Holocaust victim names in Mormon database


 Religions > Bible > Holocaust victim names in Mormon database

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 16

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 
Topic: Religions > Bible
User: "Steve Dufour"
Date: 27 May 2006 03:04:02 AM
Object: Holocaust victim names in Mormon database
Holocaust victim names in Mormon database
By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press WriterFri May 26, 5:34 PM ET
Jewish leaders in a dispute with The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints over the practice of posthumous baptisms say there is
new evidence that names of Jewish Holocaust victims continue to show up
in the church's vast genealogical database.
"We've been dealing with it for 11 years, since 1995, and we continue
to deal with it," said Ernest Michel, a Holocaust survivor and founding
member of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.
Posthumous baptism is a sacred rite practiced in Mormon church temples
for the purpose of offering membership in the church to the deceased.
Church members are encouraged to conduct family genealogy research and
forward their ancestors' names for proxy baptism.
Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said the baptismal rite is only
an offer of membership that can be rejected in the afterlife by
individuals. "So, there's no injury done to anybody," Hinckley told the
AP in an interview last November.
But Jews are offended by the practice and in 1995 signed an agreement
with Mormon leaders aimed at preventing the names of Holocaust victims
from being added to the genealogical index. The agreement would also
have limited entries of other Jewish names to those persons who are
direct ancestors of current Mormons.
A cross-referencing of more than 1,500 Dutch Jews whose names should
have been deleted from the church's International Genealogical Index
remain in the database, Michel said.
Over the past three months, the entries were matched by Salt Lake City
researcher Helen Radkey against a 1995 list of deleted names provided
by church leaders to Michel's organization.
Michel, whose parents were posthumously baptized, said Wednesday that
he is in talks with church leaders and is working on a July meeting
date to discuss the latest findings.
Mormon church spokesman Mike Otterson said Friday that no meeting had
been scheduled, but that Michel has been encouraged to bring his
concerns before a working group of church staff and Jews set up in
April 2005 to continue to work out database issues.
"One of the benefits of previous meetings is that we established an
ongoing joint working group that would address what would appear to be
any anomalies, or anything that appears to be slipping through our
screening process," Otterson said. "That committee continues to meet
and continues to be the best place for addressing these concerns."
___
On the Net:
http://www.lds.org
http://www.americangathering.com
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Holocaust victim names in Mormon database 27 May 2006 06:20:13 AM
*moonie* Steve Dufour a X=posting Troll wrote:

Holocaust victim names in Mormon database

Sowing some more seeds of HATE, ehh *moonie*?


By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press WriterFri May 26, 5:34 PM ET

What year was this even posted, if the meeting was scheduled in 2005?
Ter rehashing OLD News just for the Rise?!?
Hehh, go figure..
8<-----------------
GIGO
.
User: "Josef Oswald"

Title: Re: Holocaust victim names in Mormon database 27 May 2006 06:44:29 AM
On Sat, 27 May 2006 04:20:13 -0700,in
<1148728813.778864.274220@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
"Garbage-Dude" Bruce, aka bd4u continued the never-ending
"fairytale-hour" of his with the following remarks:


*moonie* Steve Dufour a X=posting Troll wrote:

Holocaust victim names in Mormon database


Sowing some more seeds of HATE, ehh *moonie*?



By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press WriterFri May 26, 5:34 PM ET


What year was this even posted, if the meeting was scheduled in 2005?

*"We've been dealing with it for 11 years, since 1995,*
Can you NOT add *11* and *1995*?

Ter rehashing OLD News just for the Rise?!?

You posted the following link a couple times now, have you bothered to
check the date?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/Unif36.html
Moon arms factory
His father preaches peace, and he makes guns
Boston Globe/March 21, 1999
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you "Maaroon" can post old News, but he can't? But in fact, his
isn't old:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3900363.html
May 26, 2006, 4:35PM
Holocaust Victim Names in Mormon Database
By JENNIFER DOBNER Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
And the reference to 2005 was:
" Mormon church spokesman Mike Otterson said Friday that no meeting had
been scheduled, but that Michel has been encouraged to bring his
concerns before a working group of church staff and Jews set up in
April 2005 to continue to work out database issues."
Does somebody pay you to appear that "stupid"?
Since you got so much wrong I'll re-post the article.
Holocaust victim names in Mormon database
By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press WriterFri May 26, 5:34 PM ET
Jewish leaders in a dispute with The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints over the practice of posthumous baptisms say there is
new evidence that names of Jewish Holocaust victims continue to show up
in the church's vast genealogical database.
"We've been dealing with it for 11 years, since 1995, and we continue
to deal with it," said Ernest Michel, a Holocaust survivor and founding
member of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.
Posthumous baptism is a sacred rite practiced in Mormon church temples
for the purpose of offering membership in the church to the deceased.
Church members are encouraged to conduct family genealogy research and
forward their ancestors' names for proxy baptism.
Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said the baptismal rite is only
an offer of membership that can be rejected in the afterlife by
individuals. "So, there's no injury done to anybody," Hinckley told the
AP in an interview last November.
But Jews are offended by the practice and in 1995 signed an agreement
with Mormon leaders aimed at preventing the names of Holocaust victims
from being added to the genealogical index. The agreement would also
have limited entries of other Jewish names to those persons who are
direct ancestors of current Mormons.
A cross-referencing of more than 1,500 Dutch Jews whose names should
have been deleted from the church's International Genealogical Index
remain in the database, Michel said.
Over the past three months, the entries were matched by Salt Lake City
researcher Helen Radkey against a 1995 list of deleted names provided
by church leaders to Michel's organization.
Michel, whose parents were posthumously baptized, said Wednesday that
he is in talks with church leaders and is working on a July meeting
date to discuss the latest findings.
Mormon church spokesman Mike Otterson said Friday that no meeting had
been scheduled, but that Michel has been encouraged to bring his
concerns before a working group of church staff and Jews set up in
April 2005 to continue to work out database issues.
"One of the benefits of previous meetings is that we established an
ongoing joint working group that would address what would appear to be
any anomalies, or anything that appears to be slipping through our
screening process," Otterson said. "That committee continues to meet
and continues to be the best place for addressing these concerns."
Josef Oswald,
proud member of Rev.Moon's UM for over 30 years.
*****************************************************************
[.....]
"In this age, war is a most primitive and destructive means of
resolving conflict, and will never lead to lasting peace. Now is the
time, as the prophet Isaiah taught, to beat our swords into
ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks. Why must we continue this
tragic path, pouring countless dollars into wars that, in the end,
will never bring the reconciliation of enemies? The time has come for
the countries of the world to pool their resources and advance toward
the world of peace desired by God, the Master of this great universe. "
[.....]
God's Ideal Family, the Model for World Peace
Sun Myung Moon
Lincoln Center, New York, New York - September 12, 2005
http://www.unification.net/2005/20050912.html
*****************************************************************
so the question remains:
Will our critics here hear from the *final* Judge,
well done
or
*depart* from me you *evil-doer*
???
--
A fitting line for many of our critics:
" One liar can spread more falsehoods than a thousand honest men can correct. "
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Holocaust victim names in Mormon database 27 May 2006 07:01:26 AM
I got a smart alec reply to every question but
the following..
"Sowing some more seeds of HATE, ehh *moonie*?"
Instead I watched those seeds take sprout
.
User: "Josef Oswald"

Title: Re: Holocaust victim names in Mormon database 27 May 2006 07:28:09 AM
On Sat, 27 May 2006 05:01:26 -0700,in
<1148731285.942540.202930@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> gigo448 wrote:

I got a smart alec reply to every question but
the following..

"Sowing some more seeds of HATE, ehh *moonie*?"

You failed to show any "seeds of Hate" to start with.


Instead I watched those seeds take sprout

Only in your imagination.
Josef Oswald,
proud member of Rev.Moon's UM for over 30 years.
*****************************************************************
[.....]
"In this age, war is a most primitive and destructive means of
resolving conflict, and will never lead to lasting peace. Now is the
time, as the prophet Isaiah taught, to beat our swords into
ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks. Why must we continue this
tragic path, pouring countless dollars into wars that, in the end,
will never bring the reconciliation of enemies? The time has come for
the countries of the world to pool their resources and advance toward
the world of peace desired by God, the Master of this great universe. "
[.....]
God's Ideal Family, the Model for World Peace
Sun Myung Moon
Lincoln Center, New York, New York - September 12, 2005
http://www.unification.net/2005/20050912.html
*****************************************************************
so the question remains:
Will our critics here hear from the *final* Judge,
well done
or
*depart* from me you *evil-doer*
???
--
A fitting line for many of our critics:
" One liar can spread more falsehoods than a thousand honest men can correct. "
.




User: "Steve Dufour"

Title: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 10:27:09 AM

Posthumous baptism is a sacred rite practiced in Mormon church temples
for the purpose of offering membership in the church to the deceased.
Church members are encouraged to conduct family genealogy research and
forward their ancestors' names for proxy baptism.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said the baptismal rite is only
an offer of membership that can be rejected in the afterlife by
individuals. "So, there's no injury done to anybody," Hinckley told the
AP in an interview last November.

Are only people's ancestors being baptised? What about all the people
who died without having children?
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 10:47:18 AM
(Steve Dufour) wrote:


Posthumous baptism is a sacred rite practiced in Mormon
church temples for the purpose of offering membership in
the church to the deceased. Church members are encouraged
to conduct family genealogy research and forward their
ancestors' names for proxy baptism.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said the baptismal
rite is only an offer of membership that can be rejected
in the afterlife by individuals. "So, there's no injury
done to anybody," Hinckley told the AP in an interview
last November.


Are only people's ancestors being baptised? What about all
the people who died without having children?

There won't be anyone around to be horrified at the thought of
somebody still caring enough to want to do something good for them.
bestRegards, Guy.
.
User: "Steve Dufour"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 10:56:29 AM

Are only people's ancestors being baptised? What about all
the people who died without having children?

There won't be anyone around to be horrified at the thought of
somebody still caring enough to want to do something good for them.


bestRegards, Guy.

Thanks Guy. Do the Mormons have a plan for people who died childless?
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 11:29:26 AM
(Steve Dufour) wrote:


Are only people's ancestors being baptised? What about all
the people who died without having children?


There won't be anyone around to be horrified at the thought
of somebody still caring enough to want to do something good
for them.


Thanks Guy. Do the Mormons have a plan for people who died
childless?

Same plan as for those who have children - except the Monday Night
Family Home Evening is somewhat less chaotic.
bestRegards, Guy.
.
User: "Steve Dufour"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 03:29:16 PM

Thanks Guy. Do the Mormons have a plan for people who died
childless?

Same plan as for those who have children - except the Monday Night
Family Home Evening is somewhat less chaotic.


bestRegards, Guy.

Who will baptise them if the Mormons are only baptising their direct
ancestors?
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 04 Jun 2006 04:18:01 PM
(Steve Dufour) wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

Thanks Guy. Do the Mormons have a plan for people who
died childless?


Same plan as for those who have children - except the Monday
Night Family Home Evening is somewhat less chaotic.


Who will baptise them if the Mormons are only baptising their
direct ancestors?

Erm ... it appears I misunderstood your question. Sorry.
The Church has something called a Name Extraction Program in place,
where we comb historical records - census reports, county/city/parrish
death reports, birth records, anything with a name and
birth/marriage/death date on it - and we plug 'em into the computer.
Computer compares it to the database of names we already have, and adds
the new ones and updates existing ones.
This gives us the largest geneological database in the known
universe.
Two ways those names get to the temples to have work done. (1) An
ancestor of some sort - not necessarily direct - does the research and
links the name into a known family, and then volunteers to do the temple
work himself, and (2) the computer learns enough about a deceased
individual to establish them as unique, link them into a family, and,
lacking the volunteer in step one, submits the name directly to the
temple.
How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from entering the
system is beyond me. Were I the Chief DBA for the Church, I'd keep a
list of known Holocaust victims and compare any new name against that
list, and exclude any matches. But that's just me. And the computer
doesn't see the John Doe born Feb 1, 1805 and the John Doe born Feb 2,
1805 as the same individual - so if there's any discrepancy in dates
whatsoever, the name gets added.
bestRegards, Guy.
.
User: "Steve Dufour"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 12:23:10 AM

The Church has something called a Name Extraction Program in place,
where we comb historical records - census reports, county/city/parrish
death reports, birth records, anything with a name and
birth/marriage/death date on it - and we plug 'em into the computer.
Computer compares it to the database of names we already have, and adds
the new ones and updates existing ones.

This gives us the largest geneological database in the known
universe.

Two ways those names get to the temples to have work done. (1) An
ancestor of some sort - not necessarily direct - does the research and
links the name into a known family, and then volunteers to do the temple
work himself, and (2) the computer learns enough about a deceased
individual to establish them as unique, link them into a family, and,
lacking the volunteer in step one, submits the name directly to the
temple.

How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from entering the
system is beyond me. Were I the Chief DBA for the Church, I'd keep a
list of known Holocaust victims and compare any new name against that
list, and exclude any matches. But that's just me. And the computer
doesn't see the John Doe born Feb 1, 1805 and the John Doe born Feb 2,
1805 as the same individual - so if there's any discrepancy in dates
whatsoever, the name gets added.


bestRegards, Guy.

Thanks. That is interesting. I would think however that the vast
majority of people who have ever lived died without leaving any written
record.
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 01:00:08 AM
(Steve Dufour) wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

I would think however that the vast majority of people who
have ever lived died without leaving any written record.

Gives us lots to do during the Millenium, no?
"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What
are these which are arrayed in white robes? and
whence came they?
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said
to me, These are they which came out of great
tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb.
"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and
serve him day and night in his temple: and he that
sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them."
-- Rev.7:13-15

It will be easier in the resurrection, however. The resurrected will
remember names, dates and places - and, presumably, there will be some
contact with the spirit world.
bestRegards, Guy.
.
User: "Steve Dufour"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 09:38:12 AM
Guy R. Briggs wrote:

hobbitfan111@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour) wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:


<snip>

I would think however that the vast majority of people who
have ever lived died without leaving any written record.

Gives us lots to do during the Millenium, no?

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What
are these which are arrayed in white robes? and
whence came they?

"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said
to me, These are they which came out of great
tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb.

"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and
serve him day and night in his temple: and he that
sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them."
-- Rev.7:13-15

It will be easier in the resurrection, however. The resurrected will
remember names, dates and places - and, presumably, there will be some
contact with the spirit world.


bestRegards, Guy.

That's good. Thanks for the answer to my questions.
.



User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 05:01:13 AM
On 4-Jun-2006, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote:

How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from entering the
system is beyond me.

By taking them out when they are told to, and not re-entereing them when
they think no one's looking.
Susan
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 10:25:56 AM
("Susan") wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from
entering the system is beyond me.


By taking them out when they are told to, ...

When we're TOLD to? Who are you to tell us what we can and can't
believe, what we can and can't do, hmmm?
We're voluntarily bending a religious tenet to try and keep you folks
happy ... and all we get is a bunch of whining when that doesn't happen
as quickly and as perfectly as y'all expect.


... and not re-entereing them when they think no one's looking.

It's all a big conspiracy, is that it?
Hate to burst your bubble, Susan, but it's not that simple. I've
already outlined the problems I see with keeping such names out of the
database - and I think I understand the difficulties, since I wrote my
first computer program in 1968 and have been involved on a professional
basis for most of my career since - and this has nothing to do with
dishonesty, or hating you, or anything else besides what I've already
suggested.
The other thing I don't understand is why this is such an issue with
you. Logically, the LdS belief is either true or false, and it's a
binary choice, with no other possibilities. If the belief is true, then
we're doing Jewish dead a tremendous altruistic service; if untrue, then
we're simply deluding ourselves but not doing any harm. It seems to me
that those who have passed on don't particularly care, since they are,
after all, DEAD!
Seems to me that Judaism has everything to gain and nothing to lose
from our efforts.
bestRegards, Guy.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 01:39:12 PM
On 5-Jun-2006, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote:

flaviaR@verizon.net ("Susan") wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from
entering the system is beyond me.


By taking them out when they are told to, ...

When we're TOLD to? Who are you to tell us what we can and can't
believe, what we can and can't do, hmmm?

SInce you;re the bigots who are telling us the same thing by doing these
back baptisms, your snideness is qay out of place.


We're voluntarily bending a religious tenet to try and keep you folks
happy ... and all we get is a bunch of whining when that doesn't happen
as quickly and as perfectly as y'all expect.

Translation: it's okay to bend a religious tenet if YOU gain by it - such
as suddenly deciding mongamy is NOT okay - but its's not okay to stop
insulting people, especailly when you're in the wrong.



... and not re-entereing them when they think no one's looking.

It's all a big conspiracy, is that it?

Hate to burst your bubble, Susan, but it's not that simple. I've
already outlined the problems I see with keeping such names out of the
database -

And all you've proven is that you're either not a computer prgrammer,
or you think people are stupid.
It's very easy to write a protocol that will keep out the names you've
been told to leave alone.Soomething
and I think I understand the difficulties, since I wrote my

first computer program in 1968 and have been involved on a professional
basis for most of my career since

Yeah, right.
I believe that.
- and this has nothing to do with

dishonesty, or hating you, or anything else besides what I've already
suggested.

Funny how it looks/sounds very much like just those things.

The other thing I don't understand is why this is such an issue with
you.

That's because you don't want to .
Your right to swing your arm ends with OTHER people's noses.
Your right to practice your religion ends with OTHER people.

Logically,

You do NOT want to discuss logic here, believe me.
If we go on logic, you have no leg to stand on, & therefore
would be admitting defeat right off.
the LdS belief is either true or false, and it's a

binary choice, with no other possibilities. If the belief is true, then
we're doing Jewish dead a tremendous altruistic service;

But not getting more "aubjects" for those future worlds that all the
Mormon godlets get to tule?
Yeah, sounds altruistic to me.
if untrue, then

we're simply deluding ourselves but not doing any harm.

Just like spitting on someone's grave doesn't really hurt them.
That is *precisely* what you're doing.

It seems to me
that those who have passed on don't particularly care, since they are,
after all, DEAD!

Then if they're just "dead" & don;t care, you should leave them alone.


Seems to me that Judaism has everything to gain and nothing to lose
from our efforts.

Only because you're a bigot.
Susan
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 05:08:15 PM
("Susan") wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com wrote:

[follow-ups to alt.religion.mormon]

How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from
entering the system is beyond me.


By taking them out when they are told to, ...


When we're TOLD to? Who are you to tell us what we can and
can't believe, what we can and can't do, hmmm?


SInce you;re the bigots ...

From www.dictionary.com:
"bigot, n. One who is strongly partial to one's own
group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant
of those who differ."
Key phrase being the "intolerant" part - as in "Susan is intolerant of
LdS beliefs on this subject."


... who are telling us the same thing by doing these
back baptisms, your snideness is qay out of place.

How do you feel about Catholics who light candles in their place of
worship for a non-Catholic? How do you feel about Jews who pray for anybody
besides Jews?


We're voluntarily bending a religious tenet to try and
keep you folks happy ... and all we get is a bunch of
whining when that doesn't happen as quickly and as

perfectly as y'all expect.

Translation: it's okay to bend a religious tenet if YOU
gain by it ...

How do we gain by trying to make you people happy?


... - such as suddenly deciding mongamy is NOT okay -

Red herring, but we've always felt that "mongamy" is OK. Monogamy, too,
for that matter. And there was even a short time when God directed us to
practice polygamy, but that was a long time ago.


... but its's not okay to stop insulting people, especailly
when you're in the wrong.

We're not trying to insult anybody. Just open some doors for them in the
next life. We don't even care if they actually walk through those open
doors; only that they have the opportunity.


... and not re-entereing them when they think no one's looking.


It's all a big conspiracy, is that it?

Hate to burst your bubble, Susan, but it's not that simple.
I've already outlined the problems I see with keeping such
names out of the database -


And all you've proven is that you're either not a computer
prgrammer, or you think people are stupid.

I am a computer programmer, and I don't think people are stupid. I
merely realize that taking a name - which may or may not be spelled
correctly - and a date of some sort, birth, marriage, or death - which
might also be incorrect - and matching it against a list of 6 million names
and knowing, with 100% accuracy, whether or not the name is a match to one
of those records - is not a trivial exercise.


It's very easy to write a protocol that will keep out the
names you've been told to leave alone.

BZZZZZZZT! Wrong! But thanks for playing. We have a lovely consolation
prize for you.


Soomething

Was there soomthing else?


... and I think I understand the difficulties, since I
wrote my first computer program in 1968 and have been
involved on a professional basis for most of my career
since


Yeah, right.
I believe that.

We can discuss the Sixth Normal Form anytime you wish.


- and this has nothing to do with dishonesty, or hating
you, or anything else besides what I've already suggested.


Funny how it looks/sounds very much like just those things.

Try taking your fingers out of your ears. It will probably sound better.


The other thing I don't understand is why this is such an
issue with you.


That's because you don't want to.

Actually, I'd very much like to.


Your right to swing your arm ends with OTHER people's
noses.

Agreed. However, we're not taking swings at anyone.


Your right to practice your religion ends with OTHER
people.

Also agreed - although we reserve the right to share with anybody who is
looking for better answers.
This is why I'd truly like to understand the issue: because I don't
thing we're taking swings at anybody, and we're certainly not forcing
anyone to join our religion.


Logically,


You do NOT want to discuss logic here, believe me.

Actually, I do - tho' I sometimes feel guilty having a duel of wits with
someone who is only half-armed.


If we go on logic, you have no leg to stand on, & therefore
would be admitting defeat right off.

Mormonism is more logical than any religion I've ever looked at.


... the LdS belief is either true or false, and it's a
binary choice, with no other possibilities. If the belief
is true, then we're doing Jewish dead a tremendous
altruistic service;


But not getting more "aubjects" for those future worlds
that all the Mormon godlets get to tule?

Subjects to rule? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I've been a regular on alt.religion.mormon for more than twelve years
now, and of all the stupid thigs I've heard about what us Marmuns ree-lee
believe, that ranks in the Top 10.
Here's a clue, Susan: The result of our work for the dead is not that we
get subjects to rule (or aubjects, for that matter!) it's that /they/ get
the same shot at being a "godlet" as we do.


Yeah, sounds altruistic to me.

<shakes head, sadly>


... if untrue, then we're simply deluding ourselves but
not doing any harm.


Just like spitting on someone's grave doesn't really hurt them.
That is *precisely* what you're doing.

Giving someone the chance for exaltation is "spitting on someone's
grave?" In which universe?


It seems to me that those who have passed on don't
particularly care, since they are, after all, DEAD!


Then if they're just "dead" & don;t care, you should leave
them alone.

Problem is that Malachi gave that little prophecy about Elijah and the
importance of the work. That the hearts of the fathers needed to be turned
to the hearts of the children and vice-versa. (See Malachi 4:5-6) That if
it doesn't happen, the whole world will be smitten with a curse.
Other than a nod in Elijah's direction as you leave the door ajar or set
an extra cup, I don't see anybody (besides Mormons) active in trying to
turn any hearts.
<insult snipped>
bestRegards, Guy.
.


User: "Binyamin Dissen"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 10:02:09 PM
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:25:56 GMT "Guy R. Briggs" <
>
wrote:
:>flaviaR@verizon.net ("Susan") wrote:
:>>
(Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

:>>> How they can keep the names of Holocaust victims from
:>>> entering the system is beyond me.
:>> By taking them out when they are told to, ...
:> When we're TOLD to? Who are you to tell us what we can and can't
:>believe, what we can and can't do, hmmm?
:> We're voluntarily bending a religious tenet to try and keep you folks
:>happy ... and all we get is a bunch of whining when that doesn't happen
:>as quickly and as perfectly as y'all expect.
Feel free to ignore the reformed and conservatives that make a big deal about
this.
Religious Jews really do not care about the proxy baptisms (as a religious Jew
knows that it has no effect) and are glad when missionaries are spending their
time converting the dead rather than trying to bother the living.
:>> ... and not re-entereing them when they think no one's looking.
:> It's all a big conspiracy, is that it?
You have to ignore the reformed and conservatives.
The reason they make such a big deal about this is because there is little
difference between their religions and Xianity other than the belief/worship
of jesus. When that is the main point of difference they must jump all around
to show how different they are.
:> Hate to burst your bubble, Susan, but it's not that simple. I've
:>already outlined the problems I see with keeping such names out of the
:>database - and I think I understand the difficulties, since I wrote my
:>first computer program in 1968 and have been involved on a professional
:>basis for most of my career since - and this has nothing to do with
:>dishonesty, or hating you, or anything else besides what I've already
:>suggested.


:> The other thing I don't understand is why this is such an issue with
:>you. Logically, the LdS belief is either true or false, and it's a
:>binary choice, with no other possibilities. If the belief is true, then
:>we're doing Jewish dead a tremendous altruistic service; if untrue, then
:>we're simply deluding ourselves but not doing any harm. It seems to me
:>that those who have passed on don't particularly care, since they are,
:>after all, DEAD!
But you forget - pretty much the only difference between the reformed/
conservatives and your religion is the worship/belief in jesus. Thus they have
to make a big deal about it.
To the religious Jew, where Kashrut, Shabbat, TM, etc., etc. differentiate the
Jew from the non-Jew, this baptism by proxy is simply silly.
I repeat my offer - you'all are welcome to convert me by proxy.
:> Seems to me that Judaism has everything to gain and nothing to lose
:>from our efforts.
Nothing to gain, but nothing to lose.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
User: "Guy R. Briggs"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 02:26:02 AM
(Binyamin Dissen) wrote:

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:

<snip>

Feel free to ignore the reformed and conservatives that
make a big deal about this.

Probably good advice.


Religious Jews really do not care about the proxy baptisms
(as a religious Jew knows that it has no effect) and are
glad when missionaries are spending their time converting
the dead rather than trying to bother the living.

We see our work as three-fold: Preaching the gospel (i.e. the
missionary effort to "bother the living," as you put it), perfecting the
Saints (i.e. taking care of the converted) and redeeming the dead.
Hate to disappoint, but the missionaries don't spend any time doing
work for the dead.
<snip>

To the religious Jew, where Kashrut, Shabbat, TM, etc., etc.
differentiate the Jew from the non-Jew, this baptism by
proxy is simply silly.

I'm assuming you mean that all the fuss about it is silly - and I
agree completely.


I repeat my offer - you'all are welcome to convert me by
proxy.

And I would be honored if y'all want to convert me to Judaism by
proxy. Thank you for your reasoned response, Binyamin.
bestRegards, Guy.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 05 Jun 2006 10:29:50 PM
On 5-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:


Feel free to ignore the reformed and conservatives that make a big deal
about
this.

And feel further free to ignore the lies told by bigots about who is
"reformed [sic]" or "conservative [sic]" just because we disagree
with a snottily narrow interpretation of how Jews should think.

Religious Jews really do not care about the proxy baptisms (as a religious
Jew
knows that it has no effect)

And this is a lie, as religious Jews also believe that that this insult
shows a
fundamental disprespect & should be stopped - like any grave desecration.

and are glad when missionaries are spending
their
time converting the dead rather than trying to bother the living.

Which doesn't negate the fact that it's rude & insulting, like spitting
on a grave.
Susan
.
User: "dianaiad"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 11:48:33 AM
wrote:

On 5-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
<snip to>

Which doesn't negate the fact that it's rude & insulting, like spitting
on a grave.

Excuse me, Susan, but isn't an insult rather dependent upon the motive
of the person doing the insulting? If WE do not think we are spitting
on graves, and indeed, if what we do has no effect whatsoever, how can
it be an insult?
I honestly and completely DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I'm not obtuse, I don't
think I'm particularly stupid--I just don't get the problem.
Here's the thing, Susan:
We do not think that we are doing anything that will force any of these
people to convert to Mormonism against their will; it is now, as it has
always been, their choice.
We do not think that we are taking anything of their heritage or
identity from them; they are now, as they have always been, Jews and
children of Israel.
For the life of me I don't understand why YOU think that we have the
power to make anybody a Mormon against his or her will, anymore than
offering you a chance to read the Book of Mormon makes you one against
your will.
Finally, since when did all these people who have passed on suddenly
become your puppets, that you can make their decisions for them?
Do you think you have the right to tell your grandparents what they can
and cannot do with their lives and faith? Does something happen to them
after death that makes them incapable of resisting Mormons if that is
their wish? If there is an afterlife, they are still quite capable of
making their own decisions and telling us to flake off. If there isn't,
then it doesn't matter, does it?
So please. Explain to me why what we are doing is such an insult, or
spitting upon graves.
I truly do not understand. We are taking nothing from any of you, we
are not offering any disrespect; we are simply offering a choice---and
it IS the choice of those to whom we offer it, not yours. If, as you
believe, we have no authority to offer it, if indeed that choice is NOT
offered because of the nature of the afterlife, then how are we harming
them OR you?
yes, you can say "how would you feel if someone were doing it to your
ancestors, or to you?" expecting me to figure it out, but since I can
honestly say "I wouldn't have a problem with it--just spell my name
right," you can perhaps see my problem with this whole thing.
You are going to have to explain to me what your problem is, because I
honestly don't understand.
Diana
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 12:33:52 PM
On 6-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:

flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

On 5-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
<snip to>



Which doesn't negate the fact that it's rude & insulting, like spitting
on a grave.


Excuse me, Susan, but isn't an insult rather dependent upon the motive
of the person doing the insulting?

No, of course not.
Just because you may be stupid doesn't mean that you aren't
being insulting.
I get missionaries to my door all the time, and they are genuinely
flabbergasted when I point out that their bigotry is unwelcome.
If WE do not think we are spitting

on graves, and indeed, if what we do has no effect whatsoever, how can
it be an insult?

Because it is. It's bigotry, plain & simple.
(And your arrogance is vey plain in just this sentence, too)
Susan
.
User: "dianaiad"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 03:03:47 PM
wrote:

On 6-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:

wrote:

On 5-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
<snip to>



Which doesn't negate the fact that it's rude & insulting, like spitting
on a grave.


Excuse me, Susan, but isn't an insult rather dependent upon the motive
of the person doing the insulting?


No, of course not.
Just because you may be stupid doesn't mean that you aren't
being insulting.
I get missionaries to my door all the time, and they are genuinely
flabbergasted when I point out that their bigotry is unwelcome.

Have you ever thought that there is a reason that they are
flabbergasted? The reaction of a genuinely unbigoted person, who has no
intention of being bigotted, would naturally be that of
"flabbergastedness" when being accused of such, wouldn't you say?


If WE do not think we are spitting

on graves, and indeed, if what we do has no effect whatsoever, how can
it be an insult?


Because it is. It's bigotry, plain & simple.

Why? Because YOU say so?The thing is, you have descended to insult to
me, personally and immediately, where I have simply asked for an honest
explaination. "It just is" is not a good enough answer for "why is it
an insult?"
You speak of arrogance and accuse me of it, when all I am attempting to
do is to understand. I wouldn't see it as an insult if anybody baptised
me by proxy into another faith after I was dead...so you can see, I
hope, why I would need you to explain to me, perhaps in words of one
syllable if you feel annoyed enough, why it is an insult to you or to
your people.
If I would have objected to such posthumous services being made to me,
I can see where 'arrogant' and even 'bigoted' might apply. Since I
wouldn't, they don't. So you will have to help me understand and stop
with your own ad hominems, because I ain't buying 'em.
Are you not confident enough in your own faith to think that it is
true...that anything we might do in behalf of the dead could actually
AFFECT them? Do you think that we, by some act of black magic or
sorcery, could actually make Mormons out of your dead, against their
will or yours? Would you have to remove them from your records, your
history or your memories, and re-carve the gravestones? Do our actions
affect them at all? Do they affect you?
I'm not being arrogant. I'm asking a simple question. Answer it,
please...with something other than 'it just is' and going directly to
your own very clear insults. I don't see why I should respect your
wishes, if you don't explain why your wishes in this should matter.
Your ancestors are not you. You do not get to dictate to them any more
than you get to dictate to your living grandparents who they will, or
will not, listen to.
....and if they are dead and thus insensable to any form of persuasion,
then why do you get to dictate to US what WE do, if our actions do not
personally affect you?
Again, I'm asking a sincere, objective question. Give me one good
reason why any of this is an insult to you or your people, and "it just
is" and "because I say so" won't work. I want to know WHY; because I
wouldn't be insulted if someone else did it for me, y'see. I'd be
bemused, even flattered a little, but insulted? No. So, how about it,
Susan?
Leave the insults. Just hand over an explanation. Y'never know, you
might even convince me.
Diana
.
User: "Binyamin Dissen"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 10:00:03 PM
On 6 Jun 2006 13:03:47 -0700 "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
:>
wrote:
:>> On 6-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:
:>> >
wrote:
:>> > > On 5-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>> > ><snip to>
:>> > > Which doesn't negate the fact that it's rude & insulting, like spitting
:>> > > on a grave.
:>> > Excuse me, Susan, but isn't an insult rather dependent upon the motive
:>> > of the person doing the insulting?
:>> No, of course not.
:>> Just because you may be stupid doesn't mean that you aren't
:>> being insulting.
:>> I get missionaries to my door all the time, and they are genuinely
:>> flabbergasted when I point out that their bigotry is unwelcome.
:>Have you ever thought that there is a reason that they are
:>flabbergasted? The reaction of a genuinely unbigoted person, who has no
:>intention of being bigotted, would naturally be that of
:>"flabbergastedness" when being accused of such, wouldn't you say?
I have to agree.
Yes, missionaries can be annoying. Sometimes they are fun.
I fail to see how they are "bigoted"
:>> If WE do not think we are spitting
:>> > on graves, and indeed, if what we do has no effect whatsoever, how can
:>> > it be an insult?
:>> Because it is. It's bigotry, plain & simple.
:>Why? Because YOU say so?The thing is, you have descended to insult to
:>me, personally and immediately, where I have simply asked for an honest
:>explaination. "It just is" is not a good enough answer for "why is it
:>an insult?"
:>You speak of arrogance and accuse me of it, when all I am attempting to
:>do is to understand. I wouldn't see it as an insult if anybody baptised
:>me by proxy into another faith after I was dead...so you can see, I
:>hope, why I would need you to explain to me, perhaps in words of one
:>syllable if you feel annoyed enough, why it is an insult to you or to
:>your people.
It cannot be explained.
Expect to see a strawman such as grave desecration.
:>If I would have objected to such posthumous services being made to me,
:>I can see where 'arrogant' and even 'bigoted' might apply. Since I
:>wouldn't, they don't. So you will have to help me understand and stop
:>with your own ad hominems, because I ain't buying 'em.
Few people that observe the reformed or conservative religions feel confidence
in their beliefs.
And, sadly, rather than examine why their religion is flawed and improving
themselves, choose the process of asserting that other religions are bigoted.
:>Are you not confident enough in your own faith to think that it is
:>true...that anything we might do in behalf of the dead could actually
:>AFFECT them? Do you think that we, by some act of black magic or
:>sorcery, could actually make Mormons out of your dead, against their
:>will or yours? Would you have to remove them from your records, your
:>history or your memories, and re-carve the gravestones? Do our actions
:>affect them at all? Do they affect you?
The reformed and conservative tend to not have much confidence in their
beliefs.
:>I'm not being arrogant. I'm asking a simple question. Answer it,
:>please...with something other than 'it just is' and going directly to
:>your own very clear insults. I don't see why I should respect your
:>wishes, if you don't explain why your wishes in this should matter.
:>Your ancestors are not you. You do not get to dictate to them any more
:>than you get to dictate to your living grandparents who they will, or
:>will not, listen to.
:>...and if they are dead and thus insensable to any form of persuasion,
:>then why do you get to dictate to US what WE do, if our actions do not
:>personally affect you?
:>Again, I'm asking a sincere, objective question. Give me one good
:>reason why any of this is an insult to you or your people, and "it just
:>is" and "because I say so" won't work. I want to know WHY; because I
:>wouldn't be insulted if someone else did it for me, y'see. I'd be
:>bemused, even flattered a little, but insulted? No. So, how about it,
:>Susan?
Exactly my attitude.
:>Leave the insults. Just hand over an explanation. Y'never know, you
:>might even convince me.
But no strawmen.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
.
User: "Dan Kimmel"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 07 Jun 2006 09:09:58 AM
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:fufc829v0rn7pvjpvtb46nuld4sq4uc9tj@4ax.com...


Few people that observe the reformed or conservative religions feel

confidence

in their beliefs.

There's no such group as "Reformed Jews." There's a group known as
"Reform." And neither Reform nor Conservative Judaism see themselves as a
separate "religion."
Only Orthodox extremists would so misrpresent them.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 06 Jun 2006 11:17:33 PM
On 6-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

:>Have you ever thought that there is a reason that they are
:>flabbergasted? The reaction of a genuinely unbigoted person, who has no
:>intention of being bigotted, would naturally be that of
:>"flabbergastedness" when being accused of such, wouldn't you say?

I have to agree.

You would.
Both of you refuse to accept that just because a person thinks s/he
is not bigoted, but does something horrendously bigoted, this makes
him/her a bigot.
For just one example: I have known people use have used words like
"*****" and "chink" and would *swear* they aren't bigoted; they just
don't want to live near these people...
Get it yet?


Yes, missionaries can be annoying. Sometimes they are fun.

WHich does not change the facts I presented.


I fail to see how they are "bigoted"

You would.
Allow me to dumb it down for both of you.
If it rude for me to run around telling people "My daughter is much
smarter/prettier (whatever) than your daughter", how MUCH ruder
MUST it be to say "My religion is better than yours"?
Even if you think it, to act on it is rude AT BEST.
Susan
.
User: "dianaiad"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 07 Jun 2006 12:06:27 PM
wrote:

On 6-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

:>Have you ever thought that there is a reason that they are
:>flabbergasted? The reaction of a genuinely unbigoted person, who has no
:>intention of being bigotted, would naturally be that of
:>"flabbergastedness" when being accused of such, wouldn't you say?

I have to agree.


You would.

Both of you refuse to accept that just because a person thinks s/he
is not bigoted, but does something horrendously bigoted, this makes
him/her a bigot.

For just one example: I have known people use have used words like
"*****" and "chink" and would *swear* they aren't bigoted; they just
don't want to live near these people...

Get it yet?

No. There is no comparison. For one thing, our practice is because we
WANT to 'live near these people," aside from any other problem. This
isn't about being racist. IT's not about anything. It's about sending
missionaries out. We believe that the dead can also listen and choose,
and if sending missionaries to you isn't being bigotted (and last time
I looked, such activity wasn't considered bigotry) then making the same
offer to those who have been passed on isn't biggotry either.
In fact, the charge could be made that you are the bigot; you think
that your dead have suddenly become your property or something, that
you have the right to decide for them what they choose to do or to
believe. Seems to me that this only works if you don't think they have
any thought processes going on, and if THAT'S true, then what we do
wouldn't affect them anyway.


Yes, missionaries can be annoying. Sometimes they are fun.


WHich does not change the facts I presented.

What facts? I didn't see any.


I fail to see how they are "bigoted"


You would.

Allow me to dumb it down for both of you.

I do remember asking you to use words of one syllable if it would help,
yes.


If it rude for me to run around telling people "My daughter is much
smarter/prettier (whatever) than your daughter", how MUCH ruder
MUST it be to say "My religion is better than yours"?

Boy, is that dumb. that's not even intelligent enough to be termed a
strawman. Running around bragging about one's daughter is rude; that
mother isn't, after all, saying 'if you become my daughter you can be
beautiful too," is she? She's simply bragging. However, if you say 'my
religion is better than yours' you are making precisely that
invitation.."mine is better than yours, so come join mine."
And even that is a strawman, because we aren't saying that, either,
precisely. What we do is tell other people what our religion is and let
THEM decide which one is better. That includes those who are dead and
for whom we do proxy work, by the way. It is THEIR choice, not yours.


Even if you think it, to act on it is rude AT BEST.

Yet isn't that precisely what you are doing here? Telling us that your
religion is better than ours, so we have no right to practice it?


Susan

.
User: ""

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 07 Jun 2006 07:10:37 PM
On 7-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:

flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

On 6-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

:>Have you ever thought that there is a reason that they are
:>flabbergasted? The reaction of a genuinely unbigoted person, who has
no
:>intention of being bigotted, would naturally be that of
:>"flabbergastedness" when being accused of such, wouldn't you say?

I have to agree.


You would.

Both of you refuse to accept that just because a person thinks s/he
is not bigoted, but does something horrendously bigoted, this makes
him/her a bigot.

For just one example: I have known people use have used words like
"*****" and "chink" and would *swear* they aren't bigoted; they just
don't want to live near these people...

Get it yet?


No. There is no comparison.

Your wishful thinking does not make it so.

For one thing, our practice is because we
WANT to 'live near these people," aside from any other problem.

Wow, I didn't really expect to catch you making a racist remark,
since my point wasn't about racism but about bigotry, but that
was interesting of you to jump right in with one.

This
isn't about being racist.

Your attempt to sidetrack this into a point I wasn;t making, but merely
comparing, will fail.

IT's not about anything.

Whatever this is supposed to mean.
What it *is* about is rtying to get people to abandon their religoin for
yous.
it's called "bigotry".

It's about sending
missionaries out.

Yes, it's about bigotry.

We believe that the dead can also listen and choose,
and if sending missionaries to you isn't being bigotted

yes, it is.
Your continued refusal to accept facts will not change them.

(and last time
I looked, such activity wasn't considered bigotry)

Last time you looked where?
It *is* bigotry.

then making the same
offer to those who have been passed on isn't biggotry either.

Yes, it is the same thing.


In fact, the charge could be made that you are the bigot;

No, not at all.
Bigotry is defined as unreasonable attachment to a way of thought.
It is not unreasonable to hate bigotry.

you think
that your dead have suddenly become your property or something,

If this is so, then you are just as bigoted for you are acting as tho'
they are your propoerty.
I am simply trying to get you to respect their memories - and you
don't.
Your own church knows it is bigotry because they agreed to stop
doing it - only to be found having done it again.
that

you have the right to decide for them what they choose to do or to
believe.

You mean just like you're doing....?

Seems to me that this only works if you don't think they have
any thought processes going on, and if THAT'S true, then what we do
wouldn't affect them anyway.

And as I said, I know that it doesn't affect them.
It is, however, a bigoted act on your part that is the equivalent of
spitting on their grave.
As I have pointed out many times before.


Yes, missionaries can be annoying. Sometimes they are fun.


WHich does not change the facts I presented.


What facts? I didn't see any.

THere are none so blind as those who will not see.


I fail to see how they are "bigoted"


You would.

Allow me to dumb it down for both of you.


I do remember asking you to use words of one syllable if it would help,
yes.

As with your refusal to accept that missionizing is bigotry, you did,
indeed, ask me to dumb it down, tho' not in those exact words.


If it rude for me to run around telling people "My daughter is much
smarter/prettier (whatever) than your daughter", how MUCH ruder
MUST it be to say "My religion is better than yours"?


Boy, is that dumb.

Your wishful thinking does not make it so.

that's not even intelligent enough to be termed a
strawman.

Again.

Running around bragging about one's daughter is rude; that
mother isn't, after all, saying 'if you become my daughter you can be
beautiful too," is she?

Now THERE's a statement too dumb to be called a strawman.
I hadn't even gotten to that part of my point - and you make it for me,
below.

She's simply bragging. However, if you say 'my
religion is better than yours' you are making precisely that
invitation.."mine is better than yours, so come join mine."

Yes, that's where it becomes even MORE arrogant than just
"my religion is better than yours." Not only are you saying
that yours is betterm, you are trying to get somone to change.
That's rude, arrogant & BIGOTED.


And even that is a strawman, because we aren't saying that, either,
precisely.

Yes, you absolutely are.

What we do is tell other people what our religion is and let
THEM decide which one is better.

Back-baptizing is not "telling"; it's a declaration on your part.
Meaningless as it is, it is an insult.
If you think the dead have afterdeath thought processes, you
are being bigoted to *them*.
The only possible way you could know what their thoughts
are is to judge by who they were in life.
And if they were Jews, or Catholics or Hindus, then you should
respect their wishes & not spit on their graves.
I wouldn't let someone smear a Mormon grave with indications
of another religion on it I would hope you would be humane
enough to do the same in reverse. Obviously not.

That includes those who are dead and
for whom we do proxy work, by the way. It is THEIR choice, not yours.

Once again, if it's a choice, then you have no business "turning people
into Mormons".
So, obviously, the things you are telling me to try to pretend that you
aren't being bigoted, simply aren't true.


Even if you think it, to act on it is rude AT BEST.


Yet isn't that precisely what you are doing here?

Of course not.
I hjave not said at all that you should change your religion at all.
Unless you are saying that you can;t practice your religion without
insulting others.
But even your church agrees with me, for they stopped it the first
time they were caught.

Telling us that your
religion is better than ours, so we have no right to practice it?

Wrong again.
I am merely pointing out to you that you are being bigoted when
you missionize.
If you insist on doing it, you will just be told it whenever it happens.
Susan
.
User: "John Miles"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 11 Jun 2006 03:18:10 AM
"flaviaR@verizon.net" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote
in message 1WJhg.6848$Id2.3276@trnddc03...

On 7-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:

flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

On 6-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com>
wrote:

[snip logical carnage]

What we do is tell other people what our religion is and let
THEM decide which one is better.


Back-baptizing is not "telling"; it's a declaration on your part.

Now I think we've found the nub of the problem. You have no idea what
baptism (or any other ordinance) done by proxy accomplishes. It is a
declaration of absolutely nothing. It is simply performing an ordinance
that cannot be performed in the spirit world and, as we believe
missionary work (i.e., informing other people that we have certain
beliefs that they might be interested in understanding--it's completely
up to them) continues there, it has no efficacy and is "null and void"
from the time it is done until (according to our beliefs), the one for
whom the proxy work was done decides *of their own free choice* that
they do, indeed, want to accept the benefits thereof. *Only then* does
the baptism by proxy for those who have passed on before have *any*
meaning or efficacy whatsoever.
[snip]

That includes those who are dead and
for whom we do proxy work, by the way. It is THEIR choice, not yours.


Once again, if it's a choice, then you have no business "turning
people into Mormons".

Baptism by proxy doesn't turn *anyone* into a "Mormon." They are not
added to our membership rolls, they are not doctrinally considered to be
"Mormons," and are not even considered associated with The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nicknamed "Mormons") in any way! I
think this is where your misunderstanding causes you to claim everyone
that doesn't believe as you do is a bigot.
[snip]

Telling us that your
religion is better than ours, so we have no right to practice it?


Wrong again.
I am merely pointing out to you that you are being bigoted when
you missionize.

Is it bigoted to offer free (secular) education to those who might be
interested in it, but will never know until someone "missionizes"
them--i.e., let's them know that the option is available?
--John
--
"One could drive a prairie schooner through any part of his argument and
never scrape against a fact." --David Houston
.
User: "•R L Measures"

Title: Re: Problem with Mormon proxy baptism? 11 Jun 2006 07:30:37 AM
In article <8Yadnd1Hdbm-QBbZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "John Miles"
<TOTI@networld.excisethis.com> wrote:

"flaviaR@verizon.net" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote
in message 1WJhg.6848$Id2.3276@trnddc03...

On 7-Jun-2006, "dianaiad" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote:

flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:

On 6-Jun-2006, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com>
wrote:


[snip logical carnage]

What we do is tell other people what our religion is and let
THEM decide which one is better.


Back-baptizing is not "telling"; it's a declaration on your part.


Now I think we've found the nub of the problem. You have no idea what
baptism (or any other ordinance) done by proxy accomplishes. It is a
declaration of absolutely nothing. It is simply performing an ordinance...

• An ordinance of men.
.




















  Page 1 of 16

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8