Re: As a matter of interest (was Re: Vatican trying to avoid baptism by proxy)

"JJ206" <jj206@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1210491525.394462@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>> "JJ206" <jj206@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:1210319375.517770@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Lesley Robertson wrote:
>>>> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so 
>>>> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively

>>>> using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS,

>>>> despite the fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical 
>>>> effort is in order that their ancestors can be retrospectively 
>>>> "baptized"?
>
>>> Just pretend that you are in heaven sipping on a really good
strawberry
>>> smoothie on a cloud and humming a happy tune with your family and 
>>> friends chatting about the old adventures. Then pops in a serious LDS
>>> suit and you spill smoothie on your white clothes and he loudly 
>>> proclaims "Hey, would you like to be baptized Mormon and move to this 
>>> other cloud and sip these other strawberry smoothies with total
>>> strangers ?
>>>
>>> You wouldn't be "mortally" offended because you are already dead, but 
>>> you might be "spiritually" offended. And the devil would laugh every 
>>> time it happens.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you were in hell, and the same question was asked, then
maybe 
>>> you would be glad to jump at the chance to be baptized, but I doubt
you 
>>> could hear the message over the noise of the meat grinders and volcano

>>> explosions.
>
>> You sound like you believe that your long-dead ancestors will actually 
>> "feel" their names being recorded or "baptized" by the LDS researchers,

>> and might be offended by it.  And that those ancestors will forever
more 
>> be considered Mormon by posterity.
>
> I used the word "pretend". You might pretend to feel how others feel.

No need to pretend.  One can either put himself in another's shoes, or
not.

>
> One time awhile ago, I was cross country skiing in a snow covered 
> cemetery. Someone yelled at me that I was skiing on graves. They clearly
> were offended at what I was doing. Yes, I was on the snow and not on the
> graves. Yes, they are dead. Yes, I didn't 100% understand what they
meant. 
> But I could feel their offense and I told them I would no longer
> ski on graves and only ski to the outside areas of the cemetery where no
> graves were. Did I have to do this ? No.

Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling ruin.  I 
would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked graves in 
established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful.  But I wouldn't
compare 
it to Mormon proxy baptisms.  The "baptism" is purley abstract, as far as 
the subject or descendants are concerned.   It changes nothing from his or

her life.

>
> Yes, I think and feel that the whole baptism by proxy debate is foolish.
> But I have the manners to not keep offending people who are offended in
> a spiritual manner.

I wouldn't use the word "foolish", but as a non-Mormon, I do consider the 
"baptism" as insignificant and a non-issue to me.

>
> The Mormon faith used to practice polygamy. But it was considered 
> offensive to a majority of other people in the united states and the 
> Mormons gave it up in trade for statehood. Was it manners that led the 
> Mormons to give up a foolish practice to not offend their neighbors ?

I doubt they considered the practice "foolish".  And I doubt they ceased 
simply to show good manners, either.

>
> As to your point that if we use IGI or other Mormon family tree data,
then 
> we must accept all Mormon things as a whole unit. I disagree. If
> I go to a grocery store and the bakery department acts in some way that
is 
> offensive to me, then I would not blame the rest of the store as a whole

> nor stop shopping in the meat department or produce department.
> My complaint card would state "bakery department" not the store as a 
> whole. The "baptize by proxy" department is not the same people nor the 
> same building or street as "the family tree" genealogy building.

This was no point of mine.  I don't know who made it, but you should work 
your way back up this thread to see who your comments apply to.