Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I sincerely appreciate all condolences expressed here on behalf of my sister.

She lived a horrid life at the hand of a piece of sh*t pedophile and the scorn of his b*tch wife. I cannot imagine what long term molestation and emotional abuse can do to the mind of a young girl. The damage and scars to her self worth. Her future tossed out.

She lived a hard life as an adult, not knowing how to have a relationship with a man, not trusting anyone, battling depression and other mental issues.

Every time I see a vibrant woman in her mid forties walk by, hair bouncing as she springs from step to step, a genuine smile of happiness and content, and friendliness beaming from her eyes, I ask myself, why it could not have been my sis.

The abuse especially combined with the suicide makes this an especially difficult thing to deal with, and I sincerely do hope both you and your sister find a way to be at peace.

[_asbestosman]

What Jews and Catholics (and others) are offended by here isn't a belief, it's a practice.

Catholic views on abortion and birth control are a practice, especially when they go to Africa or other poor nations.

[_asbestosman]

a Catholic priest were to have a Send to Hell Ceremony in which YOUR ancestor was specifically named, singled out, and a rite was specifically performed sending him or her to Hell.... That would be offensive.

I've never claimed otherwise.

[Analytics]

Listen, LDS people, if the Catholic church, or various Jewish factions were to take YOUR ancestor specifically, and perform what you would consider a very disrespectful ordinance aimed specifically at that ancestor, that in of itself is disrespectful. If a Catholic priest were to have a Send to Hell Ceremony in which YOUR ancestor was specifically named, singled out, and a rite was specifically performed sending him or her to Hell.... That would be offensive.

I wouldn't be offended in the least.

But can you at least concede that they are offended? Whether they are justified at being offended or not is irrelavent. People are offended by all sorts of things.

Edit: Yes, you seem to see their offense too.

[_asbestosman]

Two things:

1) You might think that baptism for infants has no efficacy, either, but you might also consider it to be an abomination and an affront, and would prefer that no one baptize your infant. Does that mean you think it's valid? Not at all. You just don't want it done, don't believe in it, and even if you think it's benign, it's against your beliefs.

This is not a good comparison from my point of view. Moroni gives specific reasons why infant baptism is called an abomination. Two of the largest being that it denies the mercy of God, and it puts faith strictly in "dead works." I think a better argument could be constructed on the second point.
As far as the Catholic thing; their records, their rules, I gather.

I also find there is a difference between performing a religious ordinance on my living children and performing a religious rite using the name of a deceased person. That said, it does not mean that nobody should ever be offended by what I do with the names of the dead. People are offended by whatever they are offended by.

[_The Nehor]

Listen, LDS people, if the Catholic church, or various Jewish factions were to take YOUR ancestor specifically, and perform what you would consider a very disrespectful ordinance aimed specifically at that ancestor, that in of itself is disrespectful. If a Catholic priest were to have a Send to Hell Ceremony in which YOUR ancestor was specifically named, singled out, and a rite was specifically performed sending him or her to Hell.... That would be offensive.

I wouldn't be offended in the least.

But can you at least concede that they are offended? Whether they are justified at being offended or not is irrelavent. People are offended by all sorts of things.

Edit: Yes, you seem to see their offense too.

I concede that they can be offended. However, I do not think people have an inherent right to not be offended.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I also find there is a difference between performing a religious ordinance on my living children and performing a religious rite using the name of a deceased person. That said, it does not mean that nobody should ever be offended by what I do with the names of the dead. People are offended by whatever they are offended by.

We're pretty much in the same boat on this one.

[_asbestosman]

Granted, one cannot always avoid giving offense. But one CAN avoid giving offense in obvious ways by doing or saying things that he/she knows will (and reasonably so) offend others.

The key word being reasonably. That's tricky when it comes to religious beliefs many of which are always considered unreasonable by outsiders. Sometimes they're not even considered all that rational by insiders. I seriously do not understand the urgency behind temple work. I've done the math and decided the the millenium will take care of it all and there is no pressing need to do it now especially when it offends other and when it takes time out of a couples life they could spend together instead of across the room. But it's not up to me. Personally I think it's due in part to the human tendancy to misunderstand exponential growth (the exponential growth of people during the millenium will easily make a church force large enough to take care of templework).

The Mormon Church desperately wants to be considered mainstream, but it seems to have a hard to fathoming that things like this (along with its truly wacky beliefs and its association with polygamy) will forever (or at least the foreseeable future) cause others to view it as weird and set apart.

Any maybe it'll change this a bit more too. I wouldn't be too surprised if they make a rule stating you can only submit names for your ancestors. But then that's tricky too since many of us are related distantly (I'm Joseph Smith's distant cousin).

[_guy sajer]

I also find there is a difference between performing a religious ordinance on my living children and performing a religious rite using the name of a deceased person. That said, it does not mean that nobody should ever be offended by what I do with the names of the dead. People are offended by whatever they are offended by.

We're pretty much in the same boat on this one.

So what is it? Do they have a legit cause to be offended, or are they just a bunch of malcontents looking to take offense? Or something else?

I'm curious how you explain your answer, whatever it is.

[_The Nehor]

I also find there is a difference between performing a religious ordinance on my living children and performing a religious rite using the name of a deceased person. That said, it does not mean that nobody should ever be offended by what I do with the names of the dead. People are offended by whatever they are offended by.

We're pretty much in the same boat on this one.

So what is it? Do they have a legit cause to be offended, or are they just a bunch of malcontents looking to take offense? Or something else?

I'm curious how you explain your answer, whatever it is.

Although this question was not directed to me, I suspect some are from column A and some are from column B.