Replies

Trying to defend Colofornian's offensiveness by arguing semantics to justify it? ... Really?

It was the semantics which were being objected to by yourself in the first place, and still are. So yes, Really, for word usage was and still is(?) the issue at hand. I can't see how that aspect can be logically denied.

Again it's the logical fallacy of guilt by association. It's logically insulting as well as morally corrupt to engage in the practice.

Well now we are getting somewhere. It wasn't the word usage itself which was entirely inaccurate, but "guilt by association" aspect which was troubling?

What is the more logically insulting is to not acknowledge that your own initial definition was incorrect, for that definition relied not upon root and actual meanings, as I plainly enough demonstrated, and as additional links have been kindly provided by others, quite neutrally by one also, as in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3085963/posts?page=27#27.

Which leaves reactionary argument against the use of the phrase necro-baptism still inaccurate enough, for in modern English usage "necro" as prefix, most assuredly refers to "the dead" (which is what you were arguing against) any way one chooses to ~~slice~~ baptize it.

I did offer for usage; necro-baptism, by proxy, adding that last portion for greater precision. Why not take me up on that offer? What objection could still remain if it were to be spoken of in that manner?

As I have told a few others --- English is my native tongue. I shall not submit to demand concerning how I speak it, in regards to those whom seek to control my own free expression, although I am open to making some reasonable modification if case can be made that to do so is necessary towards greater accuracy. But if it's just part of some politics of the aggrieved, sans enough rationality to force change for reason of accuracy & truth, then I gotta' tell ya', forget it, I will not submit to whiny complaints, or someone's hurt feelings at expense of truth & clarity in course of free expression. In other words --- I shall not agree to allowing you (or most anyone other than God Himself) to unilaterally control the narrative. Got that? Good. Let's move on...

So far -- you have yet to make a convincing case that I should make any changes, other than having decided on my own to extend grace to add "by proxy" towards alleviating concern that the LDS practice routinely involves actual dead-tissue, non-living corpses be physically present and directly submerged in LDS water pools...

To get to the crux of the matter;
Does the LDS "baptize" persons now dead "by proxy", or not? That equals baptizing the dead, as regarding dead bodies themselves, yet in absentia, not being done just "verbally", but by necessity of the doctrinal practice itself, needing "a body" to submerse, would it not? Which in LDS theology and practice (though I will not admit to in efficaciousness, before God) makes the proxy, representative of the necro- as matter of fact.

This can be seen as part of the overall [so-called] LDS theology of themselves, that it is that particular "community" alone, in the persons of their "bishops" and so called "prophets" claiming for themselves being the Only True Church, with all others outside of their realm alleged to be entirely "apostate". Hence [I assume] the perceived need from within those bounds, beginning with J.Smith himself, of there being need for this doctrine of baptism of the dead by proxy --- since to this day it is alleged that it is they alone (Temple Mormons) who have the "authority" to rightfully and properly baptize. But in reaching beyond the living in this over-reach, they do in effect, reach into the realm of the dead. Necro, necro...

It is one thing to pray concerning the dead, praying for those whom have passed on, first in thanksgiving of those persons having been created to have been among the living, and in loving remembrance of them; possibly praying then also in supplication to the Lord for those persons very souls, that those be with Him always, resurrected by His power to be with Him forever, entering into His realm by the power of His own blood sacrifice

--- it is yet another thing to hold the view that this not be in no way possible for those not "Mormon" (and that the heavenly realm is, for lack of better term, "Mormonic", with persons there living much as persons do here on earth, procreating physically and naturally, per LDS theology/eschatology -- which sort of idea or thing is spoken explicitly against in the NT (At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven) with LDS officially holding doctrine that unless by the [alleged] power and "authority" of Mormons; persons not only living, but now "dead" too, be baptized by LDS authorities, in LDS Temples, either while alive, or when having already passed from life in this realm, unto [physical] death, they can in no wise enter into the kingdom (of God). What a tacked-on, big-time change in the theology/eschatology of Christ Himself LDS teachings are, for it is most certainly NOT any Mormon who has ever themselves baptized anyone with the Holy Ghost, for that portion is of the Lord's, alone. He holds Himself at limitation of the beck and call of no man, even as He can and does, in love and not inconsiderable humility, even towards us whom He has created, condescend to those of low estate...

There is nothing in the NT which authorizes the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead by proxy (much less that only Mormon baptisms be valid or recognized by Him) but the

former proffered description

one can find evidence for early, most primitive Christian mindset of, as best as I myself can here express that, from my own previous investigations.

There was one small item which you missed, even as you repeated the charge, but have seemingly and curiously now changed the meaning by introduction of the word "innocuous", which etymology for can be found the bottom of reference page previously supplied to both you and I, and Colofornian too, by Alamo Girl;

Not to mention the shear silliness of trying to convince us all that the poster in question had no ill intent. Their intent was completely innocuous when ascribing the term necro to Latter-day Saints like me?

with that item I speak of, being again the question; where precisely, what reply#, which comment did Colofornian make which ascribed the prefix or word necro- to you directly???. You need to answer that question, or drop the claim that you, yourself have had in some way, the term "necro-" ascribed directly to you.

Though curiously...I would agree with the usage of "innocuous", that is, if necro-baptism by proxy was actually in some sense "kosher" -- but if that be the connection with yourself which provides as you put it, evidence of ill intent...
I mean...how are we to determine; how to divvy soup rations, until this point be better clarified? [8^)

Oh and I played a "Necro" in Everquest as well. Trying to argue that it just means "dead" is silly.

Does Colofornian know you from there {Everquest]? Joking aside;
Trying to argue that necro- does not and cannot mean or refer to "the dead" in the context it was used, is what is beyond silly, for what are the LDS "baptisms" by proxy all about, but "baptism" of the dead, for the dead, in the dead's name [by proxy] --- unless one does this for living persons also, but again, in absentia?

If there be something along lines of guilt by association in regards to your own [bodily] person in this, since I do not see stated evidence for the "necro-" be ascribed for yourself on this thread, are we to assume that you yourself have [bodily] taken part in these necro- baptisms, by proxy? If so, there is no demand from myself for you to identify if it were yourself [bodily] as the proxy, or as the baptizer, for we need not get personal when speaking of theological concerns.

Yet still, if one takes it personal, then there is no cure, other than to in the future attempt to distance oneself, taking things at arms length, if at all possible.

We were speaking of word usage, were we not?

And now for a musical selection, one I've linked to FR pages before. In this particular piece, there is one portion of Mr. Young's lyric which may seem troubling (and which he may have meant negatively, in original intent), yet it is true enough that Christ seemingly did not "deliver"...Himself...from the cross "right away", albeit He did rise bodily from the realm of the necro, and in my own experience, has most certainly by supernatural intervention delivered my own self from great bodily harm, if not certain death, "right away" (just at the last possible seeming moment) more than once...

Soldier

It was the semantics which were being objected to by yourself in the first place, and still are. So yes, Really, for word usage was and still is(?) the issue at hand. I can't see how that aspect can be logically denied. [Citing SP: "Again it's the logical fallacy of guilt by association. It's logically insulting as well as morally corrupt to engage in the practice."] Well now we are getting somewhere. It wasn't the word usage itself which was entirely inaccurate, but "guilt by association" aspect which was troubling?

Spot on, BD.

[To SP]As I have told a few others --- English is my native tongue. I shall not submit to demand concerning how I speak it, in regards to those whom seek to control my own free expression, although I am open to making some reasonable modification if case can be made that to do so is necessary towards greater accuracy. But if it's just part of some politics of the aggrieved, sans enough rationality to force change for reason of accuracy & truth, then I gotta' tell ya', forget it, I will not submit to whiny complaints, or someone's hurt feelings at expense of truth & clarity in course of free expression.

Yup, BD. Mormon political correctness running amok. Yup. Politics of the aggrieved; victim-rights mentality where minorities of any persuasion (in this case, a religious minority attempting to control free expression. (We first got used to it here @ FR; and then, when most of the FR Mormons were zotted for legit reasons -- and a few went on "vacation" -- we just haven't been subjected to it by FR Mormons of late)

To get to the crux of the matter; Does the LDS "baptize" persons now dead "by proxy", or not? That equals baptizing the dead, as regarding dead bodies themselves, yet in absentia, not being done just "verbally", but by necessity of the doctrinal practice itself, needing "a body" to submerse, would it not? Which in LDS theology and practice (though I will not admit to in efficaciousness, before God) makes the proxy, representative of the necro- as matter of fact.

Yup. Home run. Grand slam.

(Who knows, BD? For all we know, StormPrepper may yet next complain about your use of the word "crux" -- which, etymologically, comes from crucifix. Mormons, ya know, tend to prefer the Garden of Gethsemane to Calvary as their description of Christ's atoning process...so perhaps, BD, you should have used some garden term instead so as to not offend SP...like to get to the "root" of the matter)