Will S wrote:theropod -

I fully understand that you, and others, may well have very strong reasons for disapproving of, and disliking, the Mormon church.

I have no preference as to what flavor of myth it comes to in my choices regarding approving, or liking, a way of thinking that absolves one of ultimate personal responsibility which provides a supernatural parachute into an afterlife. Any such brand of woo gets the same treatment. If there's no real world support for such woo I don't buy it. Mormons are just one of far too many.

Will S wrote:My experience of them is very limited indeed; here in the UK they are not very strong, and the LDS seem to me to be one of least harmful religious denominations. (I rather like the silly story of Joseph Smith and the gold plates!) Once, in the distant past, we were visited by a pair of young Mormon missionaries. My wife thought they were quite good-looking, and we both thought they were agreeable, but not very bright or well informed. But that is the full extent of our contact with them.

Oh, you have yet to meet the young Amerikan version(s) of these door to door woo merchants! I live .685 miles from public access roadway that dead ends at my gate. I have BIG no trespassing signs that the local-meat-hunter-rednecks respect, but these Mormons have walked all the way in to my place unannounced. Not a good idea, and very rude. I explained very carefully that I was an atheist, that they were breaking the law the instant they went around the LOCKED GATE and if they, or any of the ilk, ever came back I would have them arrested. None have, and I haven't had to.

Will S wrote:I suppose that people who buy LDS products, as I have done twice in the past, may be reproached for putting money in their pockets, though, as I recall, the prices were so low that I can't imagine the profit margins could be very high. In view of your vehement response to my message, I will certainly think twice if I ever again consider buying one of their products - though, as it happens for various technical reasons, it's unlikely that I ever will.

Excuse me? I just voiced my person disdain for a rather annoying branch of Christianity. I don't think I expressed a desire that others NOT buy their products if by doing so a need was met. In fact I thought I expressed directly the opposite, where I wrote;

theropod wrote:Still, for some people I can see accessing the available information from this source as worth the price, what ever that might be

.

What about the above comes across as a vehement response?

Will S wrote:However, I see no reason why I should not continue to use some of their on-line facilities. These are free of charge, so this cannot benefit them financially.

Then by all means do so. I will not, however, join others in this. It's not like iTunes, where there's billions of bucks at stake. Even if the Mormon stuff made lots of money I don't really care. I don't use iTunes much to buy digital media either, so my contribution is no big loss in the demographics for either.

Will S wrote:I'm sorry if I have inadvertently annoyed you by my comments.

Jebus! Please lighten up! See above.

It takes hella more than that to arouse me on a beautiful day off morning in my forest retreat. I'm just being the nay-sayer for all faith based come-on's no matter how it's marketed. Don't take it personal. You're reading more into my words than are intended. I WAS very amused, actually, so I don't get your post in response.

The closing of my post should have sent the main message I intended, which I will repeat here;

Anyway, your verbiage tickled me. Great work!

Upon reflection it appears you don't understand why your words, used they way they were, amused me so very much. Here, in the south of the USA, this phrase is used in a sort of ridicule that has kind undertones. These undertones imply a sort of pity expressed toward those included in the catchphrase in a deep hope that they get better. Apparently I misread your words using my colonial limitation of the language. Will my apology suffice?

I still find it hella funny, and I'm in a SP mood.

RS

theropod wrote:Oh, you have yet to meet the young Amerikan version(s) of these door to door woo merchants! I live .685 miles from public access roadway that dead ends at my gate. I have BIG no trespassing signs that the local-meat-hunter-rednecks respect, but these Mormons have walked all the way in to my place unannounced. Not a good idea, and very rude. I explained very carefully that I was an atheist, that they were breaking the law the instant they went around the LOCKED GATE and if they, or any of the ilk, ever came back I would have them arrested. None have, and I haven't had to.

Very annoying for you, I'm sure. Still, it looks as though you're in a stronger position on your side of the Atlantic. Over here, we couldn't have them arrested, because trespass, in most circumstances, is a tort, not a crime, and comes under the civil law.

Anyway, your verbiage tickled me. Great work!

I understand the phrase that way and chuckled too, and I am a long way from 'the south'.

On topic, these guys are simply weird.

What about debaptizing the dead Mormons eh; Could be fun

Onyx8 wrote:

Anyway, your verbiage tickled me. Great work!

I understand the phrase that way and chuckled too, and I am a long way from 'the south'.

On topic, these guys are simply weird.

I used to be one of those guys, but I chose college instead of a mission, thank God!

But I don't think that Mormon's are really that weird compared to any other religious group. They are actually fairly boring these days.

My grandmother was probably the least weird person I've ever met. She spent probably forty+ years of her life doing genealogy research on our family, and I found it extremely interesting. All of her research has been entered into the church's data base, and is available to anyone at no charge.

It sounds weird to an outsider, and when it comes to baptizing dead Jews or Gandhi I think that it is, but in my experience when my grandmother was baptizing for the dead it was for an unbaptized ancestor of hers or my grandfather's*. And bless her heart it came from what she considered the goodness of her heart.

What I understood of this temple ceremony was that on judgement day this dead ancestor could either accept the baptism or reject it, no harm no foul, in Grandma's opinion.

Don't jump all over me for defending Mormons. I'm not defending or justifying random baptism for the dead by Mormons, just trying to explain a point of view looking at it from the inside since I was once there. The Romney family having the atheist grandfather baptized after he died is their way of trying to give him something like a get out of jail free card when it comes to judgment day.

*Grandpa was an atheist, and to counter the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes I will say that he was in the trenches in WWI and that's where he was convinced that there was no God.

DoctorE wrote:What about debaptizing the dead Mormons eh; Could be fun

Maybe fun, but pointless since this would also be something that could be accepted or rejected on judgment day.

I might like one though for purely symbolic reasons because I spent years trying to get my name taken off the members role with no success. After not being in a church except for funerals for over thirty-five years and five or six letters asking that my name be removed from the roles I am still listed as an active member.

Edited to add: I guess that makes me an official atheist Mormon.

Deleted: double posts

MacIver wrote:I wish the Church of Scotland waited until I was dead before baptising me instead of doing it when I was three months old.

This.

I've jokingly told people they can donate my body to a shelter for necrophiliacs once I'm dead, since I won't care a jot. Although really I do kind of care what people think of me enough to want them to treat my rotting corpse with a bit of respect once I'm dead.

I massively resent my parents for Christening me into the Church of England without my consent, when I was just a baby. When I tell them now they just laugh (before they go back to watching Songs of Praise).

Am I the only one who sees this as a brilliantly, wonderful precedent?

No longer do you have to worry about repenting of your hedonistic life of god rejection before you die, just leave instructions for your heirs (possibly under bribery of inheritance) to sort it all out after you're gone. Brilliant!

If there's no god, you win! If there is a god, you win! It's Pascal's wager turned around but without any of the problems of insincerity of belief etc.

Now, if we could just sell the idea to the catholics, muslims....

Bill unbaptizes Mitt's father-in-law

Fight back
http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

Spearthrower wrote:Now, of course, I don't think it matters to the deceased whatever ridiculous pronouncements their family make, but how about a little basic respect for his memory?

Respect for a memory?

If he doesn't exist and most of his survivors wanted him to convert to Mormonism, why not? Respect for a memory of something that doesn't exist seems superfluous.

This story is hilarious.

This guy sounds like he was more than rational enough to realize that it doesn't matter what these lunatics do to his decaying body. Good on him to reject the insanity of those around him.

These are the types of stories that make me shake my head when people refer to Romney as a normal, milquetoast centrist. Some of the worst presidents in U.S. history (most recently Bush) have campaigned as moderates before showing their true colors and wreaking havoc on the country.

as far as non racist they preached till 1978 blacks where from cain as in the mark of cain. the u.s. gov. told the church they would tax them so they had convent revelation. they aloud blacks in there pristhood. witch is the hole of this religon.

jesus said once to life once to death once to jugment.