Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Senator]

A negotiation involves compromise.

Which of our God given rights and mandates are you willing to throw upon the bargaining table?

...and precisely how cheaply are you willing to sell your birthright?

A mess of pottage?

A little whine?

Or is the approbation of Babylon sufficient to buy you?

You keep insisting that the Church- and the faithful who reside therein- should bow and scrape before the pomp of Babylon- but you never tell us precisely why we should.

Their feelings and objections are not valid simply because they are held.

"Cuz I feel that way" or "Cuz I want it" doesn't cut it in adult discourse.

My step-father harbored an irrational resentment of everyone who's skin wasn't the same color as his. He routinely slandered and despised ethnic minorities as "dirty", "unkempt", "ignorant" and "stupid"- and was unwilling to be told otherwise, nor would he address facts that were contrary to his deeply-cherished prejudices.

Should we respect and validate his bigotry just because it was valid "to him"?

If not, then why should we respect and validate the bigotry of those who demand we stop a Temple practice they neither understand nor care to and which is not harming them one jot, one tittle, or one iota?

I've grown weary of your antics.

Instead of playing cutesy games and dancing around the issue, please tell us the precise moral and legal grounds upon which these apostates, sons of Perdition, and ignorant bigots may demand that we cease a practice that does them no harm whatever.

You want to be loved by Babylon and her myriad whores- and seem willing to throw the Church (and our ancestors) under the bus to get it.

My price is somewhat higher.

Sounds like you and your step-father have much in common.

[Kristine]

A negotiation involves compromise.

There is this thing called collaboration. You have to negotiate to get there. When it works out, no one has to give up anything. They just have to work together in order for both of them to get what they want.

You keep insisting that the Church- and the faithful who reside therein- should bow and scrape before the pomp of Babylon- but you never tell us precisely why we should.

Their feelings and objections are not valid simply because they are held.

"Cuz I feel that way" or "Cuz I want it" doesn't cut it in adult discourse.

No, that is simply you're interpretation.

My step-father harbored an irrational resentment of everyone who's skin wasn't the same color as his. He routinely slandered and despised ethnic minorities as "dirty", "unkempt", "ignorant" and "stupid"- and was unwilling to be told otherwise, nor would he address facts that were contrary to his deeply-cherished prejudices.

Should we respect and validate his bigotry just because it was valid "to him"?

Selek, are you honestly comparing your step-father's hatred to someone's offense that we think we are better than they are? (Their perception... be clear... not mine). If you look closely enough, you could flip this to have your step-father represent some in the church, and not the other way around. Tread lightly.

If not, then why should we respect and validate the bigotry of those who demand we stop a Temple practice they neither understand nor care to and which is not harming them one jot, one tittle, or one iota?

Selek, the policy is not mine, it is the Church's. I happen to agree with it, and am grateful our leaders understand. I cannot help it if you don't. Perhaps you should take it up with them and keep your hellfire and damnations away from me.

I've grown weary of your antics.

Instead of playing cutesy games and dancing around the issue, please tell us the precise moral and legal grounds upon which these apostates, sons of Perdition, and ignorant bigots may demand that we cease a practice that does them no harm whatever.

I've never claimed legal, nor have I employed "antics" or danced around anything. I don't know what you think I have said, but at this point, it doesn't even sound like we're talking about the same thing. I don't know if your words are mere theatrics or if you're serious, but I'm over it. If you don't know what I'm saying by now, no one can help you understand it.

You want to be loved by Babylon and her myriad whores- and seem willing to throw the Church (and our ancestors) under the bus to get it.

My price is somewhat higher.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, people must agree with you in order for the disagreement to be cool with you? That's a nifty arrangement you've got going there.

No, they just have to leave Mormons alone where the harmless practice of deeply held religious beliefs is concerned. If "agreeing to disagree" means accepting disagreement, that entails ceasing to agitate/make demands/defame Mormons or their beliefs over the matter of proxy temple ordinances, even if one holds the practice in contempt.

[Jeff K.]

Forget it. There are people that would rather throw away a chance at eternal life for our dead ancestors rather than ignore the people in the overly large building.

[Scott Lloyd]

That would be the essence of the thread topic. 11 pages later... and I still find myself surprised.

Surprised over what?

How did Christ teach it?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets" Matthew 7:12

.

Nothing there that I can see about "sugar-coated narcissism."

So, you're not even doing this because you think it's best? You're only doing this to prove a point that no one can tell Mormons what they can or cannot do?

Huh? Doing what? Practicing the doctrine pertaining to salvation for the dead? I do it because it's a commandment from God and because it's the only way to extend the saving ordinances to deceased individuals who otherwise would not have the opportunity to receive them.

Where did you get the idea I don't do it because I think it's best?

[Senator]

No, they just have to leave Mormons alone where the harmless practice of deeply held religious beliefs is concerned. If "agreeing to disagree" means accepting disagreement, that entails ceasing to agitate/make demands/defame Mormons or their beliefs over the matter of proxy temple ordinances, even if one holds the practice in contempt.

Again, this merry-go-round has grown old. You have the last word.

[Senator]

Forget it. There are people that would rather throw away a chance at eternal life for our dead ancestors rather than ignore the people in the overly large building.

Sometimes you really suck at making insulting comments.

Now Selek? He's a born Master!

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, this merry-go-round has grown old. You have the last word.

Just trying to nail down what you mean by "agree to disgree." To me, it's something akin to "live and let live"; apparently you don't think so.

[jwhitlock]

Just trying to nail down what you mean by "agree to disgree." To me, it's something akin to "live and let live"; apparently you don't think so.

No, it means that Mormons need to back down from their position and not bring it up again, while the critics continue to defame and get angry about LDS practices that really don't affect them.

There has yet to be a demonstration of how temple proxy ordinances directly or indirectly impact those who are so offended.

[Somebodyz]

Sounds like you and your step-father have much in common.

Nasty!

[Jeff K.]

Sometimes you really suck at making insulting comments.

No Selek? He's a born Master!

It isn't an insult, it is an observation that strips the varnish off the wood. The Lord commands us to do baptisms for our dead. People who are not impacted by it in any doctrinal or religious way object, regardless of the lack of impact, some argue we should stop, simply because people complain. And so discounting consequences to those who have passed on and are now denied the opportunity of salvation, some join with the jeering crowd in stopping those who may wish to take part in gospel.

And you consider that an insult rather than an observation? I think it reflects the lack of substance to your own position.

[ERayR]

Quite the accusation, ERayR. How exactly am I dragging you anywhere?

Unless I am reading you wrong you are insistant that we refrain from practicing the tennants (Baptism for the dead)of our religion on the whims of whoever objects. That insistance seems to me to be an attempt to drag the rest of us along with you.

[Senator]

deleted

[Kristine]

Unless I am reading you wrong you are insistant that we refrain from practicing the tennants (Baptism for the dead)of our religion on the whims of whoever objects. That insistance seems to me to be an attempt to drag the rest of us along with you.

If you think that because I think we should respect the request of a few who wish not to have their ancestors baptized that I wish to stop the great work, then you are mistaken. There is so much work to be done, it really won't make much of a difference. But no, I don't think we should stop the practice. Of course not. I love temple work, and am grateful for the opportunity. I have had wonderful experiences and know there are others who are waiting for their ordinances, dependent upon us to receive them.

I also feel that the living who are offended by our practices matter. They are few. No, I don't think because some object on a basic level, when it is not personal to them, that we should stop. I don't really care about that, and I agree that we should be allowed to worship as we will. But if they are not ours to claim just yet, then it really is not asking too much to wait. It will happen eventually, if not now, then in a few years. If not then, then during the millenium.

[Kristine]

Surprised over what?

Really?

Nothing there that I can see about "sugar-coated narcissism."

I didn't say the Golden Rule was sugar-coated narcissism. Please do not twist my words. I said that sometimes people twist the teaching to their own benefit.

Huh? Doing what? Practicing the doctrine pertaining to salvation for the dead? I do it because it's a commandment from God and because it's the only way to extend the saving ordinances to deceased individuals who otherwise would not have the opportunity to receive them.

Where did you get the idea I don't do it because I think it's best?

When you said this: "It's not a matter of deciding for other people what's best for them. It's a question of allowing uncomprehending outsiders to hinder the Latter-day Saints in the practice of what they see as a vital and fundamental religious doctrine, a practice that, by any objective measure, harms no one and, from a believer's standpoint, has great potential benefit."

It sounded as though it was more important for you to make sure others could not tell you what to do under the cloak of "doing the Lord's work", rather than actually doing it.

[jwhitlock]

But if they are not ours to claim just yet...

You seem to continue to have trouble with this point.

These ancestors are not ours. They are not hers. They are individuals in their own right.

We do not speak for them; we merely offer the ordinance as done, and the decision is theirs. They do not become "ours" when we do the proxy work.

Their descendants do not speak for them; they cannot demand that we do not offer the ordinance to them via proxy work in the temple.

If our doctrine was that proxy work is binding on the individual it is done for, then your friend might have a point. However, it is not binding and has no impact at all if not accepted by the individual the work is done for - who is the only person who has the right to make that choice. Hence, since there is no impact on your friends life - no matter how hard she tries to portray herself as being offended by the Church - she doesn't have any valid reason for her opposition.

[Pahoran]

So, people must agree with you in order for the disagreement to be cool with you? That's a nifty arrangement you've got going there.

Not as nifty as your nifty misrepresentation of Scott's words.

It was you who suggested that we should "agree to disagree." Whatever you might think that phrase means, I have always understood it to mean something like, "accept that we are not going to convince each other, and therefore stop arguing about it and move on."

So if the Latter-day Saints on the one hand, and the self-appointed religious censors to whom you and Kristine are so obsequiously fawning on the other hand are going to "agree to disagree," that means that we are going to continue to obey the Lord rather than them -- since they have failed to convince us -- and they are going to give up trying to stop us, because they accept that it's a fruitless effort.

The corollary of this is that appeasers and submissionists on the fringes of the Church will need to stop demanding appeasement and submission on our part.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kristine]

You seem to continue to have trouble with this point.

These ancestors are not ours. They are not hers. They are individuals in their own right.

We do not speak for them; we merely offer the ordinance as done, and the decision is theirs. They do not become "ours" when we do the proxy work.

Their descendants do not speak for them; they cannot demand that we do not offer the ordinance to them via proxy work in the temple.

If our doctrine was that proxy work is binding on the individual it is done for, then your friend might have a point. However, it is not binding and has no impact at all if not accepted by the individual the work is done for - who is the only person who has the right to make that choice. Hence, since there is no impact on your friends life - no matter how hard she tries to portray herself as being offended by the Church - she doesn't have any valid reason for her opposition.

I have trouble with nothing, j, and I'm growing tired of your competition. I'm not playing. Of course they are individuals, but they're dead. I never said they become "ours" at any point. This isn't a hard concept, and I've no doubt you know what I meant. At this point your comments are simply ridiculous.

And I am familiar with the concept of ordinance work for the dead. I don't need your tutorial.

I don't care if you see my friend's point, as you don't care to even try. That says more than any amount of proxy work you could ever perform. If this is about you being right, take it. I couldn't care less. This has nothing to do with binding or not binding as you would like to believe. You're missing the point. She is impacted, whether you choose to see it as valid or not. She is impacted and she does not portray herself as anything, and you do not care about her. You've made your point, you have been heard, and I will never agree with you. If you don't like the Church policy, take it up there. I'm over it.

Move on.

[Kristine]

Not as nifty as your nifty misrepresentation of Scott's words.

It was you who suggested that we should "agree to disagree." Whatever you might think that phrase means, I have always understood it to mean something like, "accept that we are not going to convince each other, and therefore stop arguing about it and move on."

So if the Latter-day Saints on the one hand, and the self-appointed religious censors to whom you and Kristine are so obsequiously fawning on the other hand are going to "agree to disagree," that means that we are going to continue to obey the Lord rather than them -- since they have failed to convince us -- and they are going to give up trying to stop us, because they accept that it's a fruitless effort.

The corollary of this is that appeasers and submissionists on the fringes of the Church will need to stop demanding appeasement and submission on our part.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh please. Have you come to join the ranks of the (self) righteous? Welcome to the party! Have you not read the Church's policy either? Or do you too choose to regard it as "only a suggestion"? Things that are simply read from the pulpit at church that don't really matter, like Prop 8 voting suggestions. Barf.

Senator and I are not creating our own rules. It has nothing to do with either of us, as you would so like to believe. But then where would your fun begin?

I have demanded nothing, and I aim to appease no one. Your pretty words are nothing but a "B" grade interpretation of a story you yourself have invented.

[jwhitlock]

I have trouble with nothing, j, and I'm growing tired of your competition. I'm not playing. Of course they are individuals, but they're dead. I never said they become "ours" at any point. This isn't a hard concept, and I've no doubt you know what I meant. At this point your comments are simply ridiculous.

And I am familiar with the concept of ordinance work for the dead. I don't need your tutorial.

I don't care if you see my friend's point, as you don't care to even try. That says more than any amount of proxy work you could ever perform. If this is about you being right, take it. I couldn't care less. This has nothing to do with binding or not binding as you would like to believe. You're missing the point. She is impacted, whether you choose to see it as valid or not. She is impacted and she does not portray herself as anything, and you do not care about her. You've made your point, you have been heard, and I will never agree with you. If you don't like the Church policy, take it up there. I'm over it.

Move on.

I don't have much patience with someone who says something and then denies that she said it and gets snippy in return. I quoted you directly; it's patently dishonest to say something, and then deny it's what you meant in the tone you're taking.

Others on this thread have caught the inconsistencies and conflicts in what you're posting. You've made it a point to backtrack and spin each time you've been called on your comments indicating the Church is wrong. And now you have the utter dishonesty to post something totally irrelevant about me not liking Church policy. I'll remind you that it is you that has questioned Church policy and its application, and demanded in your friends name that the work not be done because she happens to be offended. If you really understood temple work, something that your conflicting and inconsistent posting calls into question, you wouldn't have posted your ridiculous comments in the first place. It is obvious that you're not "over it"; you're the one who brought it up about your "friend", and it's obvious that you have real issues in understanding the priority of the Lord's work vs. pleasing those who are of the world.

I'd suggest that you make a decision about whose side you're really on and quit getting into a snit when the weaknesses in your positions as you post them are challenged.

[jwhitlock]

Things that are simply read from the pulpit at church that don't really matter, like Prop 8 voting suggestions. Barf.

And here we go with more of your true character and position against the Church coming out. Pathetic.

[Kristine]

And here we go with more of your true character and position against the Church coming out. Pathetic.

Claim your assumption before you try to use it against me.

[Kristine]

I don't have much patience with someone who says something and then denies that she said it and gets snippy in return. I quoted you directly; it's patently dishonest to say something, and then deny it's what you meant in the tone you're taking.

Others on this thread have caught the inconsistencies and conflicts in what you're posting. You've made it a point to backtrack and spin each time you've been called on your comments indicating the Church is wrong. And now you have the utter dishonesty to post something totally irrelevant about me not liking Church policy. I'll remind you that it is you that has questioned Church policy and its application, and demanded in your friends name that the work not be done because she happens to be offended. If you really understood temple work, something that your conflicting and inconsistent posting calls into question, you wouldn't have posted your ridiculous comments in the first place. It is obvious that you're not "over it"; you're the one who brought it up about your "friend", and it's obvious that you have real issues in understanding the priority of the Lord's work vs. pleasing those who are of the world.

I'd suggest that you make a decision about whose side you're really on and quit getting into a snit when the weaknesses in your positions as you post them are challenged.

I have been clear and consistent, the only inconsistency has entered when erroneous assumptions have been made. Try asking questions instead of insisting you know what I think or feel. The burden of pointing out these inconsistencies is on you.

I NEVER said the church was wrong. Pay attention.

[jwhitlock]

Claim your assumption before you try to use it against me.

Not real pleased with having your facade taken down, are you.

You need to be more careful with your posting; you let too much slip about your real attitude.

[Kristine]

Not real pleased with having your facade taken down, are you.

You need to be more careful with your posting; you let too much slip about your real attitude.

I have nothing to hide. I have no facade. Obviously, you have no idea how I feel about Prop 8. You have assumed the exact reverse of what I actually said. Is that my fault? Stretch your mind and figure out what I actually meant. It may be difficult, but I'm sure if you put enough effort into it you could manage.