Mormon Church restricts access to names of Jews to prevent secret unsolicited proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims

gore, here's a good start:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rc...

also, my semi-informed understanding is that what Mormons are calling 'heaven' is a much less...metaphysical(?) thing than what is usually though of when we use that term.

How does the confusion here stack up with the many religious traditions (I'm thinking Catholics in particular) of doing other physical offices, like marriage, and being a godparent (scroll to bottom), by proxy?

momgamer wrote:

How does the confusion here stack up with the many religious traditions (I'm thinking Catholics in particular) of doing other physical offices, like marriage, and being a godparent (scroll to bottom), by proxy?

Well proxy marriages are mostly illegal in the US. I think that stuff is pretty weird though and I was raised Catholic.

I'm not talking illegality. I'm talking moral stance. And they've been doing that since the middle ages all over the world.

momgamer wrote:

I'm not talking illegality. I'm talking moral stance. And they've been doing that since the middle ages all over the world.

True, but in less they were proxy marrying dead people then it's still not quite the same. I think proxy anything is weird though because in my mind it (any religious ceremony) either needs the body or it doesn't. If it doesn't then there's no need for a proxy either.

gore wrote:

As I understand it they have 3 heavens: rich Mormon heaven, regular Mormon heaven, non-Mormon Christian heaven.

Accurate enough, though "rich" is probably an unfair characterization--super devout is more accurate. There's also Spirit Prison, which is basically Purgatory, where you have to chill and have your sins purged, and Outer Darkness if you sided with Satan when he seceded, or are gay.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Spirit Prison, which is basically Purgatory, where you have to chill and have your sins purged

That sounds like a colonic for your soul. Ew.

SixteenBlue wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I'm not talking illegality. I'm talking moral stance. And they've been doing that since the middle ages all over the world.

True, but in less they were proxy marrying dead people then it's still not quite the same. I think proxy anything is weird though because in my mind it (any religious ceremony) either needs the body or it doesn't. If it doesn't then there's no need for a proxy either.

They do proxy marry dead people in the temple. It's all part of the package.

clover wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Spirit Prison, which is basically Purgatory, where you have to chill and have your sins purged

That sounds like a colonic for your soul. Ew.

That's purgatory, baby!

Strikes me that using an imaginary body to appeal to an imaginary entity is quite appropriate.

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

It's true. The Bhagavad Gita's validity relies on how long Utah remained Indian territory. Which is why I go to Salt Lake City for the best Tandoori.

Same's true for Confucianism. Explains why China has the best curry this side of the Pacific.

Tanglebones wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

It's true. The Bhagavad Gita's validity relies on how long Utah remained Indian territory. Which is why I go to Salt Lake City for the best Tandoori.

And also why Utah is a world renowned for it's modernized take on gefilte fish and matzah ball soup.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

Abraham and Moses and St Paul did not create the Bible. There was no one person who created it. This is not the same as how the Book of Mormon was created which can be documented to Joe Smith.

The reason it has lasted this long is because of Brigham Young led Mormons to Utah where they multiplied without influence of the non-believers.

If Utah was already a State there is no way Mormonism at this scale would last this long.

goman wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

Abraham and Moses and St Paul did not create the Bible. There was no one person who created it. This is not the same as how the Book of Mormon was created which can be documented to Joe Smith.

The reason it has lasted this long is because of Brigham Young led Mormons to Utah where they multiplied without influence of the non-believers.

If Utah was already a State there is no way Mormonism at this scale would last this long.

For every religion there are plenty of reasons non-believers think it's made up. I don't really see the point in singling one out, especially when there are members of that religion in this thread who have done a nice job of tolerating the questioning of their religion's activities.

SixteenBlue wrote:
goman wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

Abraham and Moses and St Paul did not create the Bible. There was no one person who created it. This is not the same as how the Book of Mormon was created which can be documented to Joe Smith.

The reason it has lasted this long is because of Brigham Young led Mormons to Utah where they multiplied without influence of the non-believers.

If Utah was already a State there is no way Mormonism at this scale would last this long.

For every religion there are plenty of reasons non-believers think it's made up. I don't really see the point in singling one out, especially when there are members of that religion in this thread who have done a nice job of tolerating the questioning of their religion's activities.

That's my take on it too. To me, it's as equally plausible as many other Christian sects (and more so than some other Christian sects).

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

That's my take on it too. To me, it's as equally plausible as many other Christian sects (and more so than some other Christian sects).

When this first came up I was more offended than I am now. While I still think there's a degree of disrespecting the person's beliefs and decisions, knowing that the intention is to simply allow them to have a choice I can't really get that upset. Other than that, it's no more crazy than plenty of other religious acts.

SixteenBlue wrote:
goman wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

Abraham and Moses and St Paul did not create the Bible. There was no one person who created it. This is not the same as how the Book of Mormon was created which can be documented to Joe Smith.

The reason it has lasted this long is because of Brigham Young led Mormons to Utah where they multiplied without influence of the non-believers.

If Utah was already a State there is no way Mormonism at this scale would last this long.

For every religion there are plenty of reasons non-believers think it's made up. I don't really see the point in singling one out, especially when there are members of that religion in this thread who have done a nice job of tolerating the questioning of their religion's activities.

It is not theological or philosophical reasons like is there God or Holy Spirit or was Jesus the son of God but fact based reasons like the Book of Mormon is full of untruths like horses and chariots in the Americas, DNA of Native Americans, etc. The setting and names are also closely related to Northern New York. Joe Smith just made up the Book of Mormon.

goman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
goman wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
goman wrote:

Joe Smith made the Book of Mormon all up. The lie has lasted to modern times only because Utah was Indian territory.

Meh, that can be said of every religious book.

Abraham and Moses and St Paul did not create the Bible. There was no one person who created it. This is not the same as how the Book of Mormon was created which can be documented to Joe Smith.

The reason it has lasted this long is because of Brigham Young led Mormons to Utah where they multiplied without influence of the non-believers.

If Utah was already a State there is no way Mormonism at this scale would last this long.

For every religion there are plenty of reasons non-believers think it's made up. I don't really see the point in singling one out, especially when there are members of that religion in this thread who have done a nice job of tolerating the questioning of their religion's activities.

It is not theological or philosophical reasons like is there God or Holy Spirit or was Jesus the son of God but fact based reasons like the Book of Mormon is full of untruths like horses and chariots in the Americas, DNA of Native Americans, etc. The setting and names are also closely related to Northern New York. Joe Smith just made up the Book of Mormon.

There are tons of untruths and historical inaccuracies in other religious texts as well.

Stengah wrote:

There are tons of untruths and historical inaccuracies in other religious texts as well.

Biblical literalism is not a theology of Catholics. It is one of fundamentalists. Mormonism is an off shoot of fundamentalist ideas like this. Hence why they say the Book of Mormon is the most correct book in the world.

goman wrote:
Stengah wrote:

There are tons of untruths and historical inaccuracies in other religious texts as well.

Biblical literalism is not a theology of Catholics. It is one of fundamentalists. Mormonism is an off shoot of fundamentalist ideas like this. Hence why they say the Book of Mormon is the most correct book in the world.

I must have missed the part where Catholics stopped using Biblical quotes to justify their stance on homosexuals and birth control. You were dismissive of the Book of Mormon because it contains obvious errors. We're pointing out that being a religious text with obvious errors isn't limited to the Book of Mormon. What you call "made up" Mormons call "Divine inspiration." If you want to compare Catholicism to Mormonism specifically, that would be best done in a new thread.

Stengah:

Yes, I believe you have. Catholics base dogma on Vatican interpretation of the Bible, not just literal quotes. This interpretation can change over time. See: Vatican I and Vatican II.

gore is correct in saying that Biblical literalism is a fundamentalist practice, not a Catholic one.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

Yes, I believe you have. Catholics base dogma on Vatican interpretation of the Bible, not just literal quotes. This interpretation can change over time. See: Vatican I and Vatican II.

gore is correct in saying that Biblical literalism is a fundamentalist practice, not a Catholic one.

So you're trying to say Catholicism is okay with gays and birth control now? Or are you saying that it's functionally different because they're only interpreting the quotes, instead of using them verbatim? Regardless, he's still singling out Mormons for something all Abrahamic religions are guilty of.

I was not aware that all Abrahamic religoins were based in Utah. I'll have to ask my priest about that.

LarryC wrote:

I was not aware that all Abrahamic religoins were based in Utah. I'll have to ask my priest about that.

You also seem to be unaware that goman's complaint was that the Book of Mormon is known to be written by a man, and that it contains untruths and historical inaccuracies, not the physical location of the man when he wrote it.

LarryC wrote:

I was not aware that all Abrahamic religoins were based in Utah. I'll have to ask my priest about that.

That right. Because, after all, any reasonable person knows that the books of the Bible were settled in 397 C.E. by the Third Council of Carthage. (By this I mean that there is no greater need for voluntary suspension of disbelief to accept the Latin Canon than there is to accept the LDS Canon.) Faith is faith. If you accept fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding: believing comes before understanding) then you don't have a lot of room to throw stones at other's leaps of faith, other than to say that they contradict your own assumptions or first principles.

"This contradicts my primary assumptions" is not the same thing as "this contradicts reality."

Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I was not aware that all Abrahamic religoins were based in Utah. I'll have to ask my priest about that.

You also seem to be unaware that goman's complaint was that the Book of Mormon is known to be written by a man, and that it contains untruths and historical inaccuracies, not the physical location of the man when he wrote it.

No, I was perfectly aware of that. I'm now unaware of how it is I supported goman's complaint. As far as I can tell, all I said was that he was correct in saying that Catholic practice is not to use Biblical literalism. I'm not seeing how pointing this out supports his claim.

Oso:

Sure. Could you point out where I was saying otherwise?

There is, in general, an awful lot of glossing over of important details about faith going on in this site (and on more anti-religious sites). One religion is not the same as another, and it's often inaccurate to paint them all with the same brush. It would be ludicrous to fault Buddhism for inventing and propagating the idea of Christian Hell.

To a Catholic, accusing him or his religious affiliation of Biblical literalism is similarly nonsensical. It is core to Catholic life that dogma comes from both the Bible and its living keepers.

LarryC wrote:

To a Catholic, accusing him or his religious affiliation of Biblical literalism is similarly nonsensical. It is core to Catholic life that dogma comes from both the Bible and its living keepers.

The Catholics and Mormons both enjoy the rare good fortune of having an actual god-anointed king who can talk to God (or Jesus I suppose for the LDS Pope-equivalent) and makes the rules the rest of the Church must follow.

Papal law is a lot less ambiguous than trying to figure out which part of some random Holy Text is a trump card in any possible situation.

Of course, you know, this is kind of a big deal, and it's kind of why Protestants are not Catholics. Some Protestants are super loony and believe the bible literally, some believe the Bible means whatever you feel like it means.

The extra strange thing is that Romney is a Mormon (LDS has a king) and Santorum is a Catholic (Catholic church has a king), but the fundamental protestants are lining up behind Santorum anyway. There was a time when Americans were afraid that church kings would actually give orders to American politicians, which would seem to be very much at odds with a lot of the special brand of crazy the fundies ascribe to.

So, well, I don't really know where I'm going with that. Religion is weird. And I guess if you want to start your own religion, like Joe Smith or L Ron Hubbard, it's better to just make yourself the king of that church, or else you end up with stuff like unitarians, literalists, and ultra-mega-wacko splinter groups.