What's new

Woman gets jail time for baptizing child

@Jack Strop

OK bro. I know people think or feel all kinds of things about the Mos. For their own reasons, like yours. I'm not here to argue religion, really. Please take my comment as a sort of offering attempting to lay out a point of view some Mos actually do have.

My father was not particularly "religious". His father was about as devout a Mo as ever there was. My father wasn't around, busted up with my mom in the year I was born. He would come around to do the yard work and house maintenance and if I wanted I could help and maybe talk some. I grew up next door to my grandfather. When I expressed criticism of LDS leaders maybe a lot like yours, my dad's comment was that he respected them more than I did. So I couldn't just blow off and get any encouragement from him. He was a scientist, and he valued fairness and fact in understanding even his critics. I also saw him, in his work clothes on Sundays, blow off well-meaning folks who would stop on the sidewalk near him and try to remind him of the commandments. He really could stand his ground.

I had a wife when I was younger who worked in the LDS offices as a records specialist. She took care of all kinds of sensitive things like leaders' meetings, their budget records, excommunication records, historical records. She was kinda young, and would come home and tell me about stuff that troubled her. She lost her faith, left the Church, and went to Texas. She became a bank exec, and became a regular hanger-on with George W. Bush in the 80s, invited to his place many times I believe.

I just don't buy the charge at face value that there is anything but genuine, sincere faith behind most Mo's beliefs and motives in what they do.

My father told me, back in the 60s, that on one his trips to New York City he got a telephone book and wrapped it up and sent it to 50 E North Temple with a note "here's a few names for your Temple work". He might have been the one who broke the old Mo idea of just doing such ordinances for people in your personal ancestry, I dunno. He was mocking the LDS leaders, though. His own father spent years doing genealogical work so he could do a few ordinances, and I remember him, my grandpa, going to the temple practically every day to spend the day there without pay as a volunteer ordinance worker. Certainly, my father thought it was a waste of time. My grandpa believed there was nothing more important to do with spare time.

But whatever, nobody actually believes vicarious ordinances "count" until the named person chooses to accept them, and the practice allows Mos to avoid the horror of believing in the kind of Hell some people envision. Our time of choosing continues to the final judgment day. Unbaptized folks are in a comfortable place where in spiritual respects "life goes on".

you are in error if you understood my comment above about being set to do this kind of ordinance for anyone in my family who neglects or chooses not to while alive. It is considered proper to do them for yourself in life, when you can see the value, if you ever see it while alive.

I think the pay received by the general church leaders is pretty middle class. I know it's a lot less than corporate pay scales for leadership. I could carp about some financial stuff in the organization, but in general they keep good budgets and manage finances effectively. I see a little of what bishops do for their ward members in charitable matters, and I don't think any outsider knows half of it.
 
Last edited:
But a baptism is one of the greatest events of a Christian's life. The fact that two parents are at a tug of war over what they both want for the child, just shows how selfish they each are. And selfishness is about the polar opposite of what baptism is supposed to represent.

For Catholics, Confirmation is the event most similar to what you think of as Baptism.

The two parents both seem to want the same thing for their child; the mother chose to do it in a way that excluded the father. It was more spiteful than selfish.
 
well, for some content about religious prudery in general, and off-topic crap. But no, I like it that we don't really have mods who can't bear folks having a little latitude in chat.

I for one do try to give posters some leeway in their discourse. Unfortunately there is only so far one can be flexible. Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly where the line is.
 
I for one do try to give posters some leeway in their discourse. Unfortunately there is only so far one can be flexible. Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly where the line is.

I crossed the line recently by circumventing the profanity filter (in relation to Bunk catch phrase on The Wire) and I got a warning or infraction or something.
I knew I had crossed the line and knew it was coming. I didnt mind it.
 
I crossed the line recently by circumventing the profanity filter (in relation to Bunk catch phrase on The Wire) and I got a warning or infraction or something.
I knew I had crossed the line and knew it was coming. I didnt mind it.

yeah but it was Senator Clay Davis catch phrase... I've got a Clay Davis for president T shirt somewhere...

Bunk said, "i'm just a humble ************ with a big arsed dick,"

Freamon says "you give yourself too much credit"

The Bunk "Ok then I ain't all that humble."

The mods might get onto this, I should yell "5 O coming!!", they ain't cool enough to get an "Omar coming!!!"...
 
Top