Jeff K. Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Does the church count the baptized dead as "members"? I don't think so. Apples and oranges.One should study our doctrine in regards of the individual determining for themselves in this life and the next whether they wish to accept. It isn't a "problem" and the spirit in which it is done is neither disdaining nor mocking. It is nothing more than offering an option which can be accepted or rejected by an individual. If NAMBLA desired to put a phone book in its club with an announcement that people had the option to join or not, then I could care less as to why, I might wonder at why they wish to do it, but it would not bother me in the least.
Zeta-Flux Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Ok, this will sound over the top, but I think it illustrates a trend, and has a valid point.What if NAMBLA posthumously added your dead relatives to their public membership list, and said they were offering your dead relatives the posthumous choice to be affiliated with NAMBLA? Would you want your relatives' names appearing on that list?Part of the problem here is that LDS couch the proxy baptism as something optional, but I haven't yet seen nor read of a case where a dead relative came back to Earth and confirmed to anyone (outside the LDS church anyhow) that they had either accepted or rejected it. If it's not clearly rejectable, is it still really optional? I'm talking about from the perspective of living folks here.First, we don't add their names to our membership lists (and yes, accepting it really is optional--free will is a central part of our doctrine).Second, I object to NAMBLA as an evil organization, regardless of what they do with the names of the deceased. I wouldn't want my relatives' names appearing on such a list. Similarly, I can understand that others don't want us to do baptisms by proxy, viewing such acts as evil. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about people acting out of a direct desire to ridicule. Clearly, Mormons do not do that. Bill Maher does. (I cannot picture NAMBLA doing what you suggest without similarly acting out of a desire to offend.) Edited February 6, 2012 by Zeta-Flux
Tarski Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 No, he doesn't. What he shows time and again, as he flummoxes Darwinian fundamentalists and questions them well over their heads,LOLIs this what you guys tell each other?Of course, it doesn't really mean much either way since science does not proceed by public debates of this sort. Hovind and Gish routinely reduce opponents to speechlessness but if you watch it you can see it is only by the torrent of falsehoods, inanities and irrelevancies.Berlinkski uses other rhetorical devices to score superficial points.
mbh26 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 He would never mock the muslim faith or the other religious groupings outside of christianity.Yeah, why is that? I suppose one could argue that he's scared. But for people who really hate religion and sexism, liberals seem to love Muslims.
bluebell Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Yeah, why is that? I suppose one could argue that he's scared. But for people who really hate religion and sexism, liberals seem to love Muslims.People like Maher don't love Muslims, they are afraid of them.They're all about shock and awe and being brutally honest with the deluded until something important to them is on the line. Then they are more than fine with sitting down and shutting up.
Sethbag Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Does the church count the baptized dead as "members"? I don't think so. Apples and oranges.Ok, so I re-phrase and say NAMBLA puts your dead relatives' names on the list of Honorary Members. Same question.Anyhow, my whole point is not to attack Mormon proxy baptism so much as point out that it's not really unreasonable for some folks to be pretty sensitive about it.
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 He acknowledges, even in his ignorance, that we have authority.Quite frankly, he can do was he pleases. He has to answer to God, not me. Ill just keep the Spirit of forgiveness in my heart. Which will likely totally annoy Maher, since I expect he wants us to be angry and offended. Don't give him that power brethren:) 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Duplicated Edited February 6, 2012 by Avatar4321
Thinking Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I think you should all pray for Bill in the temple and not tell him.
california boy Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I hate it when someone starts this post off with "this implies" It means they are reading into a post something that was not there.Or more accurately, it means they are taking your statements at face value and pointing out the inherent errors and fallacies contained therein.Of course Mormons are offended with Maher mocking their beliefs by performing an "unbaptize" ritual. By doing so, he is mocking Mormon beliefs. If he had not mocked Mormon beliefs by his little antic we wouldn't even be having this discussion.And yet it is the mockery, rather than the "rite" itself which is offensive.Once again, yes, I feel Mormons are offended by someone "unbaptizing" someone to get laughs and to make Mormon beliefs look foolish. And once again, you are conflating the specific "rite" (which is irrelevant) with the spirit of hatred, derision, and contempt behind it.That is your error.I can appreciate that not all people are offended by someone saying they will pray for them. But some are. I wonder if you received a letter in the mail telling you that you were now a member of the Catholic church if you would be offended. Perhaps you wouldn't, but many would find that even more offensive than someone praying for them. If you adamantly did not want to be Catholic yet someone was, in your view. forcing you to be listed on the rolls of the Catholic church as being a member, you too might object to that.Your statement and analogy fail on several levels.First and foremost, you are comparing apples to oranges. There is a vast and unbridgeable gulf between Maher's antics and the sincere, if misguided behaviors you are theorizing above,Second, your analogy fails in that it has been specifically refuted and rejected by living, breathing Latter-day Saints in this very thread.Theory is always trumped by fact, and your rather absurd "what-if" is trumped by the actual beliefs of the people for whom you presume to hypothesize.Do you see that I am acknowledging that most Mormons are not offended by someone offering a prayer in their behalf? I see you trying to conflate Mormon proxy baptisms and Maher's cynical derision in a lowest-common-denominator moral equivalency.That is why I and so many others have rejected your premises. The behaviors are not equivalent in any way, shape, fashion, or form.Now reread my comments. This is the part of the op I WAS addressing. The fact of the matter remains that, contrary to your assertions, it is not the "un-baptism" to which we object.We don't care what sort of "rite" he pretended to have performed. He might just as easily performed any other "rite" and have earned an identical response.It is not the "unbaptism" which was offensive, but the spirit behind it.It is the naked bigotry and partisan opportunism that we find offensive, not the form in which that bigotry and opportunism were made manifest.Well you must be rignt. There are no non-Mormons that are offended by proxy baptism. Everyone loves the idea of their dead ancestors being baptized into the Mormon faith after they are dead. My mistake for suggesting that. Please accept my apology.And no Mormons are offended by Bill Maher's little unbaptizing antic. I just didn't realize that you spoke for all Mormons.
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 california boy:We do not claim that baptism for the dead forces anyone to be a Mormon. That would be contrary to Agency. We just merely give them the opportunity to accept or decline the opportunity in the next life. Just like in this life.Only a fool takes offense when it is not meant, and a bigger one when it is.Brigham Young.
jwhitlock Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Anyhow, my whole point is not to attack Mormon proxy baptism so much as point out that it's not really unreasonable for some folks to be pretty sensitive about it.Our point is that it is unreasonable for some folks to be pretty sensitive about it, even after they've been educated on the real aspects of LDS proxy work.
Jeff K. Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Ok, so I re-phrase and say NAMBLA puts your dead relatives' names on the list of Honorary Members. Same question.Anyhow, my whole point is not to attack Mormon proxy baptism so much as point out that it's not really unreasonable for some folks to be pretty sensitive about it.Irrelevant and I could care less. I would be unreasonable to presume my parents would join such an organization either in this life or as an honorary member in the next. It is like them saying "the sun is made of cheese", we know it isn't so and they don't have the authority to make it so.
Jeff K. Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Non Mormons and anti Mormons are offended by anything and everything..... I personally feel very little compuction to be on their side in such matters since they either sincerely don't understand (which means they are allowing their ignorance to rule them), or they actively seek to hurt the church and its goals as mandated by God (meaning little more than malicious scum). Personally I wouldn't want to be in either of those camps.
stemelbow Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Did I just see someone try and change the scenario to try and get LDS to see why it might to offensive to some by using NAMBLA as an example? Seriously, do people see us as equivolent as NAMBLA? If that's the case then we're the ones who should be offended. This is ridiculous. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Ok, this will sound over the top, but I think it illustrates a trend, and has a valid point.What if NAMBLA posthumously added your dead relatives to their public membership list, and said they were offering your dead relatives the posthumous choice to be affiliated with NAMBLA? Would you want your relatives' names appearing on that list?This is merely a variation on the old "what-if-the-Church-of-Satan-baptized-your-dead-grandpa" argument. It wouldn't bother me, as I would regard such action as being devoid of validity. That, by the way, is how I view Mahr's behavior, except for the fact that it is intended to mock and antagonize. See my sig line, the part in gray. Actions that are intended to mock and antagonize are not "comparable in intent to Mormon vacarious baptisms or other ordiances for the dead."By the way, are you clear on the fact that baptisms for the dead do not add the names of deceased persons to LDS membership lists? I ask, because your analogy fails in that respect.Part of the problem here is that LDS couch the proxy baptism as something optional, but I haven't yet seen nor read of a case where a dead relative came back to Earth and confirmed to anyone (outside the LDS church anyhow) that they had either accepted or rejected it.I don't see how that's a problem. Care to clarify?If it's not clearly rejectable, is it still really optional?The question is based on a false premise. That it's "not clearly rejectable" is the false premise. I'm talking about from the perspective of living folks here.From "the perspective of living folks here" who reject the validity of Mormonism, they have no real standing to be alarmed. From their perspective, either there is no life after death at all, or the Mormon perception of it is false, so nobody is harmed by what, in their view, is an empty ritual. On the other hand, if the Mormons are right, nobody is harmed, because the dead individual has the option to reject the work that was performed or accept it and gain the blessings flowing therefrom.Afterthought: If anything, it's those who would hinder Mormons in their performance of vacarious temple work who, in effect, are seeking to deprive the dead of their right of choice. Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Ok, so I re-phrase and say NAMBLA puts your dead relatives' names on the list of Honorary Members. Same question.Anyhow, my whole point is not to attack Mormon proxy baptism so much as point out that it's not really unreasonable for some folks to be pretty sensitive about it.It is unreasonable to complain about it without understanding it, and once one understands it, there is no reasonable standing to object to it. (See my prior post.) Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Zeta-Flux Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Well you must be rignt. There are no non-Mormons that are offended by proxy baptism. Everyone loves the idea of their dead ancestors being baptized into the Mormon faith after they are dead. My mistake for suggesting that. Please accept my apology.And no Mormons are offended by Bill Maher's little unbaptizing antic. I just didn't realize that you spoke for all Mormons.We understand them being offended. However, we ask that they understand we are not baptizing their ancestors into the Mormon faith, rather we are performing proxy ordinances so they can choose them if they so desire. We also ask that they try understand our motives. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Did I just see someone try and change the scenario to try and get LDS to see why it might to offensive to some by using NAMBLA as an example? Seriously, do people see us as equivolent as NAMBLA? If that's the case then we're the ones who should be offended. This is ridiculous.It's amusing -- and I've seen it happen time and again -- how the critics scramble and stretch to come up with the ugliest hypothetical scenario they can conceive of to try to form a persuasive argument against baptisms for the dead. Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 It's amusing -- and I've seen it happen time and again -- how the critics scramble and stretch to come up with the ugliest hypothetical they can conceive of to try to form a persuasive argument against baptisms for the dead.It was an effort, as I see it, to get us believers to understand how it can be offensive to others. I don't see how comparing us to NAMBLA helps explain anything. It does promote bigotry though, I'd say. Its just like the "you're just like Hitler" garbage.
Hestia Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Ok, so I re-phrase and say NAMBLA puts your dead relatives' names on the list of Honorary Members. Same question.Seriously, Sethbag. You will use this offensive comparison. Take a break from this thread if this is all you can come up with.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) It was an effort, as I see it, to get us believers to understand how it can be offensive to others. I don't see how comparing us to NAMBLA helps explain anything. It does promote bigotry though, I'd say. Its just like the "you're just like Hitler" garbage.That a critic feels the need to go to such extremes to try to come up with a persuasive analogy is very telling. It demonstrates the fundamental weakness of his argument.And yet, I'm a bit disappointed to see Sethbag banned from the thread. I'm curious to see how, if at all, he would try to prop up such flawed thinking. Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 We understand them being offended. However, we ask that they understand we are not baptizing their ancestors into the Mormon faith, rather we are performing proxy ordinances so they can choose them if they so desire. We also ask that they try understand our motives.Well finally at least one perosn acknowledges that they can understand why someone might be offended. And yes I completely agree with the motives and possibly irrationality for being offended. Mormons should still be sensitive to how others feel instead of calling them ignorant and telling them they could care less how they feel.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Well finally at least one perosn acknowledges that they can understand why someone might be offended. And yes I completely agree with the motives and possibly irrationality for being offended. Mormons should still be sensitive to how others feel instead of calling them ignorant and telling them they could care less how they feel.It's a two-way street. In virtually all cases I have encountered, the critic has not made so much as a modicum of effort to understand the Mormon belief regarding proxy baptisms. See my sig line, the part in blue.On the other hand, I have tried to put myself in the position of someone, not a member of the Church though reasonably informed about its beliefs, with regard to proxy baptisms. In doing so, I still find the objections of the critics to be unwarranted. See my sig line, the part in gray. If I were a non-Mormon, I would find the practice of the Church, properly understood, to be harmless at worst and perhaps even heartwarming. Edited February 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 That a critic feels the need to go to such extremes to try to come up with a persuasive analogy is very telling. It demonstrates the fundamental weakness of his argument.And yet, I'm a bit disappointed to see Sethbag banned from the thread. I'm curious to see how, if at all, he would try to prop up such flawed thinking.It could have been interesting to see what he came up with, if anything. He might not have responded at all, and just left it at that.
Recommended Posts