Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[jwhitlock]

Well, you can't speak to her dead relatives, but you are welcome to email her. And I don't know... I'm pretty offended by polygamy, and I haven't lived it. I would be pretty upset if someone tried to seal me to a man who already had a bunch of wives.

Why?

Why not? I'm only giving an example of what I was told. I made none of it up. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not, on BOTH sides of the fence.

Yes. Our existence does offend her. She is a product of us, and a very painful part. I don't know you, j. I don't know your views on the doctrines, but they are offensive to many. No one is claiming right or wrong. It is what it is. If you don't agree, that doesn't make wrong how she feels. We have been counseled to respect that. You're not just disagreeing with her on this.

And the whole point is that these people choose to be highly offended - to the point of hating us - for absolutely no good or valid reason at all.

There is no reason that I need to respect or accept such irrational choices.

[Senator]

Yes, that's right. We don't care about you, just the law. That is what I told people as a missionary all the time.

I think you misunderstood what I was meaning. I was responding to the claim that, not under any circumstance does anyone have the right to demand the removal of names from church records. I was defending the legality of the rights to demand, as well as the right of the church to ignore the demand if it wishes. However, I was not indicating that that was how the church aught to respond.

[Stargazer]

Some of this reminds of a story.

Way back in the middle east there was an old man and his grandson on a trip with their donkey. They both walked, and led the donkey by a rope.

A man coming the other way with a friend, commented to a friend walking with him, "What idiots! There's a perfectly good donkey to ride, and they're both walking!"

Hearing this, they both got up on the donkey. A little while later, someone else coming the other way stopped them and complained.

"Why are you both riding that poor donkey! You're going to kill it with all that weight! You should be ashamed of yourselves!" The old man got off, and they continued on with the grandson riding.

A mile down the road they met two more people, and one of them commented out loud to his companion about how disrespectful it was for the young man to be riding while the old man had to walk. So they changed places.

As they got closer to their destination, they heard a pair of housewives standing by the road gossiping about how mean the old man was to ride the donkey and make the little boy walk.

Enough was enough. So they killed the donkey and ate him, then went on their way.

The moral is obvious.

[ERayR]

The way I look at it is that I do not expect someone to change their lifestyle and actions because they do not conform to my expectations and I choose not to be offended by their beliefs and actions. On the other hand I live my life by the precepts that I believe to be good and true. I do not go out of my way to intentionally offend someone but if they are offended that is a problem that they have. If I were to live my life by the whims of someone else then I have turned my life over to them. I have spent to many years becoming what I am to turn it over to someone elses whims and sensibilities. If it is a choice of offending an aquaintence or God I will choose every time to refrain from what I perceive as an offence against God.

[bluebell]

Yes, their reaction was not justified, but their feelings are off limits to my opinions. If the child pummels his or her brother, then that is not justified. The child is welcome to have the feelings and react to them in an appropriate way that does not harm anyone else. If the teenager wants to be hysterical they have to go to another room where they will not bother anyone. If they will not, then there will be consequences. They can have their feelings all they want.

Again though, you're confusing two issues.

We've already established that people have a right to their feelings, whatever they are. What we are talking about now is whether or not an emotion or feeling is justified or reasonable. They are two separate issues.

I'll use a personal example this time. My sister recently went into labor on the day that my parents were supposed to spend with my son because it was his birthday. I was angry at my sister, even though i absolutely knew it wasn't her fault.

Was i allowed to have the angry feeling-yes. Was that feeling justifiable-no. Was it reasonable-no. There's no way i could ever justify my feelings of anger at my sister for spontaneously going into labor and messing up my plans (nor would i personally ever try to justify them).

As humans, we have feelings all the time that aren't justifiable-they come from the part of us still controlled by the 'natural man'.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but if there is a question I'm not trying to avoid it. I guess I'm not clear on what the question is.

I'll repeat again-

Do you think the person in your analogy would be justified in being offended by the offering of a treat bag to a relative if the offering was sincere and done out of love?

And no, I don't think refusing the treat bag is unreasonable.

Neither do i, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether or not it would be reasonable to be offended that a treat bag was offered.

I believe that I can respect my friend and that the work will get done. We don't always have to choose between commandments.

I agree.

Yes, I am. I guess I hold Mormon's to a higher standard than the rest of the world because of what we proclaim. But I guess I have no right to. I guess maybe we are both wrong.

This is a bit confusing.

You've repeatedly stated that you don't have the right to judge whether or not anothers feelings are reasonable, but here you claim that you do have the right to do so with mormons because they should know better.

This kind of comes off as if you are implying that all the posters who disagree with you aren't being good followers of Christ. Is that what you meant to imply?

[bluebell]

I think if one believed the offering was sincere and out of love, this would be a whole new ball game. I think too many people decide that everyone SHOULD believe that it is done sincerely and out of love. But the truth is, some do not.

That's probably true. People are pretty good at assuming the worst about people sometimes and then refusing to change their minds.

If I do something that I know would deeply offend someone, and I was told by my church leaders not to do it, and I did it anyway, I would feel sorry, say sorry, take responsibility for myself, and try to make it right.

Me too.

My questions specifically were dealing with people who are offended that LDS do any baptisms for the dead. Is your friend offended when other people's ancestors are baptized, or just when her's are? If it's only her's, then i personally don't have any problem with that.

[Kristine]

Again though, you're confusing two issues.

We've already established that people have a right to their feelings, whatever they are. What we are talking about now is whether or not an emotion or feeling is justified or reasonable. They are two separate issues.

I'll use a personal example this time. My sister recently went into labor on the day that my parents were supposed to spend with my son because it was his birthday. I was angry at my sister, even though i absolutely knew it wasn't her fault.

Was i allowed to have the angry feeling-yes. Was that feeling justifiable-no. Was it reasonable-no. There's no way i could ever justify my feelings of anger at my sister for spontaneously going into labor and messing up my plans (nor would i personally ever try to justify them).

As humans, we have feelings all the time that aren't justifiable-they come from the part of us still controlled by the 'natural man'.

I answered your questions one by one. I was not pretending that they correlated, as some of them did not seem to go with the example of getting permission to baptize someone's ancestors. If you interpreted that as confusing two issues, that's on you, isn't it?

I'll repeat again-

See, now that is the third time you have said something to me that I would considered to be condescending. I'm not so much offended as annoyed. But I'm not justified in having this reaction of feeling... am I? Were you doing this out of sincerity and love? If yes, does that make it ok? If no, does it make it ok? Or does it just not matter at all?

Do you think the person in your analogy would be justified in being offended by the offering of a treat bag to a relative if the offering was sincere and done out of love?

Yes, if she did not see it as sincere and loving. And I think that she would be justified in wanting the names removed. I do not think it would be ok for her to burn down the temple.

Neither do i, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether or not it would be reasonable to be offended that a treat bag was offered.

Oh I see. I'll make sure I use all my words this time. Yes, I think it would be reasonable to be offended if someone offered a treat bag under these circumstances.

This is a bit confusing.

You've repeatedly stated that you don't have the right to judge whether or not anothers feelings are reasonable, but here you claim that you do have the right to do so with mormons because they should know better.

I did not say I had the right to, infact I specifically said that I do not have the right to. My exact words were, "But I guess I have no right to."

This kind of comes off as if you are implying that all the posters who disagree with you aren't being good followers of Christ. Is that what you meant to imply?

Now that we're clear that I was wrong, does your question change?

[Kristine]

That's probably true. People are pretty good at assuming the worst about people sometimes and then refusing to change their minds.

Yes. I find that generally speaking people assume the worst automatically on MADB. (Now what did you just assume about me when you read that? Will you refuse to change your mind?)

My questions specifically were dealing with people who are offended that LDS do any baptisms for the dead. Is your friend offended when other people's ancestors are baptized, or just when her's are? If it's only her's, then i personally don't have any problem with that.

She is offended when we baptize without permission. She was especially offended when we baptized her family member without her permission. She doesn't care if we perfom baptisms as long as we have respected the wishes of the living.

[Kristine]

And the whole point is that these people choose to be highly offended - to the point of hating us - for absolutely no good or valid reason at all.

There is no reason that I need to respect or accept such irrational choices.

Do you think that we have never done anything wrong? Do you think there has ever been a case in the history of our church where someone has ever been justifiably offended?

[Kristine]

I think you misunderstood what I was meaning. I was responding to the claim that, not under any circumstance does anyone have the right to demand the removal of names from church records. I was defending the legality of the rights to demand, as well as the right of the church to ignore the demand if it wishes. However, I was not indicating that that was how the church aught to respond.

I am very sorry, Senator. I did misunderstand. I was hasty. My bad. I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt.

[bluebell]

I answered your questions one by one. I was not pretending that they correlated. If you interpreted that as confusing two issues, that's on you, isn't it?

Are you getting a little defensive?

See, now that is the third time you have said something to me that I would considered to be condescending. I'm not so much offended as annoyed.

You said you weren't sure what the question was, so i said i would repeat it. How could i have told you i would repeat the question you missed in a way that wouldn't have annoyed you or felt condescending?

But I'm not justified in having this reaction of feeling... am I? Were you doing this out of sincerity and love? If yes, does that make it ok? If no, does it make it ok? Or does it just not matter at all?

You're not making sense.

Oh I see. I'll make sure I use all my words this time. Yes, I think it would be reasonable to be offended if someone offered a treat bag under these circumstances.

Whatever tone you think exists in my posts to bring out the snarky side of you-it exists only in your head. I have no spoken to you in an unkind or disrespectful manner in any way. If you can't return the respect, then maybe we should just end now.

Now that we're clear that I was wrong, does your question change?

Yes, that does help clarify.

[bluebell]

Now what did you just assume about me when you read that?

Nothing. Should it have caused me to assume something about you?

Will you refuse to change your mind?

Change my mind about what?

She is offended when we baptize without permission.

How does she feel about baptisms for the dead where the people have been dead for centuries? Does she still feel that some form of permission needs to be gained?

[Kristine]

Are you getting a little defensive?

No, I'm annoyed, Bluebell. And disappointed.

You said you weren't sure what the question was, so i said i would repeat it. How could i have told you i would repeat the question you missed in a way that wouldn't have annoyed you or felt condescending?

Really? Ok. I'll take your word for it. There is always, "I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear," or "ok, this is what I was trying to ask," or "ok, let me be more specific,..."

You're not making sense.

I was asking your motive behind your tone, if it was sincere or not, and if it should make a difference on whether or not it would make being offended/annoyed more justifiable. But now you say there was no tone, so it's moot.

Whatever tone you think exists in my posts to bring out the snarky side of you-it exists only in your head. I have no spoken to you in an unkind or disrespectful manner in any way. If you can't return the respect, then maybe we should just end now.

I disagree. I think you have been condescending. (Like the offered comment, prefacing it with "I agree...but that is not what I asked..." I thought it was rude.) But if you say you have not, then I am wrong and I apologize. I did not mean to be snarky. I'm sorry that you felt I was. I have meant you no disrespect.

[Kristine]

Nothing. Should it have caused me to assume something about you?

Not necessarily. I was genuinely curious. You seem honest enough, I thought you would tell me.

Change my mind about what?

An assumption you made. You said you didn't make one, so it's moot.

How does she feel about baptisms for the dead where the people have been dead for centuries? Does she still feel that some form of permission needs to be gained?

I don't know. If it's really important to you I will ask her. Why do you ask?

[volgadon]

Some of this reminds of a story.

The moral is obvious.

Joha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love tales of Joha. One of the last books i bought in Israel was a collection of stories about him.

[bluebell]

I disagree. I think you have been condescending. (Like the offered comment, prefacing it with "I agree...but that is not what I asked... I thought it was rude.) But if you say you have not, then I am wrong and I apologize. I did not mean to be snarky. I'm sorry that you felt I was. I have meant you no disrespect.

It's late and i've spent all day writing papers. I'm sorry if i came off condescending-i was being direct because i'm tired and my time is short but i know sometimes that makes it easier for people to assume the worst about tone and sincerity. I do kind of wonder if you would have found that style condescending had i been agreeing with you though. I know that personally, it's very easy to be annoyed and mis-read the posts of people who i am in a disagreement with. I don't seem to have that trouble with people who think i'm right though.

Concerning the statements you found especially annoying-you seemed in the posts to have been confused about what exactly i was asking because you kept answering questions that i hadn't asked so i was using that style to clarify what i meant. It's easy on message boards to misunderstand exactly what people are trying to get at so sometimes you have to say it as directly as possible. It was nothing personal.

[bluebell]

I don't know. If it's really important to you I will ask her. Why do you ask?

Your last answer didn't make it clear so to make sure i was understanding you correctly, it was necessary to ask a follow up question. Also, the way you've spoken about her exact problems with baptisms for the dead, i just assumed that you knew precisely where she stood on all aspects of the issue.

[Anijen]

I have so much repenting to do to be a better person, for instance;

I say just baptize people and if their ancestors feel bad about it, well so.

yup not too diplomatic or politically correct.

[ERayR]

I have so much repenting to do to be a better person, for instance;

I say just baptize people and if their ancestors feel bad about it, well so.

yup not too diplomatic or politically correct.

You can't please them all. Some of their decendents are happy some are mad and some don't care. As I said in an earlier post just do what God wants and let the chips fall.

[Kristine]

Your last answer didn't make it clear so to make sure i was understanding you correctly, it was necessary to ask a follow up question. Also, the way you've spoken about her exact problems with baptisms for the dead, i just assumed that you knew precisely where she stood on all aspects of the issue.

I suppose I should have asked you why do you want to know? (Instead of why do you ask.) I would say generally speaking she does not like the practice. She doesn't like anyone sticking their nose into other people's business (her perception, not mine.) But she lives by the same rule. If someone is ok with it, having their ancestors baptized, then she feels it's none of her business. I doubt she loses sleep over the general idea. It was personally painful to her for what happened with her grandparents and parents, especially because of her mother's request. That is the source of her emotion. But as a person generally, I would characterize her as a "love everyone and mind your own business" kind of gal. It's not specific to Mormons.

Because of the way our exchange was going, I told you I didn't know. (Which I don't, not an exact answer, but I can probably guess.) You have already said that you would have a problem with her if she disapproved of the practice altogether. I didn't feel like I needed to give you a reason to dislike her all the more. I didn't bring her story up to have it specifically critiqued. I used it as example, and she, without her knowledge, has been highly criticized on this thread. That is my fault, and is something I regret.

I was just curious to know why it would make any difference to you how she felt about us baptizing people who have been dead for centuries.

[Kristine]

It's late and i've spent all day writing papers. I'm sorry if i came off condescending-i was being direct because i'm tired and my time is short but i know sometimes that makes it easier for people to assume the worst about tone and sincerity. I do kind of wonder if you would have found that style condescending had i been agreeing with you though. I know that personally, it's very easy to be annoyed and mis-read the posts of people who i am in a disagreement with. I don't seem to have that trouble with people who think i'm right though.

Concerning the statements you found especially annoying-you seemed in the posts to have been confused about what exactly i was asking because you kept answering questions that i hadn't asked so i was using that style to clarify what i meant. It's easy on message boards to misunderstand exactly what people are trying to get at so sometimes you have to say it as directly as possible. It was nothing personal.

bluebell, I'll show you the respect of being honest with you. I didn't feel you were direct. Your comments were editorial in nature. It wasn't your style so much as little "tidbit" comments here and there. I appreciate the apology, again, I'm being honest, I also feel like you invalidated it by saying "I wonder if you would have been offended if... and by giving me two reasons for your "style", (tired and little time), as well as my "inability" to understand, making your apology very conditional, explained away by the excusable, and one reason that actually blames me.

I didn't take it personally, but I did get annoyed. You made assumptions about me, that I wouldn't answer a question because I "knew" you were right, which I thought was arrogant especially because I didn't agree with you and you assumed I would. I thought my answer to your post was sufficient and that I had made my point, I didn't expect you would want a specific answer to your question.

Saying things like "it sounds good to say" as though I were just trying to appease and didn't believe my own words was also an assumption. I admit that I lost my patience and became flippant in some of my answers. I didn't think your examples of "unjustifiable offense" were very coherent or applicable, and instead of putting forth the effort to answer your posts by what you probably meant, I went through one by one and answered them on what I perceived each question merited. Frankly, that was lame on my part, and I apologize.

The worst part is, I don't think we're any closer to understanding eachother.

[bluebell]

bluebell, I'll show you the respect of being honest with you.

Thank you. I will do the same.

I didn't feel you were direct. Your comments were editorial in nature. It wasn't your style so much as little "tidbit" comments here and there. I appreciate the apology, again, I'm being honest, I also feel like you invalidated it by saying "I wonder if you would have been offended if... and by giving me two reasons for your "style", (tired and little time), as well as my "inability" to understand, making your apology very conditional, explained away by the excusable, and one reason that actually blames me.

Perhaps my apology wasn't well-worded.

I wasn't apologizing for treating you in a condecending manner (because i didn't). I was apologizing for not taking the time to write in a way where my tone was more clear so that you would have known from teh start that i wasn't being condescending. I explained why i didn't have the desire last night to write in a more pleasing manner so that you would understand where i was coming from, and also why i asked the questions i did.

I also threw in a light-hearted statement about how it's much easier to see the worst in people who disagree with us (i even used a smiley for that one and implicated myself to show that it was light-hearted and seeing my own part in the issue).

At this point-it seems like a lost cause and probably not worth any more time.

I didn't take it personally, but I did get annoyed. You made assumptions about me, that I wouldn't answer a question because I "knew" you were right, which I thought was arrogant especially because I didn't agree with you and you assumed I would.

Now you are the one who is assuming.

If you remember correctly, i asked if a specific reason was why you had twice not answered a direct question asked of you. I asked because i did not know why you would not answer, but i wondered if it wasn't because you did not want to deal with the specifics of the question because the answer would not have served your purpose.

You took the question to be insulting when it was simply an attempt to understand your actions better. I did not assume my thoughts on your actions were correct-i asked if they were. There is a difference.

I thought my answer to your post was sufficient and that I had made my point, I didn't expect you would want a specific answer to your question.

I believe that when people ask a question of me, it's because they want me to answer it.

I don't think it is illogical to expect the same of other posters.

Saying things like "it sounds good to say" as though I were just trying to appease and didn't believe my own words was also an assumption. I admit that I lost my patience and became flippant in some of my answers. I didn't think your examples of "unjustifiable offense" were very coherent or applicable, and instead of putting forth the effort to answer your posts by what you probably meant, I went through one by one and answered them on what I perceived each question merited. Frankly, that was lame on my part, and I apologize.

Fine.

The worst part is, I don't think we're any closer to understanding eachother.

No, but we've probably spent enough time and hijacked the thread enough.

[Somebodyz]

deleted

[Kristine]

I wasn't apologizing for treating you in a condecending manner (because i didn't). I was apologizing for not taking the time to write in a way where my tone was more clear so that you would have known from the start that i wasn't being condescending. I explained why i didn't have the desire last night to write in a more pleasing manner so that you would understand where i was coming from, and also why i asked the questions i did.

Bluebell, I never said you apologized for being condescending. I just said you apologized and then invalidated it by excusing what you apologized for.

I also threw in a light-hearted statement about how it's much easier to see the worst in people who disagree with us (i even used a smiley for that one and implicated myself to show that it was light-hearted and seeing my own part in the issue).

Which implied to me that you believed that I saw the worst in you, and was a back-handed way of accusing me. Apparently not.

At this point-it seems like a lost cause and probably not worth any more time.

If that's how you feel I will respect that. I am willing to try to understand if you are.

Now you are the one who is assuming. If you remember correctly, i asked if a specific reason was why you had twice not answered a direct question asked of you. I asked because i did not know why you would not answer, but i wondered if it wasn't because you did not want to deal with the specifics of the question because the answer would not have served your purpose.

You took the question to be insulting when it was simply an attempt to understand your actions better. I did not assume my thoughts on your actions were correct-i asked if they were. There is a difference.

You asked me a question which directly implied that I did not want to answer it because I was being dishonest. If you're intent was pure, fine, and if you didn't assume, fine, but there was a direct implication, and it wasn't kind.

I believe that when people ask a question of me, it's because they want me to answer it. I don't think it is illogical to expect the same of other posters.

I did answer it. I said that I had no right to decide whether or not someone was justified in their reaction, which would make your actual question irrelevant. As far as I can tell, the issue is that I didn't answer it the way you wanted it answered. That doesn't mean I was avoiding it.

No, but we've probably spent enough time and hijacked the thread enough.

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, let's see... If your cousin had been egregiously (yes, that's what I said) offended by the person who was offering the treat bag, and you yourself had been equally offended and were the only one who could speak for your cousin, and you felt that the contents of the treat bag were only shoving the proverbial knife in your and your cousins backs regarding the first offense, then I'd say the probability would be yes. You would be offended. For yourself, and for your cousin.

Except that there's nothing inherently offensive about inviting someone to a party and preparing a treat bag or party favor for the person in case he accepts the invitation. Just like there's nothing inherently offensive about Mormons performing non-binding proxy ordinances for a deceased person conditional upon the person accepting them.