Mormons Posthumously Baptize Obama's Late Mother

[GeeBee]

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12299851

For background on the Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the Dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

Thoughts?

[QuikTrig]

victimless. let them do whatever they want with.

[GeeBee]

I agree, however I think it's in bad taste.

Meanwhile, at the white house, the phone rings in Obama's office....
"Hello?"
"Yeah, it's Romney...you may have won the presidency, but I got your mother's soul. Bwahahaha"
-click-

[xshady121]

The LDS Church is walking a fine line when the mother of our very special president has been posthumously baptized and endowed in a Utah temple,"


Hahahaha "our very special president". That's hilarious.

[Villanova1L]

I agree, however I think it's in bad taste.

Meanwhile, at the white house, the phone rings in Obama's office....
"Hello?"
"Yeah, it's Romney...you may have won the presidency, but I got your mother's soul. Bwahahaha"
-click-

What's in bad taste about giving people who didn't hear the message the church wants to spread a chance to hear it?

[GeeBee]

What's in bad taste about giving people who didn't hear the message the church wants to spread a chance to hear it?

1) Dead people can't hear messages. They're dead.
2) It displays a total lack of respect for their families.

[Villanova1L]

What disrespect to the family? Someone getting dunked in water offends a family?

If you're an atheist sure, but the LDS faith would suggest they can hear.

[Praetor]

Fuck, if this turns into a religion debate like the other sixty threads have, I'm gonna choke a bitch.

[GeeBee]

What disrespect to the family? Someone getting dunked in water offends a family?

If you're an atheist sure, but the LDS faith would suggest they can hear.

If it's as a way of making sure the dearly departed becomes a member of their church...yeah.
I concede that it's purely a matter of opinion, but I personally think it's disrespectful to use the names of the "dearly departed" as a way to forward your religious agenda.

Also, I don't care what the LDS faith suggests...science suggests that dead people cannot hear, and the idea that God won't let someone into heaven until someone is dunked in their name is absurd. (But the again, most of the stuff that most gods demand is pretty absurd)

[GeeBee]

Fuck, if this turns into a religion debate like the other sixty threads have, I'm gonna choke a bitch.

No one's got a gun to your head. You're free to start your own "secular" thread, too. If you don't like what's on, change the channel.
Also, the terms "MORMON" and "BAPTIZE" didn't tip you off that this thread may have religious overtones?

[Praetor]

No one's got a gun to your head. You're free to start your own "secular" thread, too. If you don't like what's on, change the channel.
Also, the terms "MORMON" and "BAPTIZE" didn't tip you off that this thread may have religious overtones?
haha dude chill, I'm kidding. I'm just saying that if you want to debate religion as a whole, you should head over to the million other threads that have turned into religious debates.

[GeeBee]

haha dude chill, I'm kidding. I'm just saying that if you want to debate religion as a whole, you should head over to the million other threads that have turned into religious debates.

S'all good.
I actually started this thread not to debate, but I to get a feel for what people thought about this practice. It's a pretty heated topic in Utah, because several groups (Jewish, Catholic) have threatened legal action if the Mormon Church doesn't discontinue "dunking" their family members without permisson.
Personally, I'm kindof split between "who gives a shit" and "man, that's out of line".

[Adeniz19]

it seems like some cheap publicity stunt, but whatever. i don't think it's right for non-family members to baptize anyone into a religion, especially once they're already deceased. Hahahaha "our very special president". That's hilarious.
hahaha i had to role my eyes at that one too.

[Villanova1L]

If it's as a way of making sure the dearly departed becomes a member of their church...yeah.
I concede that it's purely a matter of opinion, but I personally think it's disrespectful to use the names of the "dearly departed" as a way to forward your religious agenda.

Also, I don't care what the LDS faith suggests...science suggests that dead people cannot hear, and the idea that God won't let someone into heaven until someone is dunked in their name is absurd. (But the again, most of the stuff that most gods demand is pretty absurd)

The way the church sees this is that the person has the opportunity to make a choice while their in "spirit prison" (which is quite simply one of the most terrible terms ever) and have the same beliefs they did when they were on Earth. The logic being some people never got visited by missionaries or had a chance to hear the lds method, and this is their chance to hear it. Even without the baptism for the dead, all these spirits are being taught in spirit prison anyway by spirit missionaries where they can choose to accept or reject the church.

Dead bodies can't hear, I didn't know science proved souls don't exist. The fact that God (assuming He exists) wouldn't let someone in until they've accepted his church is completely reasonable, if you believe in God.

I don't see any harm. Also, what in the world would the lawsuit be over by the other churches? What damages are there to a soul that no one can prove exists?

[GuitarR0cker1]

:yawn:

[Adeniz19]

yea, but it's not like obama's mom never heard of the mormon church. i'm pretty sure it was around 15 years ago, and if she wanted to be baptized mormon, she would of done it while she was alive.

[deanster321]

yea, but it's not like obama's mom never heard of the mormon church. i'm pretty sure it was around 15 years ago, and if she wanted to be baptized mormon, she would of done it while she was alive.
This.

If she'd actually shown interest in becoming a Mormon but hadn't gotten around to it while she was alive then fine. In that case I'd understand. Otherwise, as a matter of principle, they have no business to do this in my view. At least they didn't try to publicise it themselves I guess.

[Villanova1L]

yea, but it's not like obama's mom never heard of the mormon church. i'm pretty sure it was around 15 years ago, and if she wanted to be baptized mormon, she would of done it while she was alive.

The church sees a difference in knowing something exists and taking the discussions from the missionaries. To them the idea is to give a chance for salvation, which again, I see little if any harm in.

[GeeBee]

The way the church sees this is that the person has the opportunity to make a choice while their in "spirit prison" (which is quite simply one of the most terrible terms ever) and have the same beliefs they did when they were on Earth. The logic being some people never got visited by missionaries or had a chance to hear the lds method, and this is their chance to hear it. Even without the baptism for the dead, all these spirits are being taught in spirit prison anyway by spirit missionaries where they can choose to accept or reject the church.

Dead bodies can't hear, I didn't know science proved souls don't exist. The fact that God (assuming He exists) wouldn't let someone in until they've accepted his church is completely reasonable, if you believe in God.

I don't see any harm. Also, what in the world would the lawsuit be over by the other churches? What damages are there to a soul that no one can prove exists?

This is actually a decent point.

Also, the lawsuits have been threatened by some Jewish groups who want holocaust victims to not be posthumously baptized.

[saysmydoctor]

yea, but it's not like obama's mom never heard of the mormon church. i'm pretty sure it was around 15 years ago, and if she wanted to be baptized mormon, she would of done it while she was alive.
This.
The way the church sees this is that the person has the opportunity to make a choice while their in "spirit prison" (which is quite simply one of the most terrible terms ever) and have the same beliefs they did when they were on Earth. The logic being some people never got visited by missionaries or had a chance to hear the lds method, and this is their chance to hear it. Even without the baptism for the dead, all these spirits are being taught in spirit prison anyway by spirit missionaries where they can choose to accept or reject the church.

Dead bodies can't hear, I didn't know science proved souls don't exist. The fact that God (assuming He exists) wouldn't let someone in until they've accepted his church is completely reasonable, if you believe in God.

I don't see any harm. Also, what in the world would the lawsuit be over by the other churches? What damages are there to a soul that no one can prove exists?
He said 'bad taste' not 'illegal.'

[Villanova1L]

This.

He said 'bad taste' not 'illegal.'

The lawsuits brought up would suggest illegal.

[Villanova1L]

This is actually a decent point.

Also, the lawsuits have been threatened by some Jewish groups who want holocaust victims to not be posthumously baptized.

I just don't see what damages they could possibly claim.

I'm also fairly sure an will could state they don't want to be baptized and the church will no longer do the action.

[GeeBee]

The lawsuits brought up would suggest illegal.

A civil lawsuit doesn't necessarily make claims to legality.

[GeeBee]

I just don't see what damages they could possibly claim.

I'm also fairly sure an will could state they don't want to be baptized and the church will no longer do the action.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449727,00.html

[Villanova1L]

A civil lawsuit doesn't necessarily make claims to legality.

There is a question of liability. Specifically there would be liability for any damages, but I don't think there is any damages here the church could be liable for.

From what I read in the article the question was only "Michel said talks with Mormon leaders, held as recently as last week, have ended. He said his group will not sue, and that 'the only thing left, therefore, is to turn to the court of public opinion.'"

The court of public opinion doesn't seem to be an actual court.

[GeeBee]

There is a question of liability. Specifically there would be liability for any damages, but I don't think there is any damages here the church could be liable for.

From what I read in the article the question was only "Michel said talks with Mormon leaders, held as recently as last week, have ended. He said his group will not sue, and that 'the only thing left, therefore, is to turn to the court of public opinion.'"

The court of public opinion doesn't seem to be an actual court.

His group may not sue, but others might.

[Villanova1L]

His group may not sue, but others might.

I don't know what the suit would be for. Or what damages there could possibly be.

[Adeniz19]

The church sees a difference in knowing something exists and taking the discussions from the missionaries. To them the idea is to give a chance for salvation, which again, I see little if any harm in.But, that's not their choice to make. A lot of people take what happens to their soul after they die seriously, and so do their family members. It's like if a hospital decided to take the organs of a recently deceased person without the consent. The person is already dead, so there's no harm in it, but good look telling that to the family members.

[Jefferson Rank]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mormons.

[jviraldo]

But, that's not their choice to make. A lot of people take what happens to their soul after they die seriously, and so do their family members. It's like if a hospital decided to take the organs of a recently deceased person without the consent. The person is already dead, so there's no harm in it, but good look telling that to the family members.


But they are not physically taking anything. and for the people who dont believe in the church, the only real thing happening to their family members is their name being read. what is the harm in that? i didnt know it was illegal to read a dead persons name.

[Adeniz19]

But they are not physically taking anything. and for the people who dont believe in the church, the only real thing happening to their family members is their name being read. what is the harm in that? i didnt know it was illegal to read a dead persons name.a lot of people see the soul as a physical thing.

i'm not saying anything about the legality of it, this is more of a moral issue. It is almost taking away a person's right of freedom of religion.

[jviraldo]

a lot of people see the soul as a physical thing.

i'm not saying anything about the legality of it, this is more of a moral issue. It is almost taking away a person's right of freedom of religion.

But if the person doesnt believe in the church then nothing is going to happen to them. its just their name being read. no harm done. And why is it immoral to say a dead persons name?

[Adeniz19]

because you are trying to take a person's faith into your own hands.

[Tristan Needler]

Basically everything Lino said.

[splitsecond]

the way i seet is, i sure as shit am not going to convert to mormonism, but if by some off chance those crazy fucks are right, at least they got me covered.

[jviraldo]

the way i seet is, i sure as shit am not going to convert to mormonism, but if by some off chance those crazy fucks are right, at least they got me covered.

haha. thats an ok way to look at it. and you will be covered.

[jviraldo]

because you are trying to take a person's faith into your own hands.

thats not true, even mormons say that just because it is done physically thats not enouph. The persons spirit needs to accept it. but they dont have to. it is all up to the person who its being done for.

[Tristan Needler]

You don't see how it could be extremely insulting to the families of the deceased?

[Adeniz19]

so i guess you guys would be ok if some devil worshipers held some sort of seance in order to stop your deceased grandmother from entering into heaven? i mean, hey, you guys don't believe in that crap anyway so have at it, right?

[xshady121]

so i guess you guys would be ok if some devil worshipers held some sort of seance in order to stop your deceased grandmother from entering into heaven? i mean, hey, you guys don't believe in that crap anyway so have at it, right?

Completely not the same.

[jviraldo]

so i guess you guys would be ok if some devil worshipers held some sort of seance in order to stop your deceased grandmother from entering into heaven? i mean, hey, you guys don't believe in that crap anyway so have at it, right?

Yes i would because i know it doesnt mean anything because its not true.

[Adeniz19]

Completely not the same.how is it not? it's a group of people trying to decide the fate of someone after they pass.

[jviraldo]

how is it not? it's a group of people trying to decide the fate of someone after they pass.
I just told you that WE dont even believe it decides their fate, its their decision. your just ignoring it because you just want to keep arguing.

[Adeniz19]

I just told you that WE dont even believe it decides their fate, its their decision. your just ignoring it because you just want to keep arguing.i'm not ignoring it, because if they wanted to DECIDE, they could of done it while living.

[saysmydoctor]

Completely not the same.
What is your definition of 'same?' Because I want to meet your elementary English teacher and strike them.

[Adeniz19]

What is your definition of 'same?' Because I want to meet your elementary English teacher and strike them.
hahaha what if it were muslims trying to do this? is that not the same too?

[Villanova1L]

But, that's not their choice to make. A lot of people take what happens to their soul after they die seriously, and so do their family members. It's like if a hospital decided to take the organs of a recently deceased person without the consent. The person is already dead, so there's no harm in it, but good look telling that to the family members.

According to the church you go to this place (spirit prison) anyway, and you are visited by missionaries, regardless of your beliefs. Under your logic the other religions, or families of these people, would be able to sue because the Mormon's believe that you receive lessons when you die, and therefore your soul is "tampered" with.

[Tristan Needler]

According to the church you go to this place (spirit prison) anyway, and you are visited by missionaries, regardless of your beliefs. Under your logic the other religions, or families of these people, would be able to sue because the Mormon's believe that you receive lessons when you die, and therefore your soul is "tampered" with.
According to one church. According to other churches, this is not a thing that should be done. So if your church is right, you're helping people. If not, you're doing the opposite.

[Villanova1L]

i'm not ignoring it, because if they wanted to DECIDE, they could of done it while living.

The process is for people who didn't know of the church, didn't take the lessons, and therefore didn't make a completely educated decision. Your soul has every right to reject this once you're dead.

Also, I would have zero problem with a catholic, islamic, jewish, etc. baptism for my soul if that faith believes that my soul still has a choice.

[Villanova1L]

According to one church. According to other churches, this is not a thing that should be done. So if your church is right, you're helping people. If not, you're doing the opposite.


I assume the opposite would be hurting, so what harm comes from this again according to other religions?

[saysmydoctor]

The process is for people who didn't know of the church, didn't take the lessons, and therefore didn't make a completely educated decision. Your soul has every right to reject this once you're dead.

Also, I would have zero problem with a catholic, islamic, jewish, etc. baptism for my soul if that faith believes that my soul still has a choice.
I'm really not surprised at this point about any of the fucking shit you say. You deny the morally questionable and ethically questionable--at least you are equal opportunity.

[Tristan Needler]

I assume the opposite would be hurting, so what harm comes from this again according to other religions?
If they believed no harm came from it, the Vatican wouldn't be doing their best to prevent it. It's obviously a negative occurrence in their opinion.

[Adeniz19]

we're going in fucking loops here. i'm done

[Villanova1L]

I'm really not surprised at this point about any of the fucking shit you say. You deny the morally questionable and ethically questionable--at least you are equal opportunity.

I've failed to see anyone explain to me why this is morally or ethically questionable. I've seen a lot of statements like, "well the Catholics think its bad so it must be." Someone tell me what harm there is from this and I'll consider it.

[Villanova1L]

we're going in fucking loops here. i'm done

All you need to do is tell me what religion would find this objectionable and why.

[Tristan Needler]

All you need to do is tell me what religion would find this objectionable and why.
Did you read that article?

[StillTrying1288]

What hurt? Every religion believes they are right. You don't believe in that religion then you sure aren't getting into heaven. You are basically going and assuming these people didn't know about Mormonism. At the same time you are imposing your religion not only on the dead, but on the family member as well. For somebody who's Catholic, Jewish, etc it's a downright slap in the face that people can go around assuming that they hadn't heard of Mormonism and thus they must do it for them.

[Adeniz19]

All you need to do is tell me what religion would find this objectionable and why.Every fucking religion out there, and because it stands against their own set beliefs. It's a slap in the face to every other religion.

[saysmydoctor]

I've failed to see anyone explain to me why this is morally or ethically questionable. I've seen a lot of statements like, "well the Catholics think its bad so it must be." Someone tell me what harm there is from this and I'll consider it.
THEY'RE DEAD.
x

[GeeBee]

I'm really not surprised at this point about any of the fucking shit you say. You deny the morally questionable and ethically questionable--at least you are equal opportunity.

Seriously, I second this. Mr. Villanova law student is the worst kind of troll.
He just gets off on being a contrarian, like other so-called "conservatives" in these forums.
He answers no questions, just sidesteps views that go against his own, and offers no evidence for his claims, just more baseless sophistry.

[Villanova1L]

Did you read that article?

The one that said this: "They tell me, that my parents' Jewishness has not been altered but ... 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?" Michel said Monday.

The answer to that is simple enough, there is no way to know who accepted the baptism because it is accepted or rejected by a spirit. Any Jew murdered during the Holocaust will be considered Jewish on this Earth forever. The above statement comes from a misunderstanding of what the baptism does.

Or the one that said: In 1995, Mormons and Jews inked an agreement to limit the circumstances that allow for the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. Ending the practice outright was not part of the agreement and would essentially be asking Mormons to alter their beliefs, church Elder Lance B. Wickman said Monday in an interview with reporters in Salt Lake City.

All the church wants is to be able to practice their religion. If the LDS church is wrong then this baptism means nothing because the spirits don't go somewhere they have a choice.

If the church is right then they are given an option.

[Villanova1L]

Seriously, I second this. Mr. Villanova law student is the worst kind of troll.
He just gets off on being a contrarian, like other so-called "conservatives" in these forums.
He answers no questions, just sidesteps views that go against his own, and offers no evidence for his claims, just more baseless sophistry.

What questions have I not answered?

[Villanova1L]

Every fucking religion out there, and because it stands against their own set beliefs. It's a slap in the face to every other religion.

So one religion shouldn't be able to practice their beliefs if those beliefs are counter to other religions?

[GeeBee]

What questions have I not answered?

I'm done with you.
Remember to take those classes.

[Adeniz19]

So one religion shouldn't be able to practice their beliefs if those beliefs are counter to other religions?WTF? How delusional are you? There's a difference from people practicing their beliefs, and a religious group of people trying to decide what is best for you. If they want to practice their beliefs, do it with their own souls and not with others.

[Villanova1L]

WTF? How delusional are you? There's a difference from people practicing their beliefs, and a religious group of people trying to decide what is best for you. If they want to practice their beliefs, do it with their own souls and not with others.

Why should one church be given the right to stop a church from practicing their beliefs. WTF isn't an answer.

They aren't doing anything to your soul, your soul is given an option to accept or reject. I dont' see how this is something that is offensive.

[Villanova1L]

I'm done with you.
Remember to take those classes.

Great, I guess if you can't come up with an answer it is far easier to make a snide comment and leave.

Taking your ball and going home is always the answer.

[J.C.]

I don't know what happens when you die, I just hope I don't have to be bailed out by mormons.

[Adeniz19]

You are missing the point. The church has no right in this. It is a HUMAN right to choose your own religion. People know who the fucking mormon church is, and if they want to be apart of it, they can choose to willingly while they are alive. Thanks for sucking me back into this, by the way.

[GeeBee]

Great, I guess if you can't come up with an answer it is far easier to make a snide comment and leave.

Taking your ball and going home is always the answer.

No, knowing when to stop arguing with irrational narcissists is the answer. You're pointless to discuss anything with, as has been proven in at least 2 threads. You apparently have little regard for ethics, religion, and civics, so I'm opting out of discussing any other topics with you. It's a fruitless effort. If you want to chalk it up as a "win" on your internet-debate scoreboard, be my guest.

[GeeBee]

You are missing the point. The church has no right in this. It is a HUMAN right to choose your own religion. People know who the fucking mormon church is, and if they want to be apart of it, they can choose to willingly while they are alive. Thanks for sucking me back into this, by the way.

This.

Also, it's a wonder anyone even wants to be a part of the Mormon church anymore. That religion is as whacked and debunked as Scientology.

[Villanova1L]

You are missing the point. The church has no right in this. It is a HUMAN right to choose your own religion. People know who the fucking mormon church is, and if they want to be apart of it, they can choose to willingly while they are alive. Thanks for sucking me back into this, by the way.

Actually the members of the church have the right to exercise their religion and all the beliefs that come along with it.

How would you treat those who have NOT heard of the church? People born before Christ, or after Christ's death, but before Joseph Smith? Would that be ok since they didn't know about the church?

Or is there a greater issue you have?

[Villanova1L]

No, knowing when to stop arguing with irrational narcissists is the answer. You're pointless to discuss anything with, as has been proven in at least 2 threads. You apparently have little regard for ethics, religion, and civics, so I'm opting out of discussing any other topics with you. It's a fruitless effort. If you want to chalk it up as a "win" on your internet-debate scoreboard, be my guest.

Not buying into your ethics or belief in religion is irrational? Interesting way to approach a discussion.

[xshady121]

how is it not? it's a group of people trying to decide the fate of someone after they pass.

What is your definition of 'same?' Because I want to meet your elementary English teacher and strike them.

Sean, now who is being ignorant? Do you even know about the Baptism for the Dead ceremony? They are extending the opportunity to accept their faith to the deceased individual. The hypothetical Adeniz brought up was someone trying to "keep a soul out of heaven". This process doesn't do anything like that. The mother must accept the invitation posthumously for anything to happen.

There is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. Stop making mountains out of molehills.

[saysmydoctor]

Sean, now who is being ignorant? Do you even know about the Baptism for the Dead ceremony? They are extending the opportunity to accept their faith to the deceased individual. The hypothetical Adeniz brought up was someone trying to "keep a soul out of heaven". This process doesn't do anything like that. The mother must accept the invitation posthumously for anything to happen.

There is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. Stop making mountains out of molehills.
How is that ignorant? Now you don't know what 'ignorant' means. The mother is dead.

Dead. You don't have the ability to make choices. You're dead. The least the Church could have done was consulted with the kin about what they were going to do. I don't have a problem with the ceremony. I have problem with the violation of the rights of the dead--in that they have no choice.

[radiofriendly]

Oh goodness... I really want to avoid any kind of debate; i certianly am not here to argue, but i do want to pose a couple questions simply for thought.

I understand for someone not entirely educated in the church, or even someone whio simply doesn't believe in anything the church has to offer, that this is very tough 'doctrine' to swallow. However, some fruit for thought...

It is the LDS church's perspective that this is revelation received from Heavenly Father. It is, consequentially, a divine law. Mormons hold this practice in the utmost sanctity, and believe it to be crucial to exaltation for all in the afterlife. Members of the LDS Church know and faithfully believe this to be a crucial practice of God's work here on earth.

For one who finds spiritual joy and satisfaction in this practice with knowledge of faith, that they are contributing to the exaltation of all in the 'only true gospel' on the earth, are they to stop simply because people from different faiths, or any individual for that matter is offended? keep in mind that many facets of the LDS church throughout history have been bold and have caused much resistance in the religous community. They weren't driven halfway across the continent for no reason. As a faith who believes that they are the singular truth on earth, and that baptism is required to enter heaven, they will continue to offend many *who do not want to listen, or who disagree

Baptisms for the dead is very obscure practice to many, especially outside the church. but i would think that just as we upset faiths with our practices, there are many faiths who practice the belief that mormons are destined to be damned in hell, or publish works that stretch and exaggerate LDS practices would offend or hurt the feelings of many Mormons

One could easily say, 'Mormons are imposing there will on other faiths, where as most organized religion does no such thing'. To this i would say that if the LDS faith in fact has no substance, why not rely on one's faith that they will be judged accordingly for their actions, thoughts, and intentions.

as far as ethics go, that is simply a debate without a consensus. I personally don't see how it is in bad taste, because it is done with utmost reverence and greatest of intentions for personal progress in the afterlife. The practice itself is simple, void of any malicious intent, and spiritual for all thos involved. There will certainly be those opposed to the practice but i would refer them to the previous paragraph.

[radiofriendly]

I have problem with the violation of the rights of the dead--in that they have no choice.

the idealogy in the church is that the baptism is done regardless simply to ensure the deceased has made the necessary covenants after they've accepted the gospel, but in the afterlife, they still have the choice to accept the gospel or not. There agency or freedom to choose is not taken away if the baptism is done in their name.

[HometownHero]

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12299851

For background on the Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the Dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

Thoughts?

You're ignorant. My family is all mormon. All your information is flawed. Grow up and realize that this is America where you can practice any religion you want. Go away

[Tristan Needler]

Actually the members of the church have the right to exercise their religion and all the beliefs that come along with it.

How would you treat those who have NOT heard of the church? People born before Christ, or after Christ's death, but before Joseph Smith? Would that be ok since they didn't know about the church?

Or is there a greater issue you have?
There are religions which believe that you should forcibly convert those who are not of your faith, and if they refuse, you have every right to kill them. Should this be allowed simply because it is written as part of a religion? There are religions which say slavery is perfectly acceptable, should this be allowed because it is part of a religion?

[GeeBee]

Oh goodness... I really want to avoid any kind of debate; i certianly am not here to argue, but i do want to pose a couple questions simply for thought.

I understand for someone not entirely educated in the church, or even someone whio simply doesn't believe in anything the church has to offer, that this is very tough 'doctrine' to swallow. However, some fruit for thought...

It is the LDS church's perspective that this is revelation received from Heavenly Father. It is, consequentially, a divine law. Mormons hold this practice in the utmost sanctity, and believe it to be crucial to exaltation for all in the afterlife. Members of the LDS Church know and faithfully believe this to be a crucial practice of God's work here on earth.

For one who finds spiritual joy and satisfaction in this practice with knowledge of faith, that they are contributing to the exaltation of all in the 'only true gospel' on the earth, are they to stop simply because people from different faiths, or any individual for that matter is offended? keep in mind that many facets of the LDS church throughout history have been bold and have caused much resistance in the religous community. They weren't driven halfway across the continent for no reason. As a faith who believes that they are the singular truth on earth, and that baptism is required to enter heaven, they will continue to offend many *who do not want to listen, or who disagree

Baptisms for the dead is very obscure practice to many, especially outside the church. but i would think that just as we upset faiths with our practices, there are many faiths who practice the belief that mormons are destined to be damned in hell, or publish works that stretch and exaggerate LDS practices would offend or hurt the feelings of many Mormons

One could easily say, 'Mormons are imposing there will on other faiths, where as most organized religion does no such thing'. To this i would say that if the LDS faith in fact has no substance, why not rely on one's faith that they will be judged accordingly for their actions, thoughts, and intentions.

as far as ethics go, that is simply a debate without a consensus. I personally don't see how it is in bad taste, because it is done with utmost reverence and greatest of intentions for personal progress in the afterlife. The practice itself is simple, void of any malicious intent, and spiritual for all thos involved. There will certainly be those opposed to the practice but i would refer them to the previous paragraph.

Someone lives and chooses (or doesn't) a religion that they are fine with during life. Mormons find their name after death and baptize them into their church, which by default, they claim is the "one true church". This automatically assumes they find their religion to be superior to all others, even to the point that they want departed souls to have the chance to accept it. Such an outlook is EXTREMELY arrogant.
In my view, an arrogant practice = a tasteless practice.

It's along the same lines as respecting a grave and not walking on it. Of course, the dead are dead and there's no real harm done, but out of a sense of decency and respect, we don't dance on graves.

[saysmydoctor]

No one is denying the right to practice your religion. But you are forcing your religion upon others.

[Adeniz19]

Actually the members of the church have the right to exercise their religion and all the beliefs that come along with it.

How would you treat those who have NOT heard of the church? People born before Christ, or after Christ's death, but before Joseph Smith? Would that be ok since they didn't know about the church?

Or is there a greater issue you have?members of a church have the right to practice their beliefs with other members of the church. if a family member wishes to practice this ritual with their deceased relatives, then go right ahead. i have no problem with that whatsoever. my problem is practicing your beliefs in the name of someone, without any consent given from them, or their loved ones, for people to do this ritual. at least have the courtesy to ask if their loved ones object to this before performing it.

[GeeBee]

You're ignorant. My family is all mormon. All your information is flawed. Grow up and realize that this is America where you can practice any religion you want. Go away

Call the Salt Lake Tribune, assface, I didn't write the article, I just posted it and asked for thoughts. If there's flawed information, let your fingers do some walking and set the issue straight. As far as my own ignorance, I've spent more years within Mormonism than you've probably spent on this planet, so I think I've got a handle on it.

Grow up and realize that this is America, where I can scrutinize and examine any cult that I want to.

[HometownHero]

Call the Salt Lake Tribune, assface, I didn't write the article, I just posted it and asked for thoughts.

Grow up and realize that this is America, where I can scrutinize and examine any cult that I want to.

Sure have your facts straight then. Mormonism is not a cult. How about you just live your life and believe what you want and let others believe in what they want? Instead of being an ignorant dick? Just a thought. No ones judging you. You have no right to judge them. You're not God

[xshady121]

No one is denying the right to practice your religion. But you are forcing your religion upon others.

Now you don't know what the word "force" means?

It isn't "forcing upon" someone when you are giving them an option to accept. That is actually the complete opposite of "to force".

[saysmydoctor]

Now you don't know what the word "force" means?

It isn't "forcing upon" someone when you are giving them an option to accept. That is actually the complete opposite of "to force".
They are dead. This is why I said it is morally questionable, because some people don't buy into the faith portion of the argument. If that person didn't accept religion in life, then yes, you are forcing it upon them.

[radiofriendly]

Someone lives and chooses (or doesn't) a religion that they are fine with during life. Mormons find their name after death and baptize them into their church, which by default, they claim is the "one true church". This automatically assumes they find their religion to be superior to all others, even to the point that they want departed souls to have the chance to accept it. Such an outlook is EXTREMELY arrogant.
In my view, an arrogant practice = a tasteless practice.

It's along the same lines as respecting a grave and not walking on it. Of course, the dead are dead and there's no real harm done, but out of a sense of decency and respect, we don't dance on graves.

i think arrogance is pretty a pretty extreme comparison, but that's your opinion. When i think of mormonism, arrogance isn't close to what comes to mind. it contradicts the foundation of it's teachings. you may use that statement as ammo to discount the mormon faith, but i think to say this is an arrogant practice is a complete misunderstanding of the church altogether.

[HometownHero]

Someone lives and chooses (or doesn't) a religion that they are fine with during life. Mormons find their name after death and baptize them into their church, which by default, they claim is the "one true church". This automatically assumes they find their religion to be superior to all others, even to the point that they want departed souls to have the chance to accept it. Such an outlook is EXTREMELY arrogant.
In my view, an arrogant practice = a tasteless practice.

It's along the same lines as respecting a grave and not walking on it. Of course, the dead are dead and there's no real harm done, but out of a sense of decency and respect, we don't dance on graves.

Again, get your facts straight. Mormons believe that by doing baptisms for the dead, the deceased person is given a choice in their after life to accept if they want to join the church. No one is forcing anyone and people always ask the family beforehand.

[Tristan Needler]

Sure have your facts straight then. Mormonism is not a cult. How about you just live your life and believe what you want and let others believe in what they want? Instead of being an ignorant dick? Just a thought. No ones judging you. You have no right to judge them. You're not God
So you agree too that this practice is imposing and disrespectful?

[saysmydoctor]

members of a church have the right to practice their beliefs with other members of the church. if a family member wishes to practice this ritual with their deceased relatives, then go right ahead. i have no problem with that whatsoever. my problem is practicing your beliefs in the name of someone, without any consent given from them, or their loved ones, for people to do this ritual. at least have the courtesy to ask if their loved ones object to this before performing it.
Exactly. It's very simple to explain the ritual and ask permission. Not doing so is essentially 'forcing.' Go figure, xshady.

[HometownHero]

So you agree too that this practice is imposing and disrespectful?
No. Its not at all either of those things

[saysmydoctor]

Sure have your facts straight then. Mormonism is not a cult. How about you just live your life and believe what you want and let others believe in what they want? Instead of being an ignorant dick? Just a thought. No ones judging you. You have no right to judge them. You're not God
Aren't you judging him by labeling him an 'ignorant dick?' Sup God.

[GeeBee]

Sure have your facts straight then. Mormonism is not a cult. How about you just live your life and believe what you want and let others believe in what they want? Instead of being an ignorant dick? Just a thought. No ones judging you. You have no right to judge them. You're not God

If you don't like it, leave the thread.
There is no God.

[stayillogical]

I am highly offended at the creation of this thread. I sincerely hope a Mormon didn't start it. This is a sacred act. And if you don't understand and don't know the full details, please silence yourself. You just don't know.

FYI: People that are baptized after they die don't have to accept it. Nothing is being done against their will. if you have any further questions, I suggest http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)

[Tristan Needler]

No. Its not at all either of those things
So I guess what you meant by "let others believe in what they want" you really meant "let Mormons believe in what they want."

[Adeniz19]

They are dead. This is why I said it is morally questionable, because some people don't buy into the faith portion of the argument. If that person didn't accept religion in life, then yes, you are forcing it upon them.Exactly. If people didn't "choose" to be mormon while they were alive, then why will they "choose" to while they are dead? I get doing this to people who were dead before the mormon church was around, but it is EXTREMELY arrogant to do it to people who died within the last 100+ years, or so.

[Villanova1L]

If you don't like it, leave the thread.
There is no God.

No God would mean this is a non issue since the church would be wrong and this baptism would be nothing more than an individual getting dunked in water.

[Villanova1L]

So I guess what you meant by "let others believe in what they want" you really meant "let Mormons believe in what they want."

I think that Mormons should be able to do what they want.

Every other religion should too.

[saysmydoctor]

People don't know what dead is in this thread. It's not Harry Potter shit where a ghost lingers around and give you advice and what not.

[GeeBee]

Again, get your facts straight. Mormons believe that by doing baptisms for the dead, the deceased person is given a choice in their after life to accept if they want to join the church. No one is forcing anyone and people always ask the family beforehand.

Find anywhere where I said the word "forced". I didn't.
ALWAYS ask the family beforehand? So Obama gave his consent, then? Do some reading:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/11/mormons_jews_contend_for_souls.htm (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/11/mormons_jews_contend_for_souls.html )l

[Tristan Needler]

I am highly offended at the creation of this thread. I sincerely hope a Mormon didn't start it. This is a sacred act. And if you don't understand and don't know the full details, please silence yourself. You just don't know.

FYI: People that are baptized after they die don't have to accept it. Nothing is being done against their will. if you have any further questions, I suggest http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)
To say something shouldn't be up for a discussion because it's a sacred act is ludicrous.

[HometownHero]

I am highly offended at the creation of this thread. I sincerely hope a Mormon didn't start it. This is a sacred act. And if you don't understand and don't know the full details, please silence yourself. You just don't know.

Dont count on the "moderator" doing anything about it. He's joined the ranks. It is very offensive towards my family and a lot of my friends. This is AP. People are ignorant. Get used to it

[GeeBee]

No God would mean this is a non issue since the church would be wrong and this baptism would be nothing more than an individual getting dunked in water.

I couldn't agree more. The only point I've ever raised is that this practice could conceivably ruffle feathers and offend people of other faiths. Period.

[saysmydoctor]

I think that Mormons should be able to do what they want.

Every other religion should too.
Let's allow the cults to commit mass suicides so they can join aliens on ships. WACO WE WILL REMEMBER.

[HometownHero]

So I guess what you meant by "let others believe in what they want" you really meant "let Mormons believe in what they want."
If you want to believe in a religion go for it. Why hate on another and try to prove it wrong? Love your God or whatever you believe and leave others the fuck alone. Its not your place and its not mine

[stayillogical]

To say something shouldn't be up for a discussion because it's a sacred act is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, I haven't read through the thread. It's just that things that go on in Mormon temples are believed to be sacred. Some of the details are kept between members, or as best we can. To even go in a temple, you have to be a worthy member. Not all do, so I'm just saying that things like this aren't meant for the public. There's a lot more understanding that goes into it.

[saysmydoctor]

I am highly offended at the creation of this thread. I sincerely hope a Mormon didn't start it. This is a sacred act. And if you don't understand and don't know the full details, please silence yourself. You just don't know.

FYI: People that are baptized after they die don't have to accept it. Nothing is being done against their will. if you have any further questions, I suggest http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)
So, we're close minded, implies you the one close-minded to differing opinions. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
Dont count on the "moderator" doing anything about it. He's joined the ranks. It is very offensive towards my family and a lot of my friends. This is AP. People are ignorant. Get used to it
You have yet to contribute anything intelligent to the discussion.

[Adeniz19]

Why even live life as a devout mormon at all, if some jackass you dont even know, can still get you into heaven anyway?

[GeeBee]

I am highly offended at the creation of this thread. I sincerely hope a Mormon didn't start it. This is a sacred act. And if you don't understand and don't know the full details, please silence yourself. You just don't know.

FYI: People that are baptized after they die don't have to accept it. Nothing is being done against their will. if you have any further questions, I suggest http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)

Firstly- being offended is a choice, and no one is making you be here.
Secondly- calling something "sacred" doesn't entitle it to being exempt from critique
Thirdly- If you know all the "details", please feel free to enlighten everyone
Fourthly- Apologetics of any flavor are NONSENSE. You don't come to a conclusion and then gather info that supports your claims. That's counter to the scientific method of gathering evidence and THEN coming to a conclusion.

Don't cry, just try again.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm sorry, I haven't read through the thread. It's just that things that go on in Mormon temples are believed to be sacred. Some of the details are kept between members, or as best we can. To even go in a temple, you have to be a worthy member. Not all do, so I'm just saying that things like this aren't meant for the public. There's a lot more understanding that goes into it.
Quite certain if she wasn't a mormon in life, she probably wasn't buried in or around a mormon temple. This is just my guess.

[stayillogical]

This makes me really sad. Everyone is being really vicious.

[GeeBee]

I'm sorry, I haven't read through the thread. It's just that things that go on in Mormon temples are believed to be sacred. Some of the details are kept between members, or as best we can. To even go in a temple, you have to be a worthy member. Not all do, so I'm just saying that things like this aren't meant for the public. There's a lot more understanding that goes into it.

...by those who believe it.

...wrong- what goes on in your temples has been totally available on the internet for a long time.

...please ENLIGHTEN us!

[Adeniz19]

If you want to believe in a religion go for it. Why hate on another and try to prove it wrong? Love your God or whatever you believe and leave others the fuck alone. Its not your place and its not minehypocrisy at it's finest.

[stayillogical]

...by those who believe it.

...wrong- what goes on in your temples has been totally available on the internet for a long time.

...please ENLIGHTEN us!

I know that, and it's a shame. Just because it goes on, doesn't make it right. I'm just saying.

[GeeBee]

This makes me really sad. Everyone is being really vicious.

No, everyone is discussing things very openly. You seem to be pretty allergic to any discourse relating to things that you consider sacred.
Shouldn't the ideas one bases his life on be the ones most heavily scrutinized?

[Adeniz19]

i don't get how we can't question the mormon beliefs, when by the very act of performing this ritual, questions the beliefs of the deceased and how they chose to live their life.

[stayillogical]

I'm talking in a calm manner. Every post directed at me sounds really harsh, pardon my saying that. It's like I'm a villain here.

[GeeBee]

I know that, and it's a shame. Just because it goes on, doesn't make it right. I'm just saying.

Couldn't the same be said of the "rituals" that go on in Mormon temples? Just sayin'.

[GeeBee]

I'm talking in a calm manner. Every post directed at me sounds really harsh, pardon my saying that. It's like I'm a villain here.

I think you'll find that people don't take lightly to beliefs and statements that aren't rationally or logically backed up with some kind of evidence.
Again...you are free to enlighten everyone as to why this discussion is so horrible, and why Mormonism is so "misunderstood".

[stayillogical]

i don't get how we can't question the mormon beliefs, when by the very act of performing this ritual, questions the beliefs of the deceased and how they chose to live their life.

It's not cancelling what they did or believed in their life, only giving another chance if they want to take it. A person's soul can refuse to accept the proxy. There's still a choice. The only reason that this is done, is because of the belief that after we die, there is still learning and teaching being done in the spirit world.

Le sigh... any other question? I'll only give this a few more minutes, I should be writing a final paper.

[HometownHero]

I'm talking in a calm manner. Every post directed at me sounds really harsh, pardon my saying that. It's like I'm a villain here.
Ignore it. I'm signing off as well because you really don't need to defend it. You know its sacred and what it really means. Ignore the ignorant, uneducated, rude, and stupid.

[stayillogical]

Like anything in religion is logical...

if you're a person of science, then that's a whole other story.

[GeeBee]

Ignore it. I'm signing off as well because you really don't need to defend it. You know its sacred and what it really means. Ignore the ignorant, uneducated, rude, and stupid.

You're right. You don't need to defend it. You just need to call everyone who has a problem with it ignorant, uneducated, rude, and stupid. Then you can truly feel justified in your beliefs. :rolleyes:

[Adeniz19]

It's not cancelling what they did or believed in their life, only giving another chance if they want to take it. A person's soul can refuse to accept the proxy. There's still a choice. The only reason that this is done, is because of the belief that after we die, there is still learning and teaching being done in the spirit world.

Le sigh... any other question? I'll only give this a few more minutes, I should be writing a final paper.i'm not saying it's cancelling what they believed in. i said it's the mormon church QUESTIONING what they believed in, as in they are passing judgment on them and you think the way they lived their life was WRONG, so you do this ritual to help teach them what was right.

it's so hypocritical of you to say not to pass judgment on the mormon church when that is exactly what you are doing to others when you perform this ritual.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

This makes me really sad. Everyone is being really vicious.

I know that, and it's a shame. Just because it goes on, doesn't make it right. I'm just saying.

I'm talking in a calm manner. Every post directed at me sounds really harsh, pardon my saying that. It's like I'm a villain here.

look I understand that people are attacking a ritual of your religion but when you only offer up explanations such as "its sacred", "you would not understand unless you were mormon" , or "it's secret" you are not going to please anyone.

if you want to defend the religion's beliefs and rituals you are going to have to offer up moret han you have.

if you can't or don't want to no one is forcing you.

The mormon religion has alot of mystery surrounding its beliefs and rituals and if you want understandind from people of other faiths and beliefs you are going to have to provide more info.

[xshady121]

i don't get how we can't question the mormon beliefs, when by the very act of performing this ritual, questions the beliefs of the deceased and how they chose to live their life.

Quite the contrary. It is merely offering their soul the opprunity to accept it. If she says no, then no harm no foul.

[GeeBee]

Like anything in religion is logical...

if you're a person of science, then that's a whole other story.

You're catching on already.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Ignore it. I'm signing off as well because you really don't need to defend it. You know its sacred and what it really means. Ignore the ignorant, uneducated, rude, and stupid.

but according to you there is no way one could fully understand the act unless one was fully versed and educated in the CoLDS. people are only questioning because the LDS have choosen to provide very limited information any to outsdiers. So we are ignorant at the fault of the church itself.

[stayillogical]

Like I said before, if you have a sincere interest in learning more, please visit http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)

My brother served a full-time mission in the Philippines, and I know he posts there along with many others who have a lot of knowledge. They can fully answer questions much better than I can.

[Adeniz19]

Quite the contrary. It is merely offering their soul the opprunity to accept it. If she says no, then no harm no foul.what makes them think their soul wasn't going to get into heaven anyway?

and look, like i said, i have no problem with this ritual outside the fact that there needs to be some sort of consent given either from the deceased before they died, or from a family member. i do not think it should be up to the church to decide who gets to have this ritual, and who doesn't. that's the only point i'm really trying to make.

[GeeBee]

but according to you there is no way one could fully understand the act unless one was fully versed and educated in the CoLDS. people are only questioning because the LDS have choosen to provide very limited information any to outsdiers. So we are ignorant at the fault of the church itself.

Truer words were never said. The LDS church does its best to keep both members and non-members alike blissfully ignorant of the history of the church and its founders. Any intellectuals or historians who challenge the "official" version of things either gets fired or excommunicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

[cantnokdahustle]

This all reminds me of the Business Man in The Little Prince. The man who counts the stars and puts them in his ledger and states they are his, because he believes he thought of it first.

[HometownHero]

You're right. You don't need to defend it. You just need to call everyone who has a problem with it ignorant, uneducated, rude, and stupid. Then you can truly feel justified in your beliefs. :rolleyes:
I'm not even Mormon. I left the church three years ago and made my own path and am now a Christian.

[GeeBee]

Like I said before, if you have a sincere interest in learning more, please visit http://www.mormonapologetics.org (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/)

My brother served a full-time mission in the Philippines, and I know he posts there along with many others who have a lot of knowledge. They can fully answer questions much better than I can.

Or to those who aren't interested in apologetics (due to the completely backwards logics of apologetics) can learn a few nuggets of truth at:
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon.html

[stayillogical]

what makes them think their soul wasn't going to get into heaven anyway?

and look, like i said, i have no problem with this ritual outside the fact that there needs to be some sort of consent given either from the deceased before they died, or from a family member. i do not think it should be up to the church to decide who gets to have this ritual, and who doesn't. that's the only point i'm really trying to make.

Incorrect. If they do not accept, they can still go to heaven. Don't make assumptions.

[GeeBee]

I'm not even Mormon. I left the church three years ago and made my own path and am now a Christian.

Thanks. Keep me posted on any other interesting nuggets from your life story.

[stayillogical]

Or to those who aren't interested in apologetics (due to the completely backwards logics of apologetics) can learn a few nuggets of truth at:
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon.html

It just looks to me like you're on a vendetta... so I can't listen to anything you say.

[Adeniz19]

Incorrect. If they do not accept, they can still go to heaven. Don't make assumptions.Well, then this whole ritual seems pretty irrelevant and pointless.

[HometownHero]

Or to those who aren't interested in apologetics (due to the completely backwards logics of apologetics) can learn a few nuggets of truth at:
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon.html
Hahaha what is this your blog? I made a similar web page like this. In the seventh grade. Give a valid source not someones terrible terrible biased opinion

[cantnokdahustle]

Religious folk pulling the persecution card, priceless.

[GeeBee]

Incorrect. If they do not accept, they can still go to heaven. Don't make assumptions.

Not what I've heard----
“NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. No man can reject that testimony without accepting most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, page 189-190)

[GeeBee]

Hahaha what is this your blog? I made a similar web page like this. In the seventh grade. Give a valid source not someones terrible terrible biased opinion

Not my blog, and each entry has its sources cited.
Try again.

[stayillogical]

Well, then this whole ritual seems pretty irrelevant and pointless.

There's a reason.

And I'm outie!

[GeeBee]

It just looks to me like you're on a vendetta... so I'm can't listen to anything you say.

I didn't make you come to this thread. You're the one that's claiming we're all ignorant, yet you don't seem to know half of your own beliefs and history. If you want to make claims, back them up. That's all I've tried to do.
No vendetta, just a healthy sense of "knowledge is power".

[GeeBee]

There's a reason.

And I'm outie!

Wow. Thanks for your many contributions.

[stayillogical]

I don't remember calling anyone ignorant, I've only spoken in a rational manner and tried to be understanding. Check all my posts in the thread. I'm probably the only active Mormon here as well, just an FYI. I know my history, I've been a member all my life. I've been in situations like this and all I've learned is not to wrestle with a pig, you'll only get dirty, and he likes it.

I'll come back when someone is talking in a more civilized manner.

[Adeniz19]

Not what I've heard----
“NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. No man can reject that testimony without accepting most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, page 189-190)don't make assumptions

[GeeBee]

I don't remember calling anyone ignorant, I've only spoken in a rational manner and tried to be understanding. Check all my posts in the thread. I'm probably the only active Mormon here as well, just an FYI. I know my history, I've been a member all my life. I've been in situations like this and all I've learned is not to wrestle with a pig, you'll only get dirty, and he likes it.

I'll come back when someone is talking in a more civilized manner.

You've said nothing rational at all, just made claims without any evidence. Please reference any posts that aren't "civil".

You may think you know your religion's history. You don't. Ever heard of the Kinderhook Plates? Nauvoo Expositor? Book of Abraham? Mark E. Petersen? Mark Hoffman? Fannie Alger?
Do some research on those topics, then get back to me about knowing your history.

[Villanova1L]

Let's allow the cults to commit mass suicides so they can join aliens on ships. WACO WE WILL REMEMBER.

Wasn't your whole problem the harm to the other religions? No harm to others, what's your issue with it?

I'm choosing to ignore the fact that you're using an incredible slippery slope that you'd reject in any other context.

[Villanova1L]

Not what I've heard----
“NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. No man can reject that testimony without accepting most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, page 189-190)

3 levels of heaven, can't reach the highest one without getting baptized. Can still go to heaven though.

[GeeBee]

don't make assumptions

I know, right?

I love being called ignorant by people who haven't the slightest clue what they're defending, then when I provide facts, I'm told I'm making assumptions or being uncivil.

[GeeBee]

3 levels of heaven, can't reach the highest one without getting baptized. Can still go to heaven though.

And hundreds of levels of nonsense.
I see you're back to playing semantics again.
Last I heard, the "kingdom of God" is heaven. Not to mention these dire "consequences". I don't think that's implying "heaven".

[saysmydoctor]

Wasn't your whole problem the harm to the other religions? No harm to others, what's your issue with it?

I'm choosing to ignore the fact that you're using an incredible slippery slope that you'd reject in any other context.
My problem has been the lack of choice to the dead or to the loved ones. It's forced upon them.

It appears someone doesn't know what a slippery slope is.

[Villanova1L]

And hundreds of levels of nonsense.
I see you're back to playing semantics again.
Last I heard, the "kingdom of God" is heaven. Not to mention these dire "consequences". I don't think that's implying "heaven".

That's ignorance of the doctrine on your part.

There are three levels of heaven from the new testament.

The kingdom of God is where you are with God and is called the celestial kingdom.
The next level is where baptized people who didn't live perfect lives go, also non-baptized who lead good lives and that is called the terrestrial.
The third level is telestial - non-believers go.

All still heaven. Did wiki not have an entry you could pull up?

Dire consequences is not living with God, which to a member of the church would certainly be a dire consequence.

[stayillogical]

3 levels of heaven, can't reach the highest one without getting baptized. Can still go to heaven though.

Please. Let's leave it alone. You can't teach a kid to multiply, if he doesn't know how to add. That's the best analogy I can think of. Let's leave this stuff to be, if someone actually wants to be educated on the subject, he/she can start at the bottom elsewhere.

I can cite my own sources to negate everything this rude guy in here has referenced, but he'll just throw something else at me. The church has a million and one rumors surrounding it that go around the world and back, so this would go on forever.

[Villanova1L]

My problem has been the lack of choice to the dead or to the loved ones. It's forced upon them.

It appears someone doesn't know what a slippery slope is.

You said if we allow baptism for the dead then we allow suicide. This is the equivalent of saying if we allow gay marriage we have to allow people to marry 7 year olds. That is a slippery slope.

There is no issue of lack of choice in your suicide example, and there is no forcing, so you shouldn't have a problem with mass suicide.

[stayillogical]

My problem has been the lack of choice to the dead or to the loved ones. It's forced upon them.

It appears someone doesn't know what a slippery slope is.

Just another fact: names are submitted by family members. The church has members do their genealogy to give consent to baptize their dead ancestors. If this was done for Obama's mother (just a rumor so far, as far as I know), then a family member, or someone believing her to be related, submitted the name. It's not random. And the dead aren't being forced into anything, just given an opportunity they might not have had in life. There's ALWAYS free will.

Those are the logistics.

[saysmydoctor]

You said if we allow baptism for the dead then we allow suicide. This is the equivalent of saying if we allow gay marriage we have to allow people to marry 7 year olds. That is a slippery slope.

There is no issue of lack of choice in your suicide example, and there is no forcing, so you shouldn't have a problem with mass suicide.
You said that actually, that we shouldn't restrict religions.

[Villanova1L]

You said that actually, that we shouldn't restrict religions.

I said we shouldn't restrict religion (and if people are choosing to kill themselves for religious reasons and not harming anyone else I'm fine with it), you carried it to the suicide example.

Explain to me again what your problem with the suicide would be? Or you can conveniently ignore it.

[Adeniz19]

Just another fact: names are submitted by family members. The church has members do their genealogy to give consent to baptize their dead ancestors. If this was done for Obama's mother (just a rumor so far, as far as I know), then a family member, or something believing her to be related, submitted the name. It's not random. And the dead aren't being forced into anything, just given an opportunity they might not have had in life. There's ALWAYS free will.

Those are the logistics.:hitself:

now, why couldn't someone bring this up from the beginning!? hahahaha would of saved us a lot of time and debate.

[saysmydoctor]

I said we shouldn't restrict religion (and if people are choosing to kill themselves for religious reasons and not harming anyone else I'm fine with it), you carried it to the suicide example.

Explain to me again what your problem with the suicide would be? Or you can conveniently ignore it.
Is that a serious question? Most of the people that end up participating in those mass suicides are manipulated by some guy who ends up letting them die. You are stupid, true, but tell me you aren't that stupid (I hope/suspect).

[stayillogical]

:hitself:

now, why couldn't someone bring this up from the beginning!? hahahaha would of saved us a lot of time and debate.

With all the accusations being thrown at me, I wasn't sure which issue I needed to cover.

[Villanova1L]

Is that a serious question? Most of the people that end up participating in those mass suicides are manipulated by some guy who ends up letting them die. You are stupid, true, but tell me you aren't that stupid (I hope/suspect).

I do understand that.

My point was more that if it was done of free will with no manipulation would you have a problem with it? An individual committing suicide in the name of God.

[Adeniz19]

With all the accusations being thrown at me, I wasn't sure which issue I needed to cover.i stated many times that this was my only real problem with this ritual. if a family member has to submit the name and provide proof of genealogy, then i see nothing wrong. keep on practicing your faith as you see fit.

[stayillogical]

i stated many times that this was my only real problem with this ritual. if a family member has to submit the name and provide proof of genealogy, then i see nothing wrong. keep on practicing your faith as you see fit.

Oh, I thought you only meant the deceased person's choice. I tip my hat to you sir, you've been civil. Thank you.

[Adeniz19]

and to bring this back full circle, if obama's mother (or anyone else) was in fact baptized without the submittable of a family member and proof of genealogy, would you think it was wrong for them to continue with the baptism?

[GeeBee]

:hitself:

now, why couldn't someone bring this up from the beginning!? hahahaha would of saved us a lot of time and debate.

Because it's the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, but no one's monitoring it. Hence the problem.

[saysmydoctor]

i stated many times that this was my only real problem with this ritual. if a family member has to submit the name and provide proof of genealogy, then i see nothing wrong. keep on practicing your faith as you see fit.
Exactly. It would be morally questionable to do this without the consultation and approval of the kin. I don't care what faith, it's just wrong. But if they do, then I have no problem with it.

[GeeBee]

Please. Let's leave it alone. You can't teach a kid to multiply, if he doesn't know how to add. That's the best analogy I can think of. Let's leave this stuff to be, if someone actually wants to be educated on the subject, he/she can start at the bottom elsewhere.

I can cite my own sources to negate everything this rude guy in here has referenced, but he'll just throw something else at me. The church has a million and one rumors surrounding it that go around the world and back, so this would go on forever.

I've served a mission, and I'll wager I'm a tad more "educated on the subject" than you are. Everyone who "educates themselves" on the subject finds themselves either steeped in cognitive dissonance, or wanting to leave the church.

You can't just read what they shove in your face and call yourself "educated", anymore than you can trust a Ford dealer to tell you what areas Fords are lacking in.

If you're so educated, start refuting the "rumors surrounding it". Have you ever even BEEN inside the temple and participated in the rituals that go on there?

[GeeBee]

Exactly. It would be morally questionable to do this without the consultation and approval of the kin. I don't care what faith, it's just wrong. But if they do, then I have no problem with it.

That's the source of the whole controversy. I could just walk in and say your dead grandparent is MY dead grandparent and get baptized for them. There's no one actually monitoring it. It's an honor system, and apparently it's getting abused, hence you have Stalin, Mao, and Mickey Mouse in the church geneology indexes.

[stayillogical]

I've served a mission, and I'll wager I'm a tad more "educated on the subject" than you are. Everyone who "educates themselves" on the subject finds themselves either steeped in cognitive dissonance, or wanting to leave the church.

You can't just read what they shove in your face and call yourself "educated", anymore than you can trust a Ford dealer to tell you what areas Fords are lacking in.

If you're so educated, start refuting the "rumors surrounding it". Have you ever even BEEN inside the temple and participated in the rituals that go on there?

Wow. How old are you? Where did you serve your mission?

I'm honestly baffled by people like you.

Edit: I have been inside the temple, I just refuse to argue with you. I've already said my reasons why. Fun fact: I'm considering serving my own mission when I turn 21. My brother served and it was the best 2 years of his life.

[GeeBee]

Wow. How old are you? Where did you serve your mission?

I'm honestly baffled by people like you.

Edit: I have been inside the temple, I just refuse to argue with you. I've already said my reasons why.

Baffled by people who can see a con when it spits on their shoes and demands 10% of their income?
I'm old enough to have gone through the rip-off of Masonic rituals you call an "endowment", and old enough not to be afraid of information that may shatter my faith in "official" church history.

You shouldn't ask others to consider joining your faith until you've examined it from every angle, which you obviously haven't.
Hooray for your brother. Hopefully he wont become one of the thousands that come to see that 2 years as a bunch of wasted time.

[stayillogical]

Baffled by people who can see a con when it spits on their shoes and demands 10% of their income?
I'm old enough to have gone through the rip-off of Masonic rituals you call an "endowment", and old enough not to be afraid of information that may shatter my faith in "official" church history.

You shouldn't ask others to consider joining your faith until you've examined it from every angle, which you obviously haven't.
Hooray for your brother. Hopefully he wont become one of the thousands that come to see that 2 years as a bunch of wasted time.

You're like the guy in God's Army. lol Terrible movie, but really. I'm done talking with you, and please stop making assumptions about my knowledge/faith. You're going on ignore, don't waste your posts quoting me.

[GeeBee]

You're like the guy in God's Army. lol Terrible movie, but really. I'm done talking with you, and please stop making assumptions about my knowledge/faith. You're going on ignore, don't waste your posts quoting me.

Well you're like the guy in The Truman Show.
Please stop being so ignorant about your "faith".
Enjoy your cult...you usually tend to go on "ignore" whenever someone challenges your beliefs.

[stayillogical]

Today, I've learned my lesson. Stick to the Entertainment forum. What a headache this has been.

Bon voyage!

[GeeBee]

Today, I've learned my lesson. Stick to the Entertainment forum. What a headache this has been.

Bon voyage!

Cognitive dissonance tends to cause headaches.
This time REALLY leave though. You keep getting my hopes up.

[radiofriendly]

I've served a mission, and I'll wager I'm a tad more "educated on the subject" than you are.

TWIST!!!

[Adeniz19]

and to bring this back full circle, if obama's mother (or anyone else) was in fact baptized without the submittable of a family member and proof of genealogy, would you think it was wrong for them to continue with the baptism?

Today, I've learned my lesson. Stick to the Entertainment forum. What a headache this has been.

Bon voyage!could you just give your opinion on this before you leave? thanks

[GeeBee]

TWIST!!!

Not really.

[GeeBee]

could you just give your opinion on this before you leave? thanks

dunno why, but :rotfl:

[Adeniz19]

hahaha people don't answer my questions! everything gets off into such a tangent. i couldn't really care less about the semantics of why they do they things they do. i just want to know if they find it morally wrong to try to baptize someone without the consent of anyone but the church itself?

[GeeBee]

I could have told you that a true-blue Mormon couldn't answer your question. Everything about it is a boondoggle, so they just get offended and leave (case in point)

[stayillogical]

could you just give your opinion on this before you leave? thanks

I agree, but not to the extent that you might think it's wrong, I think. It's bad if someone gets away with submitting a name of a non-family member, but it's not the end of the world. It probably does happen actually, nothing's perfect. But if and when it does, I don't think it's a huge deal. It's not a trespass on anyone's rights. For a non-member, what harm is there that someone else did a baptism in a family member's name? What I mean is, if you don't believe, it's just something meaningless, right? And it wasn't done with any ill-will or malice.

I have distant family members who believe in witchcraft, if they perform some kind of curse on my dead grandfather or something weird like that, I don't really care. Or is that just me? I just see the baptisms as making a connection with someone not living anymore, in the way that a missionary would knock on a door. If they accept, okay. If not, that's fine. No harm, no foul here.

[Adeniz19]

there is no harm, i just find it to be disrespectful.

[stayillogical]

You're right. I can see that.

[radiofriendly]

hahaha people don't answer my questions! everything gets off into such a tangent. i couldn't really care less about the semantics of why they do they things they do. i just want to know if they find it morally wrong to try to baptize someone without the consent of anyone but the church itself?

I don't want to pretend that i know for sure, but i can say with at least a little bit of confidence, that if the name is outside your lineage, than you are encouraged, maybe instructed to seek the consent of a family member, unless the individual have been dead for a certain period of time...

don't quote me on that, i'm not 100% sure. this story has actually made me very curious to find out more about this. if i confirm or find anything out differently, i'll post

[Villanova1L]

hahaha people don't answer my questions! everything gets off into such a tangent. i couldn't really care less about the semantics of why they do they things they do. i just want to know if they find it morally wrong to try to baptize someone without the consent of anyone but the church itself?

No because I don't see it having any effect on the person in any after life; no matter which faith they belonged to while living. The act of baptism for the dead doesn't make anyone immediately Mormon.

[Tristan Needler]

I think that Mormons should be able to do what they want.

Every other religion should too.And other religions are speaking out that they want to be left alone. But this ritual isn't accepting that.

Dont count on the "moderator" doing anything about it. He's joined the ranks. It is very offensive towards my family and a lot of my friends. This is AP. People are ignorant. Get used to itSorry for allowing discussion on a discussion board. If you have a problem with my moderating, I implore you take it up with any other staff, including Jason, and see what they have to say about it.

If you want to believe in a religion go for it. Why hate on another and try to prove it wrong? Love your God or whatever you believe and leave others the fuck alone. Its not your place and its not mineExactly. So leave people form other religions, and their souls, alone.

[Love As Arson]

Mormonism is ridiculous and does not deserve any respect.

[stayillogical]

Mormonism is ridiculous and does not deserve any respect.

Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.

[Love As Arson]

Crazy stories like black people can only get into heaven as servants.

[stayillogical]

HOLY LOL.

Talk to actual Mormon people instead of listening to lies/rumors spread by bigoted people. WOW. How horribly misinformed people are.

[cantnokdahustle]

^ Read your book.

[Jake Denning]

Mormonism is ridiculous and does not deserve any respect.

This.

Mormonism DOES NOT = Christianity, there are plenty of differences.

[DRUMMERGIRL121]

Crazy stories like black people can only get into heaven as servants.

I heard that blacks were described as having the "mark of Cain", and that they were forbidden from becoming elders in the church because of their race.

Ay truth to this?

[Mercy Medical]

Frankly I just find this as sort of rude. She was not part of the Mormon church, she is not here to speak for herself and declare if she wants this or not and they're completely ignoring the input of the family members.

I just don't like the idea of a church pressing their belief system on someone like this.

[cantnokdahustle]

I heard that blacks were described as having the "mark of Cain", and that they were forbidden from becoming elders in the church because of their race.

Ay truth to this?

In '78 the church received revelations from god that stated this was not okay anymore.:nono:

[GeeBee]

HOLY LOL.

Talk to actual Mormon people instead of listening to lies/rumors spread by bigoted people. WOW. How horribly misinformed people are.

HOLY LOL.
Read Mark E. Petersen, one of your apostles, as well as Bruce R. McConkie.
Racism, anyone?

[stayillogical]

^ Read your book.

I have. I've also read many books aside from scriptures. I'm not some sheltered teenager from Utah ala Julie from the Real World. I find it funny that that GeeBee guy thinks I'm ignorant about whatever he's talked about or is still talking about in this thread. I've just come to a different conclusion. Oh, and for answering difficult questions, this is my favorite book:

http://www.mormon-doctrine-books.com/answering_challenging_mormon_q.html

[Duexy]

Crazy stories like black people can only get into heaven as servants.



LOL.

[Love As Arson]

HOLY LOL.

Talk to actual Mormon people instead of listening to lies/rumors spread by bigoted people. WOW. How horribly misinformed people are.

I heard that blacks were described as having the "mark of Cain", and that they were forbidden from becoming elders in the church because of their race.

Ay truth to this?

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of god, is death on the spot.This will always be so.
-Bringham Young

Certainly the caste systems in communist countries and in India, for instance, are man made and are not based on true principles. “However, in a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the GOSPEL itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with black ski, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste a[art, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.
-Bruce R. McConkie

This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a BLACK SKIN, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.....I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.
-Mark E. Petersen

If a black man is faithful in all his days, he can, and will enter, the celestial kingdom.He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.
-Mark E. Petersen

[nashiscash1324]

This.

Mormonism DOES NOT = Christianity, there are plenty of differences.

isn't a Christian someone who believes in Christ?

[stayillogical]

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of god, is death on the spot.This will always be so.
-Bringham Young

Certainly the caste systems in communist countries and in India, for instance, are man made and are not based on true principles. “However, in a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the GOSPEL itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with black ski, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste a[art, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.
-Bruce R. McConkie

This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a BLACK SKIN, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.....I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.
-Mark E. Petersen

If a black man is faithful in all his days, he can, and will enter, the celestial kingdom.He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.
-Mark E. Petersen

Brigham Young... oh, so he was the only man in the 19th century to think less of African Americans? Yeah, okay. Judge modern day people by one guy from 150 years ago when everyone had slaves. That's like calling all Germans nazis.

And as for the other two, church members acknowledge that they were wrong. Both guys held their personal racist beliefs and they're not proclaiming something that's held as a church belief. Any discrimination against blacks is not part of our doctrine today. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of black Mormons. http://www.blacklds.org/ You think these people would join a church where they have to be slaves to get into heaven? :hitself:

If I'm telling you that we don't believe that, why can't you accept it? Why are you citing me people from a time period where racism was common? Church members were no exception. No one is perfect, we're not claiming that.

[stayillogical]

isn't a Christian someone who believes in Christ?

:hug:

I love you stranger.

[nashiscash1324]

:hug:

I love you stranger.

:buddies:

word of advice don't get in an argument over the internet. what is the point you know? sure answer all the questions people ask when they are sincerely curious but when people throw out comments like "Mormonism deserves no respect" or whatever then why try, they are not going to listen to what you have to say.

[stayillogical]

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of god, is death on the spot.This will always be so.
-Bringham Young

Certainly the caste systems in communist countries and in India, for instance, are man made and are not based on true principles. “However, in a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the GOSPEL itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with black ski, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste a[art, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.
-Bruce R. McConkie

This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a BLACK SKIN, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.....I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have.
-Mark E. Petersen

If a black man is faithful in all his days, he can, and will enter, the celestial kingdom.He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.
-Mark E. Petersen

The Church's Official Stance

Let there be no doubt that Latter-day Saints recognize the role of our religion in furthering Christ's command to love our neighbors. Let there be no doubt that we wish to correct the centuries of division between races. But let there be no doubt that McKeever and Johnson do not give the reader any indication that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands with all other Christian churches in their efforts to heal the wounds of the past and reach out to a future of respect, tolerance and understanding between all of God's children. Here is a small sampling of the many authoritative quotes spoken to LDS Church membership in semi-annual conferences broadcast world-wide within the last decade:


Not long ago the First Presidency and the Twelve issued a public statement from which I quote: "It is morally wrong for any person or group to deny anyone his or her inalienable dignity on the tragic and abhorrent theory of racial or cultural superiority.


We call upon all people everywhere to recommit themselves to the time-honored ideals of tolerance and mutual respect. We sincerely believe that as we acknowledge one another with consideration and compassion we will discover that we can all peacefully coexist despite our deepest differences.3 (http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20116.html#en3)
President Hinckley expressed these sentiments in the semi-annual conference a year later:
We must not be partisans of any doctrine of ethnic superiority. We live in a world of diversity. We can and must be respectful toward those with whose teachings we may not agree. We must be willing to defend the rights of others who may become the victims of bigotry.4 (http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20116.html#en4)


One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that McKeever and Johnson can dredge up from bygone eras:


There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.5 (http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20116.html#en5)

Last and most important, the defining scripture that is binding on Latter-day Saints says, "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.




Since apparently I need to give sources for my credibility.

[stayillogical]

:buddies:

word of advice don't get in an argument over the internet. what is the point you know? sure answer all the questions people ask when they are sincerely curious but when people throw out comments like "Mormonism deserves no respect" or whatever then why try, they are not going to listen to what you have to say.

Yeah, true. Certain church details that people are trying to bring up just bother me, and knowing other people will read through the thread and take a statement like "blacks have to be servants to get into heaven" as a fact of LDS belief is irritating. I wish I could put the entire thread on ignore, haha. Too bad there's no way it can get deleted.

[Love As Arson]

Brigham Young... oh, so he was the only man in the 19th century to think less of African Americans? Yeah, okay. Judge modern day people by one guy from 150 years ago when everyone had slaves. That's like calling all Germans nazis.
I'm not judging the people. I am judging their beliefs. Putting that aside, it is fallacious to say that, because others believed it, it is justified.

And as for the other two, church members acknowledge that they were wrong. Both guys held their personal racist beliefs and they're not proclaiming something that's held as a church belief. Any discrimination against blacks is not part of our doctrine today. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of black Mormons. http://www.blacklds.org/
The problem with Mormonism is it claims these leaders are in direct communication with god, who influences their rulings. God, by nature, is supposed to exist outside of time and has objective morality, so a believer would have to believe either the Mormon god's morality is subjected to earthly revisions or these beliefs cannot meet the burden of proof.


You think these people would join a church where they have to be slaves to get into heaven? :hitself:
Yes, and they probably believe your arguments. That changes nothing,however.

[nashiscash1324]

Yeah, true. Certain church details that people are trying to bring up just bother me, and knowing other people will read through the thread and take a statement like "blacks have to be servants to get into heaven" as a fact of LDS belief is irritating. I wish I could put the entire thread on ignore, haha. Too bad there's no way it can get deleted.

ask a staff member or moderator :shrug:

[saysmydoctor]

Why does the thread have to be deleted? Because you can't handle your religion being under scrutiny?

[stayillogical]

That wasn't the purpose of the thread. I thought this was the politics forum. There's already another thread for atheists to rant in.

How is it that if someone makes a racial joke, they get points? But, someone defaming someone else's beliefs has no value?

[saysmydoctor]

Not to be condescending and point out the obvious, this forum is simply named politics.

Here's the description:

"Government, economy, religion, race, and more - the debates start here."

This is a discussion....a debate, if you will, concerning the policies, philosophies, and rituals of a church...a religious organization.

So, actually, that was the purpose of this thread and it really brings us full circle to....why does this need to be deleted? Why can't you handle your faith being under scrutiny?

[Love As Arson]

:buddies:

word of advice don't get in an argument over the internet. what is the point you know? sure answer all the questions people ask when they are sincerely curious but when people throw out comments like "Mormonism deserves no respect" or whatever then why try, they are not going to listen to what you have to say.
Would you respect a belief system in which racism played a role? There is a line of thinking that states a belief deserves respect because it is labeled religion. I disagree. Any belief system is subject to criticism.

[Love As Arson]

That wasn't the purpose of the thread. I thought this was the politics forum. There's already another thread for atheists to rant in.

How is it that if someone makes a racial joke, they get points? But, someone defaming someone else's beliefs has no value?
There is a difference between calling someone the n-word and criticizing a system of belief. I've never personally attacked you, nor have I said anything about Mormons in general.

[stayillogical]

I thought you were calling Mormons in general racist. :shrug:

[stayillogical]

Not to be condescending and point out the obvious, this forum is simply named politics.

Here's the description:

"Government, economy, religion, race, and more - the debates start here."

This is a discussion....a debate, if you will, concerning the policies, philosophies, and rituals of a church...a religious organization.

So, actually, that was the purpose of this thread and it really brings us full circle to....why does this need to be deleted? Why can't you handle your faith being under scrutiny?

Your question is ridiculous and contributes nothing. I can't take you seriously. I only wish the thread would go away so I don't have to keep correcting people and I can focus on writing my final paper! So forget it, I am seriously gone for real this time. If anyone is interested to speak to me with an actual interest, PM me, or check out another site where people actually discuss real Mormon beliefs.

My only aim in posting here was so that the discussion would not be one-sided. But go ahead and post now about polygamy, racism, and all that garbage.

[Love As Arson]

I thought you were calling Mormons in general racist. :shrug:
No, I said that the institution of the LDS church, along with its beliefs, deserve no respect because of their racist history.

[saysmydoctor]

Your question is ridiculous and contributes nothing. I can't take you seriously. I only wish the thread would go away so I don't have to keep correcting people and I can focus on writing my final paper! So forget it, I am seriously gone for real this time. If anyone is interested to speak to me with an actual interest, PM me, or check out another site where people actually discuss real Mormon beliefs.

My only aim in posting here was so that the discussion would not be one-sided. But go ahead and post now about polygamy, racism, and all that garbage.
You clearly haven't even fucking read the thread so I really lack sympathy for you. The discussion hasn't been one-sided at all, there has been debate over the Baptism after Death ceremony. My problem was one of the family not be notified of the ritual. When I found out that they do ask the family, I was no longer concerned with what could be considered a morally and ethically questionable ceremony.

It does contribute something, I can't take you seriously because you are crying about us discussing your faith. I was raised in a Catholic household and I'm a lot more willing to discuss the faith (which I've abandoned) more openly than you are over yours, as someone who has gotten defensive over your faith being scrutinized. That's the point of belief--you hold one, some people don't. There is going to be disagreements. Suck it the fuck up.

I know that the Church has banned the practice of polygamy. I know they look down upon those sects that still practice it. I'm not idiot. That's why I didn't bring it up. I have no idea about any racism within the faith--that's why I didn't bring it up. My problem--and I must point this out again, because it is trend of you not reading apparently so maybe if I point it a few times you'll catch it--was the church doing this ceremony without gaining the approval of the dead's family. That is my problem.

[Jake Denning]

Brigham Young... oh, so he was the only man in the 19th century to think less of African Americans? Yeah, okay. Judge modern day people by one guy from 150 years ago when everyone had slaves. That's like calling all Germans nazis.

And as for the other two, church members acknowledge that they were wrong. Both guys held their personal racist beliefs and they're not proclaiming something that's held as a church belief. Any discrimination against blacks is not part of our doctrine today. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of black Mormons. http://www.blacklds.org/ You think these people would join a church where they have to be slaves to get into heaven? :hitself:

If I'm telling you that we don't believe that, why can't you accept it? Why are you citing me people from a time period where racism was common? Church members were no exception. No one is perfect, we're not claiming that.

Mormonism's doctrine always seems to change.

[GeeBee]

I have. I've also read many books aside from scriptures. I'm not some sheltered teenager from Utah ala Julie from the Real World. I find it funny that that GeeBee guy thinks I'm ignorant about whatever he's talked about or is still talking about in this thread. I've just come to a different conclusion. Oh, and for answering difficult questions, this is my favorite book:

http://www.mormon-doctrine-books.com/answering_challenging_mormon_q.html

Also be sure to pick up "Why Fords are Superior Cars to All Others"...by Bill Ford. How many times must apologetics be debunked?

Brigham Young... oh, so he was the only man in the 19th century to think less of African Americans? Yeah, okay. Judge modern day people by one guy from 150 years ago when everyone had slaves. That's like calling all Germans nazis.

And as for the other two, church members acknowledge that they were wrong. Both guys held their personal racist beliefs and they're not proclaiming something that's held as a church belief. Any discrimination against blacks is not part of our doctrine today. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of black Mormons. http://www.blacklds.org/ You think these people would join a church where they have to be slaves to get into heaven? :hitself:

If I'm telling you that we don't believe that, why can't you accept it? Why are you citing me people from a time period where racism was common? Church members were no exception. No one is perfect, we're not claiming that.

Brigham Young was claiming to be the conduit between God and all mankind...so you'd think he'd be held to a higher standard than "well, everyone was doing it back then".

And, when you say something from the pulpit, it's no longer "personal racist beliefs".

If God is the same "yesterday, today, and forever", why didn't he give the church a heads-up on racism? Who cares if it was common back then? Murder has been common for centuries, does that make it justifiable?

The Church's Official Stance

....

Since apparently I need to give sources for my credibility.

Since apparently God's directives change every several decades and need updating.

[GeeBee]

I thought you were calling Mormons in general racist. :shrug:

Apparently they all were...back in the day when it was "common".

I'd venture to say that Mormons in general are homophobic and arrogant.

Did you ever read up on Masonry or Fannie Alger? I wanted to hear the latest soundbyte from the apologists!

As soon as you consider that Mormonism is just another man-made religion, the pieces of the puzzle will all fall into place and you'll thank me.

[GeeBee]

That wasn't the purpose of the thread. I thought this was the politics forum. There's already another thread for atheists to rant in.

How is it that if someone makes a racial joke, they get points? But, someone defaming someone else's beliefs has no value?

People don't choose their race. People choose to believe in nonsense. I can't just say "I believe fairies fuck in the forest" and expect everyone to respect it.

Your question is ridiculous and contributes nothing. I can't take you seriously. I only wish the thread would go away so I don't have to keep correcting people and I can focus on writing my final paper! So forget it, I am seriously gone for real this time. If anyone is interested to speak to me with an actual interest, PM me, or check out another site where people actually discuss real Mormon beliefs.

My only aim in posting here was so that the discussion would not be one-sided. But go ahead and post now about polygamy, racism, and all that garbage.

This is like the tenth time you've threatened to leave, and you still haven't made good.

It seems as thought today's "real mormon beliefs" are tomorrow's "personal [pejorative term] beliefs" that you have to explain away. Mormonism always reveres today's "prophet", then has to explain away the nonsense he spouts decades after his death.

[GeeBee]

Not to be condescending and point out the obvious, this forum is simply named politics.

Here's the description:

"Government, economy, religion, race, and more - the debates start here."

This is a discussion....a debate, if you will, concerning the policies, philosophies, and rituals of a church...a religious organization.

So, actually, that was the purpose of this thread and it really brings us full circle to....why does this need to be deleted? Why can't you handle your faith being under scrutiny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

[SlappedActor]

No, I said that the institution of the LDS church, along with its beliefs, deserve no respect because of their racist history.

Do you therefore not respect any nation, organization, or institution in which racist beliefs may have been a determining factor in decisions of the past?

[GeeBee]

Do you therefore not respect any nation, organization, or institution in which racist beliefs may have been a determining factor in decisions of the past?

Why would anyone?
Besides the racism, there's an army of skeletons in Mormonism's closet. Racism is only one.

[SlappedActor]

Why would anyone?
Besides the racism, there's an army of skeletons in Mormonism's closet. Racism is only one.

1. I wasn't talking to you. God, you're fucking ubiquitous aren't you.

2. My question had little, if anything, to do with Mormonism and more to do with his views on institutions and countries that have made racist decisions in the past, even if they are now (apparently) reformed.

[GeeBee]

1. I wasn't talking to you. God, you're fucking ubiquitous aren't you.

2. My question had little, if anything, to do with Mormonism and more to do with his views on institutions and countries that have made racist decisions in the past, even if they are now (apparently) reformed.

Last I checked, this was an open thread (which I started, hence the "ubiquitous"). Hit the ignore button if you don't like it.
:wave:

[Love As Arson]

Do you therefore not respect any nation, organization, or institution in which racist beliefs may have been a determining factor in decisions of the past?
I do not. I believe we have to fundamentally reorganize society to rid ourselves of the muck of the past.

[GeeBee]

I do not. I believe we have to fundamentally reorganize society to rid ourselves of the muck of the past.

I'd go a step further and say that we have to fundamentally renounce organizations that are founded on that very muck.

[GeeBee]

UPDATE:
Mormon Church leadership has acknowledged the breach of policy and promised to remove Obama's mother's name from it's necro-membership rolls.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

i wasnt following this whole thread. someone summarize.
i get she was baptized after her death, was it just done in word only or did they actually physically do something to her? and did they have permission by her family?

[GeeBee]

i wasnt following this whole thread. someone summarize.
i get she was baptized after her death, was it just done in word only or did they actually physically do something to her? and did they have permission by her family?

Mormons do "proxy" baptisms in the name of dead people in their temples. The names are supposed to be submitted ONLY by family members, and ONLY after the deceased has been dead over 100 years. Someone submitted Obama's mother's name against policy.

[zion the lion]

i wasnt following this whole thread. someone summarize.
i get she was baptized after her death, was it just done in word only or did they actually physically do something to her? and did they have permission by her family?

I think they just used her name and got someone as her proxy

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

ok.
well thats disrespectful for sure but overall not a huge deal to me. if you dont believe the mormon faith, then whatever the mormon's believe about the afterlife shouldn't mean a whole lot to you.

[zion the lion]

It would be more disrespectful if they dug her body up and baptized that...but still I think it's messed up because she didnt choose to be a mormon, so its like them just forcing her dead spirit to be apart of something she didnt want to be apart of in the first place.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

It would be more disrespectful if they dug her body up and baptized that...but still I think it's messed up because she didnt choose to be a mormon, so its like them just forcing her dead spirit to be apart of something she didnt want to be apart of in the first place.
well thats my point. if you dont believe that your 'dead spirit' can be a part of something, then really who cares what somebody says about it? you just think some nutbag's cheese has just slid a little farther than usual.
i dont personally believe in hell, so when someone says im going there, it doesnt mean a whole lot to me.
like i said, its disrespectful. thats about it.

[GeeBee]

That's all anyone's claimed...it's disrespectful.

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

alright then. like i said, i hadnt read the thread. i was just stating my opinion.

[GeeBee]

And your contributions are always appreciated.

[Villanova1L]

It would be more disrespectful if they dug her body up and baptized that...but still I think it's messed up because she didnt choose to be a mormon, so its like them just forcing her dead spirit to be apart of something she didnt want to be apart of in the first place.

Going to assume you didn't read the whole thread.

According to the mormon religion she'd still have a choice of whether or not to join the church. No forcing.

[Villanova1L]

Also be sure to pick up "Why Fords are Superior Cars to All Others"...by Bill Ford. How many times must apologetics be debunked?



Brigham Young was claiming to be the conduit between God and all mankind...so you'd think he'd be held to a higher standard than "well, everyone was doing it back then".

And, when you say something from the pulpit, it's no longer "personal racist beliefs".

If God is the same "yesterday, today, and forever", why didn't he give the church a heads-up on racism? Who cares if it was common back then? Murder has been common for centuries, does that make it justifiable?



Since apparently God's directives change every several decades and need updating.

I think you said you served a mission. Modern day revelation is important for the church. The "best" explanation I've heard for withholding the priesthood was that the members of the church would not have understood and the church would have folded. For the good of man, which is God's role, he withheld the priesthood from black members.

That's the argument, not my stance or belief.

[zion the lion]

Going to assume you didn't read the whole thread.

According to the mormon religion she'd still have a choice of whether or not to join the church. No forcing.

I've read it, and I knew about the whole concept before, but still baptizing someone without their consent is forcing, even if they've got the choice to accept mormonism somewhere in dead land.

edit: the fact that they cant talk to the dead means they have to assume that the person has accepted the offer and then they add them to their census, seems like theyre forcing people.

[GeeBee]

I think you said you served a mission. Modern day revelation is important for the church. The "best" explanation I've heard for withholding the priesthood was that the members of the church would not have understood and the church would have folded. For the good of man, which is God's role, he withheld the priesthood from black members.

That's the argument, not my stance or belief.

They didn't seem to mind when they were commanded to give 10% of their income, practice polygamy, stop drinking coffee, and wear ridiculous underwear. Somehow after those things, accepting black men into boring priesthood meetings doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. Besides, since when has god cared what members can "understand"?

[Villanova1L]

They didn't seem to mind when they were commanded to give 10% of their income, practice polygamy, stop drinking coffee, and wear ridiculous underwear. Somehow after those things, accepting black men into boring priesthood meetings doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. Besides, since when has god cared what members can "understand"?

I think that people in the church view the priesthood of more meaning than the meetings.

I'd say the racism which the vast majority of people had leading up to the civil rights movement was deeper seeded than the love of coffee and underwear.

[Villanova1L]

I've read it, and I knew about the whole concept before, but still baptizing someone without their consent is forcing, even if they've got the choice to accept mormonism somewhere in dead land.

edit: the fact that they cant talk to the dead means they have to assume that the person has accepted the offer and then they add them to their census, seems like theyre forcing people.

score keeping on earth wouldn't have any bearing on what their spirit chose, but I see the point.

[GeeBee]

I think that people in the church view the priesthood of more meaning than the meetings.

I'd say the racism which the vast majority of people had leading up to the civil rights movement was deeper seeded than the love of coffee and underwear.

My point was simply this:
god is supposed to be ahead of the curve, and somehow he always seems to be behind the times, especially in regards to crazy mormon doctrines.

[Villanova1L]

My point was simply this:
god is supposed to be ahead of the curve, and somehow he always seems to be behind the times, especially in regards to crazy mormon doctrines.

Very valid. Obviously the counter would be that God is so far ahead we don't see why blacks were denied the priesthood.

[GeeBee]

Very valid. Obviously the counter would be that God is so far ahead we don't see why blacks were denied the priesthood.

Yeah, that "god's ways are not our ways" is an easy way to dispel any further valid questions of anyone's beliefs.
Religion is less about answering life's questions, and more about stopping people from asking them in the first place.

[Villanova1L]

Yeah, that "god's ways are not our ways" is an easy way to dispel any further valid questions of anyone's beliefs.
Religion is less about answering life's questions, and more about stopping people from asking them in the first place.

I don't really agree, but I see how that answer is viewed as a cop out.

That's why I don't feel I could ever join the church (even though the preexistence, all that doesnt bother me) is because of stuff like the hatred for gay marriage and the blacks not being allowed the priesthood.