As I’ve said before, I’m not overly religious. And one of the reasons is that I get seriously annoyed at evangelicals, those who do everything they can to bring others to “the one true faith.”
But the Mormons are taking that to new and outrageous levels. They have taken to baptizing dead people. By their rather odd rules, though, permission can only be given by a relative of the deceased.
That was a bit inconvenient until someone pointed out that, according to the Mormon faith (among others), everyone is descended from Adam. Therefore, we’re all one big family, so everyone is related to everyone else.
By that reasoning, anyone can stand in for any deceased person and “volunteer” them for baptizing into the Mormon faith. And they’ve been busy as the dickens, bringing in new converts by the graveyard-ful.
Until word got out to some Jewish people that their ancestors who were killed in Nazi concentration camps were, in the eyes of the Mormons, no longer Jewish. They were now Mormons, and “saved” in the eyes of God.
To many of those Jews, this was an unforgivable insult. Those ancestors had died solely because of their Jewish identity, and now these Mormon whackos were stealing them of even that. They protested loudly, and the Mormons agreed to stop doing it.
But apparently they didn’t. The Jewish leaders who raised such a fuss the first time around say they have evidence that the Mormons broke their word and have been continuing the “baptisms by proxy” ever since.
I’m a huge believer in freedom of religion, but I’ve always thought that a key element of that concept was the right to be free FROM religion. Christians have gotten over the “convert or die” crap, the Jews never had an evangelical streak (in fact, converting to Judaism is a huge effort), and even among Muslims it’s less common than before.
But the Mormons are taking it even further. It’s now “die, and then we’ll convert you.” Whether you ever wanted it or not. No matter what your family might say. We’re gonna save your soul over your dead body — most literally.
There’s a part of me that’s slightly intrigued by the prospect of a post-mortem conversion. I can see myself suddenly yanked out of my current apres-vie existence and suddenly showing up in Mormon Heaven. And I can see myself getting so ripshit, I get sent to Mormon Hell. And from all the things that the Mormons consider sinful, I’m willing to bet that Mormon Hell is a real swinging place.
With all the caffeine I could ever drink.
J.
(Update: Comments are now closed. If you want to continue this discussion, take it here.)
As an aside, an article on Left2Right covered this very same ground.
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/02/missionaries.html
The author had a similar reaction to Jay’s, Bullwinkle’s, Lysander, etc. But read the comments and the update.
A couple of clarifications from a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints-
1. The big problem the jewish leaders had with the holocaust victims was NOT that they were receiving proxy baptisms. It was that their NAMES WERE BEING PUT ON A LIST! After all, it was lists of names of Jewish people that caused most of the people that ended up in death camps to go there in the first place. They are very sensitive to being listed anywhere. If you read the news stories on this, you will see that this is the big issue.
2. You can’t claim a “relationship” with someone just because you both descended from Adam (or Noah), you are not supposed to submit the name of someone unless you are a direct descendant (or close relative) of that person. If my great-great-grandfather’s brother had no children, I could submit his name, even though I’m not a direct descendant.
3. “The Church” has NOT knowingly been performing proxy baptisms for holocaust victims, nor have they knowingly been listing them in their vast genealogical records. Well-intentioned church members will sometimes do something inappropriate out of sheer love and kindness. And ignorance of the rules, don’t rule that out.
I hope this helps clear things up.
I’m no more bitter or anti-Mormon than the Mormons that are doing this are anti-anything-but Mormon. Claiming that I am may make you feel better and justify your religion’s own bigotry and biases but it doesn’t make it true. Your own church has admitted it was wrong and promised to stop doing it, but hasn’t. Doesn’t that make them dishonest bigots?
I don’t know why so many get so upset about the Mormon religion. It’s adherents for the most part try hard to be good citizens.
Mormonism is a fascinating religion, in that it in so many ways is a reflection not of God or the Bible, but of Joseph Smith and of human difficulties with mainstream Christian faith.
For example, this business of baptizing after death. One of the things that many of us have wondered about is “what happens with people born before Jesus, or who never heard about Him?” Mormonism makes it so much simpler… we simply baptize them after their lives are over, and give them a second chance.
What about backsliding adherents? I attended a funeral for two high school classmates many years ago. They were both raised Mormon, and died in a drunk driving accident (nice guys, but they were stoners and heavy partiers in general). At the funeral, the Mormon Bishop said “we know that *** and **** did not live the way we would have liked them to, but now they are in Paradise, and they are witnessing to others there, and will soon be in Heaven”. So, we all get a second chance there also (rings familiar to the Catholic concept of purgatory?)
What about mid- 19th century views about race and sex? Well, until recently, the negro race was considered by Mormon doctrine “cursed” and not able to be in the church, let alone in heaven. And polygamy? The church banned that under heavy legal and political pressure from the government… but don’t kid yourself. In Montana and Idaho and I am sure Utah, there are many small towns where polygamy is quietly practiced. Women still take a back seat in the Mormon church.
What about the limits of God’s forgiveness? Haven’t we all at one time had difficulty conceiving that God’s grace can cover ANY sin??? No problem in Mormonism, which has the doctrine of blood atonement. Some sins are so bad, that the only way the sinner can get to heaven is by having their own blood shed. Read your history about the early Mormon church and its vigilante squads, which would dole out punishment. Remember Gary Gilmore, who was the first person executed after the US Supreme Court moratorium on capital punishment? Remember where – Utah. So, in mainstream Christianity, Hitler, as evil as he was, had he asked for forgiveness at the end of his life, would be the same heaven as John Paul II.. that is so hard to understand, but in Mormon theology Hitler couldn’t be saved.
Mormons are taught that their church is the only true church in touch with God. They have a different Bible. And they have a very interesting history. …. which has been documented in the last twenty years many times, they are working very hard to bury.
An interesting religion, well worth study. But it’s not Christian.
Today:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/04/12/build/nation/80-baptism.inc
2002:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/12/10/baptizing.the.dead.ap/
In the 2002 article they referred to a previous agreement made in 1995 to stop this. Claiming it’s not church policy to allow or even encourage this or claiming that they are listing names is untrue. Read the articles, I especially liked the quote from the spokeman for the LDS church that said it’s a matter of free will, he just doesn’t bother to add that they couldn’t care less about the free will of the deceased.
What do you expect from a religion that was founded by a guy who found some magic rocks and then stuck them in a hat?
The Book of Mormon is a real trip to read.
A more informative read: Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.
Yes, most Mormons are nice people but, the fundamental Mormons can be pretty nuts, the way they treat their female children is criminal — literally.
If this was supposed to be a humorous post it failed, and if it was supposed to be informative, it failed miserably. I’m assuming that the sole intent of this slam on Mormons was only to try to generate some traffic, at which point it provided moderate success.
Congratulations on being the Jerry Springer of Wizbang, Jay Tea.
I second Mo’s comment.
My understanding is that the dead always have the option of declining the baptism.
And frankly, by the time it gets to be an issue with any particular dead person, he’ll be in a much better position to make the choice….
Sigh…I’m just glad I’m not a Mormon.
Mo’s comment is one of the ones that bothers me the most. He asks why we would take it so seriously but tells that it’s written in the bible that we should do it, even citing chapter and verse. Then tells us that we shouldn’t feel compelled to mock the religions of others while he’s mocking ours. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. He tells us our beliefs are so worthless that any objections we have to his beliefs are mocking him and we shouldn’t do that. He doesn’t see that his proclamation of the impossibility of any other religion’s ability to get it’s members into heaven is bashing every non-Mormon on this planet.
I’m missing how this post is insulting to Mormons.
I covered this subject more than once already on my blog. While I agree that Mormon posthumous baptism of Jews is utterly meaningless to said Jews, I also agree that it is offensive and insulting.
I’m missing the reason why Raina sees this as the “worst. rant. ever.”
I have seen many, many posts far more worthy of that title.
Jay’s making sense to me.
Sorry, that wasn’t Raina who said the above. My apologies.
They (at least some) believe in God having used a talking salamander as a messenger, and you find this latest odd?
Sort of like God talking through a burning bush?
Oh brother. If you read my posts as “mocking” others religious beliefs and “tell[ing bulwinkle tha his] beliefs are . . . worthless” then we can’t communicate. I was explaining the basis for my belief, not mocking anyone else’s. One of the Articles of Faith of my church reads “We claim the right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscienc and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where or what they may.” I, like all mormon kids, memorized that when I was a kid and still remember it. That article of faith, written by Joseph Smith, makes a lot of sense when you consider the extreme persecution the church was under then. There are lots of mormons. Some are intolerant jerks. But as a whole I think we adhere to this tolerant position. But some people can take offense even when it is not intended. No offense intended Bul, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I don’t know what your religious beliefs are, and I probably don’t accept all of them, but I respect your right to adopt whatever religious beliefs you choose.
Hey, Geoff, I was going to bring up Polygamy Porter beer – slogan “why have just one?” – too, but you beat me to it. 🙂
chad – You might want to get your history straight. Illinois didn’t allow the slaughter of church leadership, they arrested certain church leaders for engaging in illegal acts, destroying a newspaper office, the “Nauvoo Expositor,” that was printing stuff about polygamy, which was true by the way. (It was started by men who asserted that Smith tried to seduce their wives. Since Smith did this other documented times, it’s probably not too much of a stretch that there was truth to it.) People take that whole freedom of the press thing seriously, you know. Smith called out his militia to protect the town from him getting arrested, which inflamed the local populace more, and then eventually submitted to arrest. Now it is true that when the mob came to kill him, the militia didn’t try real hard to defend him, but there’s not the slightest amount of evidence that they were acting on orders from anyone higher up.
Now the governor of Missouri did issue an extermination order. This whole thing seemed to start with typical religious and political tension getting out of hand, and then escalated into pretty much out and out war. It was after this that the extermination order was made. However, the Mormons were not just merely trying to defend themselves during this…go read some of Parley P. Pratt’s speeches at the time…his language is actually worse than the governor’s.
Of course I don’t condone any of the killing that went on during this time, of or by Mormons, but when I was learning “church history” growing up, so much of the stuff the Mormons did was left out, making them out to be these poor abused martyrs just looking for a place to live…and that’s not really true. Actually at the time there were all sorts of odd religious sects, and I don’t think very many of them had to change locations 4 times. The Mormons in many cases were as culpable as the people they were fighting against.
I didn’t say your post was mocking my beliefs, I said your church was. The policy of your church up until now has been that this is something that should be done, that mocks the beliefs of anyone that isn’t a Mormon. Other religion’s complaining about something unwanted you are doing supposedly for the benefit of their members is not mocking anything, the actions of your church overriding the beliefs of others is mocking them and their religion. If you can’t see the difference something is very wrong. If your and your church’s idea of tolerance is telling anyone not a member of your church that our religions are false, which is exactly what this whole thing is about, then you use a far different dictionary than I do. Tolerance would be accepting that we have our own very valid beliefs. You expect that consideration from us as far as your religion is concerned but your religion shows nothing but disdain for ours.
I cannot fathom the arrogance of someone informing another person that they don’t ‘qualify’ as a christian because they don’t fit the list of requirements of other christians. My definition of a christian is someone who accepts Christ as the son of God, and believes that it is only through him that we obtain salvation and eternal life. For those of you who don’t know what they are talking about, mormons do NOT have ‘another bible’. We believe the bible to be the word of God. That is official doctrine. We DO have additional scriptures, which we ALSO believe to be the word of God. You may disagree with our using these additional scriptures, but in our church we believe in continuing revelation (that Christ or God can add additional direction when needed).
I don’t understand everything about the Catholic religion, and don’t agree with everything they and the Baptists, Methodists, etc. teach. However, I would never presume to tell them they have no right to consider themselves to be christians. That is up to Jesus Christ to decide, not any one person.
Bul, final comment. You are taking the position that if one religion has a doctrine that is different from other religions it is thereby mocking those religions. That is not a serious argument. When you state that mormons are doing something that “overrides the beliefs of others” you confirm that you have not been paying attention and are confused about the doctrine you are attacking. At bottom, if any religion that claims to be true is thereby mocking all other religions, then every religion is guilty. Christ said “pray for those that hate you.” Bul would say, “hey, don’t tell them to pray for those that hate them, that is mocking the haters.” Christians would then be stuck in a dilemma; should they obey the Lord and fear offending those that hate them, or should they obey those that hate them and fear offending the Lord? This is just an analogy, please understand. I’m not saying everyone who is offended by the thought of someone being baptized on behalf of their dead relative hates mormons. But I am saying they don’t have the right to dictate how I practice my religion, or to tell me I cannot exercise my beliefs on behalf of my ancestors. If you are honest and consider the doctrine and caring motivation behind the practice, you cannot reasonably be deeply offended by it. Especially if you think the doctrine is a bunch of hooey.
That’s amazing Tongacat, you have no problem at all telling your fellow Christians that they need to be baptized by the Mormon church if they want to get into heaven and that you’re willing to give them a proxy baptism to help them out but are offended by them pointing out the faults they find with your church. Is that more of that famous Mormon tolerance? Your definition of tolerance sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy to me…….
Kelly states that Mormonism is “an interesting religion, well worth study. But it’s not Christian.” Kelly, what part of “Church of Jesus Christ” do you not understand? Some of the shit flying around nowadays on the web concerning Mormonism is downright uninformed (including this Wizbang post).
I currently drink way too much beer to be Mormo-Kosher, but I am still intrigued by the faith. My understanding of the practice is as follows:
Baptism for the dead has gone on for decades. It’s not forced baptism. The doctorine goes something like this: you baptize someone by proxy. The dead one is then given the opportunity to hear, embrace, or reject that baptism. No one is forced to do or even hear anything. Hendrix? Baptised. Jerry Garcia? Baptised. Are either one a Mormon? Don’t know. It’s basically an extension of their missionary program.
Mormons (often reffered to as the American Jews) aren’t all that spooky. Check out our blog. Some who post there are devout and are completely lacking dorsal fins or tails.
Bull-
First, we don’t believe you need to be baptized a mormon in order to ‘get into heaven’. Second, I don’t have any problem at all with someone pointing out the things they don’t believe we are right on. I don’t expect them to believe as I do. (as demonstrated by the fact that I mentioned that people might not agree with our belief of continuing revelation). Finally, I didn’t give you a definition of what tolerance should be. I simply stated that it is wrong to tell someone they have no claim to being a christian. If you want an example of ‘that famous Mormon tolderance’, you should have read where I stated that I would never presume to tell someone else that they are not a christian, no matter how much I may disagree with their religion.
Bullwinkle,
You might be aware that the Catholic church still “officially” believes that other Christian denomination are gravely deficient and that their practices are an obstacle to salvation. They don’t exactly rule you out of heaven, but the official position suggests it requires a hail Mary pass to the endzone. And by the way, this new official position is quite liberal compared with what came before.
I am wondering if you have the same animosity toward the 1 billion Catholics in the world that you have toward Mormons? You are talking a lot about religious intolerance as if that is unique among Mormons. It isn’t. So is this really the core of your argument, or are you mostly annoyed that they are baptising Jews?
I’m with bullwinkle. I may be Catholic, but if someone did something to me posthumously into their faith that was against my OWN faith…I would posthumously be very offended.
I agree that on the whole, the mormon people are pretty nice, family-oriented and great to hang around with. HOWEVER, when it comes to their faith and evangelicism, they REALLY outdo everyone. You claim that baptising someone is NOT converting them, but yet just about every religion has their own baptism ceremony (remember john the baptist? even jews had it), so odds are likely they WERE baptised, but not in the mormon faith, so they were obviously not going to heaven with the rest of the “saved”.
I wonder if someone posthumously baptised Jesus into the mormon faith because he was jewish. If not, then is he not with the rest of the mormons?
I find it odd that Mormons would quote the new testament. Damn near half the mormons i know don’t have copies of the bible, but they DO have copies of the book of mormon, THAT is their bible.
sorry if i offend anyone, but mormons (when discussing my faith) sure as hell offend me. Most non-Catholic Christians sure as hell despise the Catholic Church, and the Mormons are no exception. Mormons seem to have an outrageous amount of zeal when it comes to converting Catholics. Yes, Mormons are Christians, but they’re a Christian cult.
hey McCain, did you know that most young Catholics now believe that you don’t have to be die-hard Catholic in order to get into heaven? Some really old die-hard Catholics didn’t know that…
The Church post-Vatican II is probably closer to the real truth.
tongancat,
You demonstrate an attitude I find quite odd among Mormons.
“In my experience many Mormons seem to live with the contradictory opinions that they are really Christians and people who claim that they aren’t don’t really understand that the differences between Mormons and the rest of Christianity are not all that great; but on the other hand believe that they are the only ones who really even come close to understanding the truth. Obviously the latter opinion is not at all unique among religious people, but combined with the former it creates this sort of a “I’m not going to let you into my club, but you’re mean for not letting me into your club” attitude.”
And no one is really telling you that you can’t call yourself Christians…go ahead and call yourself whatever you want. But to say that someone who is a Christian and has a set of beliefs that he believes makes him a Christian can’t say that you’re not a Christian because you don’t have the same set of beliefs is ridiculous. When someone says “I’m ____ because ____,” they are automatically saying that “anyone who doesn’t believe _____ isn’t _____,” whether they come out and say it outright or not.
Personally I believe that there are some Mormons who are Christians, but the Mormon religion as a whole is not Christian. There’s too much of a focus on works and too little focus on humility for it to be. Being a Christian isn’t just about saying “I believe Christ is the Son of God and the only path to salvation.” It’s also about an attitude that goes along with it.
Of course God will work it all out no matter what.
btw jay, fix your link, the baptising dead people is linking to the brazilian clip job ;/
Yes Henry, I am actually citing Vatican II changes. Before that, non-Catholics were going to eternal purgatory without question. After that, the official position is that each denomination has an “element” of truth in it, but that the whole truth is ONLY contained in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox religions. And as I said, the position is that these reform churches are gravely deficient and an obstacle to salvation.
Raina–>
“Personally I believe that there are some Mormons who are Christians, but the Mormon religion as a whole is not Christian. There’s too much of a focus on works and too little focus on humility for it to be.”
Amazing. The Catholic religion, the dominant Christian sect in the world, has just been declared non-Christian by Raina. In case you missed it, the debate about “faith alone” versus “faith plus works” has been going on since Martin Luther.
The more this thread continues, the more it becomes obvious who is tolerant about other religions and who isn’t.
Oh, wait, Christianity is popular and the Mormons are weirdos so anything they do is outrageous.
Mormons aren’t what I’d call “Christian”. Why? Because they believe that the God of this universe was once a man. A regular mortal man, from another universe, who faithfully followed his Mormon-god-who-was-once-mortal and was rewarded with his very own universe.
Brigham Young taught that Adam is the God of this world.
Come on, weird and outrageous sum it up quite well, actuall.
Discussion of Mormon baptism for the dead.
You’re right Bo Diddly I did make fun of those other religions, not because I find them worthy of ridicule, just to show its offensive. I have the same attitude about religion as I have about sex, unless I bought a video tape I don’t want to see it or hear about it outside my house.
To all the people who were seriously offended by my comments about the Pope, Jimmy Swaggert ad Jim Baker, Sorry. Now that I think about it though maybe a church dedicated to hookers and theme parks wouldnt be a bad idea.
Raina, I didnt bring up the Missouri issue because I have never seen anything that validates the idea that the Governor of Missouri issued extermination orders. I have read in the past though that state authorities ordered the Militia to stand down in Illinois and thats the family lore, My Great Great Great Grandparents were there. If they passed it down wrong what can I say.
Let’s see if I’m getting this right. You claim:
1. We aren’t supposed to be bothered by this practice or even take it seriously.
2. The people committing the act take it very seriously, so seriously they stand up and argue in defense of it by telling us we shouldn’t take it seriously.
3. The Mormon church teaches it’s members that no non-Mormon can get into the “best part” of heaven.
4. If we complain about a practice that takes a major dump on our religions we are being intolerant and bashing the poor Mormons.
5. The Mormon church has twice promised to stop this from happening but it continues to happen.
6. A 175 year-old church’s members feel that they have a long history of suffering and know better than a religion that’s been around for 3100 years more.
7. If any other religion states publicly that Mormons can’t get into heaven they won’t defend their religion or themselves or be offended in the least, because they are that damn tolerant.
8. But they will defend their practice of proxy baptisms because we need to be indulge them in their pratices that the tell us not to take seriously so we won’t be intolerant.
Am I the only one that sees more than a few instances of self-contradictory behavior here?
McCain,
“Amazing. The Catholic religion, the dominant Christian sect in the world, has just been declared non-Christian by Raina. In case you missed it, the debate about “faith alone” versus “faith plus works” has been going on since Martin Luther.
The more this thread continues, the more it becomes obvious who is tolerant about other religions and who isn’t. “
Um, I did no such thing. For the record, I do think that Catholicism is Christian – it’s absurd to say anything else.
The faith vs faith and works debate between Protestants and Catholics is very different than the faith vs faith and works debate between Protestants and Mormons. Plus there’s a whole lot of other problems with the Mormon religion being considered Christian, only two of which I brought up.
And for Pete’s sake, even if I did say Catholics aren’t Christians, that is not intolerant. I’m not saying I don’t respect the religious views of Catholics/Mormons and don’t want them to be able to practice the way they want, I’m saying they (er, one of them) don’t fit my definition of Christianity. What’s the big whoop here? We can have an argument over what the definition of Christianity is, but because we disagree on that does not mean that either one of us is being intolerant.
Man, the amount of misinformation in this thread and comments is astounding, so much so that it would be too difficult for me to address all of it.
It’s kinda like a CBS News story on George Bush.
Ya know, if anyone wants accurate information on Mormonism, they can just e-mail me. I’ll tell you the straight answer, even if you’re insulting. I’ve heard it all, anyway.
This does remind me of something my former co-worker from Missouri once told me. When he would return home to visit his relatives, he said they were astounded to find out the Salt Lake City metro area was home to over 1.5 million people. They apparently were of the belief that Utah was a little agragarian backwater populated by theocrats in black, Amish-style clothing. They could not accept the idea that Mormons were modern and cosmopolitain.
I used to think that was unusual in this day and age. But having read these comments and the original post, such ignorance is apparently much more widespread than I thought.
Jimi Hendrix is a posthumus mormon??
Were the elders aware he was BLACK??
Raina said:
Of course I don’t condone any of the killing that went on during this time, of or by Mormons, but when I was learning “church history” growing up, so much of the stuff the Mormons did was left out, making them out to be these poor abused martyrs just looking for a place to live…and that’s not really true. Actually at the time there were all sorts of odd religious sects, and I don’t think very many of them had to change locations 4 times. The Mormons in many cases were as culpable as the people they were fighting against. (emphasis added)
Raina, substitute “Jews” for “Mormons” in that above paragraph.
See how it sounds now.
Are you arguing the Mormons got what they deserved?
Full disclosure: My great-great grandfather survived the Haun’s Mill Massacre.
Argh…”Hitler was…” NOT…”a Roman Catholic.”
Christians DON’T celebrate Jesus Christ with “hookers”…
Honestly, some of what I’ve read on this thread is beyond preposterous.
and, bullwinkle, being “Jewish” is mere racial without any belief and dedication to the religious aspects themselves. That may be why you can allege that “Hitler was Roman Catholic” however horribly inaccurate that is.
As in, the entire phenomenon of humans (that spans ALL forms of religious belief) calling, self labelling, labelling others as being of one religious identity or another, apart from membership, embrace and belief IN that/those religious beliefs, it’s specious. People parade labels all the time but unless they’re active in some area of religous dedication, they’re no more [whatever religious identity here] than is anyone who declares as Atheist.
You have to actually believe in and identify with the religious doctrine (whatever your choice is) to correctly self identify as (name your religion here).
I know many people who are “raised” in one sort or another but haven’t and won’t and woulnd’t consider actually practicing the beliefs in their lives in present, or even attending ceremonies beyond invites as social visits, many of these self identify as (name your religion here) but actually go on to display despisement for (name your religion here) as to beliefs, and that includes “Jewish” people who haven’t, won’t, will not, whatever, attend Temple or observe instructions and religious requirements, most of whom actually, my experience, declare as ‘atheist Jews.’ Seems nonsensical to me.
Not a personal thing, just trying to get a point across. That statment about Hitler being “Roman Catholic” was truly offensive, since you raised the idea of offense.
And, most Christians regard TCLDS as being cultist. It’s in their dogma, is why, that insists that they have special messages from Christ that are not contained within Holy Scripture, among a few other things.
I’ve also known many Mormons, however, in my lifetime and most have been incredibly kind people. I’ve also known many Scientologists who were, too, even kinder, actually, now that I think about it. I’ve met many Jewish persons who were, too, some who were Methodists who were very nice, many Baptists who I really enjoy and value, and a lot of fellow Catholics who are beautiful folks, some Buddhists, some Hindus, a number of atheists…
It’s impossible to “debate” who is more worthy as to what their beliefs are and most people make these choices and selections and that process declares, therefore, what they believe. But it doesn’t indicate any hate or animosity to or about other humans, for the most part, unless some one individual has a problematic psychology.
Many of those religious labels I just mentioned DO contend that their belief process is a solution, that the others are distractions if not wrongful instructions. Nothing new there, but everyone makes their own choice (hopefully, without coercion) and interpersonally, there’s no reason to disdain anyone for thier choice. If it includes saying prayers for someone’s salvation, I sure have no problem with that. If it includes banging on someone’s door inconsiderately and what follows, I do have a problem with that, as I would anyone behaving similarly for whatever their reason was.
Captain Jolly Raina, substitute “Jews” for “Mormons” in that above paragraph.
See how it sounds now.
Sounds like a mormon out of his depth trying to guilt offended jews with a repugnant little bit of moral equivalence. Just stop with the unasked for baptisms, ok? Certainly that must be easier than trying to convince non-mormons that it’s no big deal. If it’s no big deal, why don’t you mormons – the only active participants in this noxious practice, just stop it? That would be a really big thing for LDS to do and may earn them some of the respect you folks are clamoring for. As it stands now, you loons are about half a baptism away from being scientologists.
Captain Holly,
“Raina, substitute “Jews” for “Mormons” in that above paragraph.
See how it sounds now.”
Yeah, so? What’s your point? Mormons and Jews are different groups with different histories who were persecuted for different reasons. Are you suggesting that because Jews were persecuted, we should never point out things that they did wrong in their history?
“Are you arguing the Mormons got what they deserved?
Full disclosure: My great-great grandfather survived the Haun’s Mill Massacre.”
I don’t think anyone really deserves to have violence, hatred, and disrespect for laws visited on them. That includes Mormons and Missourians and Illinoians living near the Mormons in the 1800’s. I really wish that no Mormons got killed in that period and there was certainly wrong things done by non-Mormons, but that’s no reason to ignore the Mormons’ cupability in what happened.
Full disclosure: My great great (some other number of greats) grand-uncle was the kid who got his head blown off by a Missourian while saying “nits breed lice.”
Am I to believe that if the church of scientology..heck let’s make that the church of SATAN decides to post-mortemly ‘baptise’ Cleon Skousen, Bringham Young, or say John Smith into their ‘religion’, mormons at large won’t and shouldn’t find it objectionable?
HA and DOUBLE fucking HA! Gimme a break.
This is the stupidest thread I ever read (morbid fascination?) Its like three raving lunatics taking offense to someone else’s religious beliefs and a bunch of people arguing religion. And a lot of stupid things being said. The few half reasonable people constantly get shouted down. Really nice. I wonder how many people complaining about the offensiveness of these folks are big one’s for anti-Political Correctness? Is it taking offense or giving offense in this particular case? I’m out of here.
Rob Roy Fingerhead wrote:
Am I to believe that if the church of scientology..heck let’s make that the church of SATAN decides to post-mortemly ‘baptise’ Cleon Skousen, Bringham Young, or say John Smith into their ‘religion’, mormons at large won’t and shouldn’t find it objectionable?
We probably wouldn’t care. Why?
1) We don’t recognize the authority of said organization to perform baptisms.
2) Brother Brigham, Cleon or John can make their own descisions in the hereafter.
Now, as I’ve mentioned before, yes Mormons think everyone else is wrong. Everyone else thinks we are wrong. Getting past that, why does it matter that Mormons think this if we are also willing to let you be wrong? We don’t do forced conversions, we don’t implement sharia, we don’t engage in pogroms. We may implement blue laws, but nothing you haven’t seen in Kansas or Kentucky. Heck, when Jews and Catholics first came into the Salt Lake Valley, the Mormons let them use the Tabernacle Building for their worship services. Mormon choirs sang at Catholic masses in St. George (UT). We may think you are wrong, but we are certainly willing to be tolerant about it.
Hey, Rob Roy Fingerpants, or whatever your name is, it’s JOE Smith, not John Smith. Thanks for pointing out that Hendrix was black too, we didn’t know that. Your grasp of the obvious is giving me gass.
Raina, you are treading on really fucking thin water, suggesting that Mormons were “culpable” in their own slaughter. I am not an active Mormon, but I refuse to accept that Captain Holly’s ancestors were “culpable” in getting choped in half in front of their children (Haun’s Mill Massacre). Be quiete now while you still have a face.
Would I ever try to justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre no matter how “culpable” the victims? No. No one deserves to be chopped into nifty shapes.
If the Mormons are entitled to their beliefs regarding baptism, then bullwinkle is certainly entitled to his belief that he finds the practise offensive.
Raina, substitute “Jews” for “Mormons” in that above paragraph.
Captain Holly, your quandary is a misnomer. To be sure that the Jews and the Mormons may have been both persecuted. However, EVERY religion has been persecuted at some point or other. Besides, the reason the Jewish people were persecuted were slightly different than the mormons. The ONLY reason that the Jewish people were persecuted throughout ancient history (let’s ignore modern anti-semetism) was because the persecuters, who were mainly Christian, believed their lord and savior to be killed by the Jewish people. An incident in the past, yet rooted in beliefs.
The Mormons were probably persecuted not for whatever crazy beliefs they had, but probably for ACTUAL EVENTS that they themselves created.
(*note, I’m not condoning persecution by any means, but what some people call justice for crimes committed, others label as persecution.)
Sean the INFDL,
Saying the Mormons were culpable is NOT the same as saying that they deserved to be slaughtered in front of their children. No one deserves to be slaughtered in front of their children. I never said the Missourians were justified in what they did.
But the Mormons did do some stupid, illegal, immoral things in Missouri. Even this page which is run by an active believing Mormon says that “LDS leaders sent their own state-authorized militias in Caldwell and Daviess counties to actively resist mob efforts. Unauthorized and improper events took place, possibly under influence of the Danites, inculding crimes of burning homes of settlers in Daviess County” and “Mormon groups marched across county lines from Caldwell County into Daviess County, a place associated with mob attacks against the Saints. Sadly, some of the Mormon troops burned and plundered homes of some Missourians” and “it is probable that burning and plundering occurred under the influence of Sampson Avard’s Danite band, who had been taught by Avard that God wanted the Mormons to have the wealth of the Gentiles and to seek vengeance regardless of the law.” and “it is clear that offenses were committed by both sides in 1838”
Of course most of the Mormons who got slaughtered were not the same Mormons who were burning their neighbor’s homes, but welcome to armed conflict…the people who start and continue the conflict tend to not be the people who get punished.
Also, as I said before, MY ancestors were also slaughtered in Missouri in 1838. Am I allowed to have an opinion on it now, or have I “lost my face.”