Geneology, I am doing it!

[Indy Coug]

It's the very fact that it's happening for dead people, who can't deflect it or defend themselves, that people are offended by it. I know that I feel very protective of the memory of my dead mother, and if someone tried to posthumously tamper with her by trying to change her, I'd be upset. I used to think like you do -- what's the big deal if they don't want it? -- but as I think of it in terms of protecting the voices of the departed, I feel more and more inclined to understand where the offended parties are coming from. If you went to a living person and told them "I've been baptized on your behalf," they'd have a number of responses available, ranging from "Thank you!" to "Not interested" to "Stuff it, Mormon!" But at least they'd have a voice in the matter. The dead have no such voice, so it's not right to give someone else (generally completely unrelated to and unknown by the proxy baptizee) that last word for the dead person. They're dead -- let them be!

If the church were saying "We're posthumously having missionaries visit them to ask if they're interested in learning more," the offense wouldn't be there. But baptism is something that's individual and self-defining... that's what makes it something we shouldn't be touching.

But they aren't being "tampered" with. They remain whatever faith they choose in the hereafter and the temple ordinances don't change that fact one whit. It's not like after the baptism is over that Joseph Smith and Elias show up with a couple of billy clubs and say "OK, let's go".

[Tim]

But they aren't being "tampered" with. They remain whatever faith they choose in the hereafter and the temple ordinances don't change that fact one whit. It's not like after the baptism is over that Joseph Smith and Elias show up with a couple of billy clubs and say "OK, let's go".

The memory of them is what's being tampered with.

[Indy Coug]

The memory of them is what's being tampered with.

How so?

[Tim]

How so?

Like I said, dead people can't speak for themselves here on Earth. Making an identity choice here on Earth for a deceased person is a disrespect to a person who may have had an opinion on the matter were they still alive.

You're only looking at it through the lens of someone who wants baptism, so your view is tainted. What if someone arbitrarily assigned you an identity you didn't agree with, even here on earth. What if someone from Yemen contacted you and told you that a madrasa had been set up in your name, and that militant Islamic actions were being taken on your behalf. Would you be okay with that? I can't imagine you would be. In order to understand why people are offended, the first step is to start looking at it through the lens of someone who was strongly opposed to the idea of being baptized here on earth.

[Sullyute]

Like I said, dead people can't speak for themselves here on Earth. Making an identity choice here on Earth for a deceased person is a disrespect to a person who may have had an opinion on the matter were they still alive.

You're only looking at it through the lens of someone who wants baptism, so your view is tainted. What if someone arbitrarily assigned you an identity you didn't agree with, even here on earth. What if someone from Yemen contacted you and told you that a madrasa had been set up in your name, and that militant Islamic actions were being taken on your behalf. Would you be okay with that? I can't imagine you would be. In order to understand why people are offended, the first step is to start looking at it through the lens of someone who was strongly opposed to the idea of being baptized here on earth.

So what if the Church established a "opt out" option. If you did not want to have your deceased family members baptised then you could make a request not to. You would have to prove that you were their direct descendant and it would only go back 150 years or 4 generations. Would that be satisfactory?

[Eddie]

So what if the Church established a "opt out" option. If you did not want to have your deceased family members baptised then you could make a request not to. You would have to prove that you were their direct descendant and it would only go back 150 years or 4 generations. Would that be satisfactory?

I can't see that working.

What if another direct descendant is LDS and wants the deceased person of 150 years ago baptized? Who gets to decide who is and isn't baptized?

And what if the descendants aren't LDS, but they don't know about the whole "opt out" thing until it's too late and the baptisms have already taken place?

[Sullyute]

I can't see that working.

What if another direct descendant is LDS and wants the deceased person of 150 years ago baptized? Who gets to decide who is and isn't baptized?

Easy, a best of three in paper, rock, scissors or seminary scripture chase.

And what if the descendants aren't LDS, but they don't know about the whole "opt out" thing until it's too late and the baptisms have already taken place?

If the stake president can excommunicate you with the swip of a pen (no ordinance involved) then why couldn't the temple president or temple recorder just obliderate the baptism with the click of a mouse if you requested to opt out after the fact?

[Viking]

[Northwestcoug]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...rsial-baptisms

I also heard this on NPR radio today. I'm working, so I won't hear the letter being read over the pulpit. It'll be interesting to see how the 'other corrective measures might be taken' line is received.

[myboynoah]

LDS Church blocks abuse of proxy name submissions

This week, the church has introduced a "technological barrier to prevent abuse of the New FamilySearch system," according to LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy.

"Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated," Purdy said. "Abuse of the system will result in the permanent loss of database access."

According to Purdy, the new barrier was instituted because "the church is committed to preventing the misguided practice of submitting the names of Holocaust victims and prominent individuals for proxy baptism."

The Salt Lake Tribune reported Wednesday that the new restriction on New FamilySearch blocked searches for the names of Holocaust victims by LDS Church members who have been "surreptitiously" assisting Helen Radkey. Radkey has been cited by reporters around the country as the source for stories about proxy baptisms or name submissions for LDS temple work of Holocaust victims and celebrities.

I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some intentional mischief to put The Church in a bad light on this issue.

[Moliere]

LDS Church blocks abuse of proxy name submissions



I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some intentional mischief to put The Church in a bad light on this issue.

The best way to not be put in a bad light is to not do anything that would put you in a bad light. The church said it would not allow the baptizing of holocaust victims and it allowed just that.

Now the church is banning access to people that even search for holocaust victims (i.e. whistleblowers) . Ban access to people that submit those names, but don't ban access to people that are making sure the church follows through on its promises. This only makes things worse.

[SloanHater]

The best way to not be put in a bad light is to not do anything that would put you in a bad light. The church said it would not allow the baptizing of holocaust victims and it allowed just that.

Now the church is banning access to people that even search for holocaust victims (i.e. whistleblowers) . Ban access to people that submit those names, but don't ban access to people that are making sure the church follows through on its promises. This only makes things worse.

What the hell are you talking about?

They make no distinction between the person accessing as a 'whistleblower' or a 'nosy nelly.'

This is what I love most about CUF. The know nothing apostate hacks that grasp at straws.

[Donuthole]

What the hell are you talking about?

They make no distinction between the person accessing as a 'whistleblower' or a 'nosy nelly.'

This is what I love most about CUF. The know nothing apostate hacks that grasp at straws.

Easy there. Moliere is a know-nothing, active LDS hack.

[Indy Coug]

The best way to not be put in a bad light is to not do anything that would put you in a bad light. The church said it would not allow the baptizing of holocaust victims and it allowed just that.

Now the church is banning access to people that even search for holocaust victims (i.e. whistleblowers) . Ban access to people that submit those names, but don't ban access to people that are making sure the church follows through on its promises. This only makes things worse.

So how do you identify which are the submitters and which are the watchdogs? If you ban globally ban access doesn't that still solve the underlying problem?

Meanwhile, if the church is really that aware of the names of everyone that is on the Verboten List they obviously can implement procedures that will alert them to future improprieties.

[Moliere]

Easy there. Moliere is a know-nothing, active LDS hack.

So how do you identify which are the submitters and which are the watchdogs? If you ban globally ban access doesn't that still solve the underlying problem?

Meanwhile, if the church is really that aware of the names of everyone that is on the Verboten List they obviously can implement procedures that will alert them to future improprieties.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question but submitters are the ones that submit names and watchdogs are the ones that don't submit names. I hardly doubt that Radkey was submitting names for the performance of temple work.

Uncle Ted has already proposed the easiest solution, which is to use a list of names that are not allowed as a check against names that are submitted. Then is someone submits a name, it can be rejected and the person can be notified again of the policy. If they persist then the church can take further action.

There should be no limit on people being able to see the names that are submitted. I guess there are some at church HQ that don't want people to be able to see the list, although I have no idea why, because it jsut makes it look like the church has something to hide.