Website converts dead Mormons into gays

Thursday, February 23, 2012


Since they convert people after their deaths, particularly Jews, including Anne Franke apparently, why not convert them into gays after their deaths.

AllDeadMormonsAreNowGay.com

via
Follow Blame it on the Voices on Twitter | Blame it on the Voices on Facebook

If you liked this post, you can subscribe to the Blame It On The Voices RSS feed and get your regular fix


31 comentarii:

Jon-Michael said...

With all due respect, there are several Mormons (including myself) who are active in their religion and read your often entertaining blog. We are not mindless brainwashed homophobes who practice bizarre rituals and form mobs to harass homosexual men and women.

My wife (yes I have just one!) and mine closest neighbor friends are a lesbian couple who have an 8 year-old son. We take their son to school and they take ours to school. They baby-sit our kids from time to time and we've hung out on many occasions. We've never had such good neighbor friends in our 11 year marriage.

Such statements and sites are just as bigoted as anything the media accuses Mormons of being with regard to gays and lesbians. If you attend any Mormon church services, you will never hear anyone at the pulpit speak hatred to any religious groups, political organizations or gays and lesbians.

Do Mormons practice different religious rites and ceremonies? Certainly, but what religious denomination doesn't?

Jay Crawford said...

Well spoken, John Michael. This site, "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" is a foolish play on a shallow Mormon stereotype.

Yet speaking of stereotypes: Yhough I am NOT a Mormom, I have known many Mormons; they have all been most positive people. In that respect, my personal experience supports the most common stereotype of Mormons: They are REALY nice folks.
Though I have serious theological doubts about Mormonism, nonethelesss the genuine testimony of their ACTIONS compells me to wonder: Is the same testimonial of Mormon decency nearly as common (or TRUE) for the LGBT community...or anyone else?
Just askin'.

However, that same Mormon decency provides the answer to the BlamItOnTheVoices question of "Why not convert [Mormons} into gays after their deaths[?]" The answer is simple: Because Mormons are trying to do the ultimate good act, saving the souls of the dead people whom they "convert". Again, while I find this to be theologically dubious, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fault the Mormons for having the compassion to wish for EVERYONE to go to Heaven. Our sectarian pride may be hurt by the idea that Mormons find our beliefs to be inadequate but there is no way to fault the benificent objective of the Mormon "conversions".

So with the overwhelming evidence of Mormons' goodwill being evident, why would ANYONE be so foolish as to publish a website like "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay"?
There are logically be two possibilities:
1) The site's creator/publisher genuinely thinks homosexuality is better for people than Mormonism's intent/attempt to bring people into Heaven. In other words, the creator/publisher is stupid.
2) The creator/publisher's human sectarianism is so pridefully insulted that he cannot/won't recognize the intention of the Mormons to benefit people who are utter STRANGERS; instead, the creator/publisher reacts with insults that seek to encourage other people's disdain for Mormons. In other words, the creator publisher is a hater.
Either way, all that the people behind "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" seem to definitively demonstrate is their own moral inferiority to the Mormons they want to condemn.

Anonymous said...

Here's another thought. It is nearly impossible that the individual doing the pretend baptism (with EXPLICIT instructions not to do so) was doing it with good intentions. They violated the church's instructions, their own morals and the religious freedom of others.

If you cannot see why turning a mormon gay (see LDS re: prop 8) is not EXACTLY as insulting as turning a JEW into a CHRISTIAN, you're looking at the world through ruby colored glasses. See what I did there?

You've both clearly failed the critical thinking portion of today's Internet test. Move along.

Anonymous said...

Dear god. Really? So now I shall just create a website that will turn dead mormons into satanists. I can make a compelling point that satanists have it all figured out when it comes to the afterlife, and it would be purely out of compassion to save them from their misguided silly religion.

Grow up. Either this site does exactly nothing, or it does exactly as much as the silly posthumous baptism does. (nothing)

Go ride a bike and ring a doorbell.

Jay Crawford said...

It is a pity that "Anonymous" doesn't have the rectitude to post a name by which I may address him or her.
Nonetheless I will anwer his (or their) two attempts at dismissive criticism.

Anonymous #1 wrote:
"It is nearly impossible that the individual doing the pretend baptism (with EXPLICIT instructions not to do so) was doing it with good intentions."
On the contrary: It is prima-facia OBVIOUS that the Mormons desire to convert people to Mormonism is about SALVATION. While I find this theologically disagreeable (vis-a-vis "free will"), the Mormon Church's historical practice of post-mortem "conversion" has always been about seeking salvation for the dead. Even if you do not believe in an afterlife, this is a laudably benificent goal.
Anonymous #1 then wrote:
"They violated the church's instructions..."
Hardly; Mormons did this OFFICIALLY for decades.
"...their own morals..."
Since Anonymous #1 cannot know the thoughts of the Mormons participating in this activity, it is an utterly illogical assertion that people PRIVATELY performing a harmless activity (which cannot hurt DEAD people and which can only be intended to help people's souls), such an assertion is evidentially wrong.
"...and the religious freedom of others."
Even if a person is a militantly-hostile atheist, he cannot avoid the illogic of this statement, to wit: Mormons CANNOT impinge on the freedom of DEAD people! Furthermore, if you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim then you understand that a soul in God's care cannot be negatively affected by the religious actions of a group of infidels. Yet, if you are a Mormon or a pantheist, the Mormons bizarre religious practice can only be seen to be an attempt at helping a human soul.

Anonymous #1 continued:
"If you cannot see why turning a mormon gay (see LDS re: prop 8) is not EXACTLY as insulting as turning a JEW into a CHRISTIAN, you're looking at the world through ruby colored glasses."
You weren't paying attention, sir/ma'am. Mormons performing post-mortem "conversions" cannot change ANYONE into someone else. Since there is no ACTUAL EFFECT, we can only look at the INTENDED effect...and that effect is an entirely beneficial effect. Therefore, the only "insult" is to the feelings of living persons who disagree with Mormonism...and since Mormons tend to be acknowledged as "good people", the only insult which is logically perceptible is that Mormonism believes the faith of the REST of US to be salvationally inadequate.
Well, as much as I DISAGREE with Mormonism, the only way to be insulted by people praying for my salvation is by ignoring their benevolent intent.

Finally, Anonymous #1 (not realizing that his words have indicted his sectarianism) ends with a gratuitous attempt at infantile insult toward John Michael and myself: "You've both clearly failed the critical thinking portion of today's Internet test. Move along."
Hardly. Neither John Michael's words nor my own show us to be intolerant, stupid, or a bigot so that we would dispise ANYone who HARMLESSLY sought our benefit. It appears that Anonymous #1's words show that HE may be those things...a hater whose sectarian vanity may causes him to be insulted when there is little cause for insult.
I hope that I am as wrong about his heart as he seems to be about Mormons' hearts.
(Continued)

Jay Crawford said...

(Continued from above)
------------

Anonymous #2 at least sees logic: "...[S]illy posthumous baptism does: [N]othing..."
Unfortunately, though, Anonymous #2 misses the point of my criticism of "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay": This website is intended to insult Mormon people for their having the temerity to wish ultimate GOOD for OTHER people. This is a far better (and utterly harmless) objective.
Even an atheist (as indicated by his lower-case "god") like Anonymous #2 must see the difference between well-wishing Mormons. Indeed, though he believes that "...satanists have it all figured out when it comes to the afterlife..." there can by no logical dispute that Mormons who seek everyone's salvation have a more benificent goal than Satanists.

Anonymous #2 also, regretably, resorts to unwarranted dismissive insult directed against men who were DEFENDING against anti-Mormon bigotry: "Go ride a bike and ring a doorbell."
That is unfortunate because, like Anonymous #1's words, such parting insults merely serve to indict Anonymous #2 for his evidence-less attacks; they do NOTHING to advance human peace.

Come on, folks, see the genuinely-GOOD-and-harmless intent for what it is...and stop any sectarian hate based upon an illusion of "insult". That is the sort of thing which has helped make the world into a far worse place than Mormonism EVER could.
And remember: I wrote this even though I disagree with the Mormons!

Anonymous said...

poop

Anonymous said...

You are a Mormon apologist. You are also wrong. It does not MATTER the intention. The act itself is unacceptable. I could go and dig up your dead grandfather's remains and perform a pagan cleansing on them. Would you then not get upset if I were able to adequately prove that my intentions were good? In each circumstance, no harm is done to the living.

Jay, you're wrong. You are likely Mormon as well. I live in southen Nevada and know dozens of Mormons. I know three that cheat on their spouses. I know two who have stolen from their jobs. I know one that's gay and liese to his family. Not all Mormons are "nice". They are just widely better at presenting a nice front.

Anonymous said...

Cont'd..
I've gone to temple. I've sung in an LDS church choir. Unless you're, as I suspect, a Mormon pretending not to be one, I know more about that poisonous church than you do.

Also, (jackass - just so you can point at this later and say it invalidates my argument), the church DID explicitly forbid the posthumous baptism of Jews with no blood relation to living Mormons. Do your research before you talk on the internet. I did.

Oh, and anon 2 knows more comparative religion than you. Spiritual Satanists believe in an afterlife where the dead become just like god, and have limitless freedom and happiness. What a bigot you are to suggest that "there can by no logical dispute that Mormons who seek everyone's salvation have a more benificent goal than Satanists.". That is simply untrue, and a statement based in the same kind of ignorance as the rest of your reply.

Jay Crawford said...

Anonymous #1 has responded with suppositions and a contemptuous hate. I will NOT join him in such an unfortunate mindset.
Here is my point-by-point refutation.

Anonymous #1 wrote:
"You are a Mormon apologist." Nope. I think Mormons are theologically wrong...but in this instance, I'm looking at the intent of both Mormons and their attackers (NOT "critics") at the "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website. The former seem to mean good for dead strangers...while the latter seem to only mean insult for the living. There's a big difference there; Jesus made that point in Mathew 5:21-22.

"You are also wrong. It does not MATTER the intention."
God says you are wrong, sir...and so does HUMAN law where "mens rea" (evil intent) is the factor which can determine whether an accident is held to be a crime.

"The act itself is unacceptable."
The Mormons' invalid baptism does not involve any harm to a person or destruction of property so how can their good wishes for a deceased stranger do any harm?
The vicarious baptism performed in private and away from the relatives of the dead person cannot harm ANYONE (except, perhaps, the intolerant vain pride of overly sensitive living people).

"I could go and dig up your dead grandfather's remains and perform a pagan cleansing on them."
Then you would be committing a crime by damaging property which doesn't belong to you. Stay away from the "straw man" fallacies, Anon; you will factually discredit your argument.

"Would you then not get upset if I were able to adequately prove that my intentions were good?"
If you didn't commit the crime of damaging the grave and instead performed your pagan cleansing in a temple far away from Grandfather Ken's gravesite (LIKE THE MORMONS DO), I could NOT take offense if you "adequately prove that my intentions were good".
I'm a mature Christian adult who recognizes that intentions do matter bothe logically and practically; I try not to be an insecure illogical person looking for excuses to vent any rage.

"In each circumstance, no harm is done to the living."
Notwithstanding your ill-conceived premise involving committing the ACTUAL property crime of grave desecration, I agree with you here, Anon. Since I am not insecure in my religious beliefs, there is no way I should feel grave :-) offense at your good intention.

"Jay, you're wrong."
Nope; I'm mature, understanding, and tolerant.

"You are likely Mormon as well."
Now you're just being silly with such an "ad hominem" fallacy!
Oh, and I'm actually an ordained Deacon from University Baptist Church who teaches adult Bible studies; this makes me a critic of the erronious Mormons!

"I live in southen Nevada and know dozens of Mormons. I know three that cheat on their spouses. I know two who have stolen from their jobs. I know one that's gay and liese to his family. Not all Mormons are 'nice'I, too, know many Mormons...and your list of sins and trespasses is found among all of humanity, including Mormons.

"They [Mormons] are just widely better at presenting a nice front."
Ah, your anti-Mormon resentment comes out. Thank you for your honesty in revealing yourself, Anon. Now go do what God (and good pop psychologists!) suggest you to do: Repent (see "mens rea" above) and love [agape] your neighbor. You'll find it to be liberating.

Anonymous said...

We shall agree to disagree. Nice job avoiding the satanism comment, though. Your anti-Satanist resentment is showing :)

Jay Crawford said...

Actually, Anon, I did answer your point about satanism; it seems that someone keeps deleting my post.
I'll try posting it for the third time.

Jay Crawford said...

Anonymous #1 continued his unfortunate vituperative attack against me in a second post which I also now refute point-by-point:

Anonymous wrote:
"I've gone to temple. I've sung in an LDS church choir. Unless you're, as I suspect, a Mormon pretending not to be one, I know more about that poisonous church than you do."
Aw, dude...ya got me! I can't sing well so NO choir wants me.
However, as a teacher, I have studied their theology...and THAT is what's at issue here. Mormonism's vicarious post-mortem baptisms were somewhat common for about 150 years until the 1990s when I remember the controversy first exploding.

"Also, (jackass - just so you can point at this later and say it invalidates my argument)..."
No, your abusive hate doesn't invalidate your argument, Anon. It just indicts your perspective as a view belonging to a person who not only despises Mormons but also anyone else who disagrees with you. In other words: a hater.
Check out God's liberating advice on that, man.

"...[T]he church DID explicitly forbid the posthumous baptism of Jews with no blood relation to living Mormons."
MOST of the Mormon Church did so...but only in the 1990s, after 150 years of post-mortem baptisms. Nonetheless, this fact is extraneous to the question of the (INTENTIONALLY) insulting "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website to the undamagingly benificent yet (UNintentionally) insulting practice amongst some Mormons of seeking salvation for dead strangers.

"Do your research before you talk on the internet. I did."
Obviously you didn't do enough research to put everything together logically, sir.

"Oh, and anon 2 knows more comparative religion than you. Spiritual Satanists believe in an afterlife where the dead become just like god, and have limitless freedom and happiness."
Some sects of Satanism believe this version of selfish-heaven...not all. I know because I've debated "satanists" on the merits of their theology which currently seems to be derived from the self-actualization pop-philosophies of the 1970s...not Anton LaVey.

"What a bigot you are to suggest that 'there can by no logical dispute that Mormons who seek everyone's salvation have a more benificent goal than Satanists.'. That is simply untrue..."
You've never examined the implications common to the various strains of "satanism": intense subjectivism. That is one of the reasons why it has never caught on. Because of the "everyone is a god unto himself" common to most of its variations (except for hardcore LaVey-ism) it does not sustain the kind of universalism common to New Age religiousity.
Mormonism (and Christianity) do...and Mormons pray for the people whom they vicariously baptise to be in Paradise. Satanisms as religions do not share that same concern.

"...[That is] a statement based in the same kind of ignorance as the rest of your reply."
Hardly. Any study of comparitive religions will show Mormonisms missionary zeal to be overwhelmingly base on desire to be WITH our Creator...while satanism is generally about supplanting our creator with paradise limited to what we can make it. The latter offers little room for the innocent dead to join us there.

Jay Crawford said...

Okay. Let's see if this variation stays up.

Jay Crawford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Sorry for being absent our little duel here, Jay. I've been out.

I have no hatred of mormons or any other faith group. I do dislike individuals of almost every religion, but that's just because there are a few assholes in any group.

My point that the church banned the posthumous baptisms was (obviously) in reference to this delightful dodge on your part:

"They violated the church's instructions..."
Hardly; Mormons did this OFFICIALLY for decades.

Seems like in one place you suggest that there were no rules broken and later admit that there were rules there, but dodge that this has any significance.

I'll also throw out something you might have missed in your comparitive religion class at junior college (again, you can point at this as an example of my poor character or lack of respect while having no issue making blanket statements that I "despise everyone who disagrees with me", which is FAR more hateful a statement to make than a tongue in cheek curse word).

The VAST majority of mormons believe that they will become "as gods" in the afterlife. Aside from the individualized planets and other silliness, they believe MUCH THE SAME as the satanists (non-LeVeyan) that you so casually dismissed as selfish earlier.

Whoops!

Jay Crawford said...

Okay, Mr Anon.
First, I hope your absence was not caused by any malady and, if so, that your situation is now better.

Secondly, let us look at what you have recently written:

"I have no hatred of mormons or any other faith group. I do dislike individuals of almost every religion, but that's just because there are a few assholes in any group."
That is indisputably a good attitude. Well done.

You said:
"My point that the church banned the posthumous baptisms was (obviously) in reference to this delightful dodge on your part: 'Hardly; Mormons did this OFFICIALLY for decades.' Seems like in one place you suggest that there were no rules broken and later admit that there were rules there, but dodge that this has any significance."
I do neither, Anon...because, AGAIN, I think "vicarious baptism" is (theologically-speaking) worthless!
However, you have made the mistake of thinking that there is ONE Mormon Church; in actuality, there are 3 major sects (including LDS and Reorganized LDS, if I recall correctly) as well as numerous smaller sects, some of which border on mainstream Christianity. All of them are hierarchically orgnized and yet, because of extensive geographical dispersion, they seem to have a variety of practices, much like national branches of the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that the main LDS severely curtailed post-mortem vicarious conversions in the mid-1990s however such a ruling has not been universally adopted by the various Mormon "majisteriums".
In any instance, the intent of the (erronious) vicarious baptizers is obviously benign and unable to harm ANYONE. Period.

You then said:
"I'll also throw out something you might have missed in your comparitive religion class at junior college (again, you can point at this as an example of my poor character or lack of respect..."
Then why do you say such foolish things? You are not stupid yet your writing makes it obvious that your relatively-broad knowledge of religion is superficial. My EASY point-by-point disassembly of your arguments makes this evidentially apparent.

You continued:
"...[W}hile you [Jay] have no issue making blanket statements that I 'despise everyone who disagrees with me', which is FAR more hateful a statement to make than a tongue in cheek curse word..."
You seem unable to distinguish between observation and criticism, Anon. Your ad-hominem fallacies (attacking the speaker rather than his argument) are evidenced in your use of personal attacks ("jackass" and "Mormon pretending not to be one") rather than good argument. Your choice of words DOES show "your perspective as a view belonging to a person who not only despises Mormons but also anyone else who disagrees with you." This is not a denigration of YOU personally (unlike the judgemental summary "jackass"). That's why I ONLY attack your EXPRESSED view. Since I don't know you, my use of personal invective like "fool" (or "jackass"!) about you would be unwarranted

Jay Crawford said...

(Continued)

Anonymous also said
"The VAST majority of mormons believe that they will become 'as gods' in the afterlife. Aside from the individualized planets and other silliness, they believe MUCH THE SAME as the satanists (non-LeVeyan) that you so casually dismissed as selfish earlier."
I know what Mormons believe...just as I know what many "Satanists" believe: they do have similar views of personal paradise.
Yet the post-mortem-baptizing Mormons are seeking salvation for the souls of others...and the intensly self-actualizing satanists are NOT...because their religion believe in personal amplification, not God-delivered rescue. That's a HUGE difference and it is EXACTLY why the vicariously-baptizing Mormons' goal of saving OTHERS is more benificent than even the nicest satanist's goal of learning to save HIMSELF.
Compared to Mormons who are seeking other people's salvation, I dismiss "satanism" as selfish for only one reason: It is.

Finally, you exclaimed:
"Whoops!"
Indeed, you were right to thusly exclaim; the more you write, the more you show an opaqueness to the illogic of your own arguments.
Dude, I am very confident that you're an intelligent fellow...and yet you're advocating positions which are unsupportable. Why do you do so, sir?

Anonymous said...

Allow me to repeat this bit. To make a statement declaring that I despise, a strong word meaning that I see others as having no value, anyone who disagrees with me IS an attack. It has far more malice behind it than to use the term jackass, which merely means a misguided fool. I despise very, very few individuals, and I've mentioned none of them in these comments. I took personal offense to your blanket, ill-informed attack. The attack was carefully crafted to both cause maximum personal offense while simultaneously being seemingly easy to defend by pointing at tongue-in-cheek statements and taking them at face value and without context.

The crux of your argument seems to be that nobody should be allowed to be insulted when their Jewish ancestor is the target of a publicity stunt by a modern day christian. The fact that the effort has no actual effect on a (nonexistent) soul means nothing in this instance. I can call you a bastard (my ad hominem of the day) and it has no impact on the circumstances of your birth, but is still hurtful. You may point and say that the difference is that my intentions were ill, and so there is the reason you might take offense. The fact is that YOU are in no position to dictate who takes offense to what.

Imagine this, if you will:
A family of christ scientists has a child dying of leukemia, and have chosen prayer as the treatment.

Their atheist neighbors are horrified that the child is not getting treatment for a disease that will surely kill him because of the lack of EFFECTIVE, REAL treatment.

The atheist neighbors decide to draw up signs and picket on the public street, showing signs saying such things as "This Family is killing a child with prayer" and "medicine not wishful thinking".

The CS Monitor would write an article entitled "CS family persecuted for religious beliefs". The NY Times would write an article entitled "Family denies 4 year old life saving treatment".

Which one is hurtful? Who is right?

The simple fact is that both are right. The CS family would be standing up for their beliefs, and doing what they felt was right. The atheist family would be doing exactly the same.

You may not say that there is no harm in posthumously baptizing someone else's relatives. It is not happening to YOU or YOURS, so you are not allowed to decide how others may feel.

If the person who made the above web site felt hurt and outrage, it is not your place to deny them those feelings. Further, as there appears to be no legal recourse for people in their position because according to you, the proclamations of the church are meaningless due to sectarian fractures. On the topic of sectarianism, it's worth noting that it was both the main sect that forbade the practice AND the main sect that once again broke the rule in the most recent three instances. I restate and affirm that the individuals who did the proxy baptism knew they were doing something wrong.

Anonymous said...

I will continue this discussion, but only if you concede that you have made statements carefully crafted to be both hurtful and, at least on the surface, defensible when questioned. You have no evidence that I hold hatred for anyone in my heart. You have no right to suggest it. I fail to see in any way how suggesting you're a LDS apologist is ANY less defensible than you saying that I marginalize and hold human beings worthless. Couching your vitriol in such terms is counter productive and crude. To BEGIN your initial response with an attack on my integrity simply based on the fact that I do not wish to link this type of discussion with my public face is to make assumptions that do not follow. The simple fact is that I am a professional with 31 employees. Why does this matter? It matters because I Google search each and every one of the applicants at my company. If I were to see evidence of the candidate posting on time wasting forums during work hours on a week day, I would think twice about hiring them. While I don't expect to be in the job market again any time soon, I can't discount the possibility, and do not wish to be attached to such a negative perception.

It's fascinating that there are several Jay Crawfords in the LDS world including one living in Calgary that, on investigation appears to have a similar background and attitude to you.

I'll let you call me Drew, though.

Jay Crawford said...

Drew, you write like a DECENT MAN...not like the flaming internet kids who usually hide behind the identifier of "Anonymous". It is to those not-even-half-a-man fellows that my Col Sherburn-esque reaction is normally directed.
You are obviously not one of them...and I apologize for my misreading of you.
Well-spoken and thank you, sir.

More importantly, let me apologize for offending your feelings when I responded to what seemed (by Webster's) to be your initial abuse. My observation of the tone of your words was predicated on my (mistaken) belief that you actually meant what you wrote: a harsh personal invective. I failed to realize that your words meant something far more playful to you than they would mean if they came from most anyone else. I then responded with a criticism of your supposed intolerance based on the conventional meaning of your words.
In your most recent missive, you correctly stated that I "...have no right to suggest [you despise those who disagree with you]." Actually, based on the preponderance of the conventional meaning of your own words, any court would find me quite justified, Drew.
But I'm not being judged by a court and Man's judgement is NOT my behavioral ideal...and so your conclusion that I have no right to respond on a mere preponderance of conventional wisdom is quite correct: I did wrong when I responded with a harshness that is un-Christ-like in its dismissiveness. By doing this, I devalued you.
I now apologize for my mistaken assessment of your intent and I also apologize for my wrongly angry criticism of you.

Yet, this scenario is now more interesting: Here in our own interaction we see the VALIDITY of the concept of "mens rea" (evil intent) in evaluating individual actions. No matter what form your words took, your intent was NOT evil and therefore my strong reaction to your intent was simply unnecessary. Indeed, my reaction was WRONG because you never REALLY harmed me (personally or socially), even with mistakenly-applied words.

My initial reaction to you was very much like someone who (without considering intent) discovered that people of another faith were performing a ritual involving the name of a deceased family member. Yet now that you have made clear your gentle intent, YOU reasonably suggest that the correct thing for me to do is to reconsider my resentment and to withdraw my harsh response.
I concur.
In the absence of ACTUAL HARM, intent is what makes the difference, Drew.
And again, I apologize for my own mens rea.

As for the misguided Mormons who secretly have ceremonies in which they have someone stand-in representing a (presumed) unbeliever and baptize the representative in a dubious attempt to rescue the soul of someone from eternal seperation from God, they neither damage property nor the reputation of the living or the dead. As long as those Mormons are discreet, the only way the offend ANYONE is by imputing that the other person's religion is not "enough".
Well, that's just tough: Virtually NO religion thinks other religions are adequate. If they did, Mormons would be Taoists, Presbyterians would be Catholic, Muslims would be Jews, and everyone would still love agnostics! Understanding that there is radical NON-harmful preference in religion is a sine qua non of REALITY...and tolerating such PRIVATE difference (even if it's in a closed temple) is part of living in a civilized society. This is especially so if the INTENT is GOOD...and saving anyone's soul is an absolutely BENIFICENT intention which harms no other person, alive or dead.

Anonymous said...

As I've had a long few months, and the work hours never seem to stop, I'll let this one end my side of this dialogue. I assure you that this is not intended to be a final shout of NEENER followed by a hasty retreat, giving me the last word. I simply see that we have reached the end of this discussion.

Your response was well thought out. I would have been a little more moved had you backed up your court claim with evidence (something required in court). The fact is that every comment I made could be easily defended as satire if nothing else, and were it not for the inflection-removing medium of the internet, it would have been more clear.

You know... I'm no theologian, but I spend a great deal of time with them. I (not bragging, just bringing perspective in) had lunch today with the second best selling Christian apologist in America today. A few weeks back? The #1. You will likely be able to determine who these two are. If you leave me any method of contacting you outside of this public space, I'll share evidence of my close connection to these two.

Over the course of the last several years, I've had a number of engaging discussions with each on the topics we covered above. I believe, with them, that I have made a solid case for a dual standard of conduct in the world.

On the one hand we have the biblical (of any religion) command to convert the unbelievers. It's stated everywhere. Take a look at Matthew 25:31-46. How about Qur’an:8:39?

On the other, we have human nature. There is a built-in desire in human beings to come to our own conclusions. We want to make the journey, and arrive at our intended destination. If the path varies, at least we are the ones who choose the turns.

While your point that well-intentioned magic (my word, I'm not assigning it to you) causes no harm has value when taken only in the context that you allow in your argument, it ignores the fact of human nature that we desire and I would argue deserve to choose our own destination. God gave us free will so that our choices would have meaning and value. If we were forced to believe in Christ, what would the value of our devotion be? No more than the value of our devotion to urinating or any other task required in order to continue living. No, it's our free will that gives strength to the act of choosing a savior.

What the mormons did showed a disdain for both the god-given free will of those that chose a different path, and showed that they fail to understand a basic tenet of humanity: that choosing for others will almost invariably cause more harm than good.

In this instance, no souls were saved. Anne Frank and her family are not now in the telestial kingdom. No, in fact all that has happened is that the LDS has yet another black eye that has caused people like me to have discussions like this. There is no unbeliever that will read this and become more interested in the teachings of the con artist Joseph Smith. It can only hurt the ultimate salvation of those who might have otherwise been converted, but will not because of this perceived injustice.

Anonymous said...

I now point back to my initial post.

Here's another thought. It is nearly impossible that the individual doing the pretend baptism (with EXPLICIT instructions not to do so) was doing it with good intentions. They violated the church's instructions, their own morals and the religious freedom of others.
As proven in later posts, the church had explicitly spoken out against the posthumous baptism of dead WWII Jews. The branch that performed this act was not a splinter cell, but a recognized congregation. They were either aware of the rule, or were so ignorant about what they were doing that they didn't bother to read the rules. Harm through negligence is still harm, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.



If you cannot see why turning a mormon gay (see LDS re: prop 8) is not EXACTLY as insulting as turning a JEW into a CHRISTIAN, you're looking at the world through ruby colored glasses. See what I did there?
Here I have pointed out that posthumously converting a Jew to Christianity is absolutely analogous to converting a mormon to a homosexual. The Jews rejected Christ as a fraud and a dangerous character that would subvert the nation. Similarly, mormon leaders have pointed at homosexuality as a dangerous lifestyle that would subvert the nation. I suppose it might as well have been "All dead mormons are now coffee addicts", but that just lacks that certain something, doesn't it?


You've both clearly failed the critical thinking portion of today's Internet test. Move along.
I maintain that this is a true statement. However, as you are not moving along, I will do so.

If you want to convert non-believers into Christians by wading through a sea of blood and converting at the end of a sword, go ahead. You will only be a few steps behind those who are, by these absurd actions, converting the dead at the end of a long stick made of best intentions, excuses and dubiously defensible rhetoric.

Leave my family alone, and your great, great grandfather won't enjoy getting it in the rusty wagon wheel from my great, great grandfather.

Jay Crawford said...

Drew,
Analogous to Col Sherburn, I stand firmly upon logic...and I have no compunction about sharing my contact information: julietkilocrawford@gmail.com

Jay Crawford said...

Your first response was exceptionally well-spoken and a pleasure to read. Yet, respectfully, I must still answer the non-sequiters in your argument. I will do so when I have more than a few minutes in the next day or so.

Jay Crawford said...

Drew, you correctly identified one of the active dynamics YET seemed to forget most of what I had said. You stated that my argument "...ignores the fact of human nature that we desire and I would argue deserve to choose our own destination. God gave us free will so that our choices would have meaning and value. If we were forced to believe in Christ, what would the value of our devotion be? No more than the value of our devotion to urinating or any other task required in order to continue living. No, it's our free will that gives strength to the act of choosing a savior."
I quite agree...and I have ALREADY SAID that the Mormom post-motem vicarious baptism is UTTERLY spiritually ineffective (for precisely the reason YOU have stated). It has no effect on a soul because it ISN'T the subject's CHOICE.
Then you surmised:
"What the mormons did showed a disdain for both the god-given free will of those that chose a different path, and showed that they fail to understand a basic tenet of humanity: that choosing for others will almost invariably cause more harm than good."
I say that "you surmised" because you cannot know any hidden intent of the Mormons who performed the offending ritual. Rather, the only evidence we have to establish these Mormons' ill intent is only what evidence is apparent.
Now I understand your desire for self-determination; I share it (and so apparently does God). Yet choices derived from our self-determination are ONLY valid if we actually know the truth and we choose based upon that knowledge. And the greater the self-negative the consequences, the more information we REQUIRE for our self-damaging choices to be considered RESPONSIBLE and valid. Given the importance attached to our presumed place in eternity, the potential unintentional losses for people are so high that a very distinct choice of concious self-negation would be required for ANY compassionate human being to be okay with believing another person is in Hell. Since concious spiritual suicide rarely happens, all believers in a compassionate religion should hope for all unbelievers and sincerely put forward their beliefs as long as no one else is harmed. Yet with the potential for terrible loss inherent in eternal condemnation, any Mormon who believes that souls can be saved by such a (dubious) ritual is justified in participating AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE IS HARMED (and as we have reasoned, NO one is harmed by secret rituals done without damaging property or reputation).

However, Drew, let me cite a real world example where "potential for unintentional human life loss" trumped "free will". I will do so in the following post

Jay Crawford said...

Drew, let me cite a real world example where "potential for unintentional human life loss" trumped "free will".
In the 1990s (in the MidWest, I believe), I read a newspaper account of four female Asian tourists whose car had stalled on a railroad crossing. A black American man passing by saw that a train was approaching and rushed to their aid. The women, seeing only a "foreign and black" man approaching, panicked and retreated to the car, apparently oblivious to the the TRUE oncoming danger. Their rescuer was forced to grab and bodily HURL the first three women from their vehicle. As the fourth woman huddled in the backseat screaming in fear of her would-be rescuer, he did not have time to pull her to safety before the train arrived and she was ANNIHILATED.
See the point? When very important things (like LIFE, either temporal or eternal) are at stake, extraordinary means (even hurtling women away from nearly-certain death) are FULLY justified to save such life UNLESS the person who stands to lose life is fully cognizant of his impending loss. Given that it is pretty much dead certain (pardon the pun) that virtually NO person would choose an ABSOLUTE eternity apart from God (as either Mormons, Jews, or Christians conceive Him), the HUMAN life which is at stake makes even bizarre attempts for others salvation overwhelmingly justifiable if those attempts don't harm anyone.
If Mormon post-mortem baptism actually did make a difference, objecting to it would be kinda like screaming at your rescuer.
But despite their intentions, once again, quiet Mormon rituals in a Mormon temple still do not ACTUALLY harm anyone.

Now as for any superiorly benevolent intent of the Mormons versus their critics at with insult, let us again look at the apparent evidence.
In the absence of a probable knowledge of any hidden malign intent on the part of these Mormons, we must logically assume that their intent is consistent with the obvious goal of their ritual: Saving strangers from hell, the most terrible fate imagined by them (or, indeed, by most of us). Since this is APPARENTLY their hope, we must compare its obvious DIVINELY benificent purpose with any "hope" of human homosexuality embodied in the "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website.
Irrespective of one's feelings about homosexuality, there can be little doubt that the "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website does not intend to offer eternal salvation. Rather, its APPARENT INTENTION is to strike back at Mormon feelings with insult. This conclusion is based upon the inclusion of the caveat "There is no undo", a TOTAL and INTENTIONAL usurpation of any human free will (YOUR big point!) which not even the Mormons would dare to believe about their salvation rituals.
(To be fair though: If the people making and playing the "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website do, somehow, truly believe that homosexuality is a high benefit analogous to Eternal Salvation, I will immediately withdraw my criticism. I suspect that this is quite unlikely, though.)

Your well thought-out summary however summarizes the situation in a brilliantly succinct manner:
"In this instance, no souls were saved. Anne Frank and her family are not now in the telestial kingdom. No, in fact all that has happened is that the LDS has yet another black eye that has caused people like me to have discussions like this. There is no unbeliever that will read this and become more interested in the teachings of the con artist Joseph Smith. It can only hurt the ultimate salvation of those who might have otherwise been converted, but will not because of this perceived injustice."
You couldn't have said it better if you were an orthodox evangelist, Drew

Jay Crawford said...

Someone, posting under "Anonymous" evidently decided to pick up on Anonymous #1's perjorative-laden posts in a final attempt to validate their faulty logic.
Note: Because of the logical errors, I won't believe that this is actually written by Drew (Anonymous #1 from above).

Anonymous repeated::
"Here's another thought. It is nearly impossible that the individual doing the pretend baptism (with EXPLICIT instructions not to do so) was doing it with good intentions. They violated the church's instructions, their own morals and the religious freedom of others.
As proven in later posts, the church had explicitly spoken out against the posthumous baptism of dead WWII Jews. The branch that performed this act was not a splinter cell, but a recognized congregation. They were either aware of the rule, or were so ignorant about what they were doing that they didn't bother to read the rules. Harm through negligence is still harm, and ignorance of the law is not a defense."
Wrong argument: The obviously benificent goal (saving souls from immortal peril), whether achievable or not, is the reason some theologically-mistaken Mormons performed their vicarious-conversion ritual. This ceremony has a profound basis in the 150+ years of Mormon theology prior to the LDS placing a limited ban on the ritual in the 1990s. Therefore, regardless of LDS Church rules, it is entirely possible that those mistaken Mormons can certainly be understood to be following the OVER-RIDING imperitive of saving souls...which all religions do (and SHOULD do if they acknowledge the existence of souls). Most importantly, however is that, since these rituals have no effect upon the dead and do not ACTUALLY damage the living or their property, we have EVIDENTIARY PROOF that NO actual injury has been done. Therefore Anonymous' statement that "Harm through negligence is still harm" is completely moot and his repetition of "...ignorance of the law is not a defense" is inapplicable here because, with no crime, NO defense was ever needed.
With such mistaken premises, Anonymous' argument is invalid.

Anonymous then amplified on his point in Anonymous 1's first post:
"If you cannot see why turning a mormon gay (see LDS re: prop 8) is not EXACTLY as insulting as turning a JEW into a CHRISTIAN, you're looking at the world through ruby colored glasses. See what I did there?
Here I have pointed out that posthumously converting a Jew to Christianity is absolutely analogous to converting a mormon to a homosexual. The Jews rejected Christ as a fraud and a dangerous character that would subvert the nation. Similarly, mormon leaders have pointed at homosexuality as a dangerous lifestyle that would subvert the nation. I suppose it might as well have been 'All dead mormons are now coffee addicts', but that just lacks that certain something, doesn't it?"
Again, REALITY bitchslaps Anonymous' premise: Jews CANNOT be "posthumously convert]ed] to Christianity" by ANYONE'S fantasy ceremonies of conversion.
However, Anonymous demonstrates that HE understands that the purpose of the "All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay" website is to DELIBERATELY OFFEND Mormons. This is in stark contrast with the benificent salvational purpose of the Mormons' offending ceremony; Anonymous thereby cedes the higher moral ground to the benevolently-intentioned Mormons, not their petty critic.

Jay Crawford said...

(Continued)
Anonymous then seeks to validate his previous ignorant dimishment:
"You've both clearly failed the critical thinking portion of today's Internet test. Move along.
I maintain that this is a true statement. However, as you are not moving along, I will do so."
Given the ease of the logical smackdown required to eviscerate Anonymous main contentions, perhaps he should move along because his core premises are simply false. Now, were I inclined to sound like him, I would simply note that anyone who knows me would gleefully tell him that (at the risk of sounding gay!) I eat fallacious thinkers like him for breakfast...and the occasional midnight snack. There, son; how does it feel?

Regrettably, Anonymous then chooses to end on a self-inflicted wound:
"If you want to convert non-believers into Christians by wading through a sea of blood and converting at the end of a sword, go ahead. You will only be a few steps behind those who are, by these absurd actions, converting the dead at the end of a long stick made of best intentions, excuses and dubiously defensible rhetoric."
Anonymous has just ended with a Straw Man fallacy about my contention that no ACTUAL harm is done by make-believe postmortem conversion ceremonies that harm neither the "victims" souls, nor their reputation, nor others' property. This show of illogical clawing desperation is especially what leads me to hope that well-spoken Drew is not the author.


Finally, Anonymous sets himself up for anyone's dismissal of his contention:
"Leave my family alone, and your great, great grandfather won't enjoy getting it in the rusty wagon wheel from my great, great grandfather."
Why should I care what your great great grandfather "does" at your behest? There's no harm because it WON'T happen and it's NOT REAL.
Get it?

Anonymous said...

Typical Mormans the moment some points out a flaw in their religion they cover it up with more bs or so "oh thats not we meant" or some other bs like that

Jay Crawford said...

I generally agree: especially since Mormonism is seemingly a highly confused mix of Christianity and gnosticism.
Yet could you please expand on your point?

Post a Comment

Dear spammers! Please note that a nofollow attribute is automatically added to all the comment-related links!

You can use the following HTML tags: <b>, <i>, <a>