Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And Mormons wonder why people don't like them.

We do?

[_asbestosman]

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that you don't have some God-given right to have no one ever offend you.

I agree as far as that goes. I just don't think that means we can safely ignore being offensive. It just means we don't need to avoid it at all costs. I think it is best to weigh the costs of being offensive against the costs of avoiding offensive actions. There is not always a clear answer. Simply ignoring the offense without consideration is, however, offensive in and of itself--at least I think so. Ignoring the fact that others are offended by what you do without having considered alternatives comes across as uncaring, inconsiderate, and selfish. Sometimes weighing the choices and making the unpopular decision comes across that way too, but I think it's the most rational course to take.

[_The Nehor]

And Mormons wonder why people don't like them.

We do?

If I remember right I think our scriptures go on at some length that we shouldn't expect people to like us. Of course if you point this out, we're told we just have a persecution complex.

[_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.

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

Actually, when it comes to polygamy I do think God changed it due to how outsiders took it (and therefore acted against the church). The Official Declaration hinds about as much. When it comes to blacks and the priesthood, I think there are other issues.

[_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.

Actually, when it comes to polygamy I do think God changed it due to how outsiders took it (and therefore acted against the church). The Official Declaration hinds about as much. When it comes to blacks and the priesthood, I think there are other issues.

I suspect God did this to. I would certainly hope that an omnipotent being wouldn't ignore the practical effects of a specific practice entirely in favor of some kind of 'spiritual aspect'. President Woodruff also said that if God did not give permission to stop, he would not have stopped.

[_asbestosman]

*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?

for what it's worth, I would imagine that many would find such questions further offensive. Or feelings about deceased loved ones are not always rational. In fact, I might argue that they are rarely rational. Many simply want to have good memories of them and almost think about them as still living not some dead pile of ashes in an urn or corpse in a field. That, I suppose, is why they are offended at what we do to their names just as we would be offended at someone mutilating the corpses of our deceased loved ones. We almost think of the corpse as them or even as alive although it's not strictly rational.

[_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.

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.

You haven't answered the question. I'm curious to see whether and to what degree you are capable of empathy/understanding something from someone else's point of view.

What offends me about the practice? Many things, among them is this. If a person in life choose NOT to associate with a particular group, or holds core beliefs directly at odds with said group, inducting him/her into the group post-mortem dishonors that person's memory and is an act that violates what he/she stood for in life.

Do I think the LDS Church has any authority? Of course not. Can it affect me? Not directly, no, but symbolically, absolutely. You must live under a rock if you cannot figure out that symbols matter, and they matter a lot, to people. (By way of analogy, displaying the Confederate flag on state property doesn't affect anyone directly, but symbolically it affects many, and powerfully. You remind me of the Southern redneck/racist/good ol' boy/etc. (take your pick) who for the life of him cannot fathom why black people find public displays of the Confederate flag offensive.)

Try for once to step outside your self identity as a Mormon and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kiss the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

*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?

for what it's worth, I would imagine that many would find such questions further offensive. Or feelings about deceased loved ones are not always rational. In fact, I might argue that they are rarely rational. Many simply want to have good memories of them and almost think about them as still living not some dead pile of ashes in an urn or corpse in a field. That, I suppose, is why they are offended at what we do to their names just as we would be offended at someone mutilating the corpses of our deceased loved ones. We almost think of the corpse as them or even as alive although it's not strictly rational.

Personally, I think comparing a vicarious baptism with mutilating a corpse over the top.

I see your point that some people are not going to be rational when it comes to a deceased loved one. It is difficult to pronounce exactly what I would do should I be confronted with a person who took such offense, as it doesn't occur frequently (or ever, aside from a few people I've spoken with online.) I would add that tact and empathy are crucial, but merely patting someone on the back regarding something that concerns them also has drawbacks. In the eyes of most people who are offended by the practice there will be drawbacks to whatever approach I take, aside from completely disavowing baptism for the dead.

[_asbestosman]

Personally, I think comparing a vicarious baptism with mutilating a corpse over the top.

Maybe it'd be better if I said something like placing a confederate flag on the gravestone of someone who hated slavery (to steal guy sajer's example)?

[_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.

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.

You haven't answered the question. I'm curious to see whether and to what degree you are capable of empathy/understanding something from someone else's point of view.

What offends me about the practice? Many things, among them is this. If a person in life choose NOT to associate with a particular group, or holds core beliefs directly at odds with said group, inducting him/her into the group post-mortem dishonors that person's memory and is an act that violates what he/she stood for in life.

Do I think the LDS Church has any authority? Of course not. Can it affect me? Not directly, no, but symbolically, absolutely. You must live under a rock if you cannot figure out that symbols matter, and they matter a lot, to people. (By way of analogy, displaying the Confederate flag on state property doesn't affect anyone directly, but symbolically it affects many, and powerfully. You remind me of the Southern redneck/racist/good ol' boy/etc. (take your pick) who for the life of him cannot fathom why black people find public displays of the Confederate flag offensive.)

Try for once to step outside your self identity as a Mormon and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kiss the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

As a symbol it's an incredibly weak one. No angel Moroni's on gravestones, no proudly proclaiming that 'so and so' is now a member of the Church. Most likely a family member of a random stranger does the work and it's recorded into an obscure database unknown to most non-LDS. It's nothing like waving a Confederate flag.