Quantcast
Faith

What is sacred? Respecting the spiritual beliefs and commitments of others

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    All these plea's for respect for religion...

    what about respect for the lack thereof?

    Respect is a two way street. You cannot GET respect BEFORE, you GIVE respect.

    I try to respect my Mormon friends. We may believe different things, but we create an atmosphere where we can DISCUSS those differences, and hopefully, both learn and still part ways as...

    friends.

    Today:

    *'Religious lobbying is changing political focus' - By Mercedes White, Deseret News - 11/21/11

    'Number of lobbies has grown from 40 to over 200'

    I would be hard pressed to say that religion does not have, respect.

    Reaction?

    *'Gays greatest threat to America, Buttars says' - By Aaron Falk - DSnews - 02/19/09

    *'GOP state legislator: Homosexuality worse than terrorism' - By David Ferguson - Talking Points Memo - 09/10/11

    *'Debate Crowd Booed Gay Soldier' - By Byron Wolf - ABC News - 09/23/11

    Indignation
    Insults
    and Scorn.

    These people do NOT represent my Mormon friends!

    But as an outsider, I can do very little to prevent the respect given.

    Only those who are part of, inside, can call out and demand respect to be given from THEMSELVES. Set the example, for....

    a 2 party discourse of respect.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 1:42 p.m.

    I agree that we should respect each other's right to believe different things. However I also think we should have the willingness to openly discuss differences in beliefs and not act like we are being persecuted when someone offers respectful criticism of those beliefs.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    "Oh that's nice," her closest friend stammered, then turned quickly away.
    "In my church we don't believe in wearing crosses," another friend said flatly.
    "If your big brother was shot and killed, would you wear the bullet around your neck?" another girl asked.
    By the end of the day, Angela felt embarrassed and alienated.
    "I understand that different people believe different things," she said to her parents that night. "But nobody asked me about what I believe, or why the necklace means so much to me. It was like I was supposed to feel bad for wearing something that reminds me of my faith."

    Who is teaching these children to treat their friends this way? Is this how Christ would have acted? And when these children grow up they will wonder why "outsiders" don't like their religion ....

  • aumacoma SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    Dang, Pagan, you beat me to it so I'll just tell you a story that happened to me this week. A Catholic friend of mine and I were email debating the Pope's recent hateful comments about homosexuality and I said to him that what the Pope said was a lie and anti-Christ as the Christ that I know of and I said some truthful, albeit unflattering, things about the Pope. He responded by saying that the first sign of anything vile about the Pope, he will delete the email, end of discussion. So apparently it is just fine for the Pope (or any religion that does so) to say vile things about homosexuals and no one should be allowed to respond to that. Religions might say they respect other points of views but some of their actions say otherwise.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 2, 2011 2:11 p.m.

    We as Latter-day Saints seem to quick to see the negative side of the cross. I think we need to try to understand why some people have a deep reverence for the cross, and be less quick to attack and speak against its use.

    The cross may not be something that we use, but we need to not turn other people using it into an attack on them and their religion.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 2:29 p.m.

    'Religions might say they respect other points of views but some of their actions say otherwise.' - aumacoma | 2:09 p.m. Dec. 2, 2011

    And for those persons, respect might never come.
    They use the banner of 'respect' to only foster supporting points of view. Claiming that any differeing points of view are 'dis-respect' that they are not allowing thier 'religious freedom.'

    When I point OUT some of the harmful things some say, many claim I 'hate' them. Or, said religion.

    Rather than holding them, accountable for their actions.

    To me, there IS a difference.

    Anything I say? I try VERY hard to BE respectful, about.

    Because the ONLY thing we have control over, is ourselves and how we handle, situations.

    Not others.

    As exampled by:

    'I think we (Latter-day Saints) need to try to understand why some people have a deep reverence for the cross, and be less quick to attack and speak against its use.' - John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 2:11 p.m. Dec. 2, 2011

    Thank you.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    @Pagan, I've noticed a trend among some people to use the term "hater" when they feel that anything about the religious organization they are a member of is being challenged. And I can tell you that I have NEVER heard any general authority in the LDS church use that term to describe non-members of the church. Quite to the contrary, the general authorities are constantly reminding us to be tolerant of the beliefs of others (there is obviously a need for these reminders). For me, once someone goes down that road its time to stop trying to have a meaningful discussion as they are already showing unrighteous judgment and will at that point no longer be able to see any logic in the other person's perspective. They somehow seem to think that labelling others as "haters" is some sort of acceptable way to deflect the position of the other person, when in fact most third parties should be able to recognize that the one using the term "hater" is the one using a logical fallacy.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 2, 2011 5:05 p.m.

    @ Pagan.. I hope some day you will learn that disagreement does not equal hate! Using that word to describe someone with whom you have a disagreement is simply an effort to redefine and denigrate that person, much like Hitler tried to redefine Jewish persons. The consequences and history speak for themselves! Dangerous ground to tread on calling other people names like, "haters". Please think about it, at least!

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2011 5:57 p.m.

    Mountanman | 5:05 p.m. Dec. 2, 2011
    Hayden, ID
    @ Pagan.. I hope some day you will learn that disagreement does not equal hate! Using that word to describe someone with whom you have a disagreement is simply an effort to redefine and denigrate that person, much like Hitler tried to redefine Jewish persons. The consequences and history speak for themselves! Dangerous ground to tread on calling other people names like, "haters". Please think about it, at least!

    @Mountanman, Thank you and I agree. Oh and if you re-read Pagan's post, he was saying that OTHERS accuse him of hating.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 2, 2011 6:26 p.m.

    We need to bring the level of public discourse away from what is sacred. Let's focus on what's important. What's common. What's necessary. None of those things are, collectively, religion.

  • Lasvegaspam Henderson, NV
    Dec. 2, 2011 8:56 p.m.

    Hutterite, to people who are believers in God and in his purposes for our lives, I can assure you that religion already tops the important list for them. For folks like you for whom it does not what is your problem with respecting others priorities; especially since we believers are in the majority in the USA?

  • J.M. Lehi, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 1:07 a.m.

    I didn't read the entire article yet, but wanted to say that the story of Angela is a sad one. As a Utah Mormon I'd like to apologize. I'm one LDS who is disappointed that we don't use the cross more (of course we know what some would say about that!!) and I think all LDS should rejoice in seeing someone wearing one to school (maybe even if it's Madonna etc).

    My oldest daughter (preteen)came to me a few weeks ago and asked if I knew my shirt had a cross on it.... (perhaps she didn't notice the skull or?? : )) I explained that I did know and that the cross was not only a symbol of the tree of knowledge and death, but also of life (to pagans and Christians). I'm guessing that her ideas came from people asking why LDS don't use crosses, or accusing us of not being Christian because they aren't on our Churches, and then Primary teachers etc explain that we celebrate the living Christ, but perhaps they explain this in the wrong way... I don't know.... but it's one of those things that make me cringe a little...

  • DonO Draper, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 9:09 a.m.

    I am personally pleased with the tenor of the responses to this article. Understanding and respect, not mere tolerance, will further peace and brotherhood/sisterhood in this tumultuous world. Narrow-mindedness, a trait that far too many possess, foments meaningless labels ("hater", "cult", etc.), childish name-calling and worse.

    As the lyrics to the old song say, "Let there be peace...and let it begin with me."

  • cymrul West Valley City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    I've had hateful things said to me by members of the LDS faith while I was still an active temple going member. There is NO room for individuality in the LDS faith. You have to conform in EVERY way or you are setting yourself up as a target. The best thing I ever did was leave it.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 10:03 a.m.

    Re: JM said, and then Primary teachers etc explain that we celebrate the living Christ, but perhaps they explain this in the wrong way... I don't know.... but it's one of those things that make me cringe a little...

    Theology of the Cross. The cross is the center of the Christian faith. The haunting image of the crucified Christ is the crucible in which are thinking about God is forged. Martin Luther expresses the centrally of the cross in a series statements such as The cross alone is our theology. The cross puts everything to the test,Luther draws a now famous distinction between the theology of glory who seeks God apart from Jesus Christ and the theologian of the cross ,who know God is revealed in and through the cross.

    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.(1cor 1:18)

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    @Sharrona, "Theology of the Cross. The cross is the center of the Christian faith. The haunting image of the crucified Christ is the crucible in which are thinking about God is forged."

    I respect Martin Luther. He was a brave man who faced the powerful church which had gone very much astray at the time. But, excuse my LDS way of thinking, isn't Christ the center of Christian faith?

    The Romans crucified our Savior, which was the eternal plan for Him to die and overcome death and sin. But a cross itself is an instrument of torture and the killing of criminals by a slow, torturous death. Thousands of people were put to death by crucifixion. Each was a gory, extremely painful death. Why should we remember our Savior by this unspeakably cruel death and have that etched into our minds?

    I would rather know my Savior as the resurrected Christ, the same Christ who now dwells with His Father in the eternal worlds, the same Christ who loves us individually and cares deeply for us. It is because of Him we are saved, and only through Him can we have eternal life and salvation.

  • Kevin Surrey, BC
    Dec. 3, 2011 11:41 a.m.

    to:cymrul | 9:25 a.m. Dec. 3, 2011

    I feel sorrow that your time as an LDS member was not a better experience. I have been a member for over 40 years and I have not felt the "conformity" pressure as you might have. Free Agency is a wonderful principle and Christ never forced anyone to do anything. However, that does not mean there are not natural consequences for personal choices. Yes, I wear a suit, white shirt, modest tie etc every Sunday, not because that is what is generally expect, but because I feel good doing it. We have ward members wear all sorts of clothes to church and come from all sorts of backgrounds but they are welcome and not "judged" out of activity.

    Of course there are more expectations and standards with more responsibility. For example, the bishop cannot show up to church with green punk hair and a nose ring wearing ripped blue jeans. In the LDS church Christ sets the standards and we choose to follow them or not. That does not mean all extremes will be tolerated.

  • HappyLDSUte PROVO, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    @Serenity
    I was thinking the same thing. To add on that, 1 Cor. 1:18 must be looked at a little deeper, I think. It's not saying- "For the message of the CROSS is foolishness to those..." Rather, it's- "For the MESSAGE of the cross..." Not the cross itself. That message could be symbolized by the cross, but I think a better way to symbolize that message is how we act towards others. I do respect the decision of my fellow Christians to wear the cross, because I believe it is not an inherently bad thing. I personally don't wear one, because I believe the Lord has asked me to outwardly express my faith through another way-
    "34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
    35 By this shall ALL MEN KNOW that ye are MY DISCIPLES, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)
    In the end if you're a LDS Christian, Historical Christian, Catholic, or anything else, you can either believe in those words, or say that your own religion asks you to do similarly.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 3, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    Hey Kev,
    Try living here in Utah for awhile, and then we can talk about it. Everyone knows things are very different outside of this state. "LDS Church lady" is a different breed here.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 12:47 p.m.

    @serenity

    A lot of churches use the empty cross which is a symbol of his ressurection. The crucifix is more of a symbol of his sacrifice for our sins.

    @HappyLDSUte
    "Not the cross itself. That message could be symbolized by the cross, but I think a better way to symbolize that message is how we act towards others. I do respect the decision of my fellow Christians to wear the cross, because I believe it is not an inherently bad thing. I personally don't wear one, because I believe the Lord has asked me to outwardly express my faith through another way"

    This isn't a perfect comparison because they aren't outward, but to a lot of people wearing the cross is similar to how the LDS treat wearing the garment.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 3, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    cymurl.. I fear you have confused comformitity with obedience to the Gospel. We must conform our lives to the Gospel,not the other way around! The Gospel is not on trial, we are!

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    RE: Serenity, The Cross destroys our confidence in our own ability to discern what God is like. By revealing himself through the suffering, weakness and shame of the cross, so we will be more willing to learn from him. Humility is essential, if we are to encounter and deepen our knowledge of God who was present and active at Calvary. Resurrection Faith: God is active in a hidden manner, Proper trust in the promises of God, God works out salvation through suffering.(Luther)

    That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;(Phil 3:10)

    Just about anyone can read the N.T. and make some sort of sense of it, But Real theologian is someone is someone who has experienced a sense of condemnation on account of sin, and realizes that the message of forgiveness is the good news. The gospel is experienced and transforms our situation. (Luther).

    @ HappyLDSUte; see 1COR 1:23, But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness[Sereniy]. The cross is a symbol of Christianity as Moroni is to Mormonism.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    pagan

    Its always that one issue at the heart of all your world view.

    I respect any belief that doesn't glorify the killing of others while blowing themselves up.

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    Sharrona,

    I appreciate your respectful discourse but want to say I disagree about the cross being to Christians what Moroni is to the LDS Church. First of all, we are Christians, but moving past that...salvation is found only through the cross. Without that Atonement, we cannot be saved. Moroni was a messenger and had no power to save. Only Christ does.

    My favorite scripture is from 3 Nephi 27:14. It explains that Christ was lifted up (on the cross) so that he can lift us up. In other words, he and the Atonement wrought on that cross is the door that returns ALL who accept and follow Christ back into his presence.

    In my opinion, where the issue lies is that some people wear the cross as a reminder of what the Lord did for us and how much he loves us. For others, the cross becomes an object of worship and the LDS Church believes we worship the Lord and not the necessary but still physical object of his death. Still, we should not condemn anyone for their personal choice, nor judge their motivations.

  • J.M. Lehi, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 4:24 p.m.

    I didn't read all the comments but I'm guessing there are the usual (stories about how awful Mormons are (some fiction, some not), professional anti-Mormons taking the opportunity to get a dig in, gay activists who are much nicer now days : ) thanks (saw Pagan's first)but I did look at the RE to me.

    I want to explain that Jesus Christ is the center of my religion. I really enjoy the symbolism of the cross, and as I said, I think we should display it more, perhaps. LDS do depict the cross, but it is more often depicted in its role as tree of life (which we all seek), but still, it is Jesus that we focus on, His life, His suffering, His death, His resurrection. He is the tree of life. The cross with Jesus on it, is the tree of life.

    Interestingly, there are many valid symbols that some don't often use. The tomb, for example. It is represented by the font, brazen sea etc. This is in our Temples (symbols of Calvary). We don't center our religion around it though, but on God, the Son, who died on the cross, emerged from the tomb, etc.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 5:05 p.m.

    He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool. -Brigham Young

    I can understand the story of the young girl who received the cross necklace for her birthday. She's too young and kids can be mean. But for adults, I don't understand taking offense at everything that a member of the LDS said to or about you. I have lived in Utah most of my life, but I have also live outside of the state at times. The fact is that you can find reasons to love or hate the place where you live no matter what. That has nothing to do with the predominate religion. It has everything to do with attitude.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 7:51 p.m.

    ---

    oh cymrul: Share with us some of those hateful things that were said to you while you were an "active temple going member."

    I can't imagine anyone saying anything hateful to another member let alone another person. I'm also curious as to what "individuality" is being squashed in the LDS church. Can you share some of those examples with us. I don't know any 2 people alike at church. My ward is very diverse in personalities, talents, teaching skills, compassion etc.

    A target for what? By whom?

    You said, " The best thing I ever did was leave it." That's an interesting statement from you since your posts are some of the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever seen on these threads. And if I'm not mistaken, you are a heavy advocate for homosexuality, practicing that behavior yourself.

    Standing up for truth and righteousness and denouncing sin is always the right thing to do.

    ----

    I'm curious where the reporter heard/found/verified the first example written in the story. While I'm sure those types of things are said, I'm positive they are the exception, not the rule.

  • ThinksIThink SEATTLE, WA
    Dec. 3, 2011 8:29 p.m.

    @charles,

    You responded to someone who posted here that leaving the mormon church was good for them - in response you said: "your posts are some of the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever seen on these threads."

    Why do I always hear LDS members saying things like this about people who have resigned? Isn't that sort of the point of this article? Not to get upset and make derogatory comments just because someone chose not to believe what you believe anymore. Maybe you take it personal that someone who once believed as you do concluded it was not true, and they moved on. But the point of the article is we should still respect that person.

    If a person wants their beliefs to be respected, they might want to think twice before calling someone "biting, angry, vitriolic" . . . simply because they don't agree with you.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Dec. 3, 2011 11:35 p.m.

    I come from a different time. One where respect is not a give, but one in which it is earned by conduct.

    I wear my temple garments proudly. I do not wear a cross for the reasons given, I commemeorated the resurrection not the crucifixion.

    I wear a gold Star of David on a chain around my neck. It is a political statement not a religious one.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2011 11:40 p.m.

    @Thinksithink
    "@charles,

    You responded to someone who posted here that leaving the mormon church was good for them - in response you said: "your posts are some of the most biting, angry, vitriolic I've ever seen on these threads."

    Why do I always hear LDS members saying things like this about people who have resigned? "

    Sometimes it's an accurate assessment (I'm not going to find the original post to this chain to see if that was applicable in this case, partly because I don't want to extend any pointless bickering). I myself am someone who left the LDS church and despite having disclosed that plenty of times I'm having difficulty remembering any times I've had a comment directed to me that my posts were biting, angry, or anything like that.

  • Eirebrain Williamsburg, VA
    Dec. 4, 2011 5:50 a.m.

    It seems to me that an object's sacredness can only be measured by assessing how the belief/symbol impacts the life of the person who holds it sacred. That which motivates us to the highest and best, the most noble - that is sacred. It's more about our hearts than our logos.

    I feel blessed and incredibly fortunate to have had experiences with the sacred that are tied to my LDS faith, my Jewish and Protestant roots, and my Catholic and Evangelical friends. I recognize and respect the beliefs of friends and associates whose religions I cannot even name, and whose religious practices are quite different than my own.

    Because of these good people, I am motivated to be better - kinder, more patient and generous, more involved in doing good in my community, more respectful of this beautiful earth, more excellent in my pursuits. I am grateful to all of you who take your faith seriously, and honorably wear your garments, your crosses, your bindi, your plain Amish dresses and prayer coverings.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 4, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    Religious believers often respond to opposing critiques of religion by claiming that critiques and challenges are a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism or challenges concerning their beliefs. Attacks on those that disagree with religious belief who dare to criticize religion abound. Basically, religious people are upset that people that disagree with religion don't treat religion with the sort of respect, deference, and honor which religious believers do. They don't offer substantive counter-arguments to opposing critiques of religion because their arguments are often weak....so instead of offering a reasonable counter-argument....they offer untrue personality assumptions or any number of ad hominems for simply having a disagreeing opinion. Religions don't deserve automatic respect any more than non-belief does. Sometimes, religious beliefs shouldn't be treated with the seriousness of a logical analysis because that imparts to them a respectability they don't deserve. It's possible for "hating the sin" to become "hating the sinner" if a person is not careful, so while being critical of religion and religious beliefs is entirely justified, it's something that can go wrong no matter how tactfully it is presented simply because of taking_it_too_personal.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 4, 2011 5:28 p.m.

    ----

    Dear Seattle: I simply stated a fact about cymrul and his/her comments on the Dnews threads. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with cymrul leaving the LDS church. That is a choice that cymrul will have to answer for at the appointed time.

    I quoted cymrul stating that the best thing he/she ever did was leave the LDS church. However, by the history of cymrul's posts anger, hate and envy have taken over his/her soul. And if I recall correctly, most of it has to do with homosexuality and the church's stance on that behavior.

    atl is correct. While I don't agree with much of atl's politics, I've never seen the hate, anger and vitriol that is evident in posts by cymrul, ranch, mav, happy valley, christy, joggle/jiggle and a few others.

    ----

    joggle, the whole point is that you are free to believe whatever it is you believe. So do I. As an LDS member, I don't have to justify or rationalize my beliefs to make you feel better. It's you with the problem, not me.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 4, 2011 6:39 p.m.

    cont'd...

    What you consider "substantive counter-arguments" will never be what I consider it. It's my experience that people like you, Vanka, Chicago and others inquire under the guise of wanting to learn but when others answer your questions you just shoot them down and tell them that their answers are wrong or not a "substantive counter-argument".

    Christ has said that the path is straight and narrow and few be there that find it. He also said that it takes faith, not signs, to be a disciple of His. He also said it takes a humble heart and contrite spirit to come to the knowledge of His gospel. There are millions who are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

    @Seattle: I want to reiterate, I have no issue with anyone who wants to leave the LDS church. I've been in enough councils over the decades to understand that it happens for sundry reasons, with the underlying reason ALWAYS being that the person has not nurtured their testimony and they lean unto their own understanding and cling to the philosophies of men.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2011 7:37 p.m.

    @charles
    "underlying reason ALWAYS being that the person has not nurtured their testimony and they lean unto their own understanding and cling to the philosophies of men. "

    Well... that is how you see it. Obviously the person who leaves is probably disagreeing about the clinging to the philosophies of men part. Though personally I guess I'll admit to clinging to philosophies of men in a sense since after all... I'm following my own beliefs. I'm sure, like everyone else, that isn't going to be 100% aligned with God. I don't believe there is a "true church" though so I'm not nearly as concerned with people (including myself) jumping around different denominations as others are or disagreeing on doctrine within reason (like say... I don't support the Westboro Baptist Church protests... well okay I support their right to protest but strongly disagree with the substance of their protests).

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Dec. 5, 2011 1:01 a.m.

    @Sharrona. Martin Luther was a man of many sorrows. He took his own sorrows and melded them to our crucified Savior and how much He suffered. He was one of the reformers of religion in those dark times and was humiliated and mortified by his own order as a monk. Of course that poor man would say things such as that because of the terrible injustices inflicted upon him.

    A true follower of Christ who realizes, at least to some degree the sorrow and suffering which He went through both in the Garden of Gethsemane then culminating in his torture and death on the cross. Christ did this out of love for us, and He felt every pain that each one of us have ever or will ever suffer. This is known as the Atonement and He did this out of love for us.

    There are some who wear the cross as a reminder of that suffering, and that is a good choice because they remember Christ. But as for me, I prefer to know Him as He is at present: a beautiful, vibrant, caring and loving God.

    I know that without Him, I am nothing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 5, 2011 7:12 a.m.

    "Whether or not it is sacred to us personally, it demands our respect in behalf of others."
    ...
    "I want people who don't believe what I believe to respect what I believe even if they don't agree with it."

    --- Then you have to be willing to respect the beliefs of others yourself - even if you don't agree with it.

    "Respect is a by-product of education. And so our appropriate response to those who speak from their ignorance is to love them, embrace them and lead them to desire a greater pursuit of knowledge of the sacred."

    --- And there you have it. (MY) version is the correct one and I'll love others, and lead THEM in the pursuit of (MY) version of knowledge of the sacred. This is just another way of saying "love the sinner, hate the sin).

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2011 10:30 a.m.

    Does the LDS church perform temple baptisims of the dead of faiths different than Mormon.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Dec. 5, 2011 4:27 p.m.

    @ Skeptic:Does the LDS church perform temple baptisms of the dead of faiths different than Mormon? The answer is, temple baptisms are done only for the dead who were not baptized into the LDS faith in this life. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) have already been baptized so a temple baptism is not necessary. The Bible requires that a person be born again of water and of the Spirit by Baptism. The ones who are baptized in our temples have been long dead and are baptized by proxy. In the spirit world, just as in this life, they can accept or reject this baptism.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2011 8:14 p.m.

    Serenity: Thank you for your explanation. I am wondering how this may not respect the spiritual believes of other faiths. For example how would Mormons feel if the Moslems were to baptise deceased Mormons into the Islam faith. Would that present a sacred problem of respect. Thx.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    This article is about respecting everyone and treating everyone with kindness - just as the Savior did. There are many comments posted here that are full of attacks on other people because of their views. Are we missing the point?

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 6, 2011 10:44 a.m.

    @Charles says: It's my experience that people like you, Vanka, Chicago and others inquire under the guise of wanting to learn but when others answer your questions you just shoot them down and tell them that their answers are wrong or not a "substantive counter-argument".

    With that statement you follow just what I described. Yes, we are both free to believe what we want, but we are also free to challenge assertions made by others and expect them to defend, justify, and rationalize those assertions. You are also presenting an untrue assumption. I'm here to challenge and question your assertions. I've already learned about and researched your beliefs. When I say "substantive counter-arguments" I'm challenging you to defend or justify your beliefs. This challenge is due to the proselytizing nature of Christianity. I feel the assertions organized religion presents needs to be challenged; not just accepted without question. I see proselytizing in your post. Most religions seek to gather new members through proselytizing, right? It is my opinion that with proselytizing you have the possible prospect of having to overcome the objections or answer the questions the person you approach has whether they are seeking or NOT.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 6, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    Serenity: Thank you for your explanation. I would like to explore the subject further but, because for some reason DN censors discussion of the real issues, perhaps it will suffice to ask: "Are Mormons doing unto others as Mormons would have others do unto them". DN: there is nothing wrong with this question since the subject of the article is: "What is sacred? Respecting the spiritual believes and commitmensts of others". Please give your readers freedom to respond.

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 6, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    @charles

    Also....I also could say I see hate, anger and vitriol in your comments toward me and others, but unlike you I don't ASSUME that is your intention but rather my perception is that you have no reasonable response, defense, or justification to challenges concerning your beliefs and/or religion so you resort to untrue assumptions and ad hominems instead. It's a pattern I've seen over and over. Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods or religion is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Believers fail to meet their burden of proof and thus fail to provide good reasons to accept their claims. That is a challenge "faith" cannot meet, in my opinion.

    @ksampow

    You are wrong when you say that the comments posted here that are full of attacks on other people because of their views. You make the mistake of assuming the challenges presented are personal attacks on the person rather than an attack (or challenge) concerning their views. There is a difference. That's why I say people take challenging their views too personal because they view it as a personal attack rather than viewing it as simply challenging or disagreeing_with_their_views.

  • geebo2b LOS ANGELES, CA
    Dec. 6, 2011 5:29 p.m.

    I think there are a lot of 'unseen' dynamics in this event. First, the acceptance of the 'outsider' was based on many pre-existing conditions and expectations. One of the pre-existing conditions in these situations that the one 'coming in' is expected to accept and conform to the mores and standards of to community that she came to. At the outset, this was not a level playing field. The one coming in would be accepted but with the tacit understanding that she is ultimately a 'target' for conversion and will be 'accepted' even w/o conversion UNLESS she steps over the 'community standards' and offends them And shows no sign of possible 'conversion. I:E she wasn't really accepted as a friend, but was a target for conversion. But she broke one of the 'tacit' rules. So she is condemned, which, in certain circumstances can create a 'need' to be accepted thus coercing her to take a step towards the proselytizers by abandoning her belief in order to be accepted. If she did that, then they win and she is accepted once more. Eventually the hope is she will abandon her faith for theirs. They win!

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Dec. 6, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    Dear Joggle: While it may be your intention to "challenge and question [my] assumptions" that's not my intent.

    I don't have to ever justify my beliefs to you or anyone else. I know what I believe and I believe what I know.

    You state, "I've already learned about and researched your beliefs." Then what is your issue? You just want to interrogate LDS members about the gospel that they hold as true and eternal. Who are you that we have to justify, rationalize, defend, to YOUR satisfaction what we believe?

    The gospel is open to all. Go to mormon dot org and study until your little heart is content. Get the Gospel Principles manual and have at it. I have no burden of proof to you or anyone else. It's you who has the responsibility to come to know the truth in the manner in which God has declared. You have the process backwards. The ball is always in your court. What you do with it will have eternal consequences.

    Christ said the path is narrow and straight and few be there that find it. Contrite spirit and humility are mandatory.

    Good luck!

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 7, 2011 1:50 a.m.

    @Charles

    In answer to your question: It is your burden to prove your mythology when you try to apply it to our laws and public and private lives. Until you can prove that your God exists, non-believers everywhere will persist in requiring proof from religion and the people who support it. Since you state an opinion here it is a logical expectation for you to defend your premise. Otherwise, I can assume you can't.

    Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, people often base their opinions on their beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, people's beliefs can dictate the facts they chose to accept. They can cause people to twist facts so they fit better with their preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead people to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces their beliefs. This reinforcement makes them more confident they're right, and even less likely to listen to any new information or answer challenges.