Responses to Bashing

Well, I did consider posting this on the "Religious Trollery" thread; however, this is the BBQ Pit after all.

Feel free to post responses to any bashings, not just responses to "Mormon bashing."
-----
-----
-----
bluebird
Member posted 06-01-99 08:28 AM the portions between the quote lines (my responses are in between those quotations).

Really, I apologise for getting this topic off into mormon apologetics.

Then why do you persist with the bashing?

The original question was interesting to me since I was under the impression that most scientists reject the concept of "race" Maybe I'm wrong--I read this a few years ago.
Anyway, I would like to respond once more to the topic of baptism for the dead.

Perhaps this time with facts and cites?

It's really hard to argue with mormons.

For those without debating skills, perhaps; for the rest of the planet it doesn't seem to be such a difficult undertaking.

They have their own meanings for religious words

And this shocks you for what reason? All religions define terms in their particular way. I wasn't aware that was a valid reason to spout vitriol.

and sometimes appear to redefine them at will

As you shall soon learn, this is false.

--so now we have proxy baptism is equivalent to a prayer.

From a very casual perusal of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, I find the following definition:

- prayer [1] (noun)

often attributive

[Middle English, from Middle French preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex]

First appeared 14th Century

1 a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a ~ for the success of the voyage>

(2) : a set order of words used in praying

b : an earnest request or wish

2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in ~>

3 : a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers -- often used in pl.

4 : something prayed for

5 : a slight chance <haven't got a ~>

bluebird, I specifically invite your attention to definition 3.

and also the following definition:

- ritual [2] (noun)

First appeared 1649

1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony

2 a : ritual observance; specifically : a system of rites

b : a ceremonial act or action

c : a customarily repeated often formal act or series of acts

bluebird, your attention is invited to the entire definition and the fact that both words predate Joseph Smith by quite some time.

What next--Holy communion is just a pack of nabs and a nehi grape?

That's essentially what the component objects of that particlar ceremony are at the outset of the ceremony. For the LDS Sacrament Ceremony, it's basically scraps of bread and cups of water; for the Roman Catholic ceremony, it's unleavened bread, and wine mixed with water. The Roman Catholic belief is that the priest's reciting of the events of the Last Supper causes the components to actually become the Body and Blood of the Lord. The LDS recite a prayer asking for a particular blessing upon the recipients of the components, which remain scraps of bread and cups of water to the end.

I came across a site that nicely explains to mormons what baptism is to a Christian.

Mormons aren't Christians? That would be your opinion, and a mistaken one at that. Just because they're not your particular "flavor" of Christianity does not mean they're not Christians.

The site is http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/apolo.html.

Would this be the teaching of the sprinkling type of baptism, the dunking type of baptism, or the type of baptism which doesn't require water at all? You see, there are various types of baptism within the entire Christian tradition and some sects consider some of those types to be invalid.

I am not a Catholic, but I'll agree with their beliefs on Christian baptism vs. mormon baptism.

So you're just picking and choosing stuff at random here?

Sunbird, I guess it does seem that my grandfather's annointment is another issue.

For a moment there, I thought you were going to actually admit that it is another issue. (For those without a cue card, please see bluebird's posting in the "Mormons and Mitochondrial DNA" thread, which I shall refer to as the "M&M thread" from here on.)

To me it is the same since both issues represent the mormon church

No, one issue is a practice authorized by the church leaders and the other is one prohibited by them. Since you evidently haven't figured it out yet, the LDS individual who annointed your grandfather against his wishes violated church teachings. If you were to do some honest research into that fact, you would've discovered that, according to the teachings of the church, that particular annointing was of no efficacy. But I forget, you're the one who posted "I hate mormons." (See the M&M thread for verification.)

and its adherents disregard for the religious autonomy of others.

You posted this lie on the M&M thread; I challenged you to admit it was a lie. You've repeated it again in that thread. Here is the proof that it's a lie:

- We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. - 11th Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

You might note that the Jewish World Congress was so upset over the proxy baptism of Jews by mormons that they negiotiated with the mormon church to stop doing it in 1996.

I recall that story. However, the JWC conducted themselves without hatred and bigotry. They debated their case. What you've managed to do is spew vitriol.

I want the mormon church to treat me and my family the way the treat the Jews.

What part of the expression "all men" above did you fail to understand?

Simply to respect my beliefs and my ability to chose my own religion and have my memory respected.

I think my earlier posting on the M&M thread showed that this is respecting the memory of the dearly departed. But, I forget, you posted in that very thread that you give gifts in memorium using the name of the dead without their permission so I suppose it's not the actual concept that bugs you but the particular ritual that has you in a tizzy.

I can understand why Monty and other mormons are so opposed to this idea. Their position in the mormon celestial kingdom depends on having as many ancestors as possible baptized by proxy.

No; it does not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" fac

I posted this question at the other site and didn't get an answer, so I'll try again.
Is it possible to critisize/critique/complain/or otherwise comment unfavorably on the Mormon church and/or its beliefs without being accused of bashing?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

slythe
Member posted 06-01-99 10:56 PM

I posted this question at the other site and didn't get an answer, so I'll try again.
Is it possible to critisize/critique/complain/or otherwise comment unfavorably on the Mormon church and/or its beliefs without being accused of bashing?

Slythe: I believe it's not only possible but has been done before, even by LDS types. However, the accusation of bashing against bluebird arises from his prefacing his critique with "I hate mormons" and following that statement with outright lies. Now, that's bashing.

Monty wrote:
{{{I think my earlier posting on the M&M thread showed that this is respecting the memory of the dearly departed. But, I forget, you posted in that very thread that you give gifts in memorium using the name of the dead without their permission so I suppose it's not the actual concept that bugs you but the particular ritual that has you in a tizzy.}}}

Now Monty, I generally agree with what you have to say, and in no way do I want to seem aligned with bluebird. But your comment here is simply wrong. There's a great deal of difference between carrying out a religious rite on behalf of a dead person and giving a gift in memory of that person. If you can't see that difference then, because I know you are not stupid, you must be being deliberately obstinate. And I don't think that the LDS baptism of the dead is limited to the "dearly departed' -- at least the way most people would define that term. Such baptism can and often is done for people that the stand-in baptizee has never met (I do not know whether they must have been related in some manner), and can go back hundreds of years. Rarely does one give a memorial gift in the name of a deceased whom one did not know when living, and I'm willing to bet no one on this board has given such a gift on behalf of someone who has been dead a couple of hundred years.

I know that sincere Mormons believe that in baptizing for the dead they are simply making it possible for the deceased to make a choice that he or she would not otherwise have had. Please understand that many non-LDS see it as a criticism of the choices that the deceased did make while alive, or as forcing something on someone, or as a bit arrogant in the assumption of the necessity for those that had no exposure to the LDS church in their lifetime.

-Melin


------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

RTA
Member posted 06-02-99 12:04 AM

The teachings of the "church" of $cientology are a load of crap and L. Ron Hubbard was a deranged drug addict of the highest order. If any of you S.Dopers are scientologists, you are a brainwashed idiot and I bash your so-called "religion" to your face. You are totally stupid.

Now, folks; I might take solace in the fact that it's not only the LDS who are getting bashed. But that would be wrong. I maintain that the bashing itself is wrong. Whilst I may not agree with the Sciontoligists' teachings (I don't, but that's irrelevant), I still don't bash them.

RTA: perhaps you could take a cue from Melin who posted above a quite rational, non-vitriolic statement.

Melin
Member posted 06-02-99 03:54 PM

Monty wrote:
{{{I think my earlier posting on the M&M thread showed that this is respecting the memory of the dearly departed. But, I forget, you posted in that very thread that you give gifts in memorium using the name of the dead without their permission so I suppose it's not the actual concept that bugs you but the particular ritual that has you in a tizzy.}}}
Now Monty, I generally agree with what you have to say, and in no way do I want to seem aligned with bluebird. But your comment here is simply wrong. There's a great deal of difference between carrying out a religious rite on behalf of a dead person and giving a gift in memory of that person. If you can't see that difference then, because I know you are not stupid, you must be being deliberately obstinate.

Melin:

First of all, thanks for an excellent post! I appreciate calm and rational discussion of differences of opinion.

Secondly, sorry that I have to disagree with you here. The memorial and the proxy service are equivalent in this discussion. The other individual was making a "big deal" mostly over the use of the name after death. That's the point I thought I was addressing; however, I understand and can even sympathize with the points you've raised.

Again, thanks for the nonbashing post!

Cheers!
-Chip

I'm not trying to bash, or defend bashers exactly, but I always thought that when people made a donation in a deceased person's name in memorium that it usually was at least a cause that the deceased believed in or affected the deceased's life, like donating money to the American Cancer Association in the name of a loved one who died of cancer to help others that are going through the same things the deceased went through in their last days, or to prevent it from happening at all. I can see how that would be different from performing a rite in a dead person's name for a religion they didn't participate in.

They say that funerals and so on are for the living, not the dead. The dead are dead and don't care, but the living need the comfort. So donating money to a cause that is important to the deceased and their family as a memorial to the deceased and to benefit the living is one thing, but to conduct rites against the wishes of the living, for a religion they at best don't agree with, at worst find offensive and sacreligious, doesn't seem right. Maybe if people would ask the next of kin first or something... I don't know.

I've been using the LDS family search web page to work on my own genealogy and was somewhat disheartened to find my grandmother there; mostly because whoever had entered the information on her got most of it wrong. How close could this relative have been to her? Obviously not very. I hope they didn't perform a baptism on her when it's obvious they didn't know her well or care about her when she was alive (I checked the submitter's name, and I know she was a niece of my grandmother's, but evidentally not a very close one). So why does it bother me that my grandmother was in there but not the great-greats that I've been searching for? As I said, funerals and so on are for the living. I didn't know the great-greats either, probably no one alive today did, so doing whatever to them probably won't hurt most people (shoot, I admit to even having benefitted from it). But, since I knew my grandmother, I know she wouldn't have approved of this, and I'm offended that the person who submitted her seems, ostensibly, to care so much for her mortal soul, but can't be bothered to figure out where she was really born, the day she died, or even where she's buried. She died of cancer so donate lots of money to the ACA in her name and I'm sure most people would be happy. But trying to convert her posthumously has made some people unhappy

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

"RTA: perhaps you could take a cue from Melin who posted above a quite rational, non-vitriolic statement."

It may interest you, Monty, that it was the whole "Mormons/Mormon bashers" discussion that got me going on Scientology.
I am not a person who has anything bad to say about Mormons (surprising to you?). I had some close friends growing up who were Mormon kids; their parents were perfectly nice people. Mormons can baptize me after death (if they get a chance, not likely). What do I care? Just because my name goes into a little book somewhere, that's going to screw up my legacy? (If THAT's the only legacy I have, I've got bigger problems than a postmortem baptism.)

Scientologists, on the other hand, are absolute whackos. Their belief structure is a piss-poor mix of no-talent science fiction and pyramid schemes, promoted by a collection of vapid movie stars. The heads of their "church" are a morally bankrupt gallery of racketeers who belong in jail. (More about all that at www.xenu.net , I won't bore you with it.)

As you can see, what you call "vitriol", I call "calling a spade a spade". And I will bash Scientologists all I want, thanks. They're stupid.

And like you said yourself, "this is the BBQ Pit after all."

Ok Monty, now we can take the gloves off, eh since we're in the BB pit. I think you are a great example of the reason I hate the mormon church and it's practitioners.
Let's get one thing straight. I dont' know why on earth you got your panties (oops, excuse me garmies) in a wad about whether there was one person or two involved in the callous and insensitive treatment of my dying grandfather. For your information there were two--a man and his wife. They are mormons, representing the mormon church. They did just exactly what they wanted without regard for my grandfather's physical pain, his inability to stop them, his membership in a recognised religion which regards mormons as not Christian. They abused him whatever you call it. Most people would be incensed if someone performed some religious rite on them without permission. Just because you don't care what people do to you, doesn't mean that most of us wouldn't care.
As far as the mormons being Christians, well you can call yourself Christian NOW. You have a diffent prophet who wants to emphasize your similarity to mainstream religions, none of which recognize mormons as Christians. Protestants and Catholics recognise each other as Christians-but they don't recognise mormons as Christians. Check out their web pages--you have the Catholic one I sent. There are many others out there. Why doesn't the Christian community recognise mormons as Christians? Because the teachings of mormonism are blasphemy. You teach that priesthood holders will become gods with their own planets. How arrogant AND stupid. Lucifer was thrown out of heaven for trying to be equal to God. Adam and Eve were warned not to eat of the fruit of the tree of life because they were not to become like God. The Tower of Babel was a sin because the people were so arrogant they thought they would get close to God.
No Christian believes that Christ is God's physical son, created through physical intercourse. Your own documents say so--look it up if you're not afraid to examine your own materials. A Christian or Jew or Muslim would think it blasphemous to imagine God would commit adultery.
No Christian would ever think that holy underwear is important. What a goofy idea. No Christian would think that you have to have a secret name for God to use to call men into heaven, or a secret name for men to use to call their wives into heaven. No Christian church would think that only married women could reach the highest levels of heaven--or that women would be having spirit babies in heaven to populate the worlds that the priesthood holders in the mormon church will supposedly be gods of.
Dream on, dear Monty. Avoid reading the non-faith promoting materials which expose the fallacy of your faith. Join with your church leaders in discrediting those individuals who value truth over dogma.
You've chosen your own damnation. I feel sorry for you.

As for me, I just want mormons to agree to not baptise me by proxy after my death and to not do it to anyone unless they agree before death to allow it. I want what the Jewish Congress got. I asked my relatives for this and got zip. So, I have my little codicil to stop it and I'm going to keep right on spreading the word. We have to fight for our religious freedom. Baptism is more than a prayer it is a holy sacrement. Holy Communion is more than a piece of bread and a little wine or grape juice. It is a living symbol of my faith in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God, who died in atonement for the sins of mankind and set us free. It is not some meaningless words said as ticket for somebody to achieve higher levels of heavenly authority.
As an American, I also believe in the right of freedom of and FROM religion. Whether the individual is an atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Moslem, Christian, or Mormon or WHATEVER, that individual has the right to participate or refuse to participate in a religious ceremony. That's why my folks came to this country and it's an important enough right to fight for it. You mormons have no right to take my freedom away.
All your anger is certainly familiar. Mormons always get mad when they are exposed. Your deceptive strategy of "milk before meat" where you put out the innocuous little version of the mormon church before you start exposing the true nature of your beliefs doesn't work with the openness of the internet does it? Anybody can easily find out about the things the mormons try so hard to cover up--the background on Joseph Smith, the multiple revisions of his teachings over the years, the denial of Blacks to the priesthood for years, the constant revisions of the Doctines & Covenants and other church doctines so that they are more politically palatable, the idea that Blacks and Native Americans will become "white and delightsome" if they are good mormons, the abandonment of polygamy and its continuation long after it was offically condemned, the Mountain Meadows massacre, the excommunication of honest scholars like Fawn Brodie who dared to tell the truth about Joseph Smith, the coverups about child abuse in the church--even to the recent appointment of a convicted child abuser to a mormon mission. It goes on and on and all it takes is a little click of a mouse to discover. Start with exmormon.org to see the real stories of people who experienced first hand this repressive, dishonest, blasphemous organization. But, of course, Monty, you can't. For the mormon church doesn't allow its members to read anything that isn't "faith promoting."
Keep on blustering, Monty. You haven't impressed me. I still hate the mormon church--just as I hate any organization that practices lies and deceptions and runs roughshod over the rights of others.

Bluebird, what do you care if the Mormons baptize you at/after death? If your faith is the right one, then their baptism is a pointless ritual. If their faith is right, they just saved you from eternal damnation. If both of you are wrong and there's no afterlife, then it's a pointless ritual again. No matter what the scenario, it doesn't harm you.

As to arrogance, well, presumptious would be more accurate. So what? Did they do you any physical or spiritual harm? No, they were just irritating. Hate an irritation is overkill; just ignore them.

I would in no way like to align myself with Bluebird, who is so far over the line into bashing that her (or his?) last post should be the definition of bashing, but I think that (rhetoric aside) she (or he?) has every right to object to being baptized after death. Monty's posts lead me to assume that the whole premise of baptism-after-death is to give a "second chance" at salvation to those who did not have the opportunity to be baptized while alive or who refused to be baptized while alive. In this way, a person who did not recognize "the truth" while alive will finally be able to recognize it after death. (Please advise if I am misrepresenting this.) If this is a correct interpretation, don't you see how patronizing it is? It seems to me to be self-evident -- and, yes, reasonable -- that a person who rejected the Mormon beliefs while alive (and lived instead according to the dictates of another faith) would object to such a ceremony being performed on their behalf after death. To think that they would not is to say, in effect, that they would abandon, after death, the beliefs they were true to throughout their lives. It seems to me to be self-evident why many would object to this.

Monty then says that the dead person will have a chance to accept or reject the baptism, but this is not how baptism works in any other faith or sect that I know of (where the living are baptized). No one can baptize an ADULT living person against their will, and baptism is not something that is done to an adult without their permission that they either accept or reject AFTER it has been done. If you believe, then you are baptized into the faith, and if you don't, then you aren't. For an adult, it isn't "baptism, then choice to accept or reject the faith," it's "choice, then baptism (or not, depending on whether you accept or reject the faith)."

Moreover, one of the reasons Monty gives for the practice is the comfort it brings to those who remain behind. It seems to me that you do not comfort those who find that you have performed this rite on behalf of people they believe would reject it, and whom they may know far better than you do, such as non-Mormon families. To the contrary, you may cause them great distress and further grief. It is my understanding that this was the reason the Jews requested the practice be stopped where they are concerned.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't think a living person can determine on behalf of a dead person whether he or she would want to be baptized or not, and considering the gravitas of the ceremony, without that knowledge it's better to let them alone. I fully respect the Mormons right to their beliefs (and I recognize them as Christians, and not as a cult), but I don't understand how you can preempt someone ELSE's beliefs after they die and imagine they (or their families) would not object. I think I'm a very tolerant person, and I do believe in the afterlife, but when I stand before my Lord on the day of judgment, I want to do it on the strength of my own beliefs, without the assistance of others, however well-meaning that assistance may be.

I hope this post will be read in the spirit in which it is offered, which is part questioning and part explaining, but in no way "bashing" -- even though we are in the Pit.

But, of course, Monty, you can't. For the mormon church doesn't allow its members to read anything that isn't "faith promoting."

bluebird; not only are you a liar, you're an atrocious liar. The LDS church does not "forbid its members" to read anything. Last I checked, free will was a big thing in that particular church.

To Jodih: your posting is interesting and you asked for correction if you had the particulars of the ritual in question wrong. The quick rundown is this: have to be baptised to get to heaven, die before you are and if you decide then to accept "the truth" (I know, but hey it's a quick rundown here), someone alive has to do the ceremony for you. Basically, the folks doing the proxy baptisms are just making sure they're not denying something to the dearly departed.

bluebird: get off your bigotry train and read my answer to how I would feel if some Satanist performed a similar ceremony for one of my deceased relatives.

For your information there were two--a man and his wife. They are mormons, representing the mormon church.

So everything any Mormon does is representative of the entire church? Whether it is one or two people, that does not necessarily mean that their actions are representative of all Mormons, which was Monty's point. You described one action by two people and are trying to use that to justify hatred towards an entire group.

As far as the mormons being Christians, well you can call yourself Christian NOW. You have a diffent prophet who wants to emphasize your similarity to mainstream religions, none of which recognize mormons as Christians.

Well, last I heard, a Christian was someone who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, not someone who was recognized by a religion you approve of as a Christian. Have you spoken to the Dispen-whatevers yet, who apparently have the authority to declare Roman Catholics non-Christian to have them do the same for Mormons as an especial favor to you? I'm sure some of the former AOL boardmembers can direct you to what's-his-face who made that declaration.



------------------
"We're gonna have lawyers here. It'll be a fun time."
--R.R.S.

Just curious, C3. How could you read all the way through this thread and still spell it "Morman"?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

MONTY -- I accept the Mormons' rationale for the practice, but you did not address the validity of my objections to having it performed on behalf of people who would reject baptism if alive. Any comment?

And, out of curiousity -- Is it necessary to be baptized as a Mormon, or merely as a Christian? In other words, is the rite performed for any non-Mormon, or just for people who did not receive baptism during life?

Jodih, the Mormons do not recognize any other baptism but their own, and thus it must be a Mormon baptism. Baptism by any other sect, even if Christian, doesn't count to them.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

The Jewish objection to Mormons baptizing deceased Jews is somewhat different to the considerations raised here by others. The fact is that Jews have been persecuted, beaten, robbed, and murdered for the last 2,000 years or so, on the grounds that they "rejected Christ."

Thus, however well-meaning the Mormons may be, the baptism of deceased Jews is associated with the centuries of forced baptisms of living Jews ("Convert or die!") and with all those years of persecution. This may be guilt-by-association, but it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth. We would like to think that modern-day America has moved past those bygone eras.

I understand that the Mormons believe that their baptism, even after death, is the only road to salvation. In contrast to that, Jews believe that we were told by God, directly, face-to-face, at Mount Sinai, how to behave; no later prophet, no matter how holy, can reverse that momentous Revelation. Any claim to do so would be to put the word of that prophet (or church) higher than the direct word of God, which is either outstandingly arrogant or simply silly.

Baptism itself, of course, is a late development of the Biblical laws of immersing oneself in free-flowing water, as a way of removing spiritual impurities and physical uncleanliness. Among orthodox Jews, ritual immersion is performed on a regular basis during the year, it is not simply a one-time event.

bluebird
Member posted 06-03-99 03:47 PM

Ok Monty, now we can take the gloves off, eh since we're in the BB pit. I think you are a great example of the reason I hate the mormon church and it's practitioners.
Let's get one thing straight. I dont' know why on earth you got your panties (oops, excuse me garmies) in a wad about whether there was one person or two involved in the callous and insensitive treatment of my dying grandfather. For your information there were two--a man and his wife.

Bluebird: once again, not only are you a liar, but you're a bad liar.

First you maintained that ONE person, a man, performed an ordinance. Then when called on that, you now maintain that the ordinance was performed by a man and his wife. That's a lie. You know it's a lie, so why not admit that it's a lie publicly?

The blessing of the sick must be peformed by an Elder or two or more Elders of the Church. Women can not be elders (that's another issue, not the one under discussion at the moment). They can, however, be Elders of the Reorganized Church. Maybe you're pissed at the wrong group? I mean, it's not like you haven't made any mistakes on this subject.

Here's what's said about the administration to the sick in the book entitled "Mormon Doctrine" written by Bruce R. McConkie (I've expanded the abbreviations of the references for those who may not be familiar with those abbreviations):

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save and the Lord shall raise him up." (James 5:14-16, New Testament, Holy Bible.) These words of James aptly summarize the practice of the Church in all ages where administrations are concerned. (Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, sections 42:43-44;, 66:9; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 16:18; Luke 4:40-41; 13:11-13; Acts of the Apostles, New Testament, Holy Bible, 28:8.) Administrations are of two parts: anointings and sealings; both performances are accompanied by the laying on of hands.

It is the policy of the Church that administering to the sick should be done at the request of the sick person or someone vitally concerned, so that it will be done in answer to faith. Those called to perform the ordinance should encourage the sick person to rely on the Lord's promise, "Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you." (Moroni, Book of Mormon, 7:26.) If need be the sick person should be encouraged to keep the commandments so that he can have faith and be entitled to the blessings of the Lord.

In the performance of the administration, one of the elders should anoint the sick person with oil on or near the crown of the head, for the restoration of his health. Ordinarily he should not seal the anointing. Pure olive oil which has been consecrated for the anointing and healing of the sick in the household of faith should be used. Taking consecrated oil internally, or using it for anointing or rubbing afflicted parts of the body, is not part of the ordinance of administering to the sick.

After the anointing two or more elders should lay their hands on the head of the sick person, and with one of them acting as voice, seal the anointing. The one speaking should offer such prayers, pronounce such blessings, give such promises, say such things, and rebuke the affliction -- all as the Spirit of the Lord may dictate.

Ordinarily one administration is sufficient for one illness, although in serious cases, or where other circumstances seem to dictate the propriety of such, a sick person may be administered to several times during one illness. It is also the common practice, if a sick person has recently been anointed, for those performing a second administration merely to give the sick person a blessing in the authority of the priesthood. In an emergency, where only one elder is present or available, he may either give the sick person a blessing or he can both anoint and seal in a formal administration.

From the same volume, a short explanation of Baptism for the Dead:

Based on the eternal principle of vicarious service, the Lord has ordained baptism for the dead as the means whereby all his worthy children of all ages can become heirs of salvation in his kingdom. Baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom, and except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot gain an inheritance in that heavenly world. (John 3:3-5.) Obviously, during the frequent periods of apostate darkness when the gospel light does not shine, and also in those geographical areas where legal administrators are not found, hosts of people live and die without ever entering in at the gate of baptism so as to be on the path leading to eternal life. For them a just God has ordained baptism for the dead, a vicarious-proxy labor. (Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 124:28-36; 127; 128; 1 Corinthians, New Testament, Holy Bible, 15:29.)

Also, an explanation of the doctrine of Salvation for the Dead:

There is no death, and there are no dead, unto the Lord -- all are alive unto him. "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:32), our Lord said with reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had long before died as men count death, but who were alive as the Lord views things in his eternal perspective.

Since the Lord views man's progress from the pre-existent state to an eventual inheritance in one of the degrees of glory as one continuing course, it is not material (from the eternal perspective) whether the opportunity to accept the gospel of salvation comes in this mortal sphere or in the spirit world hereafter. Sometime after birth into this life and before the resurrection and judgment, every living soul will hear the gospel message and be judged by his reaction thereto. The millions who pass to the spirit world without receiving an opportunity during mortality to hear the truths of salvation will receive their chance subsequent to what men call death.

The great principles and procedures whereby the saving truths of the gospel are offered to, accepted by, and made binding upon the departed dead, comprise the doctrine of salvation for the dead. Pursuant to this doctrine the principles of salvation are taught in the spirit world, leaving the ordinances thereof to be performed in this life on a vicarious-proxy basis. By accepting the gospel in the spirit world, and because the ordinances of salvation and exaltation are performed vicariously in this world, the worthy dead can become heirs of the fulness of the Father's kingdom. Salvation for the dead is the system whereunder those who would have accepted the gospel in this life had they been permitted to hear it, will have the chance to accept it in the spirit world, and will then be entitled to all the blessings which passed them by in mortality. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 100-196, by Joseph Fielding Smith.)

Perhaps you're more familiar with this portion of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible:

(Exodus, Old Testament, Holy Bible, Chapter 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

I have provided cites, quotes, valid and relevant references. You have basically spewed venom and stated "I hate mormons." Fine, you hate someone because of their relion, because of their clothing, because of their clothing, because they put their left sock on first instead of the right sock, or whatever reason you choose for your irrati

Wow have people ever got a lot to say, that's great but unfortuneately I am just new at this and still trying to figure out how to do this....

http://members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html

------------------
Please feel free to email me
Dandmb50@aol.com

OK, MOnty (short for montebank, I presume)
One last time and then I have a life to lead and am not going to waste any more time on an insignificant little piss-ant like you.
If you think I am a liar because I sloppily wrote that one person performed the abysmal rite of annointing my dying grandfather with oil AGAINST HIS WILL when his friend and his wife were present then believe it. I really don't care. You weren't there. You could not possibly understand because you are the stupidest kind of mormon who thinks that you have the right to take away other's right to religious freedom and their personal autonomy.
As far as lying goes, the milk before meat strategy is nothing but planned lying and thus EVERY MORMON WHO FOLLOWS THIS PARTICULAR TEACHING OF YOUR CHURCH IS A LIAR!
Why do you think I would care if a liar called me a liar because I did not write clearly? You're a liar by nature. You hide the truth with every time you try to present the mormons as being a Christian church.
Why you think I would be interested in the writings of your church leaders is beyond me. Heck, your church has changed its beliefs as many times as the wind has changed directions. Even now, the writings of old joseph smith are being revised constantly in order to present a prettier and more acceptable version of the origins of your despicable religion. The new biography of Brigham Young written for your church youth programs even tries to make it seem like he only had two wives instead of 17. Jeez, you people just can't stand the light of day, can you?
What you are really mad at is the fact that you and your cult have been exposed. Most people are ignorant of the fact that most of the major religions consider mormonism a cult, non-christian, and that, Montebank, is what has got you so mad. Keep on raving--who the heck cares. The vast majority of your converts leave within a year or two. The original teachings of your church are being constantly watered down by your own church leaders. Your stupid ceremonies have been fully exposed to the public. And a few good lawsuits by people whose religious freedom has been abridged will put an end to your despicable practice of baptizing people after death.
Bluebird

Obviously, what has been exposed to the public is exactly who's raving (or is that ranting?). See the post immediately above.

Nevertheless Monty, "you guys" will be hosting an Olympics to host in under three years ... Let's hope that "you guys" can relax a little before and during that time, because I guarantee the TOTAL criticism "you guys" has EVER received will not equal what "you guys" will be getting that month.
Especially if the world comes to Utah and finds early curfews and no booze (or even soda). That would suck, and if that happens "you guys" will deserve every last blistering word of it.
And meanwhile every last one of "you guys'" religious practices that the rest of us think of as "different" will be put under a microscope by the world's press.
So don't say I didn't warn you.

------------------
"Then you learn the lesson,
That it's tough to be so cool ..."

Not to worry, RTA. As it is, one can purchase booze even in Salt Lake City. I really don't think the athletes competing will give a hoot about anything other than the competitions. And the foreign press will probably not be too concerned about "the microscope." My bet is that'll be left to the American press. "Sour grapes," I guess, is the reason that'll be the case.

And before anyone else launches into this: the corruption scandal has occasioned an investigation into the bidding practices over the entire history of the modern Olympics. I daresay not a single town which has been involved in that history will escape unscathed.

(Of COURSE the athletes are there mainly to compete, duh)
I daresay that as well though I place blame squarely on the corrupt IOC, and not the bidding cities.
But I think that you vastly underestimate the party atmosphere that accompanies the Olympics. There better be something for all those people to do after the sun goes down.
And like it or not the world press will in fact be turning a great deal of attention to the Church, who has been so very influential on the cultural mores and urban development in Utah.
(We already know about Mormons here in America and I think that because of this the American press will not be as quick to show an interest in them for the benefit of its consumers.)
If you want to bet on that I am perfectly willing, because I'll win.

------------------
"Then you learn the lesson,
That it's tough to be so cool ..."

Sounds like a hoot. (rolls eyes)

------------------
"Then you learn the lesson,
That it's tough to be so cool ..."

Reading over this thread, I realized that some folks might be unaware that the LDS, an any other organization, has a heirarchy. If you do find yourself in the position of having some LDS Elder forcing an annointing on you, here's a concept:

Say "Hold on a second, Elder, whilst I call your Bishop to see if he's authorized your performing this against the dictates of your church. What's his number? Yo, Bob! Where'd that elder disappear to?"

Pretty freaking simple. Too simple, apparently, for someone stuck in an ivory tower.

And yet so hard, for someone who has just died!

------------------
"Then you learn the lesson,
That it's tough to be so cool ..."

You beat me to it, RTA! I was seriously considering putting that remark in there, myself.

Of course, what I was referring to was the annointing (as the dead folks have another avenue to protect themselves from that "terrible other ritual").

Ya see; disagreements can be fun!

Okay, blueii...here's a valid query for you:

Your actions above are those of one person who is ostensibly Christian. They're an atrocious example of Christianity. Does that mean Christianity is bad or is it just you?

RTA: please stop taking logic cues from blue.

There's already a party atmosphere for sports present in Utah. At least, so I've heard. I've never been to Utah.

What? You're unfamiliar with the ski lodges?

Just thought some folks would be interested in the joint press release over the proxy baptism of holocaust victims: http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.txt . The press release was issued by the LDS and the Jewish group in question who originally objected to the practice. I ask y'all to take note that both sides agreed to:

(1) Disallow proxy baptism of victims who did not have living family members who are members of the LDS church perform the ordinance.

(2) Remove from the rolls those proxy baptisms which did not meet (1).

(3) Allow for proxy baptisms by LDS members who are of the family of the victims.

(4) The LDS church promised to discipline any member who attempts to circumvent the agreement.

(5) Finally, the LDS church provided information on how to remove one's relative's name from the rolls if it did not meet the standards of the church to include the church abiding by the agreement in the link above.

Of course, bigots such as bluebird won't even consider looking at the link, even though it's from the "other side" of the particular question. But the rest of the planet can certainly check it out.

Bluebird-

The total number of "spouses" that Brigham Young had is far higher than the disgraceful 17 you mentioned. I have in front of me a delightful book, "Wild Women of the Victorian Era" by Autumn Stephens that mentions that Ann Eliza Young was wife *#27*. Her biography details what a miserable, stingy, abusive SOB he was and he subsequent divorce (in those days, divorce was a really big deal!).

I'm not sure what the total number of wives are, but it sounds like he sure bit off more than he could chew!

PR

YO! RTA!?!?!

Here's a flash for ya - Not everyone who lives in Utah is LDS, including myself.

It is painfully obvious that you have never been to Utah. You really should refrain from making uneducated assumptions about things you don’t know anything about. The last report I saw published showed the State of Utah near the top of the list of population and business growth. We are having a hard time keeping up with the influx of people swarming to the State and it promises to get worse with the Olympics.

I am not going to belittle the State with stories of how much booze is consumed and who can out puke who, but I can assure you that the micro-breweries (ever hear of Squatters or Wasatch Brew?) and night clubs are a booming business in downtown Salt Lake City, as are comedy clubs, professional sports (Utah Jazz, car racing (Bonneville Salt Flats), Grizzlies Hockey, and :::GASP::: believe it or not, even strip joints and adult shops and nude beaches!

You shrug off the mention of Utah ski resorts. Do you know that Utah ski resorts are one of the countries biggest tourist attractions during the winter season? In fact, many celebrities own homes in and around Utah resorts (Robert Redford even owns his own resort, Sundance). The month of the Sundance Film Festival (ever hear of that?), the partying doesn’t stop. It merely slows down slightly the rest of the year. A good friend of mine owns a timeshare there and I spent three days and nights at the last Festival and believe me, it was a party. I still haven’t recovered.

Have you ever been? Don’t knock it unless you’ve tried it.

Park City also hosts an all night party with sunrise hot air balloon launching. Hundreds of hot air balloons take off from the mountain at sunrise. There are weekly outdoor concerts (Dave Matthews was the last one I attended) on the mountainside. Depending on the performers, it sometimes has a Woodstock kind of feeling.

Ever hear of Moab? The entire town is full of hikers and mountain bikers and Harley riders and non-stop parties the entire year. You can literally walk down the main strip and have people pass you a drink (and maybe a joint).

During certain times of the year, Lake Powell is a huge party on the water and beach. You can literally walk from boat to boat in the coves and you can barely see the sand on the beach because there are so many people.

In Ogden, they have renovated an old street near the old train station, Historic 25TH Street. Four blocks of pubs, coffee shops, comedy clubs, night clubs, gift shops, micro-breweries. . . . Every weekend is nothing but a huge party that spills out onto the sidewalk and patios. The longer the night goes on, the more people who dance on the bar and tables.

We have a couple of movie theaters whose specialty is pitchers of beer while watching the movie. I can’t say that I enjoy the two times I went, the beer makes me pee every two minutes and I missed most of the movie.

I could continue, but I am beginning to sound like a tourist pamphlet.

I travel quite a bit for play and business. I have spent a lot of time in Seattle, Vegas (at least 4 times a year), California (southern and northern), Portland, Denver, Baltimore Inner Harbor, New York, Virginia Beach, Chicago, Washington DC, Alaska, Vancouver, Jackson Hole WY, Kansas City, the UK, and Germany. I can say with all honesty, that Utah compares quite well, if not better than most when it comes to partying.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

[joke]Not only that, Diane, but Provo, Utah also has a public swimming pool and a great library! Let no one say that Utah ain't hip![/joke]

Bill! Where you been, man?

E-mail me or something.

Don't be such a stranger.

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[[During certain times of the year, Lake Powell is a huge party on the water and beach. You can literally walk from boat to boat in the coves and you can barely see the sand on the beach because there are so many people.]]

Gee, sounds like such fun. . .

Rich

C3:

What a young male Mormon has to do to get married is quite simple--be unmarried and of legal age in the jurisdiction in which he will engage in said marriage and contract said marriage lawfully with a currently unmarried female also of legal age in said jurisdiction.

Temple marriage however requires both parties to be "members in good standing" of the LDS church.

For more information, feel free to check: http://www.lds.org .

Gee, sounds like such fun. . .

Rich

As far as parties go, those times of the year (Spring Break, the Boat Rally, the Biker Jam) certain areas of the Lake are packed for the simple reason to party. However, the place is so large that if you don't want the crowds, you just go to another part of the lake and never see another living soul.

The place is HUGE - 187 miles long with 96 major side canyons and a coast line of approximately 1960 miles.

http://www.lakepowellmag.com/phototour.html
http://www.nr.state.ut.us/parks/tour.htm

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

[Monty]

Well, upon careful reflection and "egged on" by bluebird's call to "take the gloves off," I've decided to print out and forward to the Dean of Students at North Carolina State University both this thread and the Mitochondrial DNA thread.

"Why," you may ask, "would you do such a thing?" Well, the answer is bluebird is ostensibly a doctoral student and, according to the profile, has accessed this board from a state-supported university. The actions bluebird has taken in these two threads are express violations of the terms of service to which bluebird subscribed in order to use said state-supported equipment.

Another concern is that the "powers that be" might be more than a tad interested in what passes for research by one of their doctrinal candidates.

[Monty]

"doctrinal" should be "doctoral."

[pricciar]

let it go man, let it go.

This happened what, 3 months ago, and you are dredging it back up?
Geez.
Move on.

Unless, there has been some behind the scenes emails I don't know about, then I apoligize in advance.

pat

[Contestant #3]

That pretty freaking low Monty.

Does your religious beliefs codone spiteful and vindictive behavior or are you just a narc at heart?

Hey, in all seriousness, I never did get a satisfactory answer to my question earlier in this thread about the two well-groomed young men dressed in white shirts, ties, and dark polyester slacks that used to walk or ride bicycles all over town wanting to talk to people about the Mormon faith...I swear the said that they had to do 1 year of this in order to be given permission to marry...after their year was up, another couple of young dudes replaced them...I'm not trolling or making this up...I know that you said that is was not a requirement, but hey, thats what THEY said...any input narc?

------------------
Contestant #3

[Czarcasm]

Unless something horrible was done to you behind the scenes, your actions are inexcusable. Are you sure you're not a Scientologist?

[Czarcasm]

Oh, crap. I'm agreeing with C3.
Someone call Hell and tell them to break out the sleds.

[pricciar]

I gave hell a call when Lynn and Contestant 3 agreed in the Liver thread.

haha.

See, we can all get along.

pat

[Monty]

Nah; I ain't gonna do it. But it was sure fun to think about it for a bit. Sorry folks.

[Contestant #3]

Monty,

Were you simply "trolling" for a response?

While you are out here dude, take a shot at answering my legitimate question...

Thanks

------------------
Contestant #3

[SkeptiJess]

I'll answer you, Connie. I'm not LDS, but my sister married an LDS guy and converted. A mission is not a requirement for marriage -- not even for marriage in the Temple, but it IS highly recommended. My brother-in-law did not do a mission, in fact, he and my sister were married during his senior year in high school. And, yes, she was pregnant . They were married in our living room by one of the Momon deacons (possibly that's not the word, it's been over 17 years now). A few years later, after Terry was baptised, they were married in the Temple. FWIW, I DO know some devout LDS girls who would refuse to marry a guy who hadn't been on a mission. As to why the missionaries you spoke to gave you the incorrect gouge -- I haven't any idea. Could you have misunderstood and heard "recommended" as "required?"

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity