jew and one also buys into the semantics of Grumber. Both mistakes I have avoided assiduously in this debate.
But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question. After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?
Which then sounds like a good complaint to raise against those forcing them to be counted amongst the members of a religion...even though they don't consider themselves part of that religion. :D
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:25:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Or, if someone is "born into a religion" but does not believe it, are you saying they are still a part of this religion, even against their will?
Which then sounds like a good complaint to raise against those forcing them to be counted amongst the members of a religion. :D
Exactly. So no different from what the mormons are doing, only more offensive, since it is done to living people, not corpses.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
It is a safe presumption that those who have died in one faith did not wish to convert to another, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the subjective beliefs of those thinking it's a good idea are trumped.
Why the constant need to overstate what the Mormons did? They didn't convert anybody. They recited some mumbo jumbo in relation to a dead person.
I'm using it as a short form. They purport to do some sort of mumbo jumbo that has the effect of allowing the dead person to convert.
Exactly. Which everyone, including the Mormons, agree has zero actual impact on the dead persons actual religious identification, right?
Now, everyone has the "right" to be offended by just about anything, but IMO this is a fine example of humans *desire* to find something to be offended by, i.e. the human need to make themselves a victim.
On another note...why is this specifically news as it relates to Jews? Is post-baptizing a Jew somehow worse than post-baptizing a Catholic or a Muslim?
Actually, if the Muslims found out about them doing this to Muslims...crap, I bet the fanatics would fucking freak.
I want to know - have the Mormons done a post-death baptism for one Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib?
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:24:21 PM
But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question. After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.
The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue. I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself. But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad. That is how he equates baptism of a baby with the rape of that baby.
Need I go further?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:24:21 PM
But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question. After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.
The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue. I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself. But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad. That is how he equates baptism of a baby with the rape of that baby.
Need I go further?
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:24:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:21:49 PM
So? That still requires someone to go find out if they need to be offended.
That is usually a big flag that their offense is somewhat manufactured.
The Mormons are not making claims about being that aren't true, right? It's not like someone finding these records later is going to see these people listed as non-Jewish, or non-whatever or even Mormon.
Hell, I bet the only reason to actually even keep track of them is to avoid fake baptizing someone twice!
Some pretty big assumption seemingly made out of whole cloth there.
True enough, but I haven't seen anything that disputes them. Of course, the sum of my knowledge about the practice comes from the clip Seedy linked, so I could certainly be wrong.
And I certainly think any religious organization listing in public records that people who clearly are not of their religion as being of their religion very valid grounds for their relatives being offended, and even *I* would find it offensive for practical reasons.
Is that the case though? I will assume it is not since that seems the reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary.
But why isn't it bad? Only because it has been done for centuries? Freedom of religion is a deeply personal issue for an individual and every time you want someone's (even, a child's) freedom to be trumped by the parents' authority, that must be justified by the child's best interest and not presumed. I see no child welfare argument in allowing the parents to do a "forced conversion" of their child to the religion of their choosing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2012, 02:24:21 PM
But it isn't a mistake stemming from Marti's question. After all, it seems weak to say that a critical (as in critique not of high importance) discussion can't be had because a religion is framed in such a manner as to not allow said critique.
The weakness of Marti's argument is a separate issue. I would have thought his analogy spoke for itself. But in case you missed it, Marti's argument is based on the assumption that all actions done to a person without informed consent are equally bad.
Jesus, it kills me to defend Marty and his nutty analogies, but that is not at all what his argument is based on.
He is saying that doing something without informed consent to a person is worse than doing something without informed consent to a non-person. Which is kind of weird since non-person cannot give consent informed or otherwise, but he is most certainly NOT claiming that baptizing infants is the same as having sex with them.
His analogy does stink, but not for the reasons you claim.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:19:27 PM
But why must someone's right to say they condemn something meet a test of "reasonableness" whatever that might be and yet the people commiting the condemned act are free to act as they wish. Are you really going to balance freedom of religion (on both sides if you think about it) and freedom of expression in that way.
In any event I would say this does pass a reasonable test, I just think it is a bit odd that such a thing would enter into the equation.
I'm not proposing any limitations on the right to make unreasonable claims of offensiveness or on the right to recite mumbo jumbo. I'm arguing on philosophical grounds--how should we respond to a claim of offense taken.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
I'd consider it more boorish and offensive, because there is no element of consent involved. But I agree that it doesn't rise above boorishly offensive.
More outlandish and tacky maybe. But IMO its less obnoxious to know that someone in some room in Salt Lake somewhere is mouthing meaningless words about a relative, then to have some one importuning and implicitly threatening me in person about religious choice. EWMMV
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:29:03 PM
True enough, but I haven't seen anything that disputes them. Of course, the sum of my knowledge about the practice comes from the clip Seedy linked, so I could certainly be wrong.
And I certainly think any religious organization listing in public records that people who clearly are not of their religion as being of their religion very valid grounds for their relatives being offended, and even *I* would find it offensive for practical reasons.
Is that the case though? I will assume it is not since that seems the reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary.
From the article it appears to me that this is far from a form a manufactured rage given the fact that the issue is long standing and the Mormon Church has at least acknowledged the practice should be curtailed in some way.
But I am in the dark about this as much as you are. Its the first I have heard of it. But it has been an interesting debate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 02:34:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:19:27 PM
But why must someone's right to say they condemn something meet a test of "reasonableness" whatever that might be and yet the people commiting the condemned act are free to act as they wish. Are you really going to balance freedom of religion (on both sides if you think about it) and freedom of expression in that way.
In any event I would say this does pass a reasonable test, I just think it is a bit odd that such a thing would enter into the equation.
I'm not proposing any limitations on the right to make unreasonable claims of offensiveness or on the right to recite mumbo jumbo. I'm arguing on philosophical grounds--how should we respond to a claim of offense taken.
If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue. I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable.
Well, I don't think the Mormon Church curtailing the practice means much of anything - they are a high profile religious organizations very conscious of their public image, and deciding to simply stop doing this for particular people is an obvious move for them to make. It has zero practical effect on their practices anyway, since they have seven billion people to do, have only done 100 million, so excluding a few million from the pool is an easy enough move.
Just means that some other set of people will get fake baptized instead. Indeed, from a logical perspective, the Jews should find this "solution" just as offensive - all it does is change the target of the supposedly offensive practice, it doesn't change the practice at all. If it is wrong to baptize dead Jews, isn't it just as wrong to baptize dead non-Jews?
I still want to know if they've baptized Mohammed...
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:29:36 PM
But why isn't it bad? Only because it has been done for centuries? Freedom of religion is a deeply personal issue for an individual and every time you want someone's (even, a child's) freedom to be trumped by the parents' authority, that must be justified by the child's best interest and not presumed. I see no child welfare argument in allowing the parents to do a "forced conversion" of their child to the religion of their choosing.
Don't be silly - this is totally backwards. Infants have no agency; they cannot conceive of, much less than exercise religious freedom rights. Most exercises of parental authority vis-a-vis infants involve very severe restrictions on "freedom" and understandably so. I can think of no jurisdiction that imposes a general requirement of showing "best interest" before such authority can be exercised - the very idea is absurd. On the contrary, the typical legal rule with respect to exercises of parental authority over infants is that it is unrestrained, except in those limited areas where state interests impose and are reflected in legislative enactments - e.g. custody disputes, denial of access to medical care, physical abuse, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:42:11 PM
Indeed, from a logical perspective, the Jews should find this "solution" just as offensive - all it does is change the target of the supposedly offensive practice, it doesn't change the practice at all. If it is wrong to baptize dead Jews, isn't it just as wrong to baptize dead non-Jews?
I dont follow that logic. Why should Jewish people be outraged about fake baptisms of non Jews if those non Jews dont care themselves and are simply sitting in their basements going over their lists of fake followers?
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma . They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there. You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.
The Mormons believe in a tiered system of heaven, but basically everyone is saved. You are and I am even if we're never Mormon, we drink coffee every day and all the rest. The lowest level of heaven is, according to Joseph Smith, so gloriously we'd all kill ourselves to get there if we saw it.
I think it's a really attractive vision of salvation (though I prefer the Muslim one, they've got Hell but it's not eternal, everyone, I think even Satan is ultimately redeemed).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2012, 02:44:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 02:29:36 PM
But why isn't it bad? Only because it has been done for centuries? Freedom of religion is a deeply personal issue for an individual and every time you want someone's (even, a child's) freedom to be trumped by the parents' authority, that must be justified by the child's best interest and not presumed. I see no child welfare argument in allowing the parents to do a "forced conversion" of their child to the religion of their choosing.
Don't be silly - this is totally backwards. Infants have no agency; they cannot conceive of, much less than exercise religious freedom rights. Most exercises of parental authority vis-a-vis infants involve very severe restrictions on "freedom" and understandably so. I can think of no jurisdiction that imposes a general requirement of showing "best interest" before such authority can be exercised - the very idea is absurd. On the contrary, the typical legal rule with respect to exercises of parental authority over infants is that it is unrestrained, except in those limited areas where state interests impose and are reflected in legislative enactments - e.g. custody disputes, denial of access to medical care, physical abuse, etc.
You obviously didnt read far enough yet to get to his overpoweringly effective analogy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:28:58 PM
Some Jews would say that to be a Jew you must be born a Jew.
That's actually a pretty huge no-no, and I bet it even applies to the nuttiest of the nuts. As long as someone's conversion is recognized by whatever sect the Jew belongs to, the convert should be treated as Jewish without any qualifications.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2012, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:28:58 PM
Some Jews would say that to be a Jew you must be born a Jew.
That's actually a pretty huge no-no, and I bet it even applies to the nuttiest of the nuts. As long as someone's conversion is recognized by whatever sect the Jew belongs to, the convert should be treated as Jewish without any qualifications.
Well come tell that to our local nuts.
My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!
It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?
Our intrepid reporter is out for the truth.
I will not be denied!
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma . They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there. You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.
The Mormons believe in a tiered system of heaven, but basically everyone is saved. You are and I am even if we're never Mormon, we drink coffee every day and all the rest. The lowest level of heaven is, according to Joseph Smith, so gloriously we'd all kill ourselves to get there if we saw it.
I think it's a really attractive vision of salvation (though I prefer the Muslim one, they've got Hell but it's not eternal, everyone, I think even Satan is ultimately redeemed).
If I was going to pick a religious to convert to, I think I would give Mormonism pretty serious consideration. It has the advantage of being a very "constructed" religion, and hence not nearly as vindictive in many ways as some.
Of course, that has it's own set of problems as well...
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue. I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable.
What Throbby said.
There was a story a while back about a British bank that caved in to Muslim pressure and stopped handing out free piggy banks to little kids. If we follow your logic then we know now that the Muslim outrage was justified because the bank caved in.
Mormonism strikes me as one of the more productive religions, in that its brand of a useful lie is more useful than other brands of useful lies. It seems like Mormonism does an above average job of fostering net positive contributions to society from its members.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:59:26 PM
If I was going to pick a religious to convert to, I think I would give Mormonism pretty serious consideration. It has the advantage of being a very "constructed" religion, and hence not nearly as vindictive in many ways as some.
Of course, that has it's own set of problems as well...
Yeah I like Mormons and Mormonism. I think on a personal level they're always very nice and as I say I think their idea of salvation is really admirable. They generally always seem a good bunch to me.
All of which would put me off them enormously if I was looking for a religion. There's only so much clean-shaven virtue in a short-sleeved shirt I can take. If I was wanting God I'd want mystery and shades of light and dark.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:59:26 PM
If I was going to pick a religious to convert to, I think I would give Mormonism pretty serious consideration. It has the advantage of being a very "constructed" religion, and hence not nearly as vindictive in many ways as some.
Not as "vindictive"? They're not as bad as the Scientologists, but ex-Mormons have had their issues with Der Church after they've walked away.
And no, I don't think Mormonism would be for you. Those "Defending Your Life" white robes and slippers they wear would so not flatter your figure.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2012, 03:05:25 PM
Mormonism strikes me as one of the more productive religions, in that its brand of a useful lie is more useful than other brands of useful lies. It seems like Mormonism does an above average job of fostering net positive contributions to society from its members.
They also breed up some nice lookin ladies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:06:07 PM
Yeah I like Mormons and Mormonism. I think on a personal level they're always very nice and as I say I think their idea of salvation is really admirable. They generally always seem a good bunch to me.
So are head trauma victims Doesn't mean they're cool to hang with on the Sabbath.
QuoteAll of which would put me off them enormously if I was looking for a religion. There's only so much clean-shaven virtue in a short-sleeved shirt I can take. If I was wanting God I'd want mystery and shades of light and dark.
Most cults operate that way; that's their attraction to the weak-willed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2012, 03:05:25 PM
Mormonism strikes me as one of the more productive religions, in that its brand of a useful lie is more useful than other brands of useful lies. It seems like Mormonism does an above average job of fostering net positive contributions to society from its members.
They also breed up some nice lookin ladies.
That's because they recruit from the wealthy, who come from good stock. And they avoid the toads and tacos.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:02:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue. I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable.
What Throbby said.
There was a story a while back about a British bank that caved in to Muslim pressure and stopped handing out free piggy banks to little kids. If we follow your logic then we know now that the Muslim outrage was justified because the bank caved in.
It was nonsense:
Quote"Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they offend Muslims" – Daily Express, 24 October 2005. The story claimed that NatWest and Halifax had removed images of piggy banks from their promotional material in an effort to avoid offending Muslim customers, since pork is forbidden in Islam. The paper quoted observers calling such action "barmy" and "bonkers", thereby stirring up a huge response from the public.
After the story's publication, the Halifax drily noted that it "has not withdrawn any piggy banks from branches" and noted that in fact it had not used piggy banks in its branches for a number of years. The NatWest press statement noted that: "There is absolutely no fact in the story."
90% of those stories come from the tabloid press who have their own agenda and sense of 'fun'. One of the titbits from Leveson was the Daily Star reporter who testified that they used to make the Muslim woman who'd just joined work on the 'Islamophobia desk' (they looked out for, or invented stories about Muslims and political correctness gone mad) every other week. She didn't last long.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
That's because they recruit from the wealthy, who come from good stock. And they avoid the toads and tacos.
So that's what those kids are doing in Pango Pango and Mali, recruiting the wealthy and avoiding toads and tacos. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:12:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
That's because they recruit from the wealthy, who come from good stock. And they avoid the toads and tacos.
So that's what those kids are doing in Pango Pango and Mali, recruiting the wealthy and avoiding toads and tacos. :hmm:
lol, you're right; because so many Pango Pangos are relocating to Provo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 01:47:34 PM
No, silly rabbit. You ignore that being raised in religion and being born into a religion are the same thing. Of course if one is born in a family that has no particular religious beliefs the child will probably follow suit. Also you ignore the simple truth that some people are in fact born into a religion - literally. But you cant see that because of the particular ethnocentrism you were born into.... :P
:yawn:
More bullshit semantic pinhead-dancing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:02:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
If you want to know why I think the outrage is reasonable, just look at the reaction the Mormon Church has had to this issue. I dont see anything in the article that suggests the Church thinks the criticism is unreasonable.
What Throbby said.
There was a story a while back about a British bank that caved in to Muslim pressure and stopped handing out free piggy banks to little kids. If we follow your logic then we know now that the Muslim outrage was justified because the bank caved in.
I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 03:06:18 PM
And no, I don't think Mormonism would be for you. Those "Defending Your Life" white robes and slippers they wear would so not flatter your figure.
:lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 03:27:37 PM
More bullshit semantic pinhead-dancing.
Silly Rabbit, Tricks are for kids.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma . They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there. You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.
See, and this is why I hate Mormons. The persecution of Judas Iscariot is ridiculous.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Heck, I actually have to give the Mormons some props - I think they are the only ones to at least try to answer the logical dilemma of salvation for the innocent but ignorant.
The Mormons don't believe in Hell, so for them there is no dilemma . They've got Perdition but you've got to be evil on a Biblical scale to get in there. You can count the number of people in Perdition on your fingers - as far as I can tell it's basically Judas.
The Mormons believe in a tiered system of heaven, but basically everyone is saved. You are and I am even if we're never Mormon, we drink coffee every day and all the rest. The lowest level of heaven is, according to Joseph Smith, so gloriously we'd all kill ourselves to get there if we saw it.
I think it's a really attractive vision of salvation (though I prefer the Muslim one, they've got Hell but it's not eternal, everyone, I think even Satan is ultimately redeemed).
That's just basically adept theodicy. Anyone who believes in any sort of serious Hell and an omnibenevolent God is holding onto an unsustainably incoherent belief system.
(And when you throw predestination into it, it becomes awful and vicious.)
So if everyone gets in, why all the fake baptism bs?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.
You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.
You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:43:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.
You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
Didn't I already address exactly that, and Yi basically said "What he said" (albeit in much more cruel words)?
Someone agreeing to stop doing something does not mean that the person asking them to stop has a reasonable reason for the request.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!
It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?
The reason some Jews find it annoying is historical. Involuntary baptism played an unfortunate role in Christian-Jewish relations over the centuries. Not that these Mormons are in any way like medieval inquisitors, it just carries an unfortunate history created by others - like a helpful Indian decorating Jewish graves with "good luck" swastikas. It isn't the Indian's fault that Jews tend to dislike swastikas.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:43:33 PM
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
The theory that the Mormon Church agreed to stop baptizing dead Holocaust Jews because they had an epiphany about the moral reprehensibility is one among many. It doesn't much affect my judgement.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:43:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
I dont know how your statement flows from what I said, please explain.
You said the proof of the outrageousness of the Mormon Church's actions lay in the fact that they agreed to stop doing it.
Didn't I already address exactly that, and Yi basically said "What he said" (albeit in much more cruel words)?
Someone agreeing to stop doing something does not mean that the person asking them to stop has a reasonable reason for the request.
I agree, it does not mean that in every case. But it is some evidence that the request is reasonable. In Yi's example, which appears to have been fabricated to some degree on the internetz, a good argument could be made that no change in behaviour was required. The fact that Yi appears to have been basing his argument on a false fact pattern does tend to weaken his argument and says nothing about the bona fides of the concerns in this case.
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:37:44 PM
So if everyone gets in, why all the fake baptism bs?
I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.
Quote(And when you throw predestination into it, it becomes awful and vicious.)
I kind of like the idea of predestination. Plus I've always been a bit Graham Greene, I think Hell's a lot more believable than Heaven.
Quote from: Malthus on February 15, 2012, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
My sister converted when she married. I am going to ask her if she is especially offended if the Mormons post death baptize me. I want to get to the bottom of this story, and why it is so especially an issue for Jews!
It is Holocause specific? Is it ok to post baptize a Jew who did not die in the Holocaust?
The reason some Jews find it annoying is historical. Involuntary baptism played an unfortunate role in Christian-Jewish relations over the centuries. Not that these Mormons are in any way like medieval inquisitors, it just carries an unfortunate history created by others - like a helpful Indian decorating Jewish graves with "good luck" swastikas. It isn't the Indian's fault that Jews tend to dislike swastikas.
Fair enough.
Seems nice that everyone can agree on the right resolution though.
Jews are happy because the Mormons won't baptize their dead relatives* anymore.
Mormons are happy because it's not like there aren't 6.995 billion OTHER dead people who need baptizing anyway - and more all the time! Plus they can just do it on the sly anyway.
Nobody else seems to care!
Wins all the way around!
*-except when requested by relatives. Can another relative counter-request? I wonder...
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:57:29 PM
I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.
Then for God's sake please tell them not to fake baptize me. I would much rather live in the splendor of the lowest level of heaven then have to hang out with those nut jobs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:57:29 PM
I think it's to promote them up the tiers of Heaven.
No thanks, Eric Clapton's already on that job.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".
The assumption in this logic is there was no theological reason for them doing it in the first place which seems patently false - at least from their perspective. You seem to be judging the costs based on your own point of view.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
I see. And you think the Mormon Church agreed to stop the practice, at least partially, is not evidence that there is some validity in the concerns raised?
As I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense, and hence no need to assume they actually changed their views on the valiity of the concerns in question at all. Especially since such a change in viewpoint would imply additional moves that they are clearly NOT making - like not baptizing non-Jews without permission from a "relative".
The assumption in this logic is there was no theological reason for them doing it in the first place which seems patently false - at least from their perspective. You seem to be judging the costs based on your own point of view.
No, just nothing that the theological reason applies equally to all 7 billion dead people, and since have only finished with 100 million so far, it is trivial for them to simply not address those 6 million or so right now. In whatever time it would take them to do those 6 million, they can simply do some other 6 million.
Of course there is a theological reason for them to do this - I don't know how you could construct, even accidentally, the strawman that I am claiming their isn't one.
Now, if they got everyone BUT those 6 million all done, THEN it would imply some actual cost to their theological plan to agree not to do Holocaust Jews. Hell, they probably figure that at their current rate, they won't have to worry about THAT 6 million for several more decades, and by then maybe nobody will care.
In any case, I don't think you've supported your claim that their agreement to not do this anymore implies agreement that the concerns are valid. That is one and only one explanation, and one that doesn't really fit with the known facts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2012, 03:57:29 PM
Quote(And when you throw predestination into it, it becomes awful and vicious.)
I kind of like the idea of predestination. Plus I've always been a bit Graham Greene, I think Hell's a lot more believable than Heaven.
As long as everyone is elect, it's okay.
But yeah, while eternal anything strikes me as unlikely because of thermodynamics, before that distant end, aggregate negative utility is certainly a more plausible prediction. :P
I mean, my God, we don't really even have a aggregate positive utility for First World humans living today, and it would take thousands of generations of everyone being happy to counterbalance everything bad that's happened so far just to homo sapiens, let alone eat into the deficit caused by the rise of nervous systems several hundred million years ago. A God that made Earth obviously has little compunction in causing pain to a great many sentient beings, and for a very long time.
The upshot is that fundamentalist Christians should embrace evolution, since it helps prove that God can be just as cruel as they intend.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 04:12:18 PM
Of course there is a theological reason for them to do this - I don't know how you could construct, even accidentally, the strawman that I am claiming their isn't one.
Let me remind you then.
QuoteAs I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not simply imposing the Berkian view of the world on all Mormons and assumed you meant there was no cost because there was no real theological reason. In fact there is a cost - even on your theory that there were just easier targets to exploit. They were doing it for a theological reason. I dont buy the argument that stopping those activities isnt at least some evidence that the Mormon's themselves recognized the complaint had validity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2012, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 04:12:18 PM
Of course there is a theological reason for them to do this - I don't know how you could construct, even accidentally, the strawman that I am claiming their isn't one.
Let me remind you then.
QuoteAs I said before, I do not. There are clearly incentives for them to agreeing to stop, no cost to them to do so in a practical or theological sense
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not simply imposing the Berkian view of the world on all Mormons and assumed you meant there was no cost because there was no real theological reason. In fact there is a cost - even on your theory that there were just easier targets to exploit. They were doing it for a theological reason. I dont buy the argument that stopping those activities isnt at least some evidence that the Mormon's themselves recognized the complaint had validity.
So you took what I said, which was that there was no cost to them in a practical or theological sense, and decided that what I actually meant was that there was no theological reason at all? How does that even pass a basic common sense test? If there was no reason, then it would not matter if there was a cost or not! My statement is by definition stating that there IS a reason! And of course it is blindingly obvious that there is a reason to anyone involved in the discussion. And you say grumbler plays semantic games?
There is no cost because they can simply baptize some other dead person, and as far as I know there is no theological desirability for baptizing one non-Mormon versus another. If there IS some cost to them not baptizing THESE PARTICULAR non Mormons, please let me know what it is - absent that, my point stands. It is not based on my view of the world, but rather their own view as they explained it. If my view is wrong, then I am happy to adjust, but so far you have not even tried to explain why it is wrong, just asserted that it must be.
Nor have you even tried to explain your reasoning behind the claim that their agreeing to not baptize dead Holocaust victims implies their recognition that the complaint is valid. This is just argument by assertion.
No, I took you at the plain meaning of what you wrote. All you are doing know is providing an argument to counter the prima facie observation that the Mormon's backed down because they realized there was merit in the complaint.
In crafting your argument you put the Mormon's in your shoes and try to argue that from your perspective there would be no theological cost to the Mormon's putting an end to those particular religious ceremonies. I think that is at the very least a weak argument.
One thing for you to consider Berkut, is if there is no cost at all, as you claim, then why didnt the Mormons simply stop the practice of fake baptizing Jews completely? ;)
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2012, 03:59:50 PM
Fair enough.
Seems nice that everyone can agree on the right resolution though.
Jews are happy because the Mormons won't baptize their dead relatives* anymore.
Mormons are happy because it's not like there aren't 6.995 billion OTHER dead people who need baptizing anyway - and more all the time! Plus they can just do it on the sly anyway.
Nobody else seems to care!
Wins all the way around!
*-except when requested by relatives. Can another relative counter-request? I wonder...
Thing is, the Mormons
won't be happy. It is a basic, fundamental premise that
every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith. Period.
Next up: is it offensive for Mormons to pre-emptively baptize those Marines with the SS flag? Inquiring minds want to know ... :D
What's up Sheilbh loving all homophobes like Mormons, or Rick Perry? Surely there'snot enough self-loathing even in being raised a catholic.
I think Mormons should all die in a fire, btw, I just think the same about pretty much every other monotheist religion out there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy. It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith. Period.
Link?
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 07:58:36 AM
Is that the currently popular myth? I hadn't heard that one. Was this mythical Congressional threat actually supposed to have been issued in 1978, or was it supposedly issued earlier and the Mormons just responded in 1978?
I suppose Congress could have issued a threat and it never made the news, but I'd have to see a serious source before I believed that one. Passing laws aimed at punishing specific people or organizations isn't Constitutional, either.
I think I got it wrong and it was the IRS who threatened the church, not Congress. If you google on this topic you'll see tons of sites/articles/etc. about it, none of which I know will meet your standards, but if you actually go to the LDS website, there's this:
Quote
Priesthood Ordination before 1978
In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.
Additional Information
Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior's earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6–8).
With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).
http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng (http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng)
and this
Quote
Official Declaration—2
To Whom It May Concern:
On 30 September 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng)
So the church openly admits that prior to 1978 it engaged in racial discrimination, and following a direct revelation from God it no longer does so (note: the LDS Church believes in living prophecy so this type of revelation is not singular in the history of the church). I don't see any direct reference on the website as to why this revelation might have occurred, but the below piece is kind of interesting if you sort of read between the lines:
Quote
Elder Dallin H. Oaks' Reaction to Priesthood Revelation
The following is an extract from the interview Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — gave for the PBS documentary The Mormons. The full interview transcript can be viewed here.
SALT LAKE CITY 20 July 2007
Helen Whitney: Another subject. Take me back to the time just before the ban on the priesthood was lifted.
Dallin H. Oaks: I can't remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years '54 through '71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father's children. And I didn't understand why; I couldn't identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.
Nobody was more relieved or more pleased when the word came. I remember where I was when I learned that the priesthood would be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I was at a mountain home that our family had purchased to have a place of refuge. I had my sons up there, and we were digging something. We had a big pile of dirt there. I've forgotten what it was now, but the phone rang in the house. I went inside, and it was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He said: "I have been appointed to advise you as a representative of the academic people, many of whom have been troubled by the ban on the priesthood, professors, and students, and so on. As president of Brigham Young University and as their representative [Elder Oaks was president of BYU at this time], I've been appointed to advise you that the revelation has been received that all worthy male members will be eligible to receive the priesthood, whatever their ancestry." I thanked him, and I went outside and I told my boys, and I sat down [voice cracks with emotion] on that pile of dirt and cried. And I still feel emotion for that moment. I cried for joy and relief that the Lord had spoken through His prophet, that His blessings were now available to all: the blessings of the priesthood, the blessings of the temple, and the blessings of eternity. That's what we desired. I praise God for it.
Helen Whitney: I know you weren't there, but you've obviously talked to people who were there. Is there anything that you could vivify for us?
Dallin H. Oaks: What I heard about the revelation on the priesthood can't add anything to the eyewitnesses that were there. But I would like to speak of that in terms of what I know about revelation. Revelation comes in a lot of different ways. God speaks to His children in many ways. A face-to-face vision of God is very rare. That was the First Vision of God to Joseph Smith. Another way that revelation comes is by the appearance of an angel. The Apostle Paul had that kind of experience. Revelation can also come in a dream or a vision. None of those were the experience in the revelation on the priesthood. Other ways that revelation comes are in comfort (feeling of comfort), information, communicating restraint, or impelling one to do something, or to give a feeling.
I think in the context of the descriptions that I have heard from my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve about the revelation on the priesthood that was revelation that confirmed what they desired and gave them a feeling of rightness about the time. The prophet of the Lord, President Spencer W. Kimball, had pleaded with the Lord for guidance on this problem the Church faced as it became a worldwide church. It came in contact with more and more good and worthy and wonderful people who desired the blessings of the restored gospel and were blocked by the Church's position that they could not receive the priesthood. And I think everyone in that room desired and wished and hoped that the Lord would say, "This is the time."
[/b]So they went to the Lord, I think with a semi-proposal, that this be done.[/b] But I was not there. I didn't hear the words spoken. But I have the feeling that everyone felt the need, everyone felt the rightness of it. I say a "semi-proposal" because often when we pray for guidance we say, "I'm inclined to do this, is this right?" We look for confirmation. I've had that experience many times of confirming an action. Sometimes I'll feel a restraint. I propose to do something and the feeling is profound: "Don't do it!" And I think that as I've heard the explanations that this was a profound feeling to confirm the rightness and the timing of what was being asked, and the feeling was sufficiently profound and sufficiently individual that people have described it in different ways. But it fits for me within many revelatory experiences I've had in my life.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/elder-dallin-h-oaks-reaction-to-priesthood-revelation (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/elder-dallin-h-oaks-reaction-to-priesthood-revelation)
So it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position. The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership. It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff. :)
Quote from: Caliga on February 15, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
So it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position. The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership. It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff. :)
The Mormons were doing a lot of missionary work in Africa, and not allowing blacks into their priesthood was creating a problem in those efforts. It didn't have anything to do with the IRS, which can't just rescind a religious groups tax-exempt status.
What you may be confusing this with it the incident in which the tax-exempt status of Oral Roberts University was rescinded (or was it Liberty?--anyway, it was a university affiliated with one of the tele-evangelists). But the government's legal argument there was that while churches are tax-exempt by law, and churches
can legally discriminate on the basis of race, the university held tax-exempt status not on the basis of being a religious organization, but on the basis of being an educational organization, and educational organizations
can't legally discriminate on the basis of race.
Note that the tax-exempt status of religious organizations isn't a constitutional matter, but a matter of statute--Congress could revoke the exemption if they wanted to. But any law that did so would have to revoke it for all churches, or it would almost certainly fail a constitutional challange.
Quote from: Caliga on February 15, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2012, 07:58:36 AM
Is that the currently popular myth? I hadn't heard that one. Was this mythical Congressional threat actually supposed to have been issued in 1978, or was it supposedly issued earlier and the Mormons just responded in 1978?
I suppose Congress could have issued a threat and it never made the news, but I'd have to see a serious source before I believed that one. Passing laws aimed at punishing specific people or organizations isn't Constitutional, either.
I think I got it wrong and it was the IRS who threatened the church, not Congress.
The IRS, I believe is possible (though I haven't seen any reference to such). Congress, I didn't believe possible. You have retreated from the position to which I took exception, so we are all good now.
QuoteSo it sounds like from the above that somebody was putting pressure on them to reverse their position. The Elder quoted in the article would have the interviewer believe it was the membership of the LDS Church putting pressure on the leadership. It might be that he conveniently forgot to mention the original source of the pressure to lift the ban came from the IRS, or the media, or some external source.... or maybe he's just an old guy and old guys forget stuff. :)
The pressure was coming from within the LDS, from what I understand. In particular, it was coming from the missionary branch, which had opened missions in Brazil in particular, where the concept of "black" has little meaning, since there is so much intermarriage between groups the Americans (and the LDS leadership) mistook for "races." If a "negro" can't be ordained, can a 1/2 "negro"? A 1/4? A 1/8? The position of the church with regards to "race" wasn't supportable outside the framework of a "race"-based society, and the missionary branch was going global.
Plus, around that time, the LDS and the SLC police had just gotten a lot of bad publicity over two former fairly high LDS officials that had opposed the ban on "black" priests and had been kicked out of the church over it.
I am not disputing (and in fact, have always argued) that the church leadership had an awfully convenient visit from Hod.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy. It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith. Period.
Link?
It was in the Frontline piece I linked, but here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=1ec52f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/why-do-mormons-baptize-the-dead/2012/02/15/gIQAnYfOGR_story.html
They've knocked out about 2 million of their register of 11 million dead, and are working hard to get all 9 billion recorded deaths in history.
Enjoy your white robe and slippers, Neil.
I'm rather annoyed they have my maternal grandfather's family tree from Germany back to 1710 in their little white slipper index.
I wonder if I have any ancestors in there? My dad's side the family is kinda sketchy.
I'm highly annoyed.
I'm going up the street for a Cadbury Creme Egg, dammit.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 06:43:48 PM
What's up Sheilbh loving all homophobes like Mormons, or Rick Perry? Surely there'snot enough self-loathing even in being raised a catholic.
:lol: I don't like Rick Perry at all.
Plus Mormons are generally nice people, regardless of their views on the gay, and theologically because they don't believe in damnation there's still homos in heaven. Which is nice.
Plus I think hate's kind of exhausting.
Marti's antics are turning you straight, aren't they ?
:P
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2012, 06:43:48 PM
What's up Sheilbh loving all homophobes like Mormons, or Rick Perry? Surely there'snot enough self-loathing even in being raised a catholic.
:lol: I don't like Rick Perry at all.
Plus Mormons are generally nice people, regardless of their views on the gay, and theologically because they don't believe in damnation there's still homos in heaven. Which is nice.
Plus I think hate's kind of exhausting.
Yeah, well, I don't care if they believe in damnation or not as this is all fairytales. However, gays raised Mormon have much higher suicide attempt rates and the LDS church was the major sponsor of Prop 8 - and this is what I care about since it is not some bullshit but actual people being hurt by these idiots.
Higher than what though?
Mental health's an issue that needs addressing among gays more generally because the attempted and successful suicide rates are higher across the board (I think there's been a reluctance in part because it's more difficult when you're at the 'pride' stage as opposed to being comfortably bedded in society). But I'd be interested to see what it is particularly about Mormonism that causes this as opposed to, say, someone raised conservative Catholic or Muslim. I suppose many Mormon communities are in areas without many big cities to escape to, which is another factor.
On Prop 8 that doesn't bother me at all. I'd be surprised if they didn't.
I'm all for suicide prevention for fags. Cuts down on the internet drama.
Then again, so does successful suicide. So I'm torn.
On the Thursday show, Stephen Colbert circumcised all dead Mormons by proxy (an intern holding a hot dog) and converted them to Judaism. :lol: :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2012, 03:03:26 AM
On the Thursday show, Stephen Colbert circumcised all dead Mormons by proxy (an intern holding a hot dog) and converted them to Judaism. :lol: :lmfao:
:pinch: That's not how circumcision is supposed to be performed.
Quote from: DGuller on February 27, 2012, 03:27:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2012, 03:03:26 AM
On the Thursday show, Stephen Colbert circumcised all dead Mormons by proxy (an intern holding a hot dog) and converted them to Judaism. :lol: :lmfao:
:pinch: That's not how circumcision is supposed to be performed.
Nonsense. We've all seen Mel Brooks in Robin Hood. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 10:50:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2012, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
Thing is, the Mormons won't be happy. It is a basic, fundamental premise that every person who ever lived has to be baptized into the Mormon faith. Period.
Link?
It was in the Frontline piece I linked, but here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=1ec52f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/why-do-mormons-baptize-the-dead/2012/02/15/gIQAnYfOGR_story.html
They've knocked out about 2 million of their register of 11 million dead, and are working hard to get all 9 billion recorded deaths in history.
Enjoy your white robe and slippers, Neil.
I don't think they're going to make it.
Not this month, no.
By the way, I'm surprised Marti didn't bring up the gay activism with regards to claiming dead mormons as homosexuals.
I liked the bit where someone found out that Eli Wiesel is on the list to be converted, as soon as he dies anyway. LOL.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 11:30:01 PM
I'm rather annoyed they have my maternal grandfather's family tree from Germany back to 1710 in their little white slipper index.
Not only has this pissed me off, but it's pissed off my mother as well.
And, they only have half his siblings in the listings. Fuckers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 11:30:01 PM
I'm rather annoyed they have my maternal grandfather's family tree from Germany back to 1710 in their little white slipper index.
Not only has this pissed me off, but it's pissed off my mother as well.
And, they only have half his siblings in the listings. Fuckers.
Seedy, I've already sent your name in. Twice. Enjoy the Celestial Kingdom!
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2012, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2012, 11:30:01 PM
I'm rather annoyed they have my maternal grandfather's family tree from Germany back to 1710 in their little white slipper index.
Not only has this pissed me off, but it's pissed off my mother as well.
And, they only have half his siblings in the listings. Fuckers.
Seedy, I've already sent your name in. Twice. Enjoy the Celestial Kingdom!
Then we've cancelled each other out, now haven't we?
Quote(CBS News) The revelation that slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nearly a decade after his death prompted Mormon officials to call the baptism a "serious breach of protocol," the Boston Globe reported Wednesday.
Pearl, who was Jewish, was killed by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002 after being kidnapped while on assignment for the Journal. An excommunicated Mormon uncovered records that Mormons baptized Pearl by proxy in a Twin Falls, Idaho, temple last June, the Globe reported.
The practice of posthumous baptisms intends to provide members of other religions a chance at salvation after their deaths, the Globe reported. Earlier this month, the church apologized for the baptisms of a Jewish rights advocate's parents. In 1995, it said it would stop baptizing Holocaust victims.
Upon learning of her husband's baptism, Pearl's widow Mariane Pearl echoed calls for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, to use his front-runner status in the Republican presidential primary race to publicly oppose the practice.
"It's a lack of respect for Danny and a lack of respect for his parents," she told the Globe.
The church has defended the practice by saying that the baptisms only offer the deceased an opportunity to accept Mormonism in the afterlife. In the case of Pearl's baptism, the church came out against it because a relative didn't perform the rite.
"In a few instances, names have been submitted in violation of policy," church spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement to the Globe. "Whether this is done by simple error or for other reasons, the Church considers these submissions to be a serious breach of protocol. It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the Church's policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention."
I wonder if the Mormons get credit or points for every dead person they get baptized, like if they sold copies of
Grit magazine or something.
It's like being hassled by those annoying time-share salesmen beyond the grave. :lol:
i'm kind of hoping a crazy radical jew starts digging up mormon graves and posthumously circumcising corpses. Seige? :P