Originally Posted By RoadTrip Say I had an uncle I never got along with in real live... I thought he was a mean old greedy SOB who got rich by swindling people and never wanted to have anything to do with him. Despite that, in his will he leaves me $250K. He even mentions that he knows I wanted nothing to do with him, but he hopes that I might reconsider and accept his gift. So now I have the choice of sticking to my principals and refusing the money, or I can decide that the money just might come in useful after all and accept it. Was his offering it to me when I had repeatedly stated I did not want it disrespectful? I guess my thought is the old coot can offer any darned thing he wants in his will as long as I am not forced to accept it. Here's another example that is perhaps even more appropriate. On occasion I get a card at Christmas or some other time saying that someone I know has made a donation to a charity or non-profit it my name. At times it is an organization that I don't particularly support. Was it disrespectful for them to make a contribution in my name without my prior consent? I guess I don't think it was. I assume the thought behind the contribution was well meaning. I get that many people have issues with the Mormon religion, just as I get that many have issues with the Catholic religion. But isn’t this fury against the church really driven by liberal Californian’s hatred for what the church did in regards to Prop 8? And is it right to hold one admittedly misguided decision on the part of the church against all Mormons everywhere? I just shake my head at what I see to be a MAJOR over-reaction.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <By claiming that other religions "do not have god's authority," you automatically judge the members of those churches as inferior. Period. If their religion isn't "good enough for god" then by definition, THEY ARE INFERIOR.> I disagree with your conclusions. I don't believe people of other religions are inferior. I believe they are children of God and have infinite worth.
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't understand what's so hard about respecting people's beliefs on their own terms. Numerous thoughtful, intelligent people, usually not antagonistic towards Mormonism (Kar2oonMan, for example) have expressed why this practice is offensive to them. They don't misunderstand anything, they aren't misinformed, etc. So at some point, it does come down to a choice: You either respect their opinion and their wishes and don't do it, or you ultimately own your belief which, at it's core says, "I think you are wrong, and even though you have specifically told me not to do this, I'm going to do it anyway, because I believe that when you die, you'll see the light just like I have." That's what this boils down to: You respect them, or you say, "I am right, you are wrong, ergo, I'm baptizing you by proxy when you die." Yes, I get that there's a kindler, gentler spin on it than that, but that is what it boils down to.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But isn’t this fury against the church really driven by liberal Californian’s hatred for what the church did in regards to Prop 8?" Um, no.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Was it disrespectful for them to make a contribution in my name without my prior consent?" If they didn't know, then not necessarily. But if you specifically asked them not to contribute to a particular group, and they do, hell yeah that's disrespectful.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If they didn't know, then not necessarily. But if you specifically asked them not to contribute to a particular group, and they do, hell yeah that's disrespectful.>> And how many of the Mormons who make the "contribution" of baptism to the deceased know that someone has specifically requested that it NOT be done? Even though some have "officially requested" it here, how many Mormons would be aware of the request made? I also seriously doubt any death certificates will list a "Single Park Passholder" or a "melekalikimaka" or a "skinnerbox" as the deceased. If these people wanted to make a real request with real names through the Mormon Church I think it just might be honored. If they don't feel it is worth going to that trouble, oh well... Personally I would never go to the trouble of doing so because I don’t think it makes a mouse’s butt of difference what someone does after I’m dead. Either I’m already at my “final destination” or I’m just dead and decaying into worm food. Whatever anyone else does makes me absolutely no difference at all.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Maybe,in light of their hyper-sensitivity to people discussing *their* precious religion, we find it necessary (and maybe even therapeutic) to point out their consistent dick moves?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If these people wanted to make a real request with real names through the Mormon Church I think it just might be honored.<< You do? I don't. I think sooner or later, someone like Josh, feeling he knows better, would go ahead and "offer" it anyway. There's another thing about this practice that I don't like that hasn't been mentioned thus far. The LDS goes about gathering the names of the dead through assisting people with tracing their ancestry. Is it done in an upfront way? Nope. There is no "opt out" of this, because it's kept on the down low outside the church. Millions of people become paying members of certain geneology sites without realizing they're helping the LDS compile more unwilling baptism prospects. So, in addition to being disrespectful, the process of how they go about it is inherently dishonest and sneaky. And yet, they consider that "Christ-like"? Please. >>I don’t think it makes a mouse’s butt of difference what someone does after I’m dead<< Nor do I. But that doesn't mean I'd intentionally do something that disrespects a person's faith after they were gone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But isn’t this fury against the church really driven by liberal Californian’s hatred for what the church did in regards to Prop 8? And is it right to hold one admittedly misguided decision on the part of the church against all Mormons everywhere?<< I do hate what the Mormon church did in regards to Prop 8. But they weren't alone, and not the sole funders of the proposition. I do think religions getting involved in a political process ought to result in an immediate taxation. They can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Personally I would never go to the trouble of doing so because I don’t think it makes a mouse’s butt of difference what someone does after I’m dead.<<< True. This baptism after death does nothing. I don't know anything about the book of Mormon, but I do know they are a works based religion. I don't believe in that, I don't agree that baptism is required for salvation. And when I'm dead, it won't matter either way.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I do think religions getting involved in a political process ought to result in an immediate taxation.<<< Agreed. I don't want my church telling me how to vote.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<And is it right to hold one admittedly misguided decision on the part of the church against all Mormons everywhere?>> Wow. Just...wow. What happened in California was not just one tiny thing, like spilling jam on someone's rug. What they participated in was flat out evil. Crossing state lines, spending millions of dollars, countless man-hours to take away fellow Americans rights. Stopping citizens from joining with the person they love. (Dozens upon dozens of rights they are denied by being legally married; rights that they CANNOT get simply through a civil union.) And it certainly isn't one isolated action, either. They like to brag about how their numbers are rapidly growing...that's enough to keep discussing their actions.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<What they participated in was flat out evil.>>> I was disgusted with the church for getting involved with Prop 8 the way they did and was embarrassed to be a (lapsed) member, but I think evil is really too strong a word. As others have pointed out here, there is a real double standard about how we can criticise Mormon members for being disrespectful to others beliefs yet it's ok to say they are evil. I'm sorry that is hypocrisy and I have to call it where I see it.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka No, it's not the same. I am calling out their behavior as evil...not their beliefs. They are taking deliberate acts against people. I am not acting against them in any way and yet, they continue to act against my friends and me. Before Prop 8, I didn't have any real feelings one way or another towards Mormons (as is the case with millions of other people). Their actions have changed opinions and it isn't hypocritical to point out that what they are doing is wrong. They're actively hurting people they don't even know in the name of their God...and I'm hypocritical for pointing that out? Nope, they're not even anywhere near the same thing. (Of course, Mormons are always feeling victimized by any minute slight towards them while they lash out in enormous ways.) Part of the problem with today's society is that we're supposed to believe that every opinion is valid, and we're supposed to allow people to believe their own emotionally based "facts". Mormons can do whatever the hell they want with their lives...I will only speak up when they interfere in the lives of others. Their hypocrisy on this matter VASTLY outweighs petty squabbles about hurt feelings over the words said here.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Let me put it this way... They actively campaign to take away the rights of their fellow citizens. I say that's evil. They actively disrespect people by holding posthumous ceremonies for their fellow citizens. I say that's evil. Notice how THEIR actions against others are the precursor here? That's the difference and it isn't hypocritical to point that out, no matter how much you see it that way. Actions trump words. (And, btw, they're pretty good at using their words, too.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ">>If these people wanted to make a real request with real names through the Mormon Church I think it just might be honored.< <<You do? I don't. I think sooner or later, someone like Josh, feeling he knows better, would go ahead and "offer" it anyway.>> Bingo. And we've seen that attitude right here. "You ought to be happy with what we're offering, you don't have to accept it, wouldn't you want the option just in case we're right, we're doing you a favor...". And this after several said specifically they wouldn't want it, for whatever reason. It's all a matter of respect to me, or lack thereof. Of course it makes no difference in the cosmic scheme of things. But still... I know a guy named Charles who is cool with Charles or Charlie but detests being called Chuck. If you pesist in calling him Chuck after he asks you not to, because YOU like it and think he ought to lighten up and like it too, of course it means nothing in the grand scheme of things... but it's still disrespectful.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<I am calling out their behavior as evil...not their beliefs.>>> Their behaviour was based on their beliefs otherwise they wouldn't have got involved. When you call their behaviour evil it reflects on their beliefs because right or wrong their behaviour was defending their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. There were too many beliefs/behaviours there...sorry! I called out Josh who I really don't think is always the best ambassador for the church (sorry) and I really do feel now that in the interests of fairness I should say that calling someone's beliefs OR behaviours evil while complaining that they won't respect yours is hypocritical.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<Notice how THEIR actions against others are the precursor here? That's the difference and it isn't hypocritical to point that out, no matter how much you see it that way.>>> I'm not saying it's hypocritical to point that out, but it is hypocritical to disrespect someone for being disrespectful.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I disagree with your conclusions. I don't believe people of other religions are inferior. I believe they are children of God and have infinite worth.>> Yeah, 'children of god with infinite worth' who are going to HELL if they don't accept the Mormon baptism. The creator supposedly loves all of us but some of us are going to eternal damnation because we didn't choose Mormonism. Give me a freakin' break. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Josh. Your arguments are illogical and fail to address the core issue, which is the inherent inferiority of someone who's condemned to an eternity in hell. You are incapable of critical thought and higher levels of reasoning. And I'm done arguing with you.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Yeah, 'children of god with infinite worth' who are going to HELL if they don't accept the Mormon baptism.> This is not what my faith teaches. You seem unable to grasp the actual beliefs of my faith. Want to stop arguing? Fine by me. I'll stick around and continue to tell the truth about my religion.
