Comparing The Griffiths (Post at your own risk!)

[HelloSweetie]

I’ve actually read that before....
Do you not prefer to hang out with people who think like you? Or who believe the same general thing as you? I can’t imagine you’d be besties with a member of the lds church?
That talk is a great example of how the church makes friendships stronger and helps kids see how everyone is a son or daughter of god and we should love and treat them accordingly.
We have no way of knowing why Chad and Jennifer are the way they are. We don’t know their parents and we know little of their childhood. I do know however that they way they behave and they way they act is not the norm in the lds church. I still maintain that the Griffiths are a different bunch. The church in no way encourages you to only be friends with your siblings, the church in no way encourages the strange punishments we’ve heard the Griffith kids talk about receiving from their parents.

The church encourages isolation, which does in turn make for a peer group that is also heavily centred around the church. This makes the Griffiths “siblings as friends” mentality all the easier. This is also why it is a loss for an LGBT youth. They lose their friends and their entire life based off of one thing they have no control over. A life is formed around a certain activity, which they are then essentially removed from because of who they are.

If you want to try to explain why everything is completely normal and want many of us to consider that opinion, I really do think you should maybe also be giving more agency to the points we are making.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FakingIt_MakingIt]

I’ve actually read that before....
Do you not prefer to hang out with people who think like you? Or who believe the same general thing as you? I can’t imagine you’d be besties with a member of the lds church?
That talk is a great example of how the church makes friendships stronger and helps kids see how everyone is a son or daughter of god and we should love and treat them accordingly.
We have no way of knowing why Chad and Jennifer are the way they are. We don’t know their parents and we know little of their childhood. I do know however that they way they behave and they way they act is not the norm in the lds church. I still maintain that the Griffiths are a different bunch. The church in no way encourages you to only be friends with your siblings, the church in no way encourages the strange punishments we’ve heard the Griffith kids talk about receiving from their parents.

The church encourages isolation, which does in turn make for a peer group that is also heavily centred around the church. This makes the Griffiths “siblings as friends” mentality all the easier. This is also why it is a loss for an LGBT youth. They lose their friends and their entire life based off of one thing they have no control over. A life is formed around a certain activity, which they are then essentially removed from because of who they are.

If you want to try to explain why everything is completely normal and want many of us to consider that opinion, I really do think you should maybe also be giving more agency to the points we are making.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m simply countering back to your points in the same dismissive fashion you counter mine.

The church does not encourage isolation. Not once are we told to isolate ourselves to only be friends with other members. Quite the opposite is taught at church actually.

I don’t think the Griffiths are normal though, I’ve said the opposite many, many times. The Griffiths are not a fair representation of the lds faith.

[Scar2016]

If an atheist is baptized by proxy they have the ability to deny the baptism.

Please can you tell me how an atheist has the ability to deny the baptism if they are dead?

1. If they’re correct about there being nothing after death then the baptism by proxy is a moot point.
2. If they’re wrong and there is life after death they can choose to deny or accept the baptism by proxy.

But you're still not taking in the point about respecting someone's living beliefs, or the negation of consent in death. Do both of these points sit well with you?

If, for example, a loved one of yours died a Mormon and you discovered they'd posthumously been ceremoniously baptized into another religion without your prior knowledge or your loved one's consent when alive - would you have no qualms about it?

[FakingIt_MakingIt]

Please can you tell me how an atheist has the ability to deny the baptism if they are dead?

1. If they’re correct about there being nothing after death then the baptism by proxy is a moot point.
2. If they’re wrong and there is life after death they can choose to deny or accept the baptism by proxy.

But you're still not taking in the point about respecting someone's living beliefs, or the negation of consent in death. Do both of these points sit well with you?

If, for example, a loved one of yours died a Mormon and you discovered they'd posthumously been ceremoniously baptized into another religion without your prior knowledge or your loved one's consent when alive - would you have no qualms about it?

I understand the point youre trying to make, I just don't see it that way.
I wouldn't have any qualms. Because if they were baptized by proxy into a religion they would have the ultimate say whether to accept or not. We believe there is an after life, and in that after life we will still have agency. We cant force someone to become Mormon after death just because they've been baptised by proxy, the ordinance is needed so should they wish to be baptized after death they can but ultimately if they don't want to theyre not.

[Scar2016]

1. If they’re correct about there being nothing after death then the baptism by proxy is a moot point.
2. If they’re wrong and there is life after death they can choose to deny or accept the baptism by proxy.

But you're still not taking in the point about respecting someone's living beliefs, or the negation of consent in death. Do both of these points sit well with you?

If, for example, a loved one of yours died a Mormon and you discovered they'd posthumously been ceremoniously baptized into another religion without your prior knowledge or your loved one's consent when alive - would you have no qualms about it?

I understand the point youre trying to make, I just don't see it that way.
I wouldn't have any qualms. Because if they were baptized by proxy into a religion they would have the ultimate say whether to accept or not. We believe there is an after life, and in that after life we will still have agency. We cant force someone to become Mormon after death just because they've been baptised by proxy, the ordinance is needed so should they wish to be baptized after death they can but ultimately if they don't want to theyre not.

And if they were asked in life and they answered no you (Mormonism) would still go ahead and baptize them in death anyway?

[FakingIt_MakingIt]

But you're still not taking in the point about respecting someone's living beliefs, or the negation of consent in death. Do both of these points sit well with you?

If, for example, a loved one of yours died a Mormon and you discovered they'd posthumously been ceremoniously baptized into another religion without your prior knowledge or your loved one's consent when alive - would you have no qualms about it?

I understand the point youre trying to make, I just don't see it that way.
I wouldn't have any qualms. Because if they were baptized by proxy into a religion they would have the ultimate say whether to accept or not. We believe there is an after life, and in that after life we will still have agency. We cant force someone to become Mormon after death just because they've been baptised by proxy, the ordinance is needed so should they wish to be baptized after death they can but ultimately if they don't want to theyre not.

And if they were asked in life and they answered no you (Mormonism) would still go ahead and baptize them in death anyway?

We could, yes.
Because we have no way of knowing if they've heard the missionary discussions to start with, and secondly we believe that they are given the opportunity to hear the discussions after death. Which at that point may result in a desire to be baptized.

[HelloSweetie]

And if they were asked in life and they answered no you (Mormonism) would still go ahead and baptize them in death anyway?

Was there any reason to believe the Holocaust victims wanted to be baptized? It continued to be done even AFTER their families were upset about it.

And the new trend is to do it to celebrities/politicians, many of whom already have their own religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lightasfeather]

Lol I kinda wish now Scientologists or some other crazy cult would now publicly start to somehow incorporate Mormons in their religion and create public archive showing it, maybe then they would start to understand the importance of one's consent... It only matters of it's done to you for some people, until then they will keep insisting how others are too sensitive and misunderstanding the issue... Sadly many of them in true belief, just how does brainwashing to that level work is astounding...

And if they were asked in life and they answered no you (Mormonism) would still go ahead and baptize them in death anyway?

Was there any reason to believe the Holocaust victims wanted to be baptized? It continued to be done even AFTER their families were upset about it.

And the new trend is to do it to celebrities/politicians, many of whom already have their own religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charmed596]

One: the baptism of the dead actually gives a scary insight into the church’s view on consent. You can’t just do whatever you want because someone’s dead! I’ve read that they’ve put together database flags but like…that’s AFTER they’ve preformed the ceremony. They just don’t have their name put in the MORMON registry, which NO dead person should have done to them. If it was really about giving a person a chance out of hell or whatever WHY label them as Mormons!! THEY WERENT AND ARENT. it’s incredibly disrespectful


When they baptized Holocaust victims did they still teach that those who act on same-sex attraction were not able to be in the church when a ton of victims were because they were gay…

my dad pass 8 months ago and if I find out about anyone baptizing him against his wishes (i.e. against his religion) they will CATCH these mf hands

Lastly, what I read of that article is crazy. If you’re going to travel to help and spread the word maybe actually contribute to the infrastructure cough SCHOOLS cough

[Scar2016]

I understand the point youre trying to make, I just don't see it that way.
I wouldn't have any qualms. Because if they were baptized by proxy into a religion they would have the ultimate say whether to accept or not. We believe there is an after life, and in that after life we will still have agency. We cant force someone to become Mormon after death just because they've been baptised by proxy, the ordinance is needed so should they wish to be baptized after death they can but ultimately if they don't want to theyre not.

And if they were asked in life and they answered no you (Mormonism) would still go ahead and baptize them in death anyway?

We could, yes.
Because we have no way of knowing if they've heard the missionary discussions to start with, and secondly we believe that they are given the opportunity to hear the discussions after death. Which at that point may result in a desire to be baptized.

But you do have a way of trying to know - by contacting the deceased loved ones and asking them. You still haven't answered my question about whether a non Mormon's deceased's loved one's are contacted and asked for consent by proxy or whether said loved ones are invited to their family member's posthumous baptism ceremony?

What if Mormonism took the time to contact these loved ones families and discovered they had indeed researched/listened to/done a thesis or doctorate/even been a former Mormon and their decision to die and remain an atheist/agnostic/whatever was made known prior to death either on paper, to loved ones or elsewhere. Why is it anyone's or any religion's right to override this fundamental choice of any individual? Sounds like sketchy human rights ground to me, which is in keeping with their 'human rights' stance on LGBTQ.

(I feel like this specific topic is taking up a lot of the board so please anyone say if they would like me to drop it)

ETA: As the poster above said, this posthumous stuff gives a scary insight into Mormonism's lackadaisical (I use the term lightly) approach to consent in general.

[HelloSweetie]

But you do have a way of trying to know - by contacting the deceased loved ones and asking them. You still haven't answered my question about whether a non Mormon's deceased's loved one's are contacted and asked for consent by proxy or whether said loved ones are invited to their family member's posthumous baptism ceremony?

What if Mormonism took the time to contact these loved ones families and discovered they had indeed researched/listened to/done a thesis or doctorate/even been a former Mormon and their decision to die and remain an atheist/agnostic/whatever was made known prior to death either on paper, to loved ones or elsewhere. Why is it anyone's or any religion's right to override this fundamental choice of any individual? Sounds like sketchy human rights ground to me, which is in keeping with their 'human rights' stance on LGBTQ.

(I feel like this specific topic is taking up a lot of the board so please anyone say if they would like me to drop it)

ETA: As the poster above said, this posthumous stuff gives a scary insight into Mormonism's lackadaisical (I use the term lightly) approach to consent in general.

This board is never used anyway. It only exists because there was a time when crossover talk about the Griffiths wasn’t allowed in the main threads. If someone argues the dialogue is taking up too much space, it’s probably more about censorship and less about board clutter. If you would prefer, we can always continue on in the LDS thread.

I think it’s relevant because if there is a moral superiority within the Griffith’s religion, this is absolutely going to play into their dynamic. We know none of them are worldly, and really do not care to be. They are the good and righteous, and have been blessed with YT good fortune because if it. They are on the right path! We have definitely seen pity and judgement from the Griffiths before towards others less fortunate. As though better choices would have improved someone’s lot on life. “Be positive!” Religion isn’t the only factor at play within the Griffiths dynamic, but it absolutely plays a role in their sanctimony. This is true of many religions, not just LDS, but when you’re so sure your path is the right one that you’re saving sinners after they have died, you are definitely emboldening yourself with power and superiority by using others. We criticize the Griffiths for an apparent lack of empathy, but it doesn’t seem like empathy, or seeing people as individuals with free will, is a virtue amongst a church that seeks to build itself up, by tearing others down. It’s a lot harder to baptize by proxy if you see the individual as a person who was happy with their life, rather than a sinner who needs saving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HelloSweetie]

Little known fact...

The previous Catholic popes have not only been baptized by proxy, but many have also been sealed to fictitious wives.
Fairly sure no one was consulted for convent. Also safe to say the pope probably wasn’t going to need help getting into heaven. Neither were Mother Theresa, Ghandi, or any of the heroes that saved lives in Nazi Germany, all of whom have also been baptized.

It makes sense how entitled and sacrificing the Griffiths women seem to feel if they are feeling religiously superior to great heroes and legends who did a lot of good, but were inferior for their religious choices and for never marrying or having children. #mothersarepowerful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scar2016]

Ah HS, you misunderstood. I meant the specific topic of baptizing non Mormons as opposed to Mormonism being discussed on this thread in general.

Ref your post above, it's the noxious righteousness that baulks in the face of autonomy, morality and ethical decency that most rational and relatively intelligent people take issue with. Separating the Griffiths clans idiosyncrasies (to put it politely) from their families generational Mormonism is for sure an interesting concept and it would be interesting, as has already been mentioned, to see how Jennifer and Chad were parented etc.

[HelloSweetie]

Ah HS, you misunderstood. I meant the specific topic of baptizing non Mormons as opposed to Mormonism being discussed on this thread in general.

Ref your post above, it's the noxious righteousness that baulks in the face of autonomy, morality and ethical decency that most rational and relatively intelligent people take issue with. Separating the Griffiths clans idiosyncrasies (to put it politely) from their families generational Mormonism is for sure an interesting concept and it would be interesting, as has already been mentioned, to see how Jennifer and Chad were parented etc.

I would be shocked if Jennifer didn’t have a female role model in her life exactly like her. I don’t think Ellie, Bonnie or Ruby would be even half the way they are if they’d had a simple, sacrificing and hard-working mother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lightasfeather]

Nowadays a lot of religions accept that although there are differences in some stories, rituals or interpretations they all basically speak of same God and thus they accept one another as a suitable path - and I have heard similar interpretation unprompted from people of various faiths. In most cases its sufficient to be a good person, even if you never heard of the religion they believe if your actions were right you dont need anything else to go to heaven etc. However, Mormonism believes they are the only right way and there is no other way to be saved/get to the right layer of heaven other than being devout Mormon. They absolutely feel superior to others (non-believers) and it translates into their relationships with others. Maybe Mormonism doesnt directly preach isolation, but it definitely is a result of both superiority and sort of message it carries. Just how often do you have Mormon families with barely any contact with neighbours of different faith (unless they are trying to convert them) simply because they believe they have nothing in common and feel judgemental towards others. Yes there are exceptions but Griffiths arent that different from most in this regard.

Another super sad thing is that unlike the Bible version of God who just loves everyone, sinners or not, the Mormon version preaches the need to prove yourself, follow crazy requirements from prophet and other rituals to earn the love of the God and also be good enough to get into the right layer of heaven with your family. And this is not only valid for relationship with God but within family too. There is no such thing as all-encompassing love from God nor from your mother - you have to earn your mother´s love by serving her and fulfilling her wishes, putting her on a pedestal whether or not she actually deserves it as Griffiths very clearly demonstrate. The fact that they need to constantly earn love and affection from God/parents/... - in direct contradiction to what most competing religions teach in the areas where Mormons live - could very easily be a huge contributing factor to extreme rates of suicides not only among Mormon teens but also adults (and LGBTQ falls into that because youre not meeting requirement to be good enough for your parent/God by being who you are, but there are other reasons too). Not only have Mormons way above-average rates of suicides, but also anxiety and depression (look up the stats) and the widespread opioid-addiction and higher than national average death rates due to opioid addiciton that Mormons (especially in Utah) have speak of something too... If the religion was so perfect and not dysfunctional why no other faith in same areas have the same statistics in this regards? Why are opioid such a huge problem for Mormons when they have the perfect and only correct faith?

[HelloSweetie]

I’m suspicious of any group where the members are more or less carbon copies of one another. There has to be some serious stifling going on there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lightasfeather]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... xual-abuse

[lmmomSD]

So had an anthropology professor in college who started out as a missionary (not Mormon) to a tribe on a remote island in the Philippines. As he got to know them, he realized that their religion had a lot of what are considered Judeo-Christian ethics. Be kind to one another, be charitable, take care of the poor and those who can't help themselves, etc. He didn't see any point in converting them. So he studied them instead.
My parents were very involved in the Episcopal Church. They helped a lot of people-- taught Laotian refugees English and helped them get started in the USA, marched for Civil Rights, and in general were the type of people we need more of. They never acted as though their religion was the only way. There are definitely people of every religion who act as though their religion is the only way, but when you have people like the Pope accepting other paths, it kinda puts the lie to it.
Sam and Jenn from Samika are Mormon, but it doesn't seem to define them the way it does with the Griffiths. Or the Shaytards.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[lightasfeather]

So had an anthropology professor in college who started out as a missionary (not Mormon) to a tribe on a remote island in the Philippines. As he got to know them, he realized that their religion had a lot of what are considered Judeo-Christian ethics. Be kind to one another, be charitable, take care of the poor and those who can't help themselves, etc. He didn't see any point in converting them. So he studied them instead.
My parents were very involved in the Episcopal Church. They helped a lot of people-- taught Laotian refugees English and helped them get started in the USA, marched for Civil Rights, and in general were the type of people we need more of. They never acted as though their religion was the only way. There are definitely people of every religion who act as though their religion is the only way, but when you have people like the Pope accepting other paths, it kinda puts the lie to it.
Sam and Jenn from Samika are Mormon, but it doesn't seem to define them the way it does with the Griffiths. Or the Shaytards.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

"Not a Mormon missionary" might just be your answer - because the Mormon one feel the need to preach to everyone no matter the faith - and they do not back away after clarification you already have faith or that it is one close to what they might be lying to you theirs is about - because no they don't reveal full truth or they would never get anyone into their scam...

I have no clue what those names later are but are you saying some other family might be smart enough to truly show only what will not depict them in bad light? Good for them, that doesn't mean there is nothing rotten and just hidden away. Proof in case the Mormon missionaries perfectly skilled in hiding the ugly truth away.

[queenc13]

I’m not going to a KKK rally just to hear what they have to say even if they do start doing some good things too. This is the same principle behind why I won’t listen to the justification for worthiness interviews, or anti LGBT rhetoric.

Thank you Natalka for at least seeing what I was trying to say.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Woof... comparing someone’s religion to the KKK is not the best way to go. Very unkind.