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.”

Member posted 06-01-99 08:28 AM the portions between the quote lines (my responses are in between those quotations).

Then why do you persist with the bashing?

Perhaps this time with facts and cites?

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

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.

As you shall soon learn, this is false.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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

Member posted 06-01-99 10:56 PM

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.


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

Member posted 06-02-99 12:04 AM

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.

Member posted 06-02-99 03:54 PM


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!


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 :frowning:

“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 , 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 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.


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.

Member posted 06-03-99 03:47 PM

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):

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

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

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

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…

Please feel free to email me

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.