South Park episode about Mormons

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Let's not bash mormons...in fact some of my best friends are mormons and I've actually pondered becoming a member myself and still do.

What was wrong about the South Park episode? I've heard from many that it leaves a lot of stuff out and makes up a lot of stuff. Like nobody else seeing the golden tablets, but some people I've talked to said that the history clearly states that several other people DID see them.

did you see the end... that's the point.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
LMAO

"The truth?!?!"

Mormon beliefs could not be any further from it!

Obviously you made no attempt to read the few articles I posted using a simple Google search for "Mormons holocaust." Either that, or you mistook them for a "create your own story" book.

From the first link:

"Mormon officials promised in 1995 to stop the practice of posthumously baptizing Jews, but did not. They reiterated the pledge in 2000."

From the second link:

"Ms. Radkey, an Australian-born Christian, said she began researching the Mormon practice in 1999 after discovering that the teenage diarist Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized."

"Ms. Radkey also provided Mr. Michel with evidence that many of these Jews had been baptized after the 1995 agreement."

And the third link is filled with articles chronicling the dispute between the Jewish community and Mormons.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream "la la la!" all you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that the post humus baptisms of Jews killed in the Holocaust HAS NOT STOPPED. As late as December of 2006 the feud is still ongoing. To dispute that only shows your complete and total fear of relevant debate on the subject and unwillingness to contemplate any point of view outside what your local Mormon authority tells you (like a good little Mormon should!).

As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, again, your unwillingness to look at any facts regarding the issue does not form any kind of coherent talking point.

Mormons murdered men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows in cold blood. This is an indisputable, recorded FACT. The only point in dispute is whether Brigham Young had prior knowledge of, condoned, or ordered the attack.

Why don't you fast on this for a few days and then come back with some actual arguments worth debating, not silly rhetoric, remission of facts, and chest thumping.

What's the big deal about posthumous baptizing anyways? Does it even make a difference to any religions? It's not like the person being baptized has consented to anything.

Edit: Is there some special ceremony that they have to perform on the dead?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Well, the did expel one of their more recent historians (not sure if he was completely excomunicated) for researching a little too deeply. Honestly, this argument is primarily based on teh Frontline program, as it really exposed me to a lot I didn't knwo about the church, both positive and negative.

The fact that there is a repeated history of sanctioning and excommunicating those within the church that Investigate the faith at any length disturbs me. And during a mission, when you are partnered with your mission buddy and required at all times to knwo exactly what that person is up to, and to refrain from watching TV, listening to radio, going to movies, etc (if such things are directly forbidden), this is an active attack on intellectualism.

Oh, but that was such a great time. By the way, we were allowed to listen to the radio, but only classical and news stations. Brings up a lot of good memories. Such a great time!

They may be responsible for fine Universities, but selective encouragement (and directed discouragement) is the antithesis of intellectualism ;)

An analogy I was thinking of earlier whilst mucking around with mouse embryos: George Bush can be considered educated. He went to Yale, he graduated (somehow he did; but he still graduated). He is certainly educated. An Intellectual, he is most certainly not. His staunchest supporters would admit this....and gladly. In fact, that's likely the main reason that most of the yokels voted for him--his perceived anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter to them whether he went to Yale, whether or not his family is one of wealthy Northeastern decent (Well, it mattered to the Texas voters in '83 when they kept his ass out of the state senate for being too smart, and an elitist Northeasterner--amazing how 2 decades can seemingly erase an education and a family history ;))

Point being: educated /= intellectual.

I think this changed with the advent of Business Schools. (in that I think of intellectual meaning philosophical, mathematical, scientific, and literary)


Oh I would agree, but I'd just have to disagree with the idea that the church pushes anything like that. I just don't see it. I've read and seen what many of the ex-communicated people have done and said. Matter of fact, I've been and still remain friend with several people who have been excommunicated. Just my personal experience, I don't see it. That's just my experience though.


Well, Frontline interviewd that Toscano lady, who is a University professor (Historian, Sociology...I forget). Anyhoo, she was excommunicated for publishing research of Mormon history that the church did not approve of. If this weren't bad enough, her brother -in-law refused to let her participate in dressing her own sister's body after she died of cancer. The official church historian in the 50s was also excommunicated for researching material (and publishing based on that material) that was not explicitly approved by the church. In my mind, this kind of attitude represents a sick paranoia that doesn't belong in faith, and in fact does nothing but to hurt it.

Baptising Jews aside, what gives them the right to baptise any dead person? There's no excuse whatsoever for it. If my grandfather, who was a very pious Methodist, ends up in their database I'll be freaking pissed. ...Doubtful that I'd know about it, but the practice is simply vile and enexcusable.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: child of wonder
LMAO

"The truth?!?!"

Mormon beliefs could not be any further from it!

Obviously you made no attempt to read the few articles I posted using a simple Google search for "Mormons holocaust." Either that, or you mistook them for a "create your own story" book.

From the first link:

"Mormon officials promised in 1995 to stop the practice of posthumously baptizing Jews, but did not. They reiterated the pledge in 2000."

From the second link:

"Ms. Radkey, an Australian-born Christian, said she began researching the Mormon practice in 1999 after discovering that the teenage diarist Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized."

"Ms. Radkey also provided Mr. Michel with evidence that many of these Jews had been baptized after the 1995 agreement."

And the third link is filled with articles chronicling the dispute between the Jewish community and Mormons.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream "la la la!" all you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that the post humus baptisms of Jews killed in the Holocaust HAS NOT STOPPED. As late as December of 2006 the feud is still ongoing. To dispute that only shows your complete and total fear of relevant debate on the subject and unwillingness to contemplate any point of view outside what your local Mormon authority tells you (like a good little Mormon should!).

As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, again, your unwillingness to look at any facts regarding the issue does not form any kind of coherent talking point.

Mormons murdered men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows in cold blood. This is an indisputable, recorded FACT. The only point in dispute is whether Brigham Young had prior knowledge of, condoned, or ordered the attack.

Why don't you fast on this for a few days and then come back with some actual arguments worth debating, not silly rhetoric, remission of facts, and chest thumping.

What's the big deal about posthumous baptizing anyways? Does it even make a difference to any religions? It's not like the person being baptized has consented to anything.

Edit: Is there some special ceremony that they have to perform on the dead?


they read a list of names off of a computer moniter as they baptise a practicing Mormon. So, for each mormon baptised, they are baptised with some 10 or 20 other random people. It's a recent practice, actually...yet another example of "new prophecies" being adopted by the church, that will eventually be shunned once another "prophecy" (i.e. federal action) claims the practice is inappropriate. Think: Polygamy.

The reason that it is offensive is that for those who take their faith seriously, baptism is estremely important. It's like a key to the club. It's especially disconcerting when you consider that Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, Cthulu-worshippers, Satanists, or whatever--those who do not believe in Christ as the savior, are baptised. In many faiths, such belief is damnable. (Of course, seeing as how I imagine heaven has met it's 144k limit of Jehova's Witnesses, they could probably use the help :))

Personally, I don't give a damn. I'm 97% sure that I'm worm food at death, and that my carbon atoms will be recycled into other little critters or perhaps humans. Thing is, this is highly offensive to the majority of people of faith in the World.

Again, I have nothing personal against individual mormons, and I recognize that they are responsible for a lot of good works, but the insanity of this fascist church docterine is reprehensible.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Baptism for the dead is not a recent practice among the Mormons. They've been doing it in their temples for more than 100 years, and it is literally the only reason they even have baptismal fonts in their temples (as normal living members are baptized in the regular meeting houses).

Yaknow, I don't want to be too forward here, but it's only too painfully obvious that most of you guys know jack sh!t about Mormons and Mormonism. I understand that you need to make things up in order to justify your own faiths in preference over another, but sorry to me (as a non-religious person) that comes across as just plain ignorant bigotry, kind of like some cracker complaining that black people smell and white people don't. This is particularly obvious from childof9years here.
 

Tipsy Turtle

Member
Feb 6, 2007
180
0
0
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.
 

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
1
71
Originally posted by: Alienwho
I'm mormon and I thought the episode was funny. It did over exaggerate quite a bit for comedic purposes, and some of it was flat out wrong. But overall it was a funny episode

Same here.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Now, if anything deserves a LMAO, it's that comment.

Then, by all means, provide any evidence for any claim the Mormon faith makes. Until then, you have no business tauting it as "truth."

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
:roll: Yeah, cause "reiterate" means the first one wasn't in place? Reiterate means repeat. What's the problem?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Yes, the church SAID they would stop baptizing Jews in 1995. However, the dispute still exists because despite what they SAID they have not followed through. Since 1995 and after they reiterated their claim in 2000 there have been more dead Jews baptized without permission.

Is it clumsy practitioners not knowing any better? Or is it a church wide conspiracy? I don't know. I do know that it is the church's responsibility to cease and desist the activity and that has not happened per their agreement. If the continued actions of a church's membership do not represent the sentiment of the whole, then what does?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
From the article.

Some Jewish genealogists agree with the Mormon interpretation of the agreement. "I have a copy of the agreement," said Gary Mokotoff, the publisher of Avotaynu, the International Review of Jewish Genealogy. "The wording is vague in some places, but it definitely does not obligate the Mormons to scour their own archives on an ongoing basis."

Hmm, Mr. Michael vs. someone who knows what they're talking about. Hmm, wonder which one I'm going to go with?

Perhaps it's is YOU that needs to read your articles before you post them.

If the Jews feel the church holds no responsibility beyond removing names when asked, then the dispute is over. This is not the case. Many Jews feel it is the church's responsibility to ensure no new deceased Jewish names are baptized, which is still clearly happening -- otherwise this would be a non-issue!

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yes, and provides nothing that isn't already stated in the first two.

It states a great deal! It documents the ongoing dispute ever since it began with comments and opinions from both sides!

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yeah, the fact that people I know have had to go through the process of changing citizenship to be baptized because they were Jewish was apparently just a dream. You keep dreaming and hating the church all you want little boy. Doesn't hurt me a bit.

What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about living Jews changing citizenship. We're talking about dead Jews' names being disrespected by having them posthumously baptized into the Mormon faith.

Call me names all you want. I'm sure your local Bishop would approve!

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Facts? What facts? You have no facts? You have possibilities that you will hold on to till your dying day because you hate the church, PERIOD. Here's the facts.

Brigham Young was not only the religious leader of the LDS church, but the political leader as well. After LDS people being murdered, abused, beaten, raped, jailed, assaulted, and forced out of their homes, can you blame the man for being a little paranoid? I'm sure you could, but I doubt many normal people would. The fact is they were at that time expecting an army from the U.S. that received false claims that they were again gathering an army to fight against the U.S. Once again fearing what happened before would happen again, they were prepare to fight this time.

Was what happened tragic? Absolutely. Should it have happened? I would hope not. But the fact remains, it was not a MORMON army sent out. You want to blame this on the Mormon church because you hate it and the people involved were Mormon, and for you, that's all you need.

You have no proof, only theories, that would claim Brigham Young as being responsible. And even if he was, he was acting in the office of political leader, not church leader. But hey, who cares? I've got something I can use to justify my hatred of the Mormons!! Well congratulations, no one cares.

Yes... saying that I have no facts makes it true. Reality is NOT the Book of Mormon, my friend. You can't make things up and wish they're true.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Mormons. I hate the fascist organization that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Here's a link about the Massacre right from the Mormon Wiki: Text

It confirms, as I have said, that Mormon militia men murdered 120 men, women, and children. That is an indisputable fact.

Once AGAIN, I'll reiterate my earlier comments -- I, or possibly anyone else alive, knows whether Brigham Young had anything to do with the attack. I have made no claims regarding his involvement, yet you, however, seem hell bent on claiming I did.

Regardless of Young's involvement, that does not excuse the actions of Mormon men during that time nor does the fear of war or invaders give ANYONE the right to trick people into surrendering and then executing every man, woman, and child age 8 or older. Completely and totally inexcusable. No matter what justifications you have been told, you, as well as I, know that is wrong and reprehensible and is a VERY dark splotch of blood on the hands of the Mormon church.

Originally posted by: engineereeyoreROFLMAO!!! The irony of that coming from you almost made me pee my pants. Just shut up.

Don't get your garments in a bunch!

(Oh, and if you pee your pants and decide to throw out your garments, make sure you cut out and burn the symbols first!)
 

Tipsy Turtle

Member
Feb 6, 2007
180
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Oh please. There were "laws" before religion existed. The fact that many common sense things were incorporated into a body of law does not mean A. That they are there due to a religious foundation. B. That they would not be there if religion did not exist.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Baptism for the dead is not a recent practice among the Mormons. They've been doing it in their temples for more than 100 years, and it is literally the only reason they even have baptismal fonts in their temples (as normal living members are baptized in the regular meeting houses).

Yaknow, I don't want to be too forward here, but it's only too painfully obvious that most of you guys know jack sh!t about Mormons and Mormonism. I understand that you need to make things up in order to justify your own faiths in preference over another, but sorry to me (as a non-religious person) that comes across as just plain ignorant bigotry, kind of like some cracker complaining that black people smell and white people don't. This is particularly obvious from childof9years here.

In my case, I know a great deal about Mormons. My wife is an ex-Mormon, her family is Mormon, and I work for a company owned by a Mormon and 6 out of 8 of the office staff are Mormons. I've also exhaustively researched the faith since my wife and I met in 2001 and spoken personally with many current and ex-members of the church.

Also, I have no preference of faith over any other. Spirituality is the responsibility of the individual. My vehemence on this issue comes from watching my mother and father in law struggle to pay tithing while the local Bishop drove a nice car, hearing how my wife was used as a proxy in a posthumous baptism when she was a preteen, and hearing from ex-Mormons about the blood oaths they had to make (pre-1990) in their Endowment ceremonies.

People should have the right to believe whatever they want. I just have trouble swallowing the idea of people believing something so obviously false and an obvious power and money making scheme -- hence the 10% gross tithing required for temple recommends and, thusly, required for entrance to the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom.

Salvation does not come with a price tag.

Vic, as in another thread where you have attacked me, I invite you to dispute anything that I'm saying. I welcome a serious debate on the subject. You, however, prefer to hurl insults from the sidelines and shrink away when called out on your BS as anyone can plainly see here.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Oh please. There were "laws" before religion existed. The fact that many common sense things were incorporated into a body of law does not mean A. That they are there due to a religious foundation. B. That they would not be there if religion did not exist.

Oh please. Study some history, then STFU. The origins of all governments are derived from religions. There were no laws before religions existed. The first judge was a priest, the first doctor a shaman, the first king a god. This is historically scientific FACT. And while Jefferson and the separation of church and state is arguably one of the best things that EVER happened to humanity, to argue that humanity would have been better off had such things never existed is to show off your stupidity exactly as I described.
Humanity is maturing out of its infancy. We apologize for the inconvenience. :roll:


edit: do you think it's just a coincidence that the judge in modern legal proceedings wears a robe and sits behind a pulpit?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Originally posted by: Vic
Baptism for the dead is not a recent practice among the Mormons. They've been doing it in their temples for more than 100 years, and it is literally the only reason they even have baptismal fonts in their temples (as normal living members are baptized in the regular meeting houses).

Yaknow, I don't want to be too forward here, but it's only too painfully obvious that most of you guys know jack sh!t about Mormons and Mormonism. I understand that you need to make things up in order to justify your own faiths in preference over another, but sorry to me (as a non-religious person) that comes across as just plain ignorant bigotry, kind of like some cracker complaining that black people smell and white people don't. This is particularly obvious from childof9years here.

In my case, I know a great deal about Mormons. My wife is an ex-Mormon, her family is Mormon, and I work for a company owned by a Mormon and 6 out of 8 of the office staff are Mormons. I've also exhaustively researched the faith since my wife and I met in 2001 and spoken personally with many current and ex-members of the church.

Also, I have no preference of faith over any other. Spirituality is the responsibility of the individual. My vehemence on this issue comes from watching my mother and father in law struggle to pay tithing while the local Bishop drove a nice car, hearing how my wife was used as a proxy in a posthumous baptism when she was a preteen, and hearing from ex-Mormons about the blood oaths they had to make (pre-1990) in their Endowment ceremonies.

People should have the right to believe whatever they want. I just have trouble swallowing the idea of people believing something so obviously false and an obvious power and money making scheme -- hence the 10% gross tithing required for temple recommends and, thusly, required for entrance to the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom.

Salvation does not come with a price tag.

Vic, as in another thread where you have attacked me, I invite you to dispute anything that I'm saying. I welcome a serious debate on the subject. You, however, prefer to hurl insults from the sidelines and shrink away when called out on your BS as anyone can plainly see here.

Just like there, you go about posting lies and personal prejudices as fact, and I just tell it as it is. Call it a personal attack all you want, I honestly don't care, anymore than I would care if I slammed a racist who complained that black people smell and white people don't. You simply can't pretend to be impartial and emotionally detached when it is so obvious that you are not (to everyone but yourself apparently).
You probably don't take a lot of flack about these things because most people just ignore you as a self-deluded whacko, whereas I actually enjoy pointing it out when the emperor is naked.

edit: BTW, I as well was used for one of those baptisms for the dead when I was about 12 years old. They're kind of interesting in a way, looking back. What would be your problem with the ceremony unless you were taking preference for one religion over another? OTOH if you look at all these various religious sects equally (i.e. as equally invalid), then you have to admit that the baptism for the dead ceremony is just representative of the overall good-natured "sweetness" of the Mormon religion in general. After all, they're just trying to save everyone.

Oh and BTW, the tithe is in the OT. I seriously suggest you study up on your Bible if you're claiming to be a Christian but against the tithing. WWJD?
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Prmiates show the beginnings of morality

Last I checked, no evidence exists that primates have any religions or religious beliefs. How can they have any morality or moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule," which they have displayed by choosing starvation over hurting another monkey) without religion, as you have claimed?

If we fast forwarded in time 500,000 years and look at a more evolved chimpanzee population (say one with the beginnings of a civilization) and they are all atheists or agnostic, then it is impossible for them to have ANY laws or traditions condoning moral conduct?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
People should have the right to believe whatever they want. I just have trouble swallowing the idea of people believing something so obviously false and an obvious power and money making scheme -- hence the 10% gross tithing required for temple recommends and, thusly, required for entrance to the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom.

As a non-member, care to provide any substance to the claim that tithing is somehow profitted by anyone? Last I checked it was used to build churches and give to charity. Do you have any idea how good the churches charity system is?

Edit: And as Vic just edited and pointed out, tithing is most definitely not exclusive to the LDS Church.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Prmiates show the beginnings of morality

Last I checked, no evidence exists that primates have any religions or religious beliefs. How can they have any morality or moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule," which they have displayed by choosing starvation over hurting another monkey) without religion, as you have claimed?

If we fast forwarded in time 500,000 years and look at a more evolved chimpanzee population (say one with the beginnings of a civilization) and they are all atheists or agnostic, then it is impossible for them to have ANY laws or traditions condoning moral conduct?

Really? Because I didn't know that we have the slightest idea what primates believe in. Have you talked with the monkeys in order to find out what kind of gods they believe in?

And in order to define belief systems like atheism and agnositicism, one would first need to be shown that there was the kind of sentience involved in order to make that choice. It is not a default condition. For example, my cat is not an atheist because he is unaware of Jesus. An amoeba is not an agnostic because it cannot comprehend the concept of a god.

WTF. Seriously.


edit: and to clarify, I did NOT say that religion was required for morality. It most certainly is NOT. What I did say is that religion is the foundation of law and government. Don't straw man, thank you. Morality as a concept is all but undefinable. To paraphrase Shaw, the customs of your island are not the laws of nature.
 

Tipsy Turtle

Member
Feb 6, 2007
180
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Oh please. There were "laws" before religion existed. The fact that many common sense things were incorporated into a body of law does not mean A. That they are there due to a religious foundation. B. That they would not be there if religion did not exist.

Oh please. Study some history, then STFU. The origins of all governments are derived from religions. There were no laws before religions existed. The first judge was a priest, the first doctor a shaman, the first king a god. This is historically scientific FACT. And while Jefferson and the separation of church and state is arguably one of the best things that EVER happened to humanity, to argue that humanity would have been better off had such things never existed is to show off your stupidity exactly as I described.
Humanity is maturing out of its infancy. We apologize for the inconvenience. :roll:


edit: do you think it's just a coincidence that the judge in modern legal proceedings wears a robe and sits behind a pulpit?

Brainwashed much?

 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: VicJust like there, you go about posting lies and personal prejudices as fact, and I just tell it as it is. Call it a personal attack all you want, I honestly don't care, anymore than I would care if I slammed a racist who complained that black people smell and white people don't. You simply can't pretend to be impartial and emotionally detached when it is so obvious that you are not (to everyone but yourself apparently).
You probably don't take a lot of flack about these things because most people just ignore you as a self-deluded whacko, whereas I actually enjoy pointing it out when the emperor is naked.

edit: BTW, I as well was used for one of those baptisms for the dead when I was about 12 years old. They're kind of interesting in a way, looking back. What would be your problem with the ceremony unless you were taking preference for one religion over another? OTOH if you look at all these various religious sects equally (i.e. as equally invalid), then you have to admit that the baptism for the dead ceremony is just representative of the overall good-natured "sweetness" of the Mormon religion in general. After all, they're just trying to save everyone.

Oh and BTW, the tithe is in the OT. I seriously suggest you study up on your Bible if you're claiming to be a Christian but against the tithing. WWJD?

Once again I'll ask you Vic -- PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE with sugar and sprinkles on top show any evidence disputing anything I've said (rhetoric and insults don't count).

When did I claim to be emotionally detached? When have I claimed to be impartial (even though I try my best, total objectivity is impossible)?

I have made statements and claims regarding the Mormon church and its history and the only responses in disagreement I have received are sidesteps, straw men, and insults.

Sure, Mormons see baptisms by proxy as a way of helping. Unfortunately, those receiving the "help" often don't see it that way. They don't appreciate having their names recorded as being baptized Mormon. One would expect a similar reaction if a Satanic cult were to baptize dead Christians into "Satan's personal army to destroy Jesus" or some other nonsense. By practicing these baptisms without the deceased or their family's permission a very large dispute arises.

I know all about the OT's passages regarding 10% tithing. When did I claim to be Christian?

For the record, I'm affiliated with no religion whatsoever. The only religious statement I can make about myself is this: "I have no clue what lies beyond this life or reality, but I enjoy thinking about it, asking questions about it, and discussing it with others."
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Sure, Mormons see baptisms by proxy as a way of helping. Unfortunately, those receiving the "help" often don't see it that way. They don't appreciate having their names recorded as being baptized Mormon. One would expect a similar reaction if a Satanic cult were to baptize dead Christians into "Satan's personal army to destroy Jesus" or some other nonsense. By practicing these baptisms without the deceased or their family's permission a very large dispute arises.

What if someone were to pray and say "Heavenly Father, please give Child of Wonder your blessings, amen." Would that be considered rude? Would you not appreciate that?
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

It's not religion that is bad. It's more along the lines of the religious exclusivity, which causes the heavy rifts, and the way people can twist the teachings into bad things. If there's anything bad it's bad people and that goes without saying.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Sometimes at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep I like to lay there and think about how much better off the world would be if religion did not exist.

Which makes no sense at all considering that religion is the ancient origins of all laws, governments, moral traditions (like the "Golden Rule"), philosophies, etc.

I've found that stupid people tend to spend a lot of time judging symbolic labels out of context and purely from modern perspectives, and have spent a lot of time thinking about how much better off the world would be if such people did not exist.

Oh please. There were "laws" before religion existed. The fact that many common sense things were incorporated into a body of law does not mean A. That they are there due to a religious foundation. B. That they would not be there if religion did not exist.

Oh please. Study some history, then STFU. The origins of all governments are derived from religions. There were no laws before religions existed. The first judge was a priest, the first doctor a shaman, the first king a god. This is historically scientific FACT. And while Jefferson and the separation of church and state is arguably one of the best things that EVER happened to humanity, to argue that humanity would have been better off had such things never existed is to show off your stupidity exactly as I described.
Humanity is maturing out of its infancy. We apologize for the inconvenience. :roll:


edit: do you think it's just a coincidence that the judge in modern legal proceedings wears a robe and sits behind a pulpit?

Brainwashed much?

That's the best you got? I like it how you can retort that way when I have said 10 times over in this thread that I am not religious. You people never cease to amaze me in your way of picking one extremist side while pretending to be impartial.

Okay, let's speculate: no religion in human history ever. Code of Hammarubi? Oops. Law of Moses? Nope. Pharoahs of Egypt? Sorry, they were considered divine. Demokritia in ancient Athens? Whoops, Athena was a goddess. Caesars of Rome? Damnit, they were gods too. La Repubblica Serenissima of Venice that gave rise to the Renaissance? Fsck, they were Catholics. The European monarchies that spurred the Englightenment and the Liberalism that led to the creation of the American republic? Sh!t, the Divine Right of Kings.
I could go on and on and on here.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Originally posted by: VicJust like there, you go about posting lies and personal prejudices as fact, and I just tell it as it is. Call it a personal attack all you want, I honestly don't care, anymore than I would care if I slammed a racist who complained that black people smell and white people don't. You simply can't pretend to be impartial and emotionally detached when it is so obvious that you are not (to everyone but yourself apparently).
You probably don't take a lot of flack about these things because most people just ignore you as a self-deluded whacko, whereas I actually enjoy pointing it out when the emperor is naked.

edit: BTW, I as well was used for one of those baptisms for the dead when I was about 12 years old. They're kind of interesting in a way, looking back. What would be your problem with the ceremony unless you were taking preference for one religion over another? OTOH if you look at all these various religious sects equally (i.e. as equally invalid), then you have to admit that the baptism for the dead ceremony is just representative of the overall good-natured "sweetness" of the Mormon religion in general. After all, they're just trying to save everyone.

Oh and BTW, the tithe is in the OT. I seriously suggest you study up on your Bible if you're claiming to be a Christian but against the tithing. WWJD?

Once again I'll ask you Vic -- PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE with sugar and sprinkles on top show any evidence disputing anything I've said (rhetoric and insults don't count).

When did I claim to be emotionally detached? When have I claimed to be impartial (even though I try my best, total objectivity is impossible)?

I have made statements and claims regarding the Mormon church and its history and the only responses in disagreement I have received are sidesteps, straw men, and insults.

Sure, Mormons see baptisms by proxy as a way of helping. Unfortunately, those receiving the "help" often don't see it that way. They don't appreciate having their names recorded as being baptized Mormon. One would expect a similar reaction if a Satanic cult were to baptize dead Christians into "Satan's personal army to destroy Jesus" or some other nonsense. By practicing these baptisms without the deceased or their family's permission a very large dispute arises.

I know all about the OT's passages regarding 10% tithing. When did I claim to be Christian?

For the record, I'm affiliated with no religion whatsoever. The only religious statement I can make about myself is this: "I have no clue what lies beyond this life or reality, but I enjoy thinking about it, asking questions about it, and discussing it with others."

Judging by the link in your sig and by the fact that YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT in this thread has been that Mormonism is somehow worse than other Christian sects, you have given me no option but to make the assumptions about you but those which I have made, and the arguments against your arguments which I have made.
Perhaps if you stepped back for a moment and realized just how silly your arguments actually are. If your own religious faith doesn't matter, then why would you care what incantments the Mormons made for you, dead or otherwise? If your own religious faith doesn't matter, then why do you care what the Mormon faith practices period.
You need to step back and realize that you're the one who jumped into this thread with your panties all bunched up, and that I'm just making fun of you for that (you call that insults and personal attacks, which IMO just makes this all the more humorous). I already pointed out my clear-as-day opinions about Mormons and Mormonism, and there were straw men there, just a real life who-gives-a-sh!t-about-your-fairy-tales attitude.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: child of wonder
People should have the right to believe whatever they want. I just have trouble swallowing the idea of people believing something so obviously false and an obvious power and money making scheme -- hence the 10% gross tithing required for temple recommends and, thusly, required for entrance to the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom.

As a non-member, care to provide any substance to the claim that tithing is somehow profitted by anyone? Last I checked it was used to build churches and give to charity. Do you have any idea how good the churches charity system is?

Edit: And as Vic just edited and pointed out, tithing is most definitely not exclusive to the LDS Church.

The church owns a mall in SLC
The Mormon church fights to keep it's finances a secret and hasn't released financial reports since the 1950's

Best of all, tithing is a requirement to enter the highest level of exaltation, the Celestial Kingdom. One cannot ascend to this Kingdom without undergoing necessary rituals in the Temple and one cannot enter the Temple without a Temple recommend. One cannot receive a Temple recommend without paying full tithings. Tithing information is kept for each Mormon family and one of the responsibilities of Visiting Teachers is to promote and encourage full tithing.

The church gives a lot of money to charity! You're right about that.

However, they also horde a lot of money and refuse to tell anyone what is done with it.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Sure, Mormons see baptisms by proxy as a way of helping. Unfortunately, those receiving the "help" often don't see it that way. They don't appreciate having their names recorded as being baptized Mormon. One would expect a similar reaction if a Satanic cult were to baptize dead Christians into "Satan's personal army to destroy Jesus" or some other nonsense. By practicing these baptisms without the deceased or their family's permission a very large dispute arises.

What if someone were to pray and say "Heavenly Father, please give Child of Wonder your blessings, amen." Would that be considered rude? Would you not appreciate that?

I wouldn't mind if someone said that about me. In fact, when my wife and I got married we wanted it devoid of any religion. We were married by a Justice of the Peace.

When my father asked to say a prayer at the wedding, I initially refused. I had shucked my Christian upbringing years ago and wanted to have no part of it. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized it was just his way of wishing us best of luck and that if one of my pagan or Buddhist friends had asked to perform some kind of blessing ceremony I would have allowed them to. It was unfair to exclude one particular religion.

The big hoopla about this Holocaust victim issue is that when Mormons baptize these deceased individuals, they also create a record of them being baptized into the Mormon faith.

Blessing someone is one thing, but claiming to have indoctrinated them into another religion against their will is another.