Correct. And of course that’s wrong. (Recall: the promise breaking issue is separate from the question whether it makes sense to be bothered by the act int eh first place.)
What is the difference between “tolerate” and “be okay with”? I’m not “okay” with nazi marches OR someone saying :fuck your mother", but I have no right to respond to either one any differently than the other one.
You’re misinformed. The Mormon Church doesn’t baptize the deceased. Members do. Members research, prepare and submit, lists of names to be baptized. Traditionally, this is done for one’s family. Some, who are overzealous, may have use other lists of names, which is not an accepted practice. In fact, it’s discouraged, even prohibited. I suppose I could have my dog baptized if I choose to do so, and wanted to risk of the wrath of the PETA members of this board. The point being, that the “church” doesn’t research the list of names to see if they are or aren’t legitimate. IT relies on the honesty of the members. Sometimes, that reliance is misplaced.
My genealogy has produced a list decedents back to the late 1600s. As their living blood relative, I’m their earthly representative. I’ve yet to see any indication, with respect to my ancestors, as to their religious belief. Some may have been Jewish, others Catholic, even Muslim, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter because there is either an afterlife, or there isn’t. If there is and they are already there, what did It hurt? If there isn’t, then they are simply dead, and unaware of it all. If on the other hand, if they are, as the Mormons believe, waiting for their work to be completed, then it’s a good deal. It was my choice to offer the option to accept the earthly work, to all my ancestors, just in case they are waiting for it to be done.
There is nothing, anywhere in any of this that forces or otherwise removes, or intends to remove, anyone’s free choice to say thank you or no thank you.
Blaming many for the acts of a few isn’t always the intelligent thing to do.
True enough. I’m a young straight white academic. Does this tell you what kind of remarks I should be offended by, or are such that I should understand why someone would be offended by them?
I missed the part where we talked about people deserving to be murdered or being called subhuman. What I read was “the races should be separated” and “god hates fags.”
I do get thinking that certain behaviors are likely to signal attitudes which one should be concerned about due to the effects these attitudes may have on future actions. (And both of the behaviors I just described, of course, set off heavy alarm bells on that account.) But I take it that’s not what “being offended” is supposed to mean.
Yeah, I literally don’t get it. The claims are either true or false. What’s “being offended” for?
“They have a choice” is misdirection
I have suffered through hours of faux kings James era English looking for any delineation between baptism by proxy and in person, I can not find any.
Of course you are free to accept an in person baptism, but in doing so you are denying the holy host after it is known to you, which is a burnninating offense in most of the christian religions.
Vs Non-mormons can go to some non-hell according to a few conference speeches.
The “they have a choice” is a LDS self affirmation and propaganda, they are baptizing AND confirming a person in the church.
They are still being jerks no matter how they justify it.
Heck, it falls within the rules because I have Mormon relatives but they got my dad before he was in the ground, that miffed me a bit.
Granted I have no idea why the Mormon church would think it necessary or useful to keep public records of who has been posthumously baptized.
You can apply a rational framework to actions even if those actions are based around irrational beliefs. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to evaluate much of anything surrounding politics.
My genealogy has produced a list decedents back to the late 1600s. Make that ancestors…not descendants.
I think we’re miscommunicating. By “tolerate”, I mean “allow”, “put up with”. I do not mean “agree”, “be okay with”.
So, yes, we tolerate Nazis marching down the street, eco-nuts rallying against nukes, anti-abortionists posting gruesome pictures, and people saying fuck to us. We don’t have to be okay with it, but we do have to tolerate it.
*The Mormon church says it has changed its genealogical database to better prevent the names of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps from being submitted for posthumous baptism by proxy, the Associated Press reports.
In a joint statement issued Wednesday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a coalition of Jewish leaders said a new computer system and policy changes related to the practice should resolve a yearslong disagreement over the baptisms.*
There’s another goof faith attempt to resolve the situation.
But “allow” and “put up with” are different. Folks are allowing baptism of dead, Holocaust surviving Jews in that no major Jewish group (and no minor one, for that matter) has called for the practice to be criminalized. Folks aren’t putting up with it, because several major Jewish organizations have called it obnoxious, callous, insulting, patronizing and reminiscent of centuries of persecution and condescending Christian attitudes which led to that persecution.
So if “tolerate” means “allow” then we are all tolerating baptism of dead Holocaust surviving Jews, some of it are just saying “hey assholes, cut it out.”
Adding that it comes from an article dated September 2nd, 2010.
edited to add: And the baptism of Simon Wiesenthal happened in January of this year.
They use the “teaming masses” to fill in the gaps so they can find more to baptize and confirm.
My main issue is that they are a racist, sexist, bigioted chruch, who made life as a non-member very difficult while growing up in the land of “zion”
I do not want to be associated with them, them adding me to the list of “saved” soles for their own selfish self serving reasons is offensive.
But my issue is that for TWO DECADES they have been saying they would prevent Jews who were not direct relatives from being added and if a member added them they would be punished.
In a generation, all they did is remove this most recent guys access to family link.
They have made lots of claims, none that they have followed through with, family link was introduced to fix part of it, now it is new family link.
The latest fix was to just hide the information from the gentiles.
Well, sure, but the question of “why” is particularly intractable where religious belief is concerned, far more so than “what” or “how”. Why Jews and others are upset by this Mormon practice has essentially the same answer as the question of why the Mormons have the practice in the first place. The answer is: because they’re all crazy. 
Yesterday I saw that Elie Wiesel asked Mitt Romney to denounce the entire practice of baptizing the dead, and there’s a story on CNN about why Mormons do this kind of thing. So it’s not impossible that it becomes a bigger national or campaign issue.
And I think there should be more “putting up with” as a part of tolerating it.
How are they racist?
It’s no longer 1978.
Why should I care if someone publishes a racist or homophobic slur? I’m straight and white. So no skin off my ass, right?
No, wrong, I think - I should care because civil, non-jerkish behaviour is a good thing in general and to be encouraged, and because, in spite of me not being (say) Black or Gay, I have empathy for people who are.
A couple of people in this thread seem to be claiming not to even understand the emotion of “taking offense” at something. I think if you aren’t grasping this fundamental idea, then you can’t grasp the why of a specific cause for offense. It’s like trying to explain why you love your mother to someone who says they don’t get love at all.