Scriptures: As Much a Part of Life as Breakfast

Ms./Mrs. Johnson,

I too think that comment was ridiculous. But I can't help but point out that he was likely driven to that point by numerous posts--by a person that will remain unnamed--that were similarly slanderous and vilifying.

Like I said before, these forums bring out the worst in us. Not only are we discussing sensitive issues, but we are doing it in an atmosphere that breads the most severe insensitivity.

Best to you,

Jack

"As I was riding home today on the bus, it suddenly became clear to me. You only pretend to have this concern for Jews who have been "disrespected" by those horrid Mormons. The venom in your post about Rabbi Boteach makes it clear that you hate Jews at least as much, and probably more, than Mormons."

Eichendorff,

This comment is unworthy of even you.

From my comments about a single celebrity rabbi -- who you brought up in the first place -- you extrapolate hatred for Jews. This is a guy who endorses luxury getaways on his website, hangs out with (and dedicates books to) Michael Jackson and other "stars," and once told a reporter that "his own Eleventh Commandment is 'Thou shalt do anything for publicity and recognition.'" And because I point these things out, I must hate Jews.

You really are a piece of work.

If this gadfly rabbi is all you know (and wish to know) of Jewish history, thought, theology, tradition, and sensibility, then you will remain ignorant of all the richness, beauty, moral rectitude, and principled guidance of the Jewish faith.

For my own spiritual inspiration and enrichment, I turn to the works of Samuel Chiel, Joseph Telushkin, Adin Steinsaltz, Harold Kushner, Abraham Twerski, and other rabbi-authors who live the values they espouse and who truly inspire both Jews and non-Jews through their their compassionate voices and loving spirits.

Your accusation is disgusting as well as self-serving, and you should be deeply ashamed. I'll not be communicating with you again.

Is baptism wrong? Of course not but it is akin to taking a bath singing to the tune of Amazing Grace. Nothing more, nothing less!!!

And the words of Jesus? Modern historical reseach of the scriptures and related documents has shown that very little of the NT was actually said or done by the historical simple preacher man aka Jesus. Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John put most of these NT words in his mouth and created actions to match selected passages from the OT in their effort to create the Jewish/Gentile version of the poor man's god to compete with the rich man's gods of Rome and Greece.

e.g. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Christianity, therefore, is more their creation than it is the simple preacher man's. A better name would be “The Paul-et-al-ity.

With respect to Wikipedia, the articles are typically well researched with appropriate references given for the data and history given. If you disagree, please note any errors for example in the review of the history of baptism.

Ivri,

It does sound a little more ridiculous to me that the whole ordeal happened in New York and rather recently. Specially that it happened in the Big Apple. But we have a mormon context in this thread and I just made a comment about the mormon story.
I think ridiculousness is one of the issues having to do with believing a narrative and becoming a slave to a delusion. With all the consequences it brings along.

You are mentioning other issues, also important, and I totally agree with your comments on gay marriage. It is one of the worst problems we have. I find it unbelievable that today, in 2009, we are still discussing gay issues because some people are still hanging on to archaic beliefs.

Bios,

Do things become any less "ridiculous" if they were written two or three thousand years ago? IMO, ridiculousness isn't the issue. The issue is not inflicting one's beliefs on others and respecting the church/state divide. Dead Jews don't ask for baptism, so leave them alone, Mormons, please.

Churches, all of them, and politics should not mix, period, and as I noted earlier, the LDS are not alone in knocking down the wall. The worst problem at the moment concerns gay marriage. Marriage is a civil institution with civil consequences. As long as gay people are living in the US, they should have the same right to marry as anyone else.I just can't see a debate here.

I do find mormonism beliefs ridiculous. I understand that Mr. Smith was visited by a god and his son in New York in the 1820’s. Does this seem sane? How can anyone in his right mind believe this?

I also read that the book of mormon was published in 1830 in New York and is supposed to be “sacred”. C’mon. Enter the dragon, fairies, gargantuan salsa dancers and bright red mushroom soup.

Fine, if people want to believe in witchcraft or whatever, let them knock themselves out. The mormons I know and work with are fine, intelligent people and I appreciate them. But I cannot understand how they can buy such a story.

I suppose I wouldn't see it as someone imposing their beliefs on me. I would see it the way it is intended, as a gift that can be accepted or rejected.

As for prop 8, I can see why people have a hard time with it. It was a hurtful divisive campaign. The reality is that most Mormons who supported it truly believed that their religious freedoms were at stake. Last time Mormons disagreed with the government over the definition of marriage (Edmunds Tucker Act) they were systematically disenfranchised.

It is hard to convince us that gay marriage would mean anything else when we read things like this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Look at any other laundry list of church-state issues (intelligent design, prayer in school, faith based initiatives, even abortion) the church has not been actively involved. They are involved in this because they feel our rights were threatened by it.

I am for getting rid of government marriage all together. Since in America marriage is seen as a religious institution, separation of church and state is already breached. So I guess I would not ask my gay brothers and sisters to give up anything that I wouldn't give up myself.

Jack the Mormon,

I don't find your beliefs ridiculous. I'm of the live-and-let-live variety. What troubles me about Mormonism is the same thing that would trouble me about Arborealism if it existed. Pete, the fictitious, Arborealist, would have had no right inflicting his religious practices on Mormons, dead or alive. Neither do you have such rights where Jews are concerned.

What also troubles me is the way that Mormonism like Catholicism simply decides that separation of church and state doesn't exist, taking it upon itself, for example, to defeat Propostition 8. For failure to abide by the laws governing nonprofits,LDS, the RCC, et al, should, in my view, lose tax exempt status.

As for Restorationist movements and polygyny, again there are legal issues and laws should be enforced.

This, not your beliefs, bothers me:

"The Mormon factor in marriage fight
by Dan Aiello

Ever since Proposition 8 passed last November, leaders involved with the No on 8 campaign have insisted they were unaware of the role of the Mormon Church in trying to eliminate same-sex marriage rights. No on 8 officials were also caught unaware until after campaign finance reports released last October showed that proponents of Prop 8 received a windfall of contributions from members of the Mormon Church.

But documents unearthed by the Bay Area Reporter show that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had a consistent strategy to fight same-sex marriage that dates back more than two decades."

ivri5768 :

Oh, I see you want my reaction. Okay...honestly I thought it was a predictable attempt via analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous my beliefs are--a variant of the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn etc. I suppose it was given an oriental flavor to appeal to my supposed xenophobia or the unconscious outgrowth of yours, I can't say. But if such a person with such a belief existed (if he/she did, I am sure there would be better ways to explain their beliefs than the one given), I would appreciate that they cared enough to spend time and resources on such a selfless endeavor.

The reality is that most of us know very well that people think our beliefs are ridiculous and we know why; while many such people don’t take the time, or care, to understand why Mormons find their beliefs sensible.

Fair enough.

My only argument is that we are not the embodiment of evil because of our practice. Given the direction of my argument, your post was irrelevant.

I really do not care if people find my belief ridiculous. I know in the case of anyone whose opinion matters to me, I would have a nice conversation explaining why it makes sense within a certain interpretation of Christianity. And given the fair mindedness of people whose opinion I value, they would likely see where I am coming from.

Cheers,

Jack

Jack the Mormon:

Nicely put. No need for venom. I was hoping for your support for the Arborealist bonsai juniper grave site plantings? Scroll down. Any thoughts?

I thought I'd get your take on it all before going on with Arborealism and homosexuality.

Okay, simmer down everyone. We can't really tell anything about people from these forums. They bring out the worst in many of us. I'm sure if everyone here met in person they would find much in common.

It is the tragedy of online forums. They create the illusion of this hostile divisive world out there. In reality it does not exist to the same degree when people are interacting in the flesh, and see that the other has a human face. When I first read what people wrote about Mormons on threads like these, I started getting paranoid that when people found out I was Mormon they would treat me different, or secretly harbor all these awful assumptions about me.

The truth is, this kind of hostility flourishes in a realm that is faceless and tends to dissipate in the real human realm, where we have the opportunity to see ourselves in others.

I personally apologize for any disrespect I showed.

Cheers,

Jack

Hello, Everyone, Volkmare, Jack the Mormon,

I posted the comment below to Jack the Mormon and received the one subsequent from Volkmare (Mark). I don't know how Jack feels about my friend Pete, the Arborealist, but I can only assume that since he believes Mormons have the right to baptize dead Jews, Arborealists have the right to plant bonsai junipers atop the graves of dead Mormons, in the interest of speeding them on their way to the miniature Celestial Garden. To Mark, I say, you have your truth, Jews have theirs, and Arborealists have theirs.

As for Pete, he successfully planted his bonsai junipers atop his friend's grave and is greatly relieved. So uplifting was his experience that at the next Arborealist service, he is going to take up the matter of planting bonsai junipers on all graves in the Mormon cemeter, a few at a time of course. What a selfless and gracious act that would be! I'll keep you all posted. Hopefully, the Arborealists will start posting on where to send donations for plantings...

ivri5768 :
Jack the Mormon

"And, as correctly noted, we do not ask permission of the deceased people (if that were possible) for whom we are discreetly baptized in an effort to secure their wellbeing in the life to come."

Of course. How could you? As a close friend of an Arborealist, I share your frustration with those who simply will not see.Tomorrow, with two co-religionists, he will discreetly, plant two-to-three bonsai junipers atop the Mormon grave of a recently departed friend of his in the effort to assure his everlasting content in the miniature Celestial Forest. This dear fellow no longer bothers to explain the precepts of Arborealism since, Jack, there are none so blind....

ivri5768 :

baptism for the dead.
that too is in the bible.
would you like a quote?

mark
Always seek the truth.
February 23, 2009 9:53 AM

Jeez, a trip to this website and I realize the liberals have got just about everything wrong - the Polar Ice Cap is growing, global warming is a nutso liberal conspiracy, homosexuality is a biblical perversion, and so forth.

No, the melting problem is at the South Pole, not the North Pole - and a very big problem it is. Hey, maybe those liberals finally got something right....next thing you know, they're be right about all sorts of things. The seas, they are a changin'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

As I was riding home today on the bus, it suddenly became clear to me. You only pretend to have this concern for Jews who have been "disrespected" by those horrid Mormons. The venom in your post about Rabbi Boteach makes it clear that you hate Jews at least as much, and probably more, than Mormons.

The reason for this hatred is also clear. Judaism condemns homosexual perversion just as Mormonism does.

You are a fake and a hypocrite, and you are one pathetic loser.

Eichendorff,

I guess you don't want to explore the interesting coincidence that Shmuley the respected rabbi is shilling for Utahan ski resorts on his website?

No problem. Nuff said.

The polar ice cap isn't melting. It's getting bigger. I guess you subscribe to the man-made global warming scam. That tells me all I need to know about your "views".

Boteach is a respected Rabbi and you are, well, you. Enough said.

Eichendorff,

Your credibility is melting faster than the polar ice cap.

You direct me to the website of the one Jew who resides in the bosom of the Mormon high command and expect me to swallow the dreck he writes as proof that you're not doing harm? Give me a break.

This guy is a celebrity rabbi with close ties to the rightest of the right-wing Israelis, and one of his primary objectives is raising a LOT of money. (Well, I guess that would put him in good company with the Mormon pooh-bahs, since they have fund-raising down to a science.)

His website carries his own personal endorsement of the Luxe Hotel on Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles as well as his personal recommendation for a luxury ski resort in Utah.

If this really the kind of guy you want to tout as a reliable authority on the Jewish psyche? As objective and agenda-less?

Of course, the joke will ultimately be on Shmuley. I wonder if he knows that his good Mormon buddies believe this: "no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.'...We are witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy before our very eyes."

I guess no one's told him yet that all the buddy-buddy stuff is merely another way to gain entry into the Jewish community for purposes of evangelizing.

"Your logic suggests the dead should be able to give their permission so there will be no possibility of offending them. I honestly wish that were possible, in the interest of time efficiency. But how would such a thing be proven?...In your mind, should some super-list appear (we're talking mostly about people who lived during the 1800's and 1700's) from heaven that would affirm, "'all these people on this list want to be baptized to they can then receive the knowledge and greater happiness that the gift of the Holy Ghost will provide access to?'"

Parker,

Don't ask me how to negotiate the convoluted obstacles in your absurd "theology." That's your problem, not mine.

But, perhaps the fact that it can't be done without presuming on the part of dead people you can't talk to should suggest to you that it's wrong.

Helen Radkey is, well, Helen Radkey. Not exactly objective or without an agenda.

Here is a link to the website of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. His views are illuminating.

http://www.shmuley.com//articles/details/focus_on_how_mormons_and_christians_treat_jews_rather_than_what_they_believ/

KJohnson,
Your logic suggests the dead should be able to give their permission so there will be no possibility of offending them. I honestly wish that were possible, in the interest of time efficiency. But how would such a thing be proven?

In your mind, should some super-list appear (we're talking mostly about people who lived during the 1800's and 1700's) from heaven that would affirm, "all these people on this list want to be baptized to they can then receive the knowledge and greater happiness that the gift of the Holy Ghost will provide access to?"

CCNL

So, you are saying that Jesus is wrong about baptizing.

...and you believe wikipedia, whos information is unresearched and comes from people like you, over the words of Jesus?

You're more foolish than I thought.

Gotta go...

...Ill be back

Mark
Always seek the turth

You know, guys, Im going to have to be absent for a while.

My home business requires my attention, and then I work 10 hour days for the rest of the week at the hospital. So dont consider it "ducking out", for it is more like "gainfully employed".

Therefore I leave you with this quote as food for thought:

"As the restored Church of Jesus Christ blossoms throughout the globe—now with more than 13 million members—'the faith of our fathers' has an expanded meaning. . . . Often when people learn of the restored gospel, they are impressed by it—many even want to join the Church. But they are reluctant to disappoint their ancestors; they feel they should be true to the faith of their fathers. . . ."What, then, is the faith of our fathers? Is it the religion of our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents? "But what of the faith of the ancient ones before them? What of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? . . . of the Savior and those disciples who followed Him? "The faith of our Father in Heaven has been consistent since the beginning of time, even from before the foundation of this world. . . . "We believe in the great plan of happiness, the plan of redemption, the plan of salvation, whereby God's children may experience mortality and return to the presence of the Father—a merciful plan established from before the foundation of this earth. "This is the plan and the faith of our Father!"

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Faith of Our Father," Ensign, May 2008, 70, 75

Mark
Always seek the truth.

"There is more than one reference to baptism in the bible. Are you going to discount them as well?"

Of course there are more references to other baptisms!! But other than "removing" the mythical stain of original sin or as an initiation rite into some christian religion/cult, what is the purpose of said dunking?? Making a quick buck for said practitioners??

If the purpose is to remove sins from the soul then take a hot shower/bath or swim a few laps would be just as effective and available to most of us 24/7 at little or no cost. Might want to play some religious music while you do to set the mood. Singing Amazing Grace in the shower, I hear, is also effective in the sin forgiveness "game".

See also the history of baptism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

And added note:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking".

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

One added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

“Well, given that this is one of the most significant arguments made by both the Jewish and Catholic communities against the practice, there must be a lot of people out there suffering from hallucinations.”

Argumentum ad populum—just because a large group of people think this is a valid argument does not make it so. If our records of proxy baptisms survive, so will their unequivocal categorization as proxy baptisms. You have not addressed this fact, you have only appealed to some imagined consensus of all of Jewry and Christendom, which makes no difference whatsoever if the reasoning is invalid.

“Particularly heinous is that Mormons have gone back on their promises to stop baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to un-baptize those they've already assaulted. It's as if the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust are being persecuted all over again.”

Everyone who goes through the process of taking names to the Temple are told to only include their direct ancestors. The church has also asked that we get permission from living descendants of more distant relatives if they have recently deceased. Sure some people do not follow this instruction. Sure the church may not have micro-managed this sufficiently to prevent its violation. But it has removed names from the data-base when violations have been brought to their attention. It does not constitute the Mormons “going back on their promises” in the way you describe.

Cheers,

Jack

"If I know of something that can definitely help a great number of people, should I keep that information to myself?"

Parker,

Once again, you're confusing OFFERING information and ACTING without permission.

I've pointed this out as many times as I'm going to. Either understand it or don't.

No, the Mormon church has NOT abided by the 1995 agreements. And, not only has it broken the agreements, it has also used deception to prevent monitoring of its compliance with its own guarantees.

A complete, up-to-date (as of November 2008) report is available at http://www.avotaynu.com/mormons/RadkeyReportDetail.pdf. But here are a few representative excerpts:

"Prior to the agreement with Jewish organizations in 1995, the IGI was an open book. It
was accessible on microfiche and the old DOS version of FamilySearch on compact disc.
This CD-ROM (compact disc) edition of the IGI is described as The International
Genealogical Index (1996 Edition) and consists of a Main File (to March 1993) and an
Addendum (to January 2000). The Ordinance Index in this database is separate from the
IGI and can be found under “LDS Options” in the FamilySearch main menu. The
Ordinance Index contains the same information as the IGI, except that it also gives proxy
ordinance details (to January 2000) for each individual listed. The old DOS version of
FamilySearch can still be freely viewed by the public at many LDS family history centers
around the world."

"Since the agreement, the Church has gone through a series of processes to ensure that all
online ordinance details are completely off-limits to non-Mormons. Now only a person
with a special user log-in (an accredited Mormon) can access ordinance data in the online
IGI to determine which LDS rituals have been done for a dead person. This precaution
appears to be a security “shield” that protects the privacy of the LDS Church. The Church
made an agreement with Jews and then attempted to eliminate all non-LDS monitoring of
ongoing ordinance activity."

"As church members indiscriminately submit names into the LDS temple system, it seems
that any kind of name at all may be submitted, even names of fictional characters. In June
2006, I discovered the famous and well-loved Disney cartoon rodent, Mickey Mouse, in
the online IGI, "cleared" to be baptized, “endowed” and “sealed” (to wife Minnie) in an
LDS temple. A conjured up mouse family tree showed individual critter entries also
cleared for temple ordinances. These names all swiftly disappeared from the online IGI, a
few days after Salt Lake City Weekly newspaper ran the editorial “Douse the Mouse”
about my unconventional database finds."

Give this 57-page overview a read and then reiterate all your self-serving justifications.

Ms. Johnson,
Your comments about ethics would be plausible to those who have no belief in the physical, bodily resurrection of all mankind. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be a physical bodily resurrection of all mankind. Based on your logic, that places me in an ethical dilemma. If I know of something that can definitely help a great number of people, should I keep that information to myself?

As an analogy again, the cause of ulcers was discovered in 1982 by Australian physicians. Their findings were not accepted by the medical world until 1994, and even then not commonly accepted (see this brief chronology:
http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm
Should those physicians have kept that information to themselves when their findings were rejected by their contemporaries? Should they have been maligned, disputed, made fun of? Might there not have been some vested interests for pharmaceutical companies to urge physicians not to believe those findings? Who then had the poor ethics?

You can cackle all you like. The fact remains that Church membership (living converts) increases at the moment by approximately 250,000 to 300,000 annually. Expect this to continue.

I have addressed the issue, multiple times. But, for your benefit, here is part of a Church press release from November 10th, 2008:

"The Church stands by its word. It has no intention of performing baptisms or other rites in its temples for Holocaust victims, except in the very rare instances where such people may have living descendants who are members of the Church. Such exceptions were noted and agreed to in 1995. The understanding reached in 1995 determined that the Church would remove Holocaust names from its public database immediately, which the Church has done. It further said that Jewish groups would provide to the Church any names that reappeared on the database so the Church could remove them. The Church cannot understand why Mr. Michel has refused now to provide those names to the Church so the Church can maintain the spirit of that 1995 understanding.

The media advisory also claimed that Church leaders had refused to meet and “broke off negotiations in July. “ This is absolutely false. Church leaders met with Mr. Michel in New York on 3 November, along with representatives of other respected Jewish community organizations. The Church’s written response to Mr. Michel and to that meeting is found here. It did not receive a reply.

Church leaders and members empathize with the depth of feeling of all Jews regarding the Holocaust. Such regard and empathy have motivated the Church to remain in talks about this subject for so many years. However, with his press conference, Mr. Michel seems to have unilaterally terminated those discussions and has presumably rejected the proposals set forth in the Church’s 6 November 2008 letter. Those steps by Mr. Michel on behalf of the American Gathering were both unnecessary and unfortunate, and belie the long and valued mutual regard that has existed in the past years." (See Newsroom, lds.org)

The Church has not violated any agreements. They have lived up to them in good faith.

"As for the future of the Church and its 'downfall', Joseph Smith made the following prediction in March 1842: ... no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.'...We are witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy before our very eyes."

Lol. No, make that roflol.

YACTTB,

I thought you were done with this discussion. Geez, you didn't stay away even half an hour.

Volkmare,

Don't rush. You will, as usual, simply post more circular non-reasoning, justifying your beliefs with...your beliefs!

Eichendorff,

Still not willing to tackle a debate on the ethics of your "theology"? I thought not.

Anything to say about how deeply the Mormon church has wounded Jewish Holocaust survivors and relatives of Jewish Holocaust victims? How about the promises and agreements with the Jewish community which the Mormon church has repeatedly reneged on? Nah, that one's too sticky.

Well, how about a definitive statement on the staggering level of pride the Mormon church exhibits in presuming to baptize non-Mormons into their religion? Yeah, that one's kind of tough, too, 'cause it involves committing an actual "sin."

Please, please, will some Mormon, somewhere, address these issues of immoral and unethical behavior without resorting to Mormon "doctrine" as a defense? And without directing us to outside sources so that we can learn "the truth"?

Tell us something other than "The Bible tells us so."

The Church has not violated its agreements with other faiths concerning the practice of baptism for the dead, notwithstanding false accusations to the contrary. If a Jew or Catholic or anybody else converts to Mormonism, and it happens all the time, no one can deny that person the right to submit his ancestors' names for temple work, even if those ancestors were Holocaust victims. They are not even identified as such when their names are submitted by family members. Church members are instructed to research and submit only their own ancestors for temple work.

The practice of baptism on behalf of the dead harms no one, no matter how many times KJohnson claims it does.

As for the future of the Church and its "downfall", Joseph Smith made the following prediction in March 1842: "... no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."

We are witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy before our very eyes.

Of course, I never said anything about Jews or Catholics who may object to baptism for the dead as suffering from hallucinations. This is a typical, but really clumsy trick KJohnson uses all the time to change the subject because the last argument was so bad. I was talking about future historians who would confuse the two types of baptisms.

Baptism on behalf of the dead isn't really the core of your objection, though, is it? You just hate the Church, its doctrine, its practices, and its members. Period. It doesn't matter about the influence for good the Church exerts throughout the world. It doesn't matter whether individual members' lives are improved because they believe LDS doctrine. It doesn't matter if being a Church member encourages one to develop his talents, educate himself, help others in time of need, or make a positive contribution to the nation or the community. None of that matters to you. You just hate, just like the opponents of Proposition 8 did in California when they threatened law-abiding citizens and defaced Church property.

And that is as clear an example of bigotry as one can possibly find.

kjohnson3:

I will never "duck out."

Its hard to do that when you have the bible behind you.

...but I do have to go to the dentest today. Ill check back later.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

kjohnson3 wrote:

"YACTTB, I take that as a compliment!"

you shouldn't, as I never made mention it was high. Quite the contrary, and from your responses, I believe the general reader will know exactly where you stand.

Please study the english language or buy a dictionary.

"I refuse to hold any further conversation with someone of your caliber."

YACTTB,

I take that as a compliment!

:>)

"The only kind of 'historians' who will mistake proxy baptisms in the temple for baptisms of living converts will be those suffering from hallucinations."

Well, given that this is one of the most significant arguments made by both the Jewish and Catholic communities against the practice, there must be a lot of people out there suffering from hallucinations.

Eichendorff's prattling to the contrary, this argument is not a "last-ditch attempt" to convince anyone of anything. It just happens not to be my primary objection to the practice, as I'm far more concerned about the spiritual assault on the dead and their families than I am about the theft of their religious identities.

This forum is designed for debate over philosophical principles, among other subjects, and that's what I'm interested in discussing here -- the complete absence of ethical principles on the part of the Mormon church against all other religions.

Here's an example.

Eichendorff's fussing and fuming doesn't alter the fact that the Mormon church has consistently broken its agreements with the Jewish community to cease and desist baptizing their dead and to un-baptize those Jews they've already victimized. Particularly heinous is that Mormons have gone back on their promises to stop baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to un-baptize those they've already assaulted. It's as if the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust are being persecuted all over again.

Haven't these people suffered enough? Can't you leave them alone now that they're dead? How much anguish must their living descendants endure so that Mormons can feel happy and self-righteous about spreading their gospel?

The Mormon posters on this thread have made the issue all about them and their "rights," all about how they're being maligned and unfairly judged. Yet none of them will engage in a dialogue about the ethics involved in what they're doing. Their response is always the same: It's in the Bible; God wants us to do this."

In other words, folks, they're using their own "theology" to make an arguemnt supporting their "theology." This is called circular reasoning.

Finally, when it becomes obvious that they aren't going to win any converts here because they can't objectively defend their practices, they don't want to participate anymore.

Well, to Eichendorff and all his/her Mormonites (Mormonettes for the gals?), go ahead and duck out of the conversation. Clearly, there'll be no winning of hearts and minds here, so you kight as well concentrate your efforts where they might pay greater dividends.

But it's worth bearing in mind that pride can be very problematic. In fact, I'll predict right here and now that pride will ultimately be the downfall of the Mormon church.

you read it here first.

kjohnson3:

Better healthcare in Canada?
What planet are you from?

I work in the healthcare field.
Canadians come to the US for healthcare all the time because its better here and they dont have to get on a waiting list.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

CCNL:
You are right about the original sin part.
That was a political manuver by the romans to gain control over the people. It is not in the bible.

As for a passage being discounted by theologens: give me a break.
Are you saying that meer men have more knowledge of what God wants than Jesus himself?
There is more than one reference to baptism in the bible. Are you going to discount them as well?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

kjohnson3 wrote:
"We don't live in Sweden or Canada (although, if we did, we'd have better health care). I can't speak to the case in New Mexico, but given that the website gives no source for that story, it's likely not to have happened."

You're kidding me... right? You have made it very obvious that you are blatantly being ignorant to the facts at hand and showing your incapacity and unwillingness to research all sides of the story. You again look to just satisfy your side of the argument and refuse to listen to anything else.

I refuse to hold any further conversation with someone of your caliber.

The rest of your comments hold no water as you are spewing erroneous material which the gay and lesbian community has tried to destroy religious organizations with, for their own benefit.

Start with this video, if you can tolerate it, but based on your previous lack of interest in the truth of the matter, you'll just spew out further trash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA

Good day.

We assume volmare aka Mark is making reference to John 3:5 "Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God."

Most contemporary, historic Jesus' exegetes have concluded that John 3:5 is analogous to the more
historic:

Mark 10:13-16

/13/ People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. /14/ But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. /15/ Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." /16/ And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them

=Matt 19:13-15
/13/ Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; /14/ but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs." /15/ And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.

=Luke 18:15-17
/15/ People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. /16/ But Jesus called for them and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. /17/ Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."

Most historic Jesus' exegetes accept the passages from Mark, Matthew and Luke as being "authentic Jesus". Many do not accept John 3:5 as being authentic. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/020_Kingdom_and_Children

In the RCC, baptism is used to remove the stain of original sin. With A&E now on the myth pile, there was never any original sin and therefore the baptism is now considered by many Catholic theologians and theology professors to be only a rite of initiation. (Of course, B16 would disagree but taking away original sin would affect his job security).

Frankly, I'm really tired of the bile that KJohnson and CCNL vomit on this forum. They certainly make their contribution to turning the Internet into a sewer.

This latest piece of drivel about a "paper trail" just shows how much desperation has set in, kind of like an intellectual form of gangrene, since every other argument presented against the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead has failed miserably.

Baptism of living persons who convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never occurs in LDS temples. Proxy baptism on behalf of the dead never occurs outside LDS temples. Records of both kinds of baptisms are kept scrupulously accurate and separate, and there is never any confusion between them, except in KJohnson's fetid imagination. The only kind of "historians" who will mistake proxy baptisms in the temple for baptisms of living converts will be those suffering from hallucinations.

It's really easy to defend a practice that has only beneficial effects on those who accept it and no effect at all on those who don't.

Give it a rest KJohnson. You've made a fool of yourself long enough.

kjohnson3

If baptism for the dead is so bad, why does the bible tell us to do it?

Mark
Always seek the turht.

One big point that all you mormon apologists seem to be overlooking is that not only does baptism for the dead constitute spiritual assault but it leaves a paper trail. You might say that you're altering historical fact to influence historical interpretation. (And that's putting it mildly.)

A hundred years from now, historians, finding the names and dates of "proxy" baptisms, will conclude that all these people were Mormon. All of the non-believers, all of the Jews, all of the Catholics, etc., etc., will have been rendered Mormon for posterity.

Essentially, the mormon church is practicing identity theft as well as spiritual assault.

For all of you out there who keep bleating, "If you don't believe in our tenets or rituals, then it shouldn't make any difference to you whether or not we do this," here is a concrete example of the harm you're doing in your lust for converts.

By practicing this form of religious hijacking, you are guaranteeing that the historical record will be false.

Now try defending your egregious, arrogant, and prideful behavior.

kjohnson3 :

"Baptizing people, dead or alive, against their wishes is a form of spiritual assault; you are directly harming the person involved."

Are you saying we have no free will in the spirit world? That would be in stark contrast with Jesus' teachings.

Those we baptise after their death have the free will to accept it or not. But as jesus said, without baptism on this earth, you cannot enter his fathers house.

We are doing them a favor. wither they accpet it, is entirely up to them.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

ivri5768 :

baptism for the dead.
that too is in the bible.
would you like a quote?

mark
always seek the turth.

it does condem same sex unions.
would you like to know where? i can quote it for you.

mark
always seek the truth.

In other news, the Mormon Political Action Committee is gearing up again against civil unions - this time in Hawaii. "For the Bible tells them so..."

Notes for Sean Penn to peruse:

Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation. Then there are those "made in China" toys/strap-ons. Lets hope the FDA has checked them for lead and other toxic components. And do said "toys" come with sanitizers and/or sterilization instructions.

Is said activity wrong and worthy of a trip to hell? Of course not but to the general heterosexual population it is yucky, unusual and not normal to them. With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

There are an impressive number of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.

And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia:
"Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

Ms./Mrs. Johnson,

A fine ad hominem critique of my online manner. I will take it to heart. However, you have either missed my point or are purposely ignoring it. I was trying to be creative in making it, but, you said yourself, we Mormons just aren’t the creative types.

(BTW, Apologies for misstating your gender; The John in your name threw me off).

My ntent was to illustrate the irony of overtly slandering Mormons while in the same breath lecturing us on the proper way to treat people. Whatever offense people take from our temple work, it is not intended. It is way too much effort to spend in just insulting people.

However, in your posts I see nothing but a person unequivocally demonizing and demeaning a group of people. You can issue your critiques in a way that does not paint Mormons as sub-human.

On a side note, as a man married to a powerful, successful Mormon woman, I find your reference to the “little women” in my life incredibly demeaning and insulting.

It reminds me of what a waste of time this forum is.

Cheers,

Jack

Jackthemoron,

You did not ask permission to be a bombastic windbag, but I guess I'll let that one go.

You also did not ask permission to misidentify my gender, but I guess I can get past that one, too, since you Mormon men are used to dominating your little worlds and the little women in them.

And no, I realize that you and your ilk will continue your spiritual assault on dead non-Mormons and, by extension, their descendant families. The massive, overweening pride of the Mormon church will provide the self-justification for this excess of disrespect. And that's precisely the kind of pride that tumbles civilizations.

YACTTB,

Re New Mexico, Sweden, and Canada --

We don't live in Sweden or Canada (although, if we did, we'd have better health care). I can't speak to the case in New Mexico, but given that the website gives no source for that story, it's likely not to have happened.

You note, "Never have I seen the Mormon church sue a gay organization based on their beliefs..." Well, it doesn't have to sue; it just buys the legislation it wants. However, its power and influence in this area are eroding.

Everywhere in this country, people are questioning why decent, hard-working, family-loving citizens just like them are being persecuted simply because they want to make a life with a person of the same gender. Average folks are starting to see that there is no advantage to society in preventing people who want to form families from doing so. Indeed, why would any society wish to discourage people from seeking permanent, monogamous relationships that lead to marriage, children, and stable family life?

It isn't going to be very long before gay and lesbian civil rights are finally enacted in this country on a federal level. Even the Mormon church doesn't have enough money to stop the groundswell of support you're going to see in the next five to ten years. You people will still be bleating your prejudices, but no one will be listening.

Now I'm off to bed, having had the pleasure of watching Sean Penn win an Oscar for his extraordinary portrayal of Harvey Milk. (If you haven't seen "Milk," I highly recommend it. Warning, though: you'll see a lot of men kissing each other.) And, oh yes, the young gay man who wrote the screenplay won an Oscar, too.

You can't stop the tide.

Jack the Mormon

"And, as correctly noted, we do not ask permission of the deceased people (if that were possible) for whom we are discreetly baptized in an effort to secure their wellbeing in the life to come."

Of course. How could you? As a close friend of an Arborealist, I share your frustration with those who simply will not see.Tomorrow, with two co-religionists, he will discreetly, plant two-to-three bonsai junipers atop the Mormon grave of a recently departed friend of his in the effort to assure his everlasting content in the miniature Celestial Forest. This dear fellow no longer bothers to explain the precepts of Arborealism since, Jack, there are none so blind....

kjohnson wrote:

"Simply not true. Baptizing people, dead or alive, against their wishes is a form of spiritual assault; you are directly harming the person involved....Gays marrying each other is not an assault on the person of any Mormon; it is a commitment made between two people who wish to spend their lives together. Unless you can point to a circumstance in which a Mormon was forced into a same-sex marriage, you're really out of gas here."

You are not comprehending what I have given to you. Go back and read carefully and slowly all the links and information I have listed for you. My points are very clear and it is only because you have closed your mind that you cannot see what points are being illuminated for you. I have given you more than sufficient information and have supplied enough arguments for anyone to see. If you still cannot see this, then there is nothing further I can continue discussing with you. You are looking at things only your way and refuse to see things any other way. If you close your mind to any possibility but your own preconceived notion you will never be able to process true facts.

I leave you with two quotes:

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins
to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom.
-- Merry Browne

Good day.

But did Jesus, the simple preacher man, really say "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5: 39)"????

According to many contemporary historic Jesus exegetes, no he did not as it was rated as more embellishment by the author John to embellish the life of the simple preacher man.

Ditto for John 5:46

e.g.

"Gerd Lüdemann
Lüdemann [Jesus, 616] considers the saying attributed to Jesus to be inauthentic "since in reality the historical Jesus saw a connection between himself and the Old Testament prophets."

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/042_Scriptures_and_Jesus

Mr. Johnson,
 
Good evening sir. Let me elaborate a bit:
 
You did not ask permission from the Mormons before you claimed their faith is nothing but an exclusive club that “exalts white male superiority.”
 
You did not ask permission from the Mormons before you claimed Mormons have no little contact with the outside world.
 
You did not ask permission from the Mormons before you accused the Mormons of duplicity in their humanitarian aid.
 
You did not ask permission from the Mormons before you called them despicable phonies.
 
You did not ask permission from the Mormons before you claimed that they are all brainwashed and mindless.
 
And, as correctly noted, we do not ask permission of the deceased people (if that were possible) for whom we are discreetly baptized in an effort to secure their wellbeing in the life to come.
 
It has now been established that neither of us ask permission of those who are implicated when we act on our values and beliefs. All in all, I hope it is at least a bit more clear why your lectures on sensitivity appear a little disingenuous.
 
Mormons are accustomed to having this kind of vitriol like hurled at them all the time, so we are a bit baffled when people like yourself get on your high horse and lecture us about how awful and disrespectful we are for simply working out an alternative to the “rot in hell” scenario others have outlined for us. I wish others would be so kind, but to each their own.

Best,

Jack Mormon

kjohnson3:

Perhaps you may want to look again at these specifically:

"In New Mexico, a photographer was fined for refusing to photograph the commitment ceremony of a homosexual couple.

"In Sweden, where same-sex marriage is legal, a pastor was sentenced to jail for one month for preaching a sermon on the biblical perspective of homosexuality as sin.

“In Canada today, if you preach Romans 1—the most famous and clear condemnation of homosexuality—you can go to jail. If you put it on the radio you will lose your license. If they deem your speech harmful, they will judge your speech illegal.”

... so it is fair for the gay community to now impose their beliefs on others who do not believe in the same things they do? It is ok to sue religious organizations based on gay belief that they wish to instill on others who do not believe their way, but it is not ok for religious organization to vote against it, by speaking out and voting as given as a right from our constitution? Never have I seen the Mormon church sue a gay organization based on their beliefs, but I do see it the other way around. The three specific examples above show how much the gay organization is actually forcing their beliefs on us, rather than the other way around. Because of the agenda that the gay community is working on, people are losing their freedom of speech and religion. You cannot deny this from reading the examples above.

Again, understand proposition 8 in the first place. It is not against civil unions. It is against redefining the original definition of marriage. Marriage was instituted by religious organizations. Instead, you now have a secular society forcing their beliefs and changing the definition of marriage on religious organizations who created the institution of marriage in the first place. Who is pushing who?

Please read through the article I gave (provided by the link). It goes into much further detail. You simply are looking at this one-sided.

Michael Otterson,

Like many who seek to understand and explain Sacred Scripture in isolation from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which vouchsafes the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, you have misrepresented the wordsJesus in your quote:

"Jesus told his followers: 'Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'"

Jesus did not say this to his followers, but to the scribes and Pharisees that were seeking to use Scripture against Him (in their case, the Hebrew Scriptures that Christians know as the Old Testament). He goes on to say words to the effect of: "You cite Moses as your authority, but it is he who testifies of me." Therefore, Jesus is doing both of the following things in this passage:

1) He is criticising the religious elders of His day for misusing their knowledge of both Scripture and the received word of their Prophet, Moses;

2) He is nevertheless affirming that both Scripture, and the Tradition handed down bny Moses, are correct, IF they are interpreted through faith, not disbelief.

It is clear from this that Jesus Himself accepted and taught the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, but criticised those that used either to foster disbelief in the one true God and His laws.

I'm sorry, but Scripture itself demonstrates that the words and deeds of Jesus Christ simply do not conform to the Protestant straightjacket so often imposed on them.

KJohnson, OK:
Posterity: "Offspring to the furthest generation; contrasted with ancestry; All succeeding generations, collectively; future time".

I think the meaning fits directly. I suppose you don't. Americans who don't personally have offspring will nonetheless be followed by succeeding generations.

Complicity: "State of being an accomplice" (which word accomplice means "an associate in guilt" or an accessory, "one who accedes to or becomes involved in the guilt of an offense, by some act either previous or subsequent, as of instigating, aiding, or concealing."

Perhaps a stretch, but as far as I'm concerned, judges who redefine marriage are guilty of encouraging sexual experimentation, which I consider an offense to society in general due to the long-term negative consequences of that experimentation.

Imply: "To involve by inference, when not expressly stated; express indirectly; hint or hint at."

Beg to differ, but I think the meaning fits directly the point I was making. Perhaps you understood what I meant though obviously not agreeing with either what I said or how I said it.

"...but to each their own."

Jackthemormon,

Ah, but here's the catch. If you're performing religious rituals on behalf of someone whose permission you have not sought or gained, then "to each, his/her own" doesn't apply. You taken the person's choice away.

What you have then is: To each, as we [Mormon church] see fit.

YACTTB,

"FACT 1: New Jersey’s Ocean Grove Camp, lost its tax-exempt status after refusing to allow a same-sex couple to marry on its grounds."

What was the point of refusing? If the couple was bringing its own pastor and wasn't requiring anything of the "Ocean Grove Camp Community," then there was no need to refuse the permission.

"FACT 2: Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to close its doors in 2006 when it refused to place children in the adoptive homes of same-sex couples."

CC chose to close its doors. And, frankly, it had no business handling adoptions if its first concern wasn't finding loving homes for children. The determination that children are better off in an institutional setting than in a loving home disqualifies the CC morally and ethically from any responsibilities for the welfare of these children.

"FACT 3: Supporters of Proposition 8 argue that if same-sex marriage is legalized in California, religious freedoms will be trumped by state law protections for gays and lesbians. Similar instances have emerged in the medical field, including a recent California court ruling against doctors who refused to fertility treatment to a lesbian couple."

Civil rights for gays and lesbians DO trump religious freedoms. Civil rights concerns always trump matters of personal preference, which, ultimately, is what religious freedom boils down to.

These are all non-issues. No one is being harmed if gay citizens are guaranteed their legal rights. The only thing that will happen is that there will be more intact families living good lives in our country.

"You can use this exact same argument against your proposition 8 comment. If you read your quote above as a Mormon against Proposition 8, it would have the exact same meaning. So essentially, your comments and arguments can be taken offensive to Mormons and their beliefs...."

YACTTB,

Simply not true.

Baptizing people, dead or alive, against their wishes is a form of spiritual assault; you are directly harming the person involved.

Gays marrying each other is not an assault on the person of any Mormon; it is a commitment made between two people who wish to spend their lives together. Unless you can point to a circumstance in which a Mormon was forced into a same-sex marriage, you're really out of gas here.

Actually, as disingenuous as Otterson is, he does make some sense occasionally and it's pathetic that anytime he speaks he creates an anti-Mormon firestorm.

"To redefine marriage harms posterity of all Americans in many significant ways, most importantly implying complicity in the sexual experimentation of the youth."

Parker,

You really need to look up words you're not familiar with before using them. Please go to a dictionary and look up "posterity" and "complicity."

Also, the usage of "implying" here makes no sense.

Some people express their values vis-a-vis others by quietly performing rituals on their behalf. Others do so by writing books filled with slander and vitriol--or, those less ambitious, post online to similar effect. Personally I would prefer to be a recipient of the former, but to each their own.

All religions are based on mythologies, and often recorded in sacred scriptures.

The Book of Mormon is one such example, with events recorded in the Bible originating from the same human sources. Meanwhile, attributing all things religious to supernatural origins is nearly universal - see the creation mythologies below. Psychological projection taken to a grand scale, we might say.

The literal 'truth' of mythology just isn't....but folks much prefer to act as though myths have somehow 'crystallized' into a factual reality. Myth remains mysterious, and fundamentally much harder to comprehend. Thus we have truth for the few, and (many) truths for the many. Religion is essentially for the many......

....and exactly why civil law and separation of church and state have been enshrined in our secular form of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Now take what was just given and realize that if it continues down this path, as the LDS Newsroom mentioned in their well written article here:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

"This may well place “church and state“ on a collision course"

kjohnson wrote:
"Second, if you genuinely believe that your practice of forced baptism "harms no one" then please explain why Mormons feel so compelled to oppose homosexuals and their wish to marry. Their activity "harms no one" -- especially not Mormons, who reject homosexuality and are, therefore, not at risk. So why not just live and let live, instead of trying influence public opinion and government policy against practices you don't engage in?"

You can once again find plenty of information with just a little bit of research. Try starting with this website:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Dec08/Art_Dec08_10.html

Some excerpts counter your argument that it will affect no one:
Religious liberty
CLAIM: Current California law exempts churches and other religious organizations from having to perform marriages for same-sex couples or conduct other services against their religious beliefs.

FACT 1: New Jersey’s Ocean Grove Camp, lost its tax-exempt status after refusing to allow a same-sex couple to marry on its grounds.

FACT 2: Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to close its doors in 2006 when it refused to place children in the adoptive homes of same-sex couples.

FACT 3: Supporters of Proposition 8 argue that if same-sex marriage is legalized in California, religious freedoms will be trumped by state law protections for gays and lesbians. Similar instances have emerged in the medical field, including a recent California court ruling against doctors who refused to fertility treatment to a lesbian couple.

In New Mexico, a photographer was fined for refusing to photograph the commitment ceremony of a homosexual couple. In Sweden, where same-sex marriage is legal, a pastor was sentenced to jail for one month for preaching a sermon on the biblical perspective of homosexuality as sin.

“The erosion of church rights has already started,” Miles McPherson, pastor of the Rock Church in San Diego wrote in an April commentary for the Christian Examiner.

“In Canada today, if you preach Romans 1—the most famous and clear condemnation of homosexuality—you can go to jail. If you put it on the radio you will lose your license. If they deem your speech harmful, they will judge your speech illegal.”

Barbara Bradley Hagerty, a writer for the liberal leaning NPR, explored the situation in a June article titled “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash.”

“Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment,” Hagerty wrote. “Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing.”

kjohnson3 wrote:

"First, the practice harms everyone, because it is disrespectful. The victims and their loved ones are harmed as objects of that disrespect, and Mormons are harmed because of the excess of pride they're showing in perpetrating such a practice and showing such disrespect for other religious traditions."

You can use this exact same argument against your proposition 8 comment. If you read your quote above as a Mormon against Proposition 8, it would have the exact same meaning. So essentially, your comments and arguments can be taken offensive to Mormons and their beliefs....

" (Pride is still one of the seven deadly sins, right?)"

You commented above that the bible contains no truth, so seeing that this is in the bible, this comment doesn't pertain to you so you can't use it against someone... either that or you do believe the bible contains truth....

The interesting aspect of this topic is that it calls for ruminations on the unmediated reading of scripture by lay people. Though often in these type of blogs when the idea of Mormon Church is brought up there is a tendency to criticize or defend the Church (yes, I am a Mormon).

Alister McGrath has written a terrific book on just this subject, "Christianity's Dangerous Idea." His "dangerous idea" is "at its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?

"Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to 'official' interpretations . . . . Luther's radical doctrine of the 'priesthood of all believers' empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. . . . A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly--seemingly irreversibly--been removed."

There is a larger subject as to how various religions react today to this "radical reshaping," but McGrath makes a very interesting point about the scriptures today.

He writes about the rise of secularism since the 1960's and "the need for Protestant unity in the face of this new threat." "As we have constantly stressed in this work, 'the other' is no longer Roman Catholicism but secularism. The threat of Catholicism once drew Protestants together; now the threat that predominantly catalyzes such collaboration and sets intra-Protestant differences in their proper perspective is the one coming from those opposed to religion."

In this connection McGrath quips that, as Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration, "a harsh reality for many Protestants [is that] 'We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

The threat of secularism is to all believers. The scriptures, God's divine word to us all, are one of the greatest strengths in combating secularism.

KJohnson,
The U.S. constitution is a conservative document. The founding fathers had foresight that there are power struggles inevitably within governing bodies or individuals. It was written with that in mind. Judicial over-reach was foreseen. The vote in California was a constitutional process.

There are undoubtedly control issues that have impacted and do impact every "h" relationship. Those are harmful impacts to both people involved, because to act within controlling relationships is to act under cooercion, whether conciously or unconsiously.

To redefine marriage harms posterity of all Americans in many significant ways, most importantly implying complicity in the sexual experimentation of the youth. It would not comply with the clear intent of the Preamble.

You seem to have no trouble with Hollywood insiders having spent or donated millions of dollars. Hollywood has a clear agenda. I'm grateful a substantial group of people are willing to oppose that insidious agenda.

"To rely on a third party to explain the power of the scriptures would be like learning to cook by watching a TV show and never turning on the stove"
... so the fact that the bible is entirely 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of christ.... does that mean that christianity is like learning to drive by sitting on a bus and never turning on a car?

Eichendorff,

You said,
"The Church is very strict about its policy of neutrality when it comes to political parties or candidates, but it has every right to express its views on issues that affect its members."

Perhaps you could elucidate the "policy of neutrality." To those of us outside the rarefied atmosphere of Mormon-think, it sure looks like church ideology is radically right-wing. To be sure, there's the odd Mormon Democrat in Congress, but on the whole, the political stances the church adopts are demonstrably ultra-conservative. Where's the neutrality in that?

When you say that the church has "every right to express its views on issues that affect its members," is that secret code for throwing millions of dollars at political issues in large states with miniscule Mormon populations? (Yes, that would be California's Prop 8.) If so, please explain how such legislation affects members of the Mormon church.

You said,
"If you are offended because of the practice of baptizing living persons on behalf of the dead, then really that is your problem. The practice harms no one."

Two comments. First, the practice harms everyone, because it is disrespectful. The victims and their loved ones are harmed as objects of that disrespect, and Mormons are harmed because of the excess of pride they're showing in perpetrating such a practice and showing such disrespect for other religious traditions. (Pride is still one of the seven deadly sins, right?)

Second, if you genuinely believe that your practice of forced baptism "harms no one" then please explain why Mormons feel so compelled to oppose homosexuals and their wish to marry. Their activity "harms no one" -- especially not Mormons, who reject homosexuality and are, therefore, not at risk. So why not just live and let live, instead of trying influence public opinion and government policy against practices you don't engage in?

You said,
"The Church and its members will continue to practice baptism on behalf of the dead."

Yes, of course it will. Because the Mormon church has absolutely no respect for the wishes, beliefs, traditions, and basic human feelings of anyone outside its circle of hocus-pocus cultism that masquerades as religion.

oh... one other note... here's a great article written by a non-mormon journalist from the UK, regarding baptism for the dead. I would recommend anyone reading it. Apparently this person gets it:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/eamonn-mccann-what-if-mormons-are-right-and-catholics-and-protestants-wrong-13955402.html

My goodness... I check out for a few days and so much has happened.... well, let me see if I can make a few corrections to a few skewed comments:

KJohnson3 wrote:

"There are a couple of things I notice immediately about your lists. First, they are dominated by people in government and business with a few scientists, judges, and entertainers. That tells me that the church's priorities are power, control, and money. Where are the teachers, artists, writers, the creative types who use their imaginations to move people? I have to conclude that, in LDS-world, people with imaginations are considered dangerous."

No, this is not a comprehensive list... just a few people who are smart enough to make their own decisions. My point in listing these specific people was to counter your argument when you said "If you don't have sustained contact with the real world, then the brainwashing is a cinch". Apparently, you didn't catch on to my rebuttal. Maybe now you will.....

You had also said:
"Second, there is a dearth of women on your lists. In fact, hardly any. This reinforces the patriarchal and chauvinistic reputation Mormonism has always had. Women are second-class citizens, although Mormon propaganda tries to pretty things up by making the woman the ruler of her proper domain -- the home and all the housework that goes with it."

Again, aside from comments listed above from other women in the church, there are PLENTY of mormons within power that are NOT white males. Go see for yourself and do some research. Start with a google search and put something like "famous mormons" in it. It's very easy... only 2 words you'll have to type in and you'll see a plethora of people who you claim aren't allowed to have an opinion or are not white males.

Again, your ignorance is in fact not doing the research. You are clearly running off anti-mormon literature mingled with opinion and things which you find on the web or elsewhere which are false. Instead of following bad material, find some good ones also... you'll see truth in there.

Actually, I come from a long line of Cylons!! But don't we all???

BTW, the Book of Cylon is available at your local libaries in the Fiction section along with the Book of Mormon.

Any sitings of Moroni yet ? He has no wings so travel is slow for this "pretty thingie". But you can hear his horn for miles and miles so Be Ready!!!

CCNL:

And have you hard evidence that *you* do exist or existed??
Your mechanical nature suggest that you are just well scripted.

Eichendorff:

"It's time to ignore CCNL and just let him blather on to himself. Don't even bother reading his posts. We already know what they contain."

Repetitious

Some have said of CCNL that he may be a shell script
Writings so predicable that they might have been as well clipped
Regurgitated texts of Jesus Seminar participants
Fill his cut-and-paste up until we're all just sick of it.
Some say that he passes not the o so simple Turing Test
Yet he insists that by The Borg he is amply blessed.

Eichendorff, Eichendorff, Eichendorff,

And you have hard evidence that Moroni exists/existed?? Ditto for Gabriel?? Ditto for Satan?? Ditto for Michael the Archangel??

It's time to ignore CCNL and just let him blather on to himself. Don't even bother reading his posts. We already know what they contain.

Shellers,

It is all about the foundations of Mormonism i.e. the hallucinations of one con-man named Joe Smith. If you have some evidence that "pretty, talking, thingies" like Moroni actually exist or ever existed, then present it. Without it, Mormonism even with all its brainwashed, hard working/good person members is still a business cult using an hallucination/con-based religion as a front.

All religions not only Mormonism suffer from analogous and severe historical and theological flaws and errors.

e.g. Islam (for those eyes that have not seen)

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels"/"pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

I find the spread of anti-mormon garbage curious. I can understand how it starts, a person hears some anti-mormon information and is apalled by it, they then spread the word to others in order to combat this evil. Then that person speaks to an actual Mormon, but still prefers the anti-mormon rubbish to actual information from an actual member of the church. They continue to spread the lies or misinformation without ever once trying to confirm the actual truth of the matter.

KJohnson3 and CCNL, I think it is great for you to stand up for what you believe and if you have issues with the Church for things the Church actually does or actually believes than that is one thing, but please just check your facts first and try to at least spread truth.

I think that the Church should be able to say what it believes, and its practices should be defined by those that actually practice them. I know it seems hard to believe, but maybe the Church and its members are actually good, well intentioned people that want to share their beliefs and practice their beliefs.
Members of the Church pay tithing which goes to build temples, churches, do missionary work and humanitarian aid. The Church teaches its people to work hard, be honest, serve others and believe in Jesus Christ. This is not a front, we actually believe the information that we teach. I think if you tried attend a Church meeting or learn more about the Church from actual members or from www.mormon.org, you would find this to be the case.

And reading the Book of Mormon or the Urantia Book or the Bible daily is not learning by reiteration?????

Again Mormonism is a business cult using an hallucination/con-based religion as a front!!!!

Here's a book to rival the Book of Mormon and then some - obscure to many, the origins are mysterious but are thought to have come via automatic writing.

I have a couple of copies in the library and can attest to the remarkable natue of this book of some 2000 pages of fine print....a cosmology to rival many more familiar works found in the annals of religious history.

A stylistic analysis found evidence of at least 9 different authors.....the book itself claims to be the work of angels and other celestial beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

testing 123 testing 123

So, Catholic University teaches by a lot of repetition and name-calling, eh? A rote education is certainly an apt description of that process. If you've ever taught, your students must have been bored to wit's end. Elementary-schoolish--no, kindergartenish. I guess you in particular do as you've been taught to do. 'Doesn't say much for your teachers...

Reiteration is essential to education. And Mormons definitely need to be educated about their business cult fronting as a religion.

Spencer1,
If the LDS Church's sole purpose is fund raising, can you tell me whom benefits from these funds?

As has been mentioned, I believe few organizations in the world can match the worldwide humanitarian efforts of LDS Church. I guarantee you that no one in the LDS Church is becoming wealthy from members' donations.

Kjohnson3, about baptism for the dead, perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but in general, baptisms are not performed willy-nilly for whomever one wishes. Obviously there are some exceptions, but the emphasis is for members of the LDS Church to identify his or her own ancestors and to have these ordinances performed for them. As has been mentioned a few times, this practice does not obligate the deceased person or impose anything upon them. Your strong opposition to such a benign practice is confusing to me.

For me, that God has provided a way for all to enjoy the same blessings is a testament of his love and mercy. But again, He does not force his blessings upon us but makes them available and allows us to choose to receive them or not.

The Mormons have one, and only one, interest - fund raising. And to pursue that interest they desperately associate themselves with the greatest fund raiser in the history of the human race - the late J. Christ of biblical fame.

What a waste of effort, if not intellect, in arguing over a collection of ancient myths concerning non-existent supernatural beings.

Eichendorff,
Thanks for your spot-on response to Ms. Johnson, and your note about CCNL. I had tired of them both. Ms. Johnson, never baptized, now is an authority on the subject. "A Daniel come to judgment!" Not. And an authority on the constitution, to boot. Not. Thanks for your clarity of thought, and for not mincing words.

KJohnson

Let's get a few facts straight.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year on humanitarian and disaster relief projects. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the financial resources of the Church come from the voluntary donations from its members. The Church owns a few businesses that operate for profit, but these businesses pay taxes like everybody else. It is not a question of the Church underwriting its members; the Church IS its members.

The idea that the Church has "brought indefensible harm, anguish, pain, and isolation to so many people that its evil outweighs its good" is pure nonsense. There is no dishonesty whatsoever in the way it conducts itself. None. It has no political agenda.

The Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to everyone, including religious bodies. The Church is very strict about its policy of neutrality when it comes to political parties or candidates, but it has every right to express its views on issues that affect its members. Sometimes these issues overlap into the political arena, but never has the Church abused or violated the Constitutional protections it enjoys. Nothing it has ever done even remotely endangers its tax-exempt status as a religious institution.

If you are offended because of the practice of baptizing living persons on behalf of the dead, then really that is your problem. The practice harms no one. It forces no one to believe anything they don't wish to believe, and it has no effect on those who reject it. Every person follows his own spiritual path; baptism for the dead imposes no restriction on that. There is no interference with anybody's wishes. Your use of exaggeration and hyperbole indicate the absurdity of your views.

The Church and its members will continue to practice baptism on behalf of the dead. Neither your views nor mine will make any difference because ultimately we are following the commandments of God. Nothing else matters.

JimLDS,

In response to your further questions:

"In some comments you seem rather antagonistic towards the LDS Church. Do you believe that the LDS Church does any good, and if so, what?"

Yes, I admit that I have strong negative feelings about the Mormon church. You've doubtless read a few of them to have formed that conclusion.

I'm sure that Mormons, as individuals, do a great deal of good in the world, and they wouldn't have the resources to help so many people in need if the church didn't underwrite the cost. So, I guess that that support and the church's orientation toward service to others would be the good qualities I would identify.

However, I do believe that the church as an entity has brought indefensible harm, anguish, pain, and isolation to so many people that its evil outweighs its good. I believe that it is fundamentally dishonest in the way it conducts its business and the way it presents itself both locally and globally. I feel that it has an overarching political agenda and that it practices political activism to an extent that should disqualify it for tax exempt status.

Finally, I am deeply offended by all that is both explicit and implicit in the church's program of baptizing the dead of other religious traditions. While my own belief system is cobbled together from a variety of sources and belongs to no denomination, I have respect for the right of all humans to follow their own spiritual path -- and for the sanctity of the choices that individuals make. When the Mormon church interferes with the sanctity of others' choices, it is committing what I consider to be an abomination.

And your other question:
"And more specifically pertaining to this post, do you believe that the Bible or other scripture contains truth and is from God for our benefit?"

No and no.

CCNL Author Profile Page:

Parker, Parker, Parker,

The only reason the Mormons changed their thinking about African-Americans was because the BYU football team needed to integrate to stay competitive
_________________________-

BYU had some good lily white teams and didn't really need to integrate. The problem was other teams with Black players in the NCAA championships refused to play BYU because of the Mormon's racist "pre-existence" dogma that people of color were "fence sitters" in the war between God and Satan and therefore marked by God and ineligible for the priesthood. Like the "vision" that ended polygamy on the eve of Federal troops invading Utah, the "negro" vision was very convenient in the early 70's when college basketball was very popular in Utah.

Parker

The moment I see a post from CCNL, I just move on to the next one without reading it. I have no use for the kind of repetitive rubbish he writes.

I advise you to do the same.

CCNL,
I would agree with them about your time spent here at least. But I suppose you enjoy imagining someone actually thinks you have relevance with your repeated BB-gun-type comments. You might consider dropping some of the silliness ("thingies?"), and definitely the repetition. Once was more than enough. The repetition demonstrates a total lack of conviction, as though you're trying to convince yourself also. Also, you don't show by your actions that you have any credibility whatsoever. Bye.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

My wife and children think blogging is a waste of their time. They are probably correct but if there is any chance to correct the flaws and errors of religion to include "Moroni-ism", it is worth my time.

volkmare:
The flaw in your statement on authorship of the book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith didn’t “author” it, he only translated it.

Fair enough.
And if anyone ever finds the original, we'll know how well he did.

Volkmare, this may be a quibble, but it's important to be accurate. Joseph Smith began translating the Book of Mormon at age 21. He was 14 when he had his First Vision.

CCNL,
I don't believe your last comment. I'd like to hear it from one of them, first person online. Easy to do, right?

WMARKW:
The flaw in your statement on authorship of the book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith didn’t “author” it, he only translated it.

He did it, all 600 some pages, in 5+ different writing styles, at night after working all day on his fathers farm in a few weeks.

All with a 3rd grade education at the age of 14.

I dare anyone to achieve that without divine assistance.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

KJohnson3,
Your beliefs sound interesting. There are many religions and beliefs that result in good and that contain truths.

In some comments you seem rather antagonistic towards the LDS Church. Do you believe that the LDS Church does any good, and if so, what?

And more specifically pertaining to this post, do you believe that the Bible or other scripture contains truth and is from God for our benefit?

"Hmmm, turns out my wife and children through studies of their own have also concluded that Mormonism is a business cult fronting as a religion."

---------------------------------------------

CCNL,

That's funny! I didn't know there was any difference between cults and religion?

Can you explain the difference?

I was born in a Catholic hospital. From what I understand, it was common practice at the time in that hospital for all newborn babies to receive a Catholic baptism, whether their parents were Catholics or not. That baptism, of course, has no meaning for me. My parents, if they were aware of it, were not offended by it because it was done out of genuine concern for my spiritual well-being. I have never been offended by the idea that I might have received a Catholic baptism as a baby without my knowledge or consent. Why should I object to something that to me was a meaningless ritual?

The only way I could be offended is if I chose to be offended. I would only choose to be offended in this instance if I were an angry, petty, mean, vindictive, emotional wreck of a human being.

The Catholics can baptize every baby born in their hospitals for all I care. It does them, and it did me, absolutely no harm whatsoever.

JimLDS,

In answer to your questions:

I've never been formally affiliated with any religion. You could say that my beliefs are essentially of the Unitarian-Universalist variety, although I take to heart much of the wisdom in Judaism and also feel a kinship with Taoist practices.

I believe in the concept of a God that is in and of everything; that everything in the universe is part of a web of interconnection. That we are all part of one another

When I pray, it is for either of two reasons: to express gratitude or to ask for guidance.

I read extensively in the literature of world religions generally. More specifically, I read on religions or cults that raise, for me, significant moral and ethical concerns.

That's about it.

Kjohnson3,

You seem to know something of the LDS faith- would you mind elaborating on your background pertaining to religion?

Do you believe in God?

Sorry to have been condescending. I didn't mean to be. 'Enjoyed reading your comment. Bye.

"Their offer is, 'if you decide differently...'"

Parker,

Here is the crux of the issue. You say "decide," suggesting that the person may choose. However, that's a false offer because you've already acted for the person. You didn't offer him baptism; you baptized him. Without his acceptance or agreement.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth about what "baptism" means in this context. Some Mormons say that the baptism means nothing unless the victim (my word) accepts it. It's just an "offer" of salvation.

Well, maybe that's what Mormons believe. But, if you look carefully at the belief systems of many other religions, you'll see that "baptism" is considered a sacred ritual that establishes a person's bond with his or her god. In these religions, it's a deeply felt and revered connection, and it establishes the person's connection with that church for a lifetime.

To be willfully insensitive to this obvious difference in understanding of what baptism means is to arrogantly trample on the spiritual lives of those who don't share your beliefs.

Furthermore, you also take this action on behalf of people who are not religiously affiliated, people who are religious but not Christian, and people who are atheists. You ignore the fact that, if they wanted to be baptized into the Mormon church, they would join it, and you justify this by reassuring yourselves that you know what's best for people in spite of their own stated wishes.

This is one of the qualities that reflects the cultishnness of Mormonism. Very much like Scientologist Tom Cruise insisting that only he knows the "truth" about psychiatry, Mormons take the attitude that only they have the special knowledge of what will make people "happy."

It's an insufferable attitude, as is your unremittingly condescending comments about my "tone."

The bottom line here is that many (perhaps most, or even all) non-Mormons do not want you people baptizing them into your church against their will, and you do it anyway.

You ignore their expressed wishes, defy their clearly stated refusals, and reject every argument against the depravity of a practice that forcibly transforms people into Mormons-in-the-making. You don't accept that you have no moral or ethical or legal or spiritual right to do this, because, once again, you feel that only you know what is best for all humanity.

If you can't understand what is grotesquely wrong with this mindset and the actions it enables you to take, then you truly are lost as a human being.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

Hmmm, turns out my wife and children through studies of their own have also concluded that Mormonism is a business cult fronting as a religion.

*However, one should not even begin to read The Book of Mormon, before first reading this history of its authorship by Chris Hitchens*

The only place Christopher Hitchens could possibly have anything sensible to say about the Book of Mormon is in a bizzarro alternative universe from some cheap sci-fi novel.

One can only laugh at this kind of absurdity.

Hi, CCNL,
Why should we not be surprised to find another interruption from you. Perhaps you didn't get enough attention as a child, and make up for it in your own inimitable way now.

How about doing me a favor or two or three:
1) Call you children, and tell them Parker wishes them a good day and a happy, fulfilling life.
2) Tell your wife the same thing from me, then add how grateful you are for her putting up with you for so many years. She must be a rare gem of a person. Put a smile on her face, CCNL.

And still after 28 commentaries and from many study sessions, Mormonism is still a business cult fronting as a religion.

KJohnson,
I again appreciated your tone and the point of view you expressed. I think I can understand it. Continuing the farmer analogy, couldn't it be that the Mormons "bring the fertilizer to the farmer" (only his or her acceptance of a change of heart and the gift of the fertilizer gets the fertilizer into the soil). Their offer is, "if you decide differently as you think about it, and want to use the fertilizer, here it is, and it's free to you--enjoy how it adds to your life if you choose to."

Another analogy would be comparing baptism for the dead to offering a free ticket to the "marriage feast" to any and all who want to use the ticket and enter at the door,as long as they are willing to understand Whose marriage feast it is. They can throw the ticket away, scoff at the idea, tell themselves there is no marriage feast or no Bridegroom, or whatever they choose to do. But the ticket is in their name nonetheless, and the Bridegroom cares about each of them just as much as about anyone else.

What He offers is for them to be "healed" or "made whole" from all of the faults and worries and frustrations that became "baggage" for them in this life and impeded their relationships. When the baggage is gone, those loving relationships can flourish and they can "know as they are known".

Again, thanks for the dialogue, and the tone of it in your last post to me. I sincerely appreciate it.

However, one should not even begin to read The Book of Mormon, before first reading this history of its authorship by Chris Hitchens:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165039/

Your problem is that your entire argument is flawed. If the person rejects the baptism, it's as if it never occurred. If he accepts it, then so much the better. What is there about this simple concept you don't understand?

Of course, everyone can tell from the tone of your posts that you are not interested in understanding the LDS position in the slightest. You just like to throw bombs. Fortunately, they have no effect.

"If a primitive farmer is told about fertilizer and crop rotation, for them to say "don't you dare tell me there are methods for farming that might be better than my methods--get out of here" just might not be in their family's best interest, no?"

Parker,

Your analogy here is flawed.

For the analogy to hold any water, when the primitive farmer says, "I'm not interested in your methods," the Mormon marches out and fertilizes the farmer's fields anyway, on the assumption that he knows better. He displays complete and utter disregard for the farmer's beliefs and defiance of his stated wishes. Can't get much more condescending and disrespectful than that.

KJohnson,
I had appreciated the change in tone in your comment to me earlier. Evidently, you feel strongly about New Testament teachings interfering with personal choice, but how does teaching someone interfere with their ability to choose what they want? I rather think it increases that ability.

If a primitive farmer is told about fertilizer and crop rotation, for them to say "don't you dare tell me there are methods for farming that might be better than my methods--get out of here" just might not be in their family's best interest, no? Ah, well, perhaps you think it was their tough luck and nobody should share any opportunities for learning with anyone. Sounds pretty ultra-isolationist.

"As we read and study their words, we gain a deeper understanding of the Savior's matchless love, His perfect life and example, and the blessings of His great atoning sacrifice."

Craig C. Christensen, "A Book with a Promise," Ensign, May 2008, 107

Mark
Always seek the truth.

DPHUNTSMAN :

Quoting you: "Actually, most people are religious because they are brought up that way from childhood; imbued with worshipping supernatural beings before they can intelligently question it. You're not in that category?"

Neither Brother EICHENDORFF nor I are in that classification.

As found in the bible and the book of Mormon, deciding to be baptized into a faith is to be a logical decision of your own free will. It is not to be forced upon you nor inbred into you. Having it thrust upon you as an infant, as it was me (previously catholic), is not what god wants as it takes away your free will to make your own decisions.

I can understand where you are coming from on your statement, but with the LDS church, it doesn’t apply. Yes, LDS children go to Sunday school, but the choice to be baptized is theirs, and theirs alone, and only when they are old enough to come about the choice logically and of their own free will.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Shellers said:
"I want to clarify Baptisms for the Dead for those who read this and might be misled by the statements made...The scriptures teach that every person must be baptized. After the murders of the apostles, the gospel was taken from the Earth. There was no priesthood authority present for people to be baptized...Does it seem right that all these people living on the Earth at this time could never have salvation? Does it seem right that a person living in a part of the world without the gospel could never have salvation because they didn't have the chance to be baptized?"

Sweetie, your questions are based on your own personal fairy tale. That fairy tale doesn't apply to the rest of us. Your "gospel" is just that: yours. It's not mine. Unless one is a Mormon, it just doesn't apply.

So, no, I don't think any of this is unfair.

Likewise, I don't think it's unfair that I never got to try on Cinderella's glass slipper or that I didn't get a nice hundred years' nap before my beloved prince came to wake me up with a kiss.

This mindless insistence you people have that your religious cult is going to save everyone in spite of themselves is deeply offensive as well as painfully ignorant. Keep your stinking, lousy prayers and baptisms away from me, my loved ones, my dead relatives, and anyone else who doesn't expressly leave reality behind and choose to step into your "happy" fantasy life.

You have no right to interfere in anyone else's spirituality. You DON'T know better. Pretending you do is beneath contempt.

It's also worth stating and emphasizing repeatedly that the LDS practice of baptizing living people on behalf of the dead is a free-will offering, based on the assumption that people who have died have the ability to accept it or reject it. Those who accept it are assured that a valid baptism is performed for them, something they could not accomplish for themselves during their lifetimes. Those who reject it are the same as they were before the baptism was performed; it is as if the baptism never occurred.

There is no force, no imposition of anything on anybody. Each person retains complete control over his own spiritual life and destiny.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, but since it came up it's worth clarifying.

I want to clarify Baptisms for the Dead for those who read this and might be misled by the statements made.

The scriptures teach that every person must be baptized. After the murders of the apostles, the gospel was taken from the Earth. There was no priesthood authority present for people to be baptized.

Does it seem right that all these people living on the Earth at this time could never have salvation? Does it seem right that a person living in a part of the world without the gospel could never have salvation because they didn't have the chance to be baptized?

Heavenly Father loves all His children. And He has provided a way for all His children to receive the neccesary ordinance of Baptism through proxy.

We share the gospel with others because it makes us happy, and because we want others to be happy. We don't do it for ourselves. If I eat at a restaurant I enjoy, I'll tell others about it. Of course I would want to share with others what makes me really happy. It is by this same principle that we want our ancestors to enjoy salvation and the chance to be baptized. We do baptism by proxy (baptism for the dead) for our ancestors because of love not selfishness.

Ultimately though, people for whom we do baptism by proxy have the choice to accept the work or refuse it. We force no person to be baptized.

KJohnson3,
Really? You can really find fault with members of the church for spending time reading the scriptures? This just makes me laugh.

The Church encourages Scripture reading so that we can learn the gospel for ourselves. We are not brainwashed or blindly following bizarre claims of theology as you put it, but we are encouraged to study the gospel and find out for ourselves if it is true.
I was raised in the Church, so yes, that had an enormous impact on my life. I am thankful for parents that obeyed the gospel and taught me about my Savior Jesus Christ. I do not continue to go to Church every week, say my prayers and read my scriptures daily now that I'm an adult and have my own family because my Mom brought me to church as a child. I go because I developed a testimony of my own of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Women in the church are absolutely NOT second class citizens. We are encouraged to get educated and develop our talents. Many of us, intelligent, talented women, CHOOOSE to become mothers and rear children instead of pursue careers outside of the home because we know that we are doing the most good inside the home. Children do best when they have a mother and a father and when they have a mother at home.

What is demeaning and devaluing to women is your smug assertion (and that of much of the world) that women who stay home with their children are second class citizens. True potential and worth isn't found in a career or celebrity, but in people who work hard doing what they believe is right.

"...yet here we read someone like you who doesn't like that a religion would believe that everyone who has ever lived will get a 'fair chance' at the saving gospel and the cleansing power of baptism to give them a 'fresh start.'"

Parker,

That's disingenuous, and you know it.

You and your ilk may "believe" anything you like. Most major religions instruct their faithful that theirs is the ONLY way to salvation, happiness, contentment, peace, etc., etc.

What sets you guys apart is that you feel justified in imposing your "theology" on anyone and everyone, whether they want it or not. Baptizing dead people of other religions (or no religion) is simply a way of having the last word. "We know what's good for everyone, so we'll get you eventually, one way or another."

That kind of behavior is a bizarre combination of childishness and malevolence. It's an attitude that you can justify, defend, and continue to perpetrate only if you've been successfully brainwashed.

Huntsman

Actually it is quite natural for human beings to be religious. The vast majority of them have believed in some sort of higher power throughout history. While upbringing is important, there are many people who become Latter-day Saints who don't come from religious backgrounds. I've known quite a few of them myself.

Ultimately, though, I have my own personal witness of my beliefs. My parents were good people and taught me well, but my convictions do not depend on theirs. I know for myself what I believe and why.

KJohnson,
I will also add that when I had read your response to me a week or so ago about your personal life, I had thought, "here is a person who is going about doing good--leave it at that". Now your statement to YACTTB changes that earlier impression. Your words "in fact" implied that you knew the facts (you don't at all) about LDS humanitarian aid and service in places like Africa and Eastern Europe and Indonesia, giving measles vaccines or hygiene kits or neonatal resuscitation kits or blankets or survival tents or wheelchairs (of which thousands have been given to very grateful people in need of them who had no idea what church--other than perhaps knowing it was a "Jesus church"--was giving them a wheelchair so they could have mobility) or digging wells for fresh water sources. Your "facts" are drummed up by your own narrow view of the world.

You seem to see what you choose to see, ignoring "facts" that don't further your view of the world, but if that's the way you want to live your life, then so be it. You'll go on with your misconceptions, giving yourself a pat on the back along the way. That's OK with me, though I consider it unfortunate for you but it was your concious choice to do so. Choose as you wish.

Parker, Parker, Parker,

The only reason the Mormons changed their thinking about African-Americans was because the BYU football team needed to integrate to stay competitive.

KJohnson,
Since I hadn't gotten back to you on an earlier comment about the Blacks, I might as well now. Some of the fondest associations in my life have been with very fine, kind-hearted Black people. I was not surprised at all in 1978 when the change came about as regards the priesthood in the LDS Church as well as the temple work for Blacks that you have maligned.

Funny how with several modern "scholars" who consider themselves as authorities about religion, they will point out how unfair religions are that are exclusive about who is "saved" or "goes to heaven", yet here we read someone like you who doesn't like that a religion would believe that everyone who has ever lived will get a "fair chance" at the saving gospel and the cleansing power of baptism to give them a "fresh start" toward forgiving those whom they have held grudges against or been mistreated by and leaving behind their mistakes from this life to have no more regrets.

There is living just as important in the after-life as in this life, with change possible and learning possible there just as here. There is no forced belief there, even moreso than here where admittedly some people feel like they were forced as children so they abandon their religion as adults.

Enough said. Thanks for the foil. This conversational format allows others who may be wondering to do some more careful thinking rather than the shallow rush to judgement that happens from mistruths in the media or other forums.

yacttb,

There are a couple of things I notice immediately about your lists.

First, they are dominated by people in government and business with a few scientists, judges, and entertainers. That tells me that the church's priorities are power, control, and money. Where are the teachers, artists, writers, the creative types who use their imaginations to move people? I have to conclude that, in LDS-world, people with imaginations are considered dangerous.

Second, there is a dearth of women on your lists. In fact, hardly any. This reinforces the patriarchal and chauvinistic reputation Mormonism has always had. Women are second-class citizens, although Mormon propaganda tries to pretty things up by making the woman the ruler of her proper domain -- the home and all the housework that goes with it.

You point out that I must be "just an angry person who has some itch against the church." Well, I'll admit it does make me angry when I see people's individual potential being trampled and their unique qualities pressured out of them. And it irks me when I see a bunch of old white guys perpetuating what is nothing more than an exclusive club that exalts their white male superiority and permits them to manipulate everyone in their little self-created world for their express ease and comfort. And it does sort of pi** me off when the church makes a bunch of money from its tax-exempt status which is then poured into political hate campaigns.

Let's see...what else makes me angry? Oh, yes, the claim that Mormons are "aiding people all over the world" when, in fact, they're out on their little missions to do nothing more than gain new adherents.

And, oh yeah, I get REALLY steamed over the "blatant arrogance" with which Mormons take it upon themselves to baptize (or whatever you call it) dead people of other religions who did not choose to be Mormons in their lifetimes. Talk about disrespecting others' religious beliefs? Mormons just disregard them. How dare they intervene in the spiritual journeys of other people?

So, yeah, you could say I'm an angry person when it comes to the Mormon church. I have more than just "some itch" about the church; I have a rather big soap box. I despise phonies, and nowhere have I seen more of them than in this cult of perfection. So, sure, write me off as just another angry person. I'm certain that you are incapable of seeing me in any other way.

Mr. EICHENDORFF :

"...............The reason I am a believing Latter-day Saint is because I choose to be one. Nothing more, nothing less."

Actually, most people are religious because they are brought up that way from childhood; imbued with worshipping supernatural beings before they can intelligently question it. You're not in that category?

Elder M. Russell Ballard said: 'Clear declaration of truth makes a difference in people's lives. That is what changes hearts' (Ensign, Nov. 2004, 41)."

Mark
Always seek the truth.

...(and more from previous post)...
Nolan D. Archibald: CEO, Black and Decker
Gary S. Baughman: President, CEO (retired), Fisher-Price, Inc.
Michael J. and Kathleen Bertasso: Senior Vice President; President, Heinz
Stephen R. Covey: Chairman, Franklin Covey Company
Gary L Crittenden: CFO, American Express Company
Ron Dittemore: director, space shuttle program
David J. Dunn: Chariman, Iomega
Kevin Knight: CEO, Knight Transportation
J. Willard Marriott(1900-1985):founder, Marriott Hotels
J.W. Marriott, Jr.: Chairman, Marriott International
David Neeleman: CEO, JetBlue Airways
Ray Noorda: CEO, Novell
James H. Quigley: CEO of Deloitte & Touche
George Romney(1907-1995): Chairman, American Motors Corp.
Kevin B. Rollins: former CEO, Dell Computer Corporation
Dieter F. Uchtdorf: Senior Vice President, Lufthansa German Airlines
Kay Whitmore(1932-2004): CEO, Eastman Kodak
Kent A. Jordan: U.S. District Court for Delaware
David G. Campbell: U.S. District Court for Arizona
Jay S. Bybee: US Court of Appeals, ninth circuit
Lawrence J. Block: U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Henry Eyring(1901-1981): chemist who pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry
Harvey Fletcher(1884-1981): physicist, worked with Millikan and together they were the first to measure the charge on an electron. Fletcher directed research at Bell Labs where he played a central role in the development of stereophonic reproduction
Wilford Gardner: geologist, who described the movement of water through unsaturated soils by reference to capillary potential. For this and other work, the American Society of Agronomy called him "the father of soil physics." He served as dean at UC Berkley
H. Tracy Hall: chemist, who developed the tetrahedron press and was the first to produce synthetic diamonds

Kjohnson3 writes:
-"all that time spent reading the bible instead of doing more outward-reaching things may explain why Mormons are so blindly willing to accept the utterly bizarre claims of Mormon theology and the lockstep requirements imposed by church hierarchy, as well as the temple rituals and sacred underwear."

You are obviously just an angry person who has some itch against the church. The LDS church has donated well into the billions of dollars of time, talent, and materials to assisting and aiding people all around the world, in AND out of the church. Many other religious organizations have commended the church for stepping up and helping them in service.

Your comments are so erroneous and blatantly arrogant, you're showing your ignorance and lack of intelligence on the matter.

-"If you don't have sustained contact with the real world, then the brainwashing is a cinch."

I suppose you want to recall your comment above regarding these mormons as well?

Martin Pomeroy: (Interim) Chief of Police LAPD
Darwin A. John: Chief Information Officer, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Rob Davis: Chief of Police, San Jose, California
Samuel Cowley: FBI inspector
Ezra Taft Benson(1899-1994): US Secretary of Agriculture
Orrin Hatch: US Senator, Utah
Harry Reid: US Senate Majority Leader, Nevada
Wally Herger: Congressman, California
Dr. Grant Hill, M.D.:Member of Parliment, Alberta, Canada
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Delegate to U.S. Congress, American Samoa
J. Reuben Clark(1891-1961): Undersecretary of State
Howard W. Cannon(1912-2002): US Senator, Nevada
Russell M. Nelson: heart surgeon
Dr. Jarvis “Jay” Edwin Seegmiller: pioneer in the field of human genetics
Homer R. Warner: medical scientist
Glenn Beck: radio announcer and television talk show host
Don Hudson: News Anchor
Jane Clayson: reporter
Cody Alan: radio announcer
Ken Jennings: Contestant, Jeopardy; biggest winner in gameshow history
Vai Sikahema: sports director/anchor for NBC
Gladys Knight: rhythm and blues, pop, gospel, soul
Osmonds: family of singers
John Bytheway: motivational speaker, instructor
Kyle Farnsworth: Major League Baseball, relief Pitcher
Bruce Hurst: Major League Baseball, Pitcher

Volkmare, Volkmare, Volkmare,

As you know the simple preacher man was illiterate and the NT is a brief "biography" highly embellished and fictionalized by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

This wishful thinking was done approximately 2000 years ago by P, M, M, L and J who continued the embellishment and fiction tradition of the Jewish scribes. The locals paid for a good story of myth and imminent second coming. There was no money in the truth.

The NT should actually be called The Optimized Life of a Simple Preacher Man by P, M, M, L and J. It is unfortunate these optimizers made him into a god.

Bottom line: Christianity is more their creation than it is the simple preacher man's. A better name would be “Paul-Et-Al-ity”.

Ccnl’s implication that Jesus was a “simple preacher man” is a bit off target.
Reading the bible will show you that he was anything but simple.

As for KJOHNSON3, “utterly bizarre”:
Again, reed the bible and you will find it is not.
I have found much assistance in the bible and still have time to be a network administrator, drag racer, and home geek/gear-head.
Brain washing is nowhere in the picture.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read the Scriptures as time allows because they find strength and inspiration in them. They also gain a perspective on their own lives they can't find anywhere else.

No one forces me to read or not read the Scriptures. No one monitors my activities in the privacy of my own home. No one forces me to believe or not believe. The reason I am a believing Latter-day Saint is because I choose to be one. Nothing more, nothing less.

Joseph Smith was once asked how he managed to persuade his followers to behave as they did. His answer was, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." This, the principle of personal agency, is the essence of what it means to be a Latter-day Saint.

To the general reader,
By the way, here is an example of a recent great talk by the BYU-Idaho president, Kim B. Clark, about seeking and fostering peace in our lives:
http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2009_01_13_Clark.htm

To the general reader:
When the dean of the Harvard Business School stepped down to become the president of BYU-Idaho, he was asked about his decision by many people, of course. His decision illustrates the apt use of the word "conviction" by Brother Otterson, and also the fact that LDS people are very much "in the world" as respected leaders in many fields.

A person wouldn't do that who didn't have conviction deep inside that such a decision had a "greater good" purpose. I agree with Brother Otterson that such conviction comes by having deep appreciation for the scriptures through personal study, thinking and pondering as you read. I am personally profoundly grateful for William Tyndale. I love his use of the English language!

With all of this scripture-reading, I have to wonder when Mormons have the time to do anything else.

I suspect that Mr. Otterson is overstating just a bit. Then again, all that time spent reading the bible instead of doing more outward-reaching things may explain why Mormons are so blindly willing to accept the utterly bizarre claims of Mormon theology and the lockstep requirements imposed by church hierarchy, as well as the temple rituals and sacred underwear.

If you don't have sustained contact with the real world, then the brainwashing is a cinch.

Most contemporary historic Jesus exegetes have concluded that John 3:39 was not said by the simple preacher man aka Jesus.

e.g.
"John Dominic Crossan

Crossan [Historical Jesus, 228] that disagreements about the nature of Jesus may underlie some of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthian church, and that they can also be seen in several clusters of the Jesus tradition: 21 The World's Light [1/4], 37 New Garments [1/3], 296 From My Words [1/1], 42 Scriptures and Jesus [1/3] and 53 Knowing the Times [1/3].

"The Jesus Seminar gave a 0% rating to this and analogous passages:
While The Five Gospels notes the parallels in GJohn and GEger, only Thom 52:2 was considered at a session of the Seminar. The commentary (p. 503) suggests that the reference to the "twenty-four prophets" reflects point in the tradition when the Hebrew Scriptures were increasingly disparaged by Christians moving away from their Jewish roots. Unlike Jesus, "the Living One," the Jewish Scriptures were the teachings of "the dead."

"Gerd Luedemann
Luedemann [Jesus, 616] considers the saying attributed to Jesus to be inauthentic "since in reality the historical Jesus saw a connection between himself and the Old Testament prophets."