Interesting Article By Atheist Journalist.

[cdowis]

Yes. I understand. Do you understand that if you toss the Koran onto a campfire, not to provoke anyone, but simply because you want to keep the fire going, and you have no intent to ever read the book, you would offend some Muslims?

Do you understand that If someone vomits, and the handiest thing available to clean it up is the American flag, you might offend someone if you use the flag to clean up the mess?

He can use his own shirt to clean up his mess, and paper does not keep a fire burning. I feel disgust and pity for such an ignorant, uncouth lout.

But I'm sure you already know this and simply want to provoke some sort of inappropriate reaction. I won't fall into your trap again.

[Libs]

Helen Radkey.

I can kind of understand not wanting a relative post-humously baptized. I knew someone whose mother was proxy baptized by an LDS relative and she was extremely offended, because her mother had been a life-long, very devout, Catholic. It appeared to her, as very disrespectful of her mother.

The LDS relative, of course, thought she was doing something good. Those kinds of situations are delicate and difficult.

[Jaybear]

He can use his own shirt to clean up his mess, and paper does not keep a fire burning. I feel disgust and pity for such an ignorant, uncouth lout.

Disgust and pity seem to be a strong reaction, but ...

Q: Why is he uncouth and ignorant?

A: Because he is taking actions oblivious to the fact the objects which have no special meaning to him, have deep symbolic value to others.

But I'm sure you already know this and simply want to provoke some sort of inappropriate reaction. I won't fall into your trap again.

Huh? Trap? What I am trying to "provoke" is a common understanding about why others would take offense to LDS baptisms of Jewish holocaust victims.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Vomit away in the privacy of your own home. Be my guest. But to publicly clean up vomit with any flag, including the flag of the US, is incitement. I have enough respect for the beliefs of others not to disrespect them in a public setting, even if I don't agree with them.

Nah. Its still disrespectful. It just means that if no one sees you, you lessen the possibility of offending someone.

If a guest at your home comes across a vomit soaked flag in your trash can, I don't see that telling them that the vomit you cleaned up was in the back yard, not the front yard, would in any way mollify their objection.

To tie it in with LDS Temple work. The Temple is not a public building. It is by private invitation only. As such it is none of anyone not LDS business what goes on in there.

You are correct. You can do what you want in the temple. If you wanted to, you could burn the Koran to your hearts content. As long as you paid for the Koran, its not anyone else's business what objects you choose to desecrate in a private ceremony on private property.

Of course, if it becomes public knowledge, don't be surprised if others took offense, and expressed their outrage publicly.

[thesometimesaint]

Only a fool takes offense when it is not meant, and a bigger one when it is.

[Jaybear]

Only a fool takes offense when it is not meant, and a bigger one when it is.

While that may be true, if someone takes offense at something you said or did, calling them a fool will only make them angrier.

If you don't believe me, next time you do something to offend your wife, try calling her a fool and see where that gets you.

[LeSellers]

While that may be true, if someone takes offense at something you said or did, calling them a fool will only make them angrier.

Perhaps, but who really cares what a fool thinks? (Absent, of course, his willingness to harm you because of it.)

Lehi

[Jaybear]

Perhaps, but who really cares what a fool thinks? (Absent, of course, his willingness to harm you because of it.)

Lehi

As we are all hard wired to take offense, and by this definition are all fools, perhaps the better question is who doesn't care what other people think.

[LeSellers]

As we are all hard wired to take offense, and by this definition are all fools, perhaps the better question is who doesn't care what other people think.

"Hardwired"?

No, I don't think so. I don't take offense at much at all, and those few times when I do, I almost always get over it before I can engage my mouth to retort. Hardwiring cannot be overcome by programming.

Further, outside of a relatively small group (my Jacquie, our children and their spouses, and the grandchildren, with a few others) I don't give a rat's earlobe what others think of me. I don't have (or want) a permanent job (I contract), so even my current boss doesn't make the cut. (On the other hand, I rarely give people in such close proximity any reason to get upset with me anyway, except by accident—I'm a really nice guy, but, perhaps, only in person.)

Lehi

[Grundelwalken]

While that may be true, if someone takes offense at something you said or did, calling them a fool will only make them angrier.

If you don't believe me, next time you do something to offend your wife, try calling her a fool and see where that gets you.

Now that's something I WILL NOT try to see if you are correct. Thanks for the humorous image in my little head. MW

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

After 39 years of marriage we both claim to be fools at least every ones in a while.

[Pahoran]

You are correct. You can do what you want in the temple. If you wanted to, you could burn the Koran to your hearts content. As long as you paid for the Koran, its not anyone else's business what objects you choose to desecrate in a private ceremony on private property.

Of course, if it becomes public knowledge, don't be surprised if others took offense, and expressed their outrage publicly.

Jaybear,

Do you have to work hard at being this obtuse, or does it come naturally?

We do not burn the Qur'an, or any other books, in our temples. We perform quiet ceremonies in which the names of deceased (usually long-deceased) persons are mentioned. We believe and hope that these ceremonies will be of benefit to those persons in the next life. We do not believe that they are in any way compelled to accept or acknowledge those ceremonies.

If, after I am dead, my Catholic in-laws decide to have a mass for my soul, I promise not to be the least bit offended thereby. In fact, I think I would find that rather touching.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Pahoran,

To play devil's advocate for a moment, consider the following situation. You have a new-born baby girl. Your neighbors belong to a church where they believe all new-borns are damned to hell unless they perform one of their ordinances in one of their sacred edifices, and the name of your new-born is used. This is a private ceremony where they kill a goat after giving it the same name as your child--they think this transfers all evil from your child (who they view as totally depraved). Is it irrational to be opposed to such an act? Would you believe it to be wrong for parents to hide the name of their infant from such neighbors?

Does it make any difference if these neighbors come and tell you about their beliefs, and ask for your permission? Do you deny them, or allow them?

[LeSellers]

You have a new-born baby girl. Your neighbors belong to a church where they believe all new-borns are damned to hell unless they perform one of their ordinances in one of their sacred edifices, and the name of your new-born is used. This is a private ceremony where they kill a goat after giving it the same name as your child--they think this transfers all evil from your child (who they view as totally depraved). Is it irrational to be opposed to such an act? Would you believe it to be wrong for parents to hide the name of their infant from such neighbors?

I'm not Pahoran, but I will answer for myself.

It makes no difference to me. Their beliefs and rituals are meaningless, so harmless (as long as it's their goat).

Does it make any difference if these neighbors come and tell you about their beliefs, and ask for your permission? Do you deny them, or allow them?

Again, it does me no harm in any measurable way, and has no impact on how either I or my hypothetical daughter live. Let them lose their goat.

Lehi

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm not Pahoran, but I will answer for myself.

It makes no difference to me. Their beliefs and rituals are meaningless, so harmless (as long as it's their goat).

Again, it does me no harm in any measurable way, and has no impact on how either I or my hypothetical daughter live. Let them lose their goat.

The catholic sacraments are meaningless, and yet they are very harmful in terms of misleading people.

But ignoring that, let's modify this slightly. What if your neighbor wanted your daughter to participate in the meaningless ordinance? What if you daughter was now 4 and wanted to do it? Would you prevent her?

[LeSellers]

The catholic sacraments are meaningless, and yet they are very harmful in terms of misleading people.

How do you know?

Does a Catholic sacrament done for people who are not present actually mislead anyone except those who already believe in them?

But ignoring that, let's modify this slightly. What if your neighbor wanted your daughter to participate in the meaningless ordinance? What if you daughter was now 4 and wanted to do it? Would you prevent her?

Pointless hypothetical. There are some who would claim that having a child attend a ritual slaughter as child abuse.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

To play devil's advocate for a moment, consider the following situation. You have a new-born baby girl. Your neighbors belong to a church where they believe all new-borns are damned to hell unless they perform one of their ordinances in one of their sacred edifices, and the name of your new-born is used. This is a private ceremony where they kill a goat after giving it the same name as your child--they think this transfers all evil from your child (who they view as totally depraved). Is it irrational to be opposed to such an act? Would you believe it to be wrong for parents to hide the name of their infant from such neighbors?

Does it make any difference if these neighbors come and tell you about their beliefs, and ask for your permission? Do you deny them, or allow them?

Well, since the two situations are incongruent in so many ways, I'm wondering how it can be relevant.

I wouldn't especially care what they did with their goat. I can't see myself getting so paranoid that I would refuse to tell them my daughter's name. I imagine that if I didn't tell them her name is Xanthippe, they would simply have their barbecue in the name of "Baby Pahoran." As Lehi says, it's their goat.

As to whether I would let my four-year-old participate, that's a different issue altogether -- and thus, all that much farther from anything resembling Baptism for the Dead.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Well, since the two situations are incongruent in so many ways, I'm wondering how it can be relevant.

Good start. Let's talk about what you see as the important incongruities.

I wouldn't especially care what they did with their goat. I can't see myself getting so paranoid that I would refuse to tell them my daughter's name. I imagine that if I didn't tell them her name is Xanthippe, they would simply have their barbecue in the name of "Baby Pahoran." As Lehi says, it's their goat.

As to whether I would let my four-year-old participate, that's a different issue altogether -- and thus, all that much farther from anything resembling Baptism for the Dead.

So you would be willing to provide information for them to perform their ordinance, don't care about the goat, but would care if the ordinance actually involved the physical presence of your daughter. Is that correct?

If so here are some follow-up questions. What if it required her to personally give her consent for her name to be used? Would you allow her to make a choice on that issue? Would you be opposed to someone saying a prayer for your daughter in her presence? How about saying a prayer which invokes the authority of the priesthood they claim as members of their church? How about if they asked to actually touch your daughter as part of a prayer? In other words, what are the clarifying principles you use to justify opposition/non-participation to other churches ordinances?

[Zeta-Flux]

How do you know?

Does a Catholic sacrament done for people who are not present actually mislead anyone except those who already believe in them?

I can think of a couple of ways. But do we only care about those not already misled?

Pointless hypothetical. There are some who would claim that having a child attend a ritual slaughter as child abuse.

Okay, what about a 16 year old? What if there was no slaughter? What if it was exactly as we do, except your child watched as someone else was baptized in their behalf and they invoked/claimed a priesthood power?

[Pahoran]

Good start. Let's talk about what you see as the important incongruities.

Almost all of them.

The dead belong to no-one; a parent, however, has a direct and immediate responsibility to safeguard the welfare of a child. As Lehi points out, subjecting an infant to the sight of an animal being slaughtered would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions.

So you would be willing to provide information for them to perform their ordinance, don't care about the goat, but would care if the ordinance actually involved the physical presence of your daughter. Is that correct?

As I said: it would seem silly -- and may I say, pointless and petty -- to conceal a child's name from a neighbour because I might not approve of the context in which they might mention it.

If so here are some follow-up questions. What if it required her to personally give her consent for her name to be used? Would you allow her to make a choice on that issue?

When she was old enough, yes. We seem to be wandering from the track here; a child will eventually be old enough to give informed consent. But her religious upbringing is her parents' responsibility. If an overzealous neighbour wants to initiate or educate little Xanthippe in another religion, then it's not going to happen while she's a child under my guardianship.

And every new question you ask takes us farther and farther away from anything resembling Baptism for the Dead.

Would you be opposed to someone saying a prayer for your daughter in her presence? How about saying a prayer which invokes the authority of the priesthood they claim as members of their church? How about if they asked to actually touch your daughter as part of a prayer? In other words, what are the clarifying principles you use to justify opposition/non-participation to other churches ordinances?

I don't have to "justify" anything here, Zeta, including my rapidly declining interest in being subjected to any more interrogation about a far-fetched hypothetical.

Baptism for the dead involves absolutely no participation on the part of anyone who, not accepting or understanding the doctrine, might not want it to take place. Your evolving hypothetical requires an increasing degree of participation on the part of an ostensible infant in my care. As I said before: I don't care if they kill a goat. For all it matters to me, they can slaughter an entire herd of them and eat their livers raw. (Apparently they're a very good source of Vitamin C.) But I don't wish to watch, and they won't be borrowing any child of mine for any purpose connected therewith.

As I said, I'm starting to find this tiresome. If you wish to subject me to a further barrage of cross-examination, I must ask you to first explain what relevance, if any, you imagine your hypothetical to have to the topic of Baptism for the Dead. Because I'm afraid I don't see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Pahoran,

The dead belong to no-one; a parent, however, has a direct and immediate responsibility to safeguard the welfare of a child.

Would you concede that some people might believe otherwise? That they may believe they are in fact immediately responsible to safeguard their parents' names, after they have left this world? That this sacred trust may be as sacred to them as our beliefs in the necessity of our temple work regarding "our" dead?

As I said: it would seem silly -- and may I say, pointless and petty -- to conceal a child's name from a neighbour because I might not approve of the context in which they might mention it.

It may seem silly to you. Would you, however, concede that one could rightly view such an acquiescence as implicitly validating said ordinances? And, that one could also view even implicitly validating apostate ordinances (in their view) as something God has asked them not to do?

And every new question you ask takes us farther and farther away from anything resembling Baptism for the Dead.

I find this observation interesting, as it doesn't match my intent. I was trying to come back, but apparently you don't view my questions as doing so. I'll try to do so at a more rapid pace then.

I don't have to "justify" anything here, Zeta, including my rapidly declining interest in being subjected to any more interrogation about a far-fetched hypothetical.

Of course you don't have to justify anything. But I thought this topic was about why people are opposed to our ordinances. I was trying to ask what prevents their opposition from being rational, whereas your opposition is rational. What, specifically, are the principles you believe differentiate the two cases?

Baptism for the dead involves absolutely no participation on the part of anyone who, not accepting or understanding the doctrine, might not want it to take place.

According to our beliefs about how the after-life works. However, would you concede that someone else may view the afterlife in a way that our actions may have consequences. They may view the invitation to the dead to participate as something that does have meaning in the afterlife, even if the ordinance itself does not result in the promised blessings. Further, they may view inaction on their part as a failure to defend the name of their parents.

Your evolving hypothetical requires an increasing degree of participation on the part of an ostensible infant in my care. As I said before: I don't care if they kill a goat. For all it matters to me, they can slaughter an entire herd of them and eat their livers raw. (Apparently they're a very good source of Vitamin C.) But I don't wish to watch, and they won't be borrowing any child of mine for any purpose connected therewith.

Apparently you didn't read the words you quoted just above your response. The new situation involved no goats. It was just a prayer, or a prayer invoking priesthood, or a prayer invoking priesthood and touching. Further, let's change from it being your child. Now it is just you. A full-grown, mentally capable adult. Do you allow your neighbor to pray for you? To invoke his priesthood power? To touch you as part of an ordinance? Where does your allowance stop.

I do understand that one of the principles you have invoked is participation. What I want to know is where does participation start in your view? (I'm thinking of a Jewish friend of mine, who would view even allowing a Christian prayer in his home as "participating".)

As I said, I'm starting to find this tiresome.

I'm sorry to hear that. I really believe we can come to understand one another. If I haven't explained the relevance of any of the questions above to your satisfaction, please point them out and I'll try to do so.

It may help if you read my words in the voice of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. :-)

[LeSellers]

As I see it, and as someone one here presented it, this is about emotion, not logic. What I would do in a situation may have nothing at all to do with what someone else would do because I am much less driven by emotion than many others.

As far as I am concerned, however, it does not matter to me in the least what anyone else claims to do in my behalf as long as I am not, personally, involved or coerced into changing how I live my life.

Baptism for the Dead never involves any coercion. Those for whom we baptize each other are perfectly free to accept the ordinance or reject it. Their descendants (or other self-appointed "guardians") who object are doing so on the basis of imperfect knowledge: they do not know, however much they assume to, what the principle feels about the ordinance. Even the most virulent anti-Mormon may decide, on hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in spirit prison, to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent of his sins, and accept the baptism.

And in any case, there is no measurable effect on either the "guardian" or on the principle. When someone objects to our baptizing another person (and this only by proxy—which means someone with authority to act on behalf of the principle, and if there is no authority, the act has no validity), there must be some sort of measurable harm for any rational (not emotional) claim. Noone can make such a claim in the face of baptism for the dead.

If, however, someone were to take me to a "temple" and induct me into his religion without my accord, and then imposed his religious practices on me, I would object strenuously, and resist. But this has no parallel with baptism for the dead. There is no coercion in our Temples. No one must accept the effects of the baptism nor of the confirmation, nor the endowment nor the sealing. None, not the dead, and not their "guardians", is forced to alter his actions or his beliefs because we have performed this ordinance in his (ancestor's) behalf.

Even we don't even do anything about it. We do not count them as members of the modern Church (although they are offered membership in the eternal Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, of which our modern entity is a subset). We don't hold courts on them if they don't accept the Gospel (assuming we could know here, any way). We don't exhume them, we don't remark their gravestones. We don't redress their corpses in "Mormon" grave clothes.

If there is one thing anyone could show that measurably affects anyone in any way when we baptize a proxy for a person who has died, please demonstrate that thing.

Lehi

[Zeta-Flux]

As I see it, and as someone one here presented it, this is about emotion, not logic. What I would do in a situation may have nothing at all to do with what someone else would do because I am much less driven by emotion than many others.

As far as I am concerned, however, it does not matter to me in the least what anyone else claims to do in my behalf as long as I am not, personally, involved or coerced into changing how I live my life.

...

If there is one thing anyone could show that measurably affects anyone in any way when we baptize a proxy for a person who has died, please demonstrate that thing.

Let me try to do exactly that.

If a person from another church knocks on your door, and invites you to listen to their message, they have personally involved you in a life changing decision. Just as my Jewish friend would not want a Christian prayer in his home, he would not want me to knock on his door sharing the gospel. He views that as an invasion. In other words, he views the beliefs I have, that lead to my sharing the gospel, as offensive. Similarly, some view the beliefs which lead us to think a faithful Jew which has passed away needs any more help to be offensive.

But to be more concrete on a measurable affect, consider the following. In the act of baptism for the dead, instead of the person performing the ordinance in their own propia persona, we act as agents on their behalf. Someone may believe that this robs them of their right to be the sole agents of their ancestors.

[LeSellers]

Let me try to do exactly that.

Indeed, you only tried, because you failed.

If a person from another church knocks on your door, and invites you to listen to their message, they have personally involved you in a life changing decision. Just as my Jewish friend would not want a Christian prayer in his home, he would not want me to knock on his door sharing the gospel. He views that as an invasion. In other words, he views the beliefs I have, that lead to my sharing the gospel, as offensive. Similarly, some view the beliefs which lead us to think a faithful Jew which has passed away needs any more help to be offensive.

He has not involved me personally in any life-changing decision. I may talk with him, but none of his arguments would have any effect on me (I am 100% converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ). He may talk, and I may listen, but there is no change.

Offense is not measurable.

But to be more concrete on a measurable affect, consider the following. In the act of baptism for the dead, instead of the person performing the ordinance in their own propia persona, we act as agents on their behalf. Someone may believe that this robs them of their right to be the sole agents of their ancestors.

Their belief is not measurable. Even if it were, they have no right to be the agent (or "guardian") of their ancestors. That "right" is not measurable. Besides which, it is a rare individual who, as few as four generations removed, has only one descendant. Which of the myriad is the correct "agent"?

The whole thing is emotional, not logical. Because of that, the whole matter of objecting to our performing baptisms for the dead is illogical. No one can show how our practice infringes on his legitimate rights.

Lehi

[Zeta-Flux]

Indeed, you only tried, because you failed.

We shall see.

He has not involved me personally in any life-changing decision. I may talk with him, but none of his arguments would have any effect on me (I am 100% converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ). He may talk, and I may listen, but there is no change.

Either I misunderstood your request, or you are committing a fallacy here: specializing from a general case to your own specific case.

I thought you were asking for a situation which *may* involve someone in life-changing decisions. That the specific action would not affect you personally in that way does nothing to negate the fact that it can, and often does, affect other people in that way. One can measure the affects our proselyting has in the lives of those proselyted to.

Their belief is not measurable. Even if it were, they have no right to be the agent (or "guardian") of their ancestors. That "right" is not measurable. Besides which, it is a rare individual who, as few as four generations removed, has only one descendant. Which of the myriad is the correct "agent"?

I wasn't claiming their belief is measurable. But the affects of Joe's actions on Mike can be measured; and those affects vary according to a Mike's beliefs.

I suppose the question of who is the "correct" agent depends on the belief system in question.

But the issue here is whether one can rationally believe our ordinance is evil and thus offensive in some manner. It is my sincere opinion that it is rational to believe that one is empowered by God to hold the right to act as agent for a parent, and many permutations thereof.