Well, I think I understand what it means to take offense at something. I just don’t see why people do it in most of the cases in which they do.
Just like I understand anger but often think people are wrong to be angry, so also I understand being offended but often (this time usually, indeed almost always) think people are wrong to be offended.
But you never have, personally, taken offense at anything? You, yourself, are incapable of being offended?
I see no benefit to tolerating blatantly offensive behavior. It deserves to be brought out in public and the people doing this should be shamed and denounced if they refuse to stop it.
That’s nice, but surely you don’t give a care for everyone who is offended by someone else?
Tolerance is a part of our society. That means tolerating things we find obnoxious.
No, obviously a lot depends on context, the severity of the issue, how wide-spread the offense given is, etc. Surely that isn’t a surprise?
The changes to allow black priests in 1978 was a very positive step, it was mostly about black and not brown people though.
The prohibition against black priests actually goes back to their Nebraska winter quarters, where an early black member started taking a lot of white wives which angered Brigham young and he had a revelation that black people could not be clergy.
However, if you lived in the Wasatch front and see how they treat converts that move there who are not white you would know what I mean.
They were pretty nasty to the Samoans when I last lived in Magna.
It will get better with the 2006 revision of the Book of Mormon, the 1981 version still said:
To over simplify,
The Lamanites were the light skinned people who built the temples, the nephites were the dark skinned savages that killed them all until Maroni was the only one left and went up to up state new york to bury the gold tablets.
It will take time for that change in doctrine to filter through to the Laity.
Sorry I got the nephites and Lamanites backwards in that second to last sentence and missed the edit window.
William McCary is the name of the man who was the impetus for the ban on black priests, but it was justified based on having any “blood of Ham” thus would not apply to the other races.
(to be fair McCary was also claiming to be a prophet, but that does not justify blocking all persons with black ancestors)
I heartily concur. 
Off the top of my head, I don’t think I have ever been justifiedly offended.
I would say you have an unrealistically high standard for “offense”
I expected them to attempt a necro-conversion on my dad, I was offended that they didn’t let us even bury him before doing so.
I know it is probably frustrating that for four generations our family have not converted, but it shows a massive amount of respect for our loss when they planted their flag of ownership with such haste.
“It doesn’t do anything” does not magically wave away their lack of respect.
The same is true with their unfulfilled promises to the Jews.
I think A is justifiedly offended by B when B does not have respect for A to the degree that B should.
Failing to have that respect can count as “doing something to A” by my reckoning.
I just haven’t seen evidence that posthumous baptism is a reliable indicator of lack of respect.
It’s apparent that you have an agenda against the church that is causing your bias in this matter. Church rules clearly require a year post death before the deceased is eligible for baptism. And, once again, baptism is not equal to conversion.
The proof is their multiple agreements to stop it.
Even if you take away the super natural mythology stuff.
E.G. Charlie brown was justified in being offended when Lucy pulled the football away after promising that she wouldn’t.
The church has stated many times that the baptism of jews without mormon relatives is prohibited.
They did so in 1991, 1995, 2001, 2010.
Looking at the documents the primary reason it offends the survivors of the Holocaust is that deniers are using it in some twisted way.
I will not go out to their sites to verify that but that is their reason to be offended even if you strip every bit of myth from it.
The church is either unwilling or unable to follow through with their stated policy and promises, they keep pulling the football away.
I agree it makes sense to be offended at repeatedly broken promises.
My father’s body was donated to the U of U we did not get it back for a over a year. I expected them to try and convert him, but I also expected them to have some compassion as it was stated in his obit in the Salt Lake Tribune that he would not be buried until the following summer.
I do have a bias, but your claim is wrong anyway, many famous people are submitted multiple times on the same day they die, the church refuses to enforce their own rules.
E.G. Gary Coleman was listed three times the week he died.
My only agenda is to hold the church to their word.
Jewish leaders should issue a posthumous no take-backs unbaptism, double stampy no erasies to infinity. Problem solved.
Flexilis sum, gluten es, me resilit, ad te haeret!
No one can enforce 100% compliance. If the church truly punishes the people who did this, I’m satisfied that the church is trying. I live in a town with a lot of Mormons, and I know they are good at ostracism, for instance if you don’t want to go on your mission. I’m also having a hard time seeing how you could build in bars to doing this.