Not again!!??!!

[john doe]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/53561480-180/church-lds-holocaust-proxy.html.csp

I hope they subject the person who did this to Church Discipline. Whoever is doing this seems intent on willfully disregarding standing church policy. I thought it was common knowledge among LDS that submitting names of Holocaust victims who are not direct relatives is not acceptable behavior. I wonder how difficult it would be to have a master list of names that would automatically be flagged and subject to personal approval by someone in the office in charge of these things.

The official church statement issued today:

Church Statement on Violations of Proxy Baptism Policy - LDS Newsroom

Another thought that came to me is wondering if perhaps someone is purposely submitting these names just to embarrass the church when a name does get through the filters.

[Just_A_Guy]

Another thought that came to me is wondering if perhaps someone is purposely submitting these names just to embarrass the church when a name does get through the filters.

Looks like that's what the Church thinks. The timing on this is just too perfect.

AFAIK, anyone with a membership record number can access NewFamilySearch. But given the vast number of inactives (including more than a few Disaffected Mormon Underground/New Order Mormon types), the Church may need to re-think that policy.

[Blackmarch]

Might as well wish for brains and a little sensibility too for those who rail against the church because of such things when they do happen.

[RMGuy]

It is interesting to me that when individuals raise this as an issue we sometimes struggle to see why it upsets them so much.....after all if they don't believe in it, then it has no efficacy right?

But we get upset if someone refers to the ordinance as 'necro-dunking' or something similarly offensive. Why? Because it makes a mockery of something that we hold to be sacred.

I think we can all do a better job of empathy, and understanding that for many other religions the ordinances that we perform in the temple on behalf of others kindred dead are in fact seen as making of mockery of the things that those individuals held sacred during their life time.

-RM

[RMGuy]

But given the vast number of inactives (including more than a few Disaffected Mormon Underground/New Order Mormon types), the Church may need to re-think that policy.

JAG, I have to say I usually enjoy your posts. They are well reasoned and thought out and seem to be pretty objective. On this one, it appears your bias is showing just a bit.

-RM

[beefche]

JAG, I have to say I usually enjoy your posts. They are well reasoned and thought out and seem to be pretty objective. On this one, it appears your bias is showing just a bit.

-RM

What bias? You disagree that there are inactives and a few disavowed LDS who may have nefarious reasons to do such? I'm not sure I understand your comment.

[RMGuy]

What bias? You disagree that there are inactives and a few disavowed LDS who may have nefarious reasons to do such? I'm not sure I understand your comment.

I'm curious as to what evidence he has that this is originating out of DAMU or NOM?

-RM

[annewandering]

and now some dimwit has submitted Anne Franks name again too. Wonder if its the same person. hmm

Mormon Baptism Targets Anne Frank -- Again

Edited February 22, 2012 by annewandering

[john doe]

and now some dimwit has submitted Anne Franks name again too. Wonder if its the same person. hmm

Mormon Baptism Targets Anne Frank -- Again

Which is what the OP is talking about. Same story, different paper.

[annewandering]

Which is what the OP is talking about. Same story, different paper.

arg sorry. It was brought up again on facebook today so thought it was a new one. At least it gave me a chance to link the Churches response to the comment. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, I have to say I usually enjoy your posts. They are well reasoned and thought out and seem to be pretty objective. On this one, it appears your bias is showing just a bit.

-RM

RM, I'll freely admit that I have a lot of contempt for the duplicitous ideals and methods espoused by many members of the aforementioned groups.

That said: I didn't mean to state affirmatively that the Anne Frank submission originated from within these groups. I only meant to suggest that the Church's policy of giving all members of record access to NewFamilySearch opens it up to attack from members of these "progressive" elements who have managed to retain their membership but openly announce their intention to hurt, change, or embarrass the institutional Church.

[Vort]

It is interesting to me that when individuals raise this as an issue we sometimes struggle to see why it upsets them so much.....after all if they don't believe in it, then it has no efficacy right?

But we get upset if someone refers to the ordinance as 'necro-dunking' or something similarly offensive. Why? Because it makes a mockery of something that we hold to be sacred.

The difference in intent is both obvious and profound. Our sacred (and private) rites mock no one, while their comments are specifically designed to be mocking and offensive. The two are in no reasonable way comparable.

[MorningStar]

There's a guy on mormondialogue bragging that he submitted 10 names yesterday just to prove that he could. Makes me wonder how many others there are.

[bytebear]

This article is a must read:

Mormon Temples and Jews: The SWC Charade Continues | Jews and Mormons | Jewish Journal

[jerome1232]

This article is a must read:

Mormon Temples and Jews: The SWC Charade Continues | Jews and Mormons | Jewish Journal

The bit about what the original aggreement entailed was enlightening for me.

Thankfully, the people in Salt Lake City are much nicer than I, and church leaders generously signed a memorandum of understanding in 1995, promising to do what they could to prevent the unauthorized submission of Holocaust victims’ names to LDS temples (members are only supposed to submit names of their ancestors for the ordinances). They also promised to delete such names from the church’s database if/when they were found.

It’s important to note here that the church offered at that time to “freeze” names of all known Holocaust victims for purposes of temple work if the Jewish leaders would agree. Unfortunately, they chose the second option of taking upon themselves the responsibility of notifying the church whenever they discovered the submission of a Holocaust victim’s name.

[Vort]

This article is a must read:

Mormon Temples and Jews: The SWC Charade Continues | Jews and Mormons | Jewish Journal

Thank you, bytebear. Great article. It's about time someone abused the SWC rabbis for their unmitigated stupidity (or dishonesty -- you decide which) in this matter. Someone besides Vort on lds.net, I mean.

[clevermoniker]

This is one of those small issues where I disagree with the actions of the Church leadership. I don't believe that we should ever have agreed to this. Temple work is sacred and needs to be done for everyone, period. Do we stop doing what is right just because it offends someone? Seems like a bad lesson to teach...

I'm not going to become apostate over this, but it's decisions like this that make me wonder... Was this really God's will? Did they bother asking this time? Was this a personal decision? (You know, Like Brigham Young's racism apparently putting an end to blacks having the priesthood)

[Just_A_Guy]

CleverMoniker, is it worth putting the work for a few million recently-killed people on hold for a few decades if doing so builds us the goodwill necessary to obtain the records that will later allow us to do work for a few hundred million other people whose names are otherwise unknown to history?

In other news, it appears someone went ahead and did the work for Daniel Pearl.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

This is one of those small issues where I disagree with the actions of the Church leadership. I don't believe that we should ever have agreed to this. Temple work is sacred and needs to be done for everyone, period. Do we stop doing what is right just because it offends someone? Seems like a bad lesson to teach...

I'm not going to become apostate over this, but it's decisions like this that make me wonder... Was this really God's will? Did they bother asking this time? Was this a personal decision? (You know, Like Brigham Young's racism apparently putting an end to blacks having the priesthood)

We have always been commanded to do temple work for our dead. Not everyone else's. Our own. I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to an almost perfectly unreasonable request. My respect for those who whine about LDS temple ordinances decreases (if that is possible) by the day, but I completely agree and uphold the guidelines established by them whose duty it is to draw up such guidelines.

[skippy740]

Before judging, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. Then you're a mile away AND you have their shoes!

Those of the Jewish faith and nationality have felt as they are a HUNTED people. They feel that they are hunted in this life - Nazi's, middle eastern wars, etc. Now, they feel that these Mormon folk are gonna chase after the deceased jews to convert them? (That's how they feel.)

It's important to convey that it is a GIFT given freely for the deceased. They are free to reject that gift.

But if they (the living Jews) don't understand that, then it can easily be misunderstood.

This was a discussion that I had with an Orthodox Jewish lady I worked with. I did explain our beliefs and our faith to emphasize that 1) we believe in Jesus Christ as our Messiah and 2) that all people should have the opportunity to accept and reject the gospel and earthly ordinances performed on their behalf according to their own heart. Everyone has the choice to accept or reject. Nothing is ever forced or coerced... as a loving God would never require that of His children.

[Vort]

Before judging, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. Then you're a mile away AND you have their shoes!

Jack Handey. May he live forever.

Those of the Jewish faith and nationality have felt as they are a HUNTED people. They feel that they are hunted in this life - Nazi's, middle eastern wars, etc. Now, they feel that these Mormon folk are gonna chase after the deceased jews to convert them? (That's how they feel.)

I understand that's how they feel. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a stupid way to feel. But hey, I guess they're allowed to feel however they want, no matter how stupid.

What they are not allowed to do is infringe on my worship. In no sense does performing LDS temple work touch either them or their dead (unless our ordinances have actual validity, in which case they would be fighting against God). Their demands are ridiculous and their tantrums laughable. These are people recently faced with utter extermination, and they're bloviating about other people speaking their dead ancestors' names? It is beyond ludicrous.

I do support our leaders' instructions that we concentrate on our own ancestors, and that we specifically leave alone the names of World War II Jewish Holocaust victims unless we are directly related. But the fact that I support and am obedient to the instructions of our anointed leaders doesn't mean I'm blind to the vacuousness of the arguments of those who whine and howl about this supposed "desecration".

It's important to convey that it is a GIFT given freely for the deceased. They are free to reject that gift.

But if they (the living Jews) don't understand that, then it can easily be misunderstood.

skippy, you are mistaken. You have a good heart and I appreciate your attitude, but you are flat out wrong. The ones whining the loudest do not give a d*** what our doctrine is about whether they are "forced conversions" versus "free to choose". They. Don't. Care. You can explain that until you are blue in the face. Won't make the smallest particle of difference.

[skippy740]

You're right! I suppose I just try to "win friends and influence people" wherever I go and with whomever I talk to. It's easier to catch bees with honey than with vinegar.

I'd rather walk away from a good conversation having listened to the other person, they listen to me, and we both feel that our values have both been respected and heard.

[bytebear]

I wonder how difficult it would be to have a master list of names that would automatically be flagged and subject to personal approval by someone in the office in charge of these things.

In the 90s the church offered this service, but the Jewish leaders declined, partially because they didn't want names on any list, either way, and partially because they wanted to have something to hold over the church or as was put in the Jewish Journal article to "put their feet to the fire".

[bytebear]

In other news, it appears someone went ahead and did the work for Daniel Pearl.

From what I understand, the name was submitted, but later flagged as inappropriate. My suspicion is that this Radkey woman is submitting a controversial person (possibly by proxy, ironically), and then she runs to the media or other interested parties with the evidence. I suspect we will see a new famous name trickle out every few weeks since it is fairly common knowledge that prior to the 1990s (and a good deal after) virtually every well known historical figure and famous person was submitted to the system. In fact, this is the most strict the system has ever been.

Edited March 3, 2012 by bytebear

[john doe]

So now it appears that Helen Radkey has at least been using membership accounts of disaffected members to check up on the names to embarrass the LDS Church with. The new filters appear to be working, and now accounts are being suspended when someone tries to look at names on the 'do not use' lists. When this happens, the person must now contact Family Search and establish their family relationship before the account will be reinstated. Apparently, Helen is not too happy with these developments, and is screaming about it. Looks like she'll have to find a new way to grind her axe.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53667482-78/church-names-radkey-proxy.html.csp