Eternal marriage & temple endowment handshakes, tokens, signs & passwords

[Kishkumen]

Okay. You don’t think “we” should be bothering to discuss the thoughts and feelings of people who feel harmed by having their ancestors' names harvested for Mormon rituals. So don’t bother discussing it then. Nobody is forcing you to discuss it.

To the contrary, I am all about bothering with discussion. I am less about bothering with intervening in a situation with demands based on the idea that someone's thrice-great-grandmother's name is sacrosanct.

[Kishkumen]

Now you’re not being consistent…

OK, probably in some ways, yes. What is your perception of my inconsistency?

[I Have Questions]

Okay. You don’t think “we” should be bothering to discuss the thoughts and feelings of people who feel harmed by having their ancestors' names harvested for Mormon rituals. So don’t bother discussing it then. Nobody is forcing you to discuss it.

To the contrary, I am all about bothering with discussion. I am less about bothering with intervening in a situation with demands based on the idea that someone's thrice-great-grandmother's name is sacrosanct.

I’m unaware of anyone demanding anything of the Church, nor any stated intervention actions. Some good suggestions have been made as part of the discussion, but I’d be amazed if the Church paid any attention to them. If you don’t want to bother discussing perceived harm caused by the Mormon church harvesting names to use in secret rituals, nobody is forcing you to do so. You’ve made your point that you, personally, don’t have a problem with it. Fine. Got it. Message received. What’s left to discuss with you on the topic?

[Kishkumen]

I’m unaware of anyone demanding anything of the Church, nor any stated intervention actions. Some good suggestions have been made as part of the discussion, but I’d be amazed if the Church paid any attention to them. If you don’t want to bother discussing perceived harm caused by the Mormon church harvesting names to use in secret rituals, nobody is forcing you to do so. You’ve made your point that you, personally, don’t have a problem with it. Fine. Got it. Message received. What’s left to discuss with you on the topic?

You're a funny person. I am pretty sure you are saying the LDS Church should stop vicarious ordinances unless they are done by members with a familial connection to the deceased. I think we basically agreed that this was the best way to go, although I noted that lots of people, LDS and non-LDS, share the same ancestors, so this is hardly going to end the complaints. And the topic of perceived harm is fine. I think we are having it. You are free to do with it as you want, of course.

[malkie]

One of the significant challenges to being a consistent skeptic is to apply the same approach to things that you wish were true to things you wish weren’t.

You're replying to Kishkumen, but I can't help but think you're making a pointed comment about someone else...

I haven't had much to say in this thread, but I definitely see myself reflected in Res' comment - and I don't much like what I see.

Thanks, Res! (no sarcasm, ok?)

[I Have Questions]

I’m unaware of anyone demanding anything of the Church, nor any stated intervention actions. Some good suggestions have been made as part of the discussion, but I’d be amazed if the Church paid any attention to them. If you don’t want to bother discussing perceived harm caused by the Mormon church harvesting names to use in secret rituals, nobody is forcing you to do so. You’ve made your point that you, personally, don’t have a problem with it. Fine. Got it. Message received. What’s left to discuss with you on the topic?

You're a funny person.

I am! I’m also acerbic, irritating, (occasionally?) obnoxious, and full of good ideas.

I am pretty sure you are saying the LDS Church should stop vicarious ordinances unless they are done by members with a familial connection to the deceased.

Not done by, but submitted by.

I think we basically agreed that this was the best way to go, although I noted that lots of people, LDS and non-LDS, share the same ancestors, so this is hardly going to end the complaints.

It would go a long way towards ending them. And I believe the Church is trying to do this, mostly. Except for names that have reached 110 years beyond their birth date. At that point, all bets are off.

And the topic of perceived harm is fine. I think we are having it. You are free to do with it as you want, of course.

Of course.

[Kishkumen]

Not done by, but submitted by.

Ah, yes, of course. Good catch.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Okay so it looks like the exchanges are back to the subject of vicarious baptism and possible harm. I'd like to throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Stay with me...

Some of my growing up church girlfriends and I have a small Facebook messenger group where we share news with and of each other. One "friend" isn't in the group though others have Facebook access to her. I wrote about the one friend some years back (5?) down in Paradise where I disclosed how she was crossing boundaries with me, how I chose to stop replying to her, how she then started writing um psycho posts alluding to me on her Facebook trying to guilt a response out of me. I stood my ground. So anyway...there's a reason she's not in the group on Facebook and it's behavioral.

Three weeks ago I got a group message telling us that one of our girlfriends since childhood had passed away from cancer. She had been a friend of mine since at least first grade through teens, through adulthood and then I moved away. Not my closest friend, but my very good friend nonetheless. Church together, school together, scouts together, beach together. That sort of thing.

The girl (I still think of them as girls) who sent the message cautioned us that the family had not made anything public on social media so best not to post condolences on our friend's Facebook page. Most of us wouldn't have done that but I think she was wise to mention it.

Enter the other one...

On the thread of a post dated October of last year I see the following: RIP my dear childhood friend! See you in heaven!!



Here's the problem. The family nor her boyfriend of many years posted anything anywhere on her Facebook about her passing away. Full stop. And yet, she blows in there and plasters what could amount to a death notice on the now deceased friend's page.

1. Where the friend is no longer alive to change it.
2. Where the Facebook friends might not even know she passed.
3. Where the boyfriend nor any family member is able to change it.
4. Where not one single person mentioned her health struggles nor had she on her social media.
5. Where if the family or boyfriend wanted to say something publicly they would have.

And now it sits there as the boundary crossing intrusion that it is.

So if her boyfriend, family, or friends would like to copy her photos for safe keeping of memories, they know that intrusion is sitting there unattended to because it CAN'T be attended to until someone figures out how to close out her Facebook and they might not want to close out her Facebook because of all the memories collected there. They might not be ready to face the fact of her death and their loss. It's like someone just intruded on their grief.

Because she did. She did when she took control away from our friend's loved ones and plastered that post on her Facebook.

(And as an aside can I just tell you this? All through her teen years and into adulthood and even after she herself got married, she ripped our friend to shreds behind her back because when they were of dating age they both liked the same young man and our now deceased friend married the guy.)

Hear me out. I am NOT saying that LDS perform vicarious baptism to hurt folks. I am NOT saying that LDS performing vicarious baptism would hurt me. It means virtually nothing to me and I expect it to happen to myself, all of my loved ones and all of my friends and acquaintances who are not LDS.

I get it.

But what about the family who are wrestling with the trauma of grief who learns that someone has gone through the obituary or the grave site of a loved one? Who in their grief wants to wrestle with that? Who wants to wrestle with that level of intrusion when one is at their most vulnerable? What grieving person wants to know that their Christian loved one was vicariously and religiously intruded upon by one of another faith tradition and their name recorded by the same?

Much like the Facebook post I just used as an example that symbolizes the same hurtful effect on a grieving family?

Food for thought.

That is awful. It reminds me when people post all the details of a baby's birth and post a picture before the parents are even ready to go onto social media. This happened when Oli was born. So when Phoebe was born we told people not to share anything until we were ready. And it felt like literally straight after we announced on Facebook the same person announced as if the post was just waiting ready to go. Lol

[Imwashingmypirate]

Because your views, if consistently held, lead to certain outcomes. If they aren't, then one has to ask what your special beef against the Mormons is.

Nope. Not having that. You’re suggesting that, if I take a view that the feelings of relatives who object to their loved ones names being used without permission in Mormon rituals should be respected, then I must also take the view that people who are offended by paying taxes should receive equal empathy from me. You can’t be serious.

Let me play it back to you - if you take the position that people who feel harmed by Mormon rituals using their ancestors names without position are wrong to feel harmed, then you must equally take the position that anyone run over by a car has no right to feel harmed.

Bonkers.

Taxes are offensive. Not the fact that people are taxed but because everything is taxed multiple times. We pay tax for living on the land, we pay tax when we earn wages, we pay tax on everything we buy with the already taxed wages, if people have extra bedrooms they pay empty bedroom tax, we pay tax on inheritance, tax on winnings, road tax for cars, I'm pretty sure there are more. We pay for rainfall by the way. They decide how much rainfall tax you pay by the size of your garden and how much it rains. It's not called a tax but that is essentially what it is. I was shocked to see that on the water bill. We basically pay for the earth supplying them with water that they sell to us, clean and resell to us over and over. Lol.

[Kishkumen]

Taxes are offensive. Not the fact that people are taxed but because everything is taxed multiple times. We pay tax for living on the land, we pay tax when we earn wages, we pay tax on everything we buy with the already taxed wages, if people have extra bedrooms they pay empty bedroom tax, we pay tax on inheritance, tax on winnings, road tax for cars, I'm pretty sure there are more. We pay for rainfall by the way. They decide how much rainfall tax you pay by the size of your garden and how much it rains. It's not called a tax but that is essentially what it is. I was shocked to see that on the water bill. We basically pay for the earth supplying them with water that they sell to us, clean and resell to us over and over. Lol.

Yes, it is hard to sit down and take in all the ways we pay out our hard-earned money to various government entities. It is also hard not to get upset about it, even if you generally appreciate those benefits that do come from taxes.