Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_asbestosman]

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

Let's remember that next time someone posts temple garments.

Or maybe we'll just weigh the offensive action against alternatives for the offender from the offender's point of view before judging. I would think, for example, that it doesn't cost much to avoid saying the r-word or to avoid posting temple garments at least in most instances and especially when weghing the offense on the other side.

[_The Nehor]

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

Let's remember that next time someone posts temple garments.

Or maybe we'll just weigh the offensive action against alternatives for the offender from the offender's point of view before judging. I would think, for example, that it doesn't cost much to avoid saying the r-word or to avoid posting temple garments at least in most instances and especially when weing the offense on the other side.

You mean posting Temple garments here? Yes, I will get offended. I will get annoyed that the rules are being violated but that's it. If Shades were to change the rules and allow that in all forums he can. I can decide to leave the forums but that's the extent of my protest. I could scream and yell a lot but why?

[_asbestosman]

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.

I don't think they're malcontents--I don't think they're looking for something to be offended by. But who am I to judge the legitimacy of what they find offensive? All I can say is that I don't find it necessarily offensive. Obviously that makes an inadequate measuring stick. All I can do, then, is weigh the alternatives--the cost of the offense verses the cost of avoiding the offense. I think part of the disconnect is that the costs are seen differently by different parties and perhaps we're all poor at estimating the each other's value on each side of the balance.

[_antishock8]

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.

Sooo... “F” 'em. They're extremists and malcontents. Nice. And Mormons wonder why people don't like them.

[_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.

Sooo... f*** 'em. They're extremists and malcontents. Nice. And Mormons wonder why people don't like them.

I didn't say they were extremists and malcontents. I said they are actually offended. That's unfortunate but oh well. Do you really expect the Church to deviate from one of it's prime mandates from God so a bunch of people can feel better?

[_asbestosman]

You mean posting Temple garments here? Yes, I will get offended.

Oops, I misread you the first time. What do you mean by, "I do not think people have an inherent right to not be offended."

I would think people do have the right to not be offended or offended as they like. That was what I was trying to say. I thought you were saying that we have the right not to be offended so maybe we shouldn't necessarily take offense and perhaps we can expect others to control their offenses more. Now I don't think that's what you meant though.

I could scream and yell a lot but why?

No reason to, but then you can choose to quit lurking on offensive forums. Catholics can't choose to stop us from using the names of their deceased if we already have them--at least not without being a squaky wheel.

[_asbestosman]

Do you really expect the Church to deviate from one of it's prime mandates from God so a bunch of people can feel better?

Some would say that's what happened with polygamy and also blacks and the priesthood.

[_The Nehor]

You mean posting Temple garments here? Yes, I will get offended.

Oops, I misread you the first time. What do you mean by, "I do not think people have an inherent right to not be offended."

I would think people do have the right to not be offended or offended as they like. That was what I was trying to say. I thought you were saying that we have the right not to be offended so maybe we shouldn't necessarily take offense and perhaps we can expect others to control their offenses more. Now I don't think that's what you meant though.

I could scream and yell a lot but why?

No reason to, but then you can choose to quit lurking on offensive forums. Catholics can't choose to stop us from using the names of their deceased if we already have them--at least not without being a squaky wheel.

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that you don't have some God-given right to have no one ever offend you. I'm offended by the Gay marriage movement, the cancellation of Firefly, the destabilizing force of Health Insurance companies, and the joke that is Reality TV and the run of amateur talent contests trying to stir up drama. Somehow I cope.

[_The Nehor]

Do you really expect the Church to deviate from one of it's prime mandates from God so a bunch of people can feel better?

Some would say that's what happened with polygamy and also blacks and the priesthood.

Perhaps, I am not part of that 'some' though.

[_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.

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.

It's not the same across the board. There is no prototypical answer from my perspective. Different people take offense for different reasons and in different degrees.

If someone calls me an idiot do I have the right to be offended? Will I be offended? What will I do with my offense? It doesn't make me feel great when I hear some are offended by baptism for the dead, if that is what you are asking. What is my answer? I suppose I would try to reason* with such a person and help them get past their offense. If we reach an impasse I would see it as unfortunate, but there isn't much else I can do.

*As far as reasoning goes, I might ask questions like this: What is it that offends you about the practice? Do you believe the LDS Church has any authority or power from God to perform vicarious baptism on behalf of your loved one? If not, can it really affect you if such a ceremony (which is very brief) is performed far away from your loved one and you? What is something constructive you can do to overcome your offense?

If the person is a good friend who has a sense of humor I might suggest they perform an "unbaptism" ceremony just for good measure.