Here We Go Again-Holocaust Victim Baptisms

[Calm]

22 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Ah, I see Helen Radkey is trying to get some attention again.

After informing us multiple times she was done with it, she continues to violate the very standard she condemns the Church for not closely abiding by...though others more knowledgeable imo disagree with her and see the Church's efforts as both sincere and effective.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know anything about this woman. I just thought it unfair to assign evil intent to her. 

She has been quite open about what she has done and why.

She apparently first got upset that the Church was imposing on dead people when she discovered that dealings had been performed for some Catholics, including a Jesuit who she has as 'forcibly' adopted into her own family by claiming him as her son in a past life.  She has a shrine of him in her home (at least at the time of the article).

She is performing a religious ritual involving a dead person she has more or less mentally sealed herself to as her son.  And yet our proxy baptisms are vile in her view.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

She has been quite open about what she has done and why.

She apparently first got upset that the Church was imposing on dead people when she discovered that dealings had been performed for some Catholics, including a Jesuit who she has as 'forcibly' adopted into her own family by claiming him as her son in a past life.  She has a shrine of him in her home (at least at the time of the article).

She is performing a religious ritual involving a dead person she has more or less mentally sealed herself to as her son.  And yet our proxy baptisms are vile in her view.

Sounds like a piece of work. 

[kiwi57]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, his career choice makes him an anti-Mormon? Or did he choose his career because he was already an anti-Mormon?

I didn't say either of those things. Only that he evidently can't leave the Church alone.

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I still don’t quite understand what he said that was so wrong/offensive.

It's not that it was so wrong/offensive, as much as it was rather juvenile. He needed all that post-grad study to get to a simplistic and inaccurate view of LDS soteriology that any Seminary graduate could correct?

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But then I am, after all, one of those people who can’t leave the church alone. 

I'm so glad I didn't say that.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I didn't say either of those things. Only that he evidently can't leave the Church alone.

It's not that it was so wrong/offensive, as much as it was rather juvenile. He needed all that post-grad study to get to a simplistic and inaccurate view of LDS soteriology that any Seminary graduate could correct?

I'm so glad I didn't say that.

Hmmm. I didn’t see a quote from him on LDS soteriology. Did I miss it?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sounds like a piece of work. 

I get the feeling of a stalker who think they are protecting others while actually being the one they want a restraining order against (I base this on how she describes Catholics and Jewish leaders reacting to her as well as how she put her children's needs second to her own multiple times, ignoring or uprooting them, and continues to apparently be clueless about what they want in that she sends them reams of her stuff which one of her kids say they don't read and don't care anything about).

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/22/2017 at 6:07 AM, jkwilliams said:

Given that it's his job to study Mormonism, it would seem rather silly to ask him to "leave it alone." 

From his faculty bio at the University of Tampa:

 

An example of begging the question. Did anyone compel this choice of occupation, or did he pick it voluntarily?

You could say the same about any anti-Mormon “ministry”: “You can’t ask them to leave the Church alone, because it’s their job to denounce Mormonism.”

Edited December 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

How can we be certain of her motivations?   Maybe she believes passionately that she’s doing the right thing. 

I’m certain there have been many scoundrels who believed passionately they were doing the right thing. I could mention one or two but, given the current state of affairs here, would probably get thread banned if I did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Haven’t seen this link posted here yet. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006133/mormon-baptisms-on-holocaust-victims-celebrities-violated-church-policy.html

it gives the Church’s response and quotes a man who is charged with monitoring the Church’s compliance with the agreement. He was given that responsibility by the man from the Holocaust survivors group who worked out the agreement with the Church but who has now passed away. He says the Church is doing an amazingly good job of complying. 

The article also says the Church spent half a million dollars to remove the Holocaust victims from the records. That’s a lot of tithing money spent to show good faith. 

[Bernard Gui]

When I was serving a mission in Central America, people were told not to let Mormons take pictures of them because the Mormons would baptize the pictures in order to make the people into Mormons. That explains why our baptism count was so high, but I don't know how they figured it out. We kept it pretty close.

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An example of begging the question. Did anyone compel this choice of occupation, or did he pick it voluntarily?

You could say the same about any anti-Mormon “ministry”: “You can’t ask them to leave the Church alone, because it’s their job to denounce Mormonism.”

So, you consider him an anti-Mormon? I saw no direct quote from him, so I assume the simplistic explanation in the article is the result of a non-Mormon reporter doing a poor job of summarizing. 

[cdowis]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:29 PM, Bernard Gui said:

 

Thank you Rabbi Greenebaum, but should the Church try to find out who keeps doing this and tell them to knock it off? I would not be surprised to find out they’re doing it to embarrass the Church.

 

Anyone caught doing this can and have had their rights removed  I know  that such breeches have been investigated and appropriate action taken.  I noticed a change where you can no longer stay logged in for extended time, but have to re-login.

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When I was serving a mission in Central America, people were told not to let Mormons take pictures of them because the Mormons would baptize the pictures

in order to make the people into Mormons. That explains why our baptism count was so high, but I don't know how they figured it out. We kept it pretty close.

 

One exMormon ministers told on a youtube video that while on his mission he "heard" how some missionaries would invite the local teenagers to "go swimming", and took them to the baptismal font.  One of the kids did a belly flop in the "pool".  He and his audience had a nice laugh over it.

Of course he knew this was just missionaries doing trash talk, but he related it as if it were true.

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

22 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know anything about this woman. I just thought it unfair to assign evil intent to her. 

 Years ago she offered her specialized services  to "monitor" for the church such violations for a rather high fee.  She claimed to have experience in this area.  The church turned down her attempt at a n obvious shake down.

She herself had such a family search account and it was later revoked under the enhanced security policy. Later on in the genealogy library, "someone" stole the account of a patron and made inappropriate submissions  -- just little things like submitting Catholic saints for baptisms. 

It is interesting that she is so knowledgeable about specific examples of such breeches.  I would say that it is a matter of connecting the dots.

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by cdowis

[kiwi57]

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. I didn’t see a quote from him on LDS soteriology. Did I miss it?

Evidently.

From the OP:

"Ryan Cragun, an associate professor of sociology who studies Mormonism at the University of Tampa, said Mormons are striving to baptize everyone who has ever lived to help get non-Mormons out of "spirit prison" in the afterlife and receive exaltation."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you consider him an anti-Mormon? I saw no direct quote from him, so I assume the simplistic explanation in the article is the result of a non-Mormon reporter doing a poor job of summarizing. 

I’m merely using the comparison to illustrate your question-begging logic. You could apply it to rationalize the behavior of anyone who takes up pen against Mormonism. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Evidently.

From the OP:

"Ryan Cragun, an associate professor of sociology who studies Mormonism at the University of Tampa, said Mormons are striving to baptize everyone who has ever lived to help get non-Mormons out of "spirit prison" in the afterlife and receive exaltation."

I guess stating things accurately is not a requirement for an associate professor of sociology. Or something. 

[cdowis]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess stating things accurately is not a requirement for an associate professor of sociology. Or something. 

It was a general statement.  What was inaccurate?

[jkwilliams]

41 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Evidently.

From the OP:

"Ryan Cragun, an associate professor of sociology who studies Mormonism at the University of Tampa, said Mormons are striving to baptize everyone who has ever lived to help get non-Mormons out of "spirit prison" in the afterlife and receive exaltation."

As I said, that looks more like a summary, as the only quoted part is “spirit prison.”

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 Years ago she offered her specialized services  to "monitor" for the church such violations for a rather high fee.  She claimed to have experience in this area.  The church turned down her attempt at a n obvious shake down.

She herself had such a family search account and it was later revoked under the enhanced security policy. Later on in the genealogy library, "someone" stole the account of a patron and made inappropriate submissions  -- just little things like submitting Catholic saints for baptisms. 

It is interesting that she is so knowledgeable about specific examples of such breeches.  I would say that it is a matter of connecting the dots.

 

Obviously you know more about her than I do. I didn’t recognize the name, so I couldn’t say much about her. 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, that looks more like a summary, as the only quoted part is “spirit prison.”

Are you familiar with the concept of an indirect quote? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you familiar with the concept of an indirect quote? 

Yes, why do you ask?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, why do you ask?

You were fussing about “the only quoted part” — as though direct quotation were the only way to quote someone. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/22/2017 at 6:27 PM, jkwilliams said:

Sounds like a piece of work. 

And then some.

 

[The Nehor]

On 12/21/2017 at 1:04 PM, bluebell said:

It would be really nice if reporters could actually report the act correctly.  We don't baptize dead people.  

Oh, in that case I can return the shovel I borrowed.