Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[jwhitlock]

I have been clear and consistent, the only inconsistency has entered when erroneous assumptions have been made. Try asking questions instead of insisting you know what I think or feel. The burden of pointing out these inconsistencies is on you.

Hardly an assumption when I quote what you said, and you deny you said it. We call that dishonesty.

I NEVER said the church was wrong. Pay attention.

This was one of the wonderful gems you posted back in #30 (there have been plenty of others):

"She has been deeply wounded by the Church, as were her parents and grandparents. She is adamant that they would not want the work done, and considers it to be highly insulting."

You never really retracted this absolutist statement about the Church being responsible for wounding her. It was quite revealing about your real attitude towards the Church and whether it's right or wrong. Further, your mischaracterization of Church policy and of what the ordinances are about (you actually thought in post #32 that those we did the proxy work for were on our "roster"!) indicate the shallowness of your understanding.

I'm paying attention to what you're saying - and the inconsistencies continue to mount.

[Kristine]

Others on this thread have caught the inconsistencies and conflicts in what you're posting. You've made it a point to backtrack and spin each time you've been called on your comments indicating the Church is wrong. And now you have the utter dishonesty to post something totally irrelevant about me not liking Church policy. I'll remind you that it is you that has questioned Church policy and its application, and demanded in your friends name that the work not be done because she happens to be offended. If you really understood temple work, something that your conflicting and inconsistent posting calls into question, you wouldn't have posted your ridiculous comments in the first place. It is obvious that you're not "over it"; you're the one who brought it up about your "friend", and it's obvious that you have real issues in understanding the priority of the Lord's work vs. pleasing those who are of the world.

I'd suggest that you make a decision about whose side you're really on and quit getting into a snit when the weaknesses in your positions as you post them are challenged.

THIS IS THE CHURCH POLICY I HAVE BEEN AND AM STILL REFERENCING:

Last 95 years and Restricted Submissions

To do ordinances for a deceased person born in the last 95 years, please obtain permission and honor the wishes of close relatives. Relatives may not want the ordinaces performed, or may want to do the ordinances themselves. The closest living relatives are, in this order: an undivorced spouse, an adult child, a parent, or a brother or sister.

RESTRICTED SUBMISSIONS

Church members should not submit individuals that they are not related to (with the exception of close friend as provided in the full policy statement). This includes:

Famous People

Those gathered from unapproved extraction projects

Jewish Holocaust victims. Members cannot do the ordinances for these people except under the following conditions:

They are an immediate family member (defined as parents, spouse, or children) or

They have permission of all living immediate family members, or

They have the permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living.

https://devnet.familysearch.org/certification/certification-program/policy2.jpg/image_view_fullscreen

I don't know if you dislike church policy. I said IF you didn't like it, take it there.

[Kristine]

deleted. See post #255 please.

[Stargazer]

If you can't understand me, the burden is on you to ask for clarification, not on me to speak in a way that you can understand.

THIS IS THE CHURCH POLICY I HAVE BEEN AND AM STILL REFERENCING:

<snip />

Kristine, did you ever take up my suggestion to check if the work your friend was objecting to was work done recently, or possibly done by process after the affected individuals' presumed death, and not by some recent activity?

It might make a difference to your friend if the baptism she's complaining about is the baptism they consented to in life and not a proxy. Assuming the info is available.

If you don't know how to check, you can pm me the names and birth dates and I can check for details.

[Kristine]

Ok Bro. Whitlock,

I have re-read this entire thread in an effort to understand where you are coming from. I've done my best, and I hope you'll take it in good faith.

In the TP, Scott said,

"You would have no greater right to demand that those ancestors' names be removed from the Church's database than my right to see that they remain there and that proxy ordinances are performed in their behalf."

I did not read "no greater right" as anything legal. In my early posts when I referred to "right" or "our place" I never meant legal. I tried to clarify this in post #69 when I said to you:

"For me this is an ethical issue, not a legal one, and I'm sorry if I miscommunicated that."

I didn't understand when you continued with the bullet wound analogy. I thought we both agreed that my friend chose to be offended by her circumstances and the proxy work performed for her ancestors. In your post #251 it seems that I was not on the same page as you. I hope it is clear now.

The one thing I can see quite clearly is that in my post to ERayR, I said, "But if they are not ours to claim just yet," to which you replied that our ancestors not anyone's, but individuals in their own right, and I said, "I never said they were "ours"". That one is quite contradictory. I was just talking names on a list to ERayR, and who can do what with which. I'm sorry I didn't catch that. I see how I've come off dishonest or at the very least inconsistent. I've basically been representing both sides and ended up as little more than a split personality. I've tried to make this about POV's. Reducing it to names on a list was my way of dealing with it dispassionately.

As for the "roster" comment, I tried to clarify that in post #59.

I understand if you think this is backtracking and spinning. I don't really know where I've said that I believe the Church is wrong, though I do see in my posts where I was taking the opposite point of view generally it seemed like my opinion. That was a mistake that I own, for it was very misleading. Nevertheless, there were things I did not say that I have been accused of. Things which were assumed.

Sorry I was snippy.

[Kristine]

Kristine, did you ever take up my suggestion to check if the work your friend was objecting to was work done recently, or possibly done by process after the affected individuals' presumed death, and not by some recent activity?

It might make a difference to your friend if the baptism she's complaining about is the baptism they consented to in life and not a proxy. Assuming the info is available.

If you don't know how to check, you can pm me the names and birth dates and I can check for details.

It's on my list of things to do. When I get the full names I'll PM you. It's also a delicate subject so getting the names is a question of timing.

Thanks for your help. I appreciate it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say the Golden Rule was sugar-coated narcissism. Please do not twist my words. I said that sometimes people twist the teaching to their own benefit.

I guess we'll have to reconstruct a portion of the dialogue. You said, "Sometimes the Golden Rule is just sugar coated narcissism." I replied, "Not the way Christ taught it." You then asked, "How did Christ teach it?" I responded by quoting the applicable verse from Matthew and commenting that there is nothing apparent in there about "sugar-coated narcissism." I prefer to believe you weren't saying that Christ was countenancing "sugar-coated narcissism" when he gave this teaching, but one then has cause to wonder why you would ask a question like "How did Christ teach it?" That is why I quoted the verse and responded as I did.

When you said this: "It's not a matter of deciding for other people what's best for them. It's a question of allowing uncomprehending outsiders to hinder the Latter-day Saints in the practice of what they see as a vital and fundamental religious doctrine, a practice that, by any objective measure, harms no one and, from a believer's standpoint, has great potential benefit."

It sounded as though it was more important for you to make sure others could not tell you what to do under the cloak of "doing the Lord's work", rather than actually doing it.

It is precisely because it is a commandment from God and that it makes the ordinances of salvation available to many deceased persons that I don't want the Latter-day Saints hindered in the practice of proxy temple ordinance work. That doesn't seem difficult to grasp.

[emeliza]

I believe that after 95 years or whatever the timeline is, it doesn't matter who the closest relative is, any relative can submit. However any death more current than that should have the permission of the nearest living relative. I will fully admit I haven't baptized any relatives that died sooner than 95 years ago because I am too chicken to ask relatives for permission. Of course I have enough names older than that to do that it isn't like it is stopping the work.

The Church has guidelines and I think the members should follow them. The Church expects the members to be honest.

In Kristine's friends case, it appears the relatives who had passed away were more recent than 95 years ago, so if that is the case, the most direct relative's permission should have been asked. If it wasn't, someone was not following the rules and unfortunately it means feelings are now hurt. I think often times the feelings are hurt just because the permission wasn't asked and because there are guidelines on how to handle this stuff.

So this is what I wrote last Wednesday. Per Kristine's latest posts it appears this is where the problem really was. Do members of the Church actually have a problem with following these guidelines? I mean, I know some people don't follow them, but my question is for board members. If the Church has asked us to follow these procedures, and someone doesn't, isn't it that members fault? Kristine really doesn't seem to have an issue with baptisms, she has a problem with people not following these guidelines.

Um...is that right Kristine?

[ERayR]

Kristine I am still wondering if the names were submitted on family group sheets from another family member, cousin or someone from a more distant line? Someone who would have had a legitimate reason to submit?

[Scott Lloyd]

So this is what I wrote last Wednesday. Per Kristine's latest posts it appears this is where the problem really was. Do members of the Church actually have a problem with following these guidelines? I mean, I know some people don't follow them, but my question is for board members. If the Church has asked us to follow these procedures, and someone doesn't, isn't it that members fault? Kristine really doesn't seem to have an issue with baptisms, she has a problem with people not following these guidelines.

I just had some thoughts along those lines.

In the course of this thread, Kristine has endeavored to re-frame the argument in terms of whether the Church and its members ought to follow the Church's stated policy with regard to submission of names for temple work. I will here and now stake out a position that those policies ought to be followed. I don't think that has ever been in dispute in this thread. Moreover, if there be any members of the Church who deliberately violate the policy, I say they should be reprimanded and more, not because someone has any particularly substantial standing to take offense, but because such errant actions tend to bring the Church of Jesus Christ into disrepute and needlessly render it vulnerable to the barbs of hostile outsiders.

That said, I think the above matter is quite outside the scope of this thread. In my opening post, I cited an e-mail from an individual seeking to insist that names be removed from the Church's database, not just his own name or those of his parents, siblings or grandparents, but presumably all of his ancestors extending into antiquity as far back as they can be traced. I said then, and I reiterate, that he has no prerogative, ethical or otherwise, to insist such a thing; that they are not just his ancestors; that depending on how far back in time one goes, a specific individual could have hundreds, thousands or millions of descendants; that the choice of accepting ordinances of salvation belongs to the deceased individual, not to any one of his descendants; that performance of proxy ordinances for the individual by Mormons does not interfere with the right, for the freedom to choose is left with the individual.

Now, 13 pages later, I don't see that anybody has persuasively rebutted that logic.

[emeliza]

Scott~ I am completely with you on that. I think members aught to follow the rules of direct descendant and 95 years. However I don't believe anyone else has a claim on all the relatives back to whenever. I think in fact that 95 years is being generous as it would be really hard to determine who was the most direct relative of my great grandpa that died 95 years ago if the surviving line is my parents age.

Either way I don't believe when you have direct relatives who are equal in relationship distance, one has more 'authority' over the other. So if you have a guy who has died and his wife is opposed, but his brother wants to do the baptism, the brother is the most direct blood relative. The wife is the most direct legal relative. Hard to say who gets to decide on the baptism.

I also don't think if someone has been dead for 95 years, anyone can lay claim.

[handys003]

Scott~ I am completely with you on that. I think members aught to follow the rules of direct descendant and 95 years. However I don't believe anyone else has a claim on all the relatives back to whenever. I think in fact that 95 years is being generous as it would be really hard to determine who was the most direct relative of my great grandpa that died 95 years ago if the surviving line is my parents age.

Either way I don't believe when you have direct relatives who are equal in relationship distance, one has more 'authority' over the other. So if you have a guy who has died and his wife is opposed, but his brother wants to do the baptism, the brother is the most direct blood relative. The wife is the most direct legal relative. Hard to say who gets to decide on the baptism.

I also don't think if someone has been dead for 95 years, anyone can lay claim.

Why? You think I don't have a claim to my ancestral father who fought and died in the revolutionary war shedding blood for my future? They are just as mine as any other relative who claims I shouldn't have the right toward. I carry the same DNA. Since your LDS. What if that ancestor came to me in the pre-mortal life and asked me to get it done for them. Your taking their right away. Temple work (ordinances) as I alluded to Kristine earlier in this thread, is about spiritual. We are not about temporal as LDS.

[Kristine]

I guess we'll have to reconstruct a portion of the dialogue. You said, "Sometimes the Golden Rule is just sugar coated narcissism." I replied, "Not the way Christ taught it." You then asked, "How did Christ teach it?" I responded by quoting the applicable verse from Matthew and commenting that there is nothing apparent in there about "sugar-coated narcissism." I prefer to believe you weren't saying that Christ was countenancing "sugar-coated narcissism" when he gave this teaching, but one then has cause to wonder why you would ask a question like "How did Christ teach it?" That is why I quoted the verse and responded as I did.

When I asked you how Christ taught it, I was hoping for an example similar to the one I tried to give. I wasn't asking for the scripture, figuring that was a given. I should have been more clear. It is not uncommon for people to misunderstand and misuse gospel teachings, and that's what I was referring to. Stating the platinum rule was not meant as scripture, nor to invalidate the teachings of the Savior. I was trying to point out that others have a different point of view about our practices, and that in order to understand their point of view, we must see it from the perspective of what they want, not what we want, regardless of the reason.

Paloma said it best when explained that outsiders do not see baptism for the dead on the same level as prayer, and while Mormon's often say they would not care if another religion used their names for a proxy ordinance, it is possible our attitude about that stems from an understanding of proxy work that other people do not have and therefore may not be a fair comparison.

It is precisely because it is a commandment from God and that it makes the ordinances of salvation available to many deceased persons that I don't want the Latter-day Saints hindered in the practice of proxy temple ordinance work. That doesn't seem difficult to grasp.

It has nothing to do with grasping the concept. The way you stated your feeling before, saying that it's not a matter of what's best for them, I interpreted to mean best for the dead, and that you cared more about keeping others from hindering you from doing what you wanted rather than doing what was best for "them", whomoever "they" are. It's not such a stretch.

[Kristine]

Why? You think I don't have a claim to my ancestral father who fought and died in the revolutionary war shedding blood for my future?

I don't think that's what she meant, handy. I think she was saying that the ancestors who have been dead 95 years + should be available to receive proxy work from anyone, anyone meaning us.

[Kristine]

So this is what I wrote last Wednesday. Per Kristine's latest posts it appears this is where the problem really was. Do members of the Church actually have a problem with following these guidelines? I mean, I know some people don't follow them, but my question is for board members. If the Church has asked us to follow these procedures, and someone doesn't, isn't it that members fault? Kristine really doesn't seem to have an issue with baptisms, she has a problem with people not following these guidelines.

Um...is that right Kristine?

Yes, thank you emeliza. It's nice to know I've been able to communicate effectively to someone.

[Anijen]

We all are children from Adam and Eve. We are to do work for the dead. I have much claim to do the work as someone who says they don't want it done. I will follow the commandments and do the work. three outcomes;

1. I am happy for following commandments

2. The ancestor now has his/her work done and can accept it or not

3. The living ancestor who didn't want it done can write in threads whine until they turn blue in the face or forever whichever comes first, I don't care....

[Kristine]

Kristine I am still wondering if the names were submitted on family group sheets from another family member, cousin or someone from a more distant line? Someone who would have had a legitimate reason to submit?

It's certainly possible. I would have to get the actual names in order to look it up. I assume my friend knows who did it. I didn't ask because she is the closest living relative and so it wouldn't have mattered, as per Church policy she should have been asked.

I suspect it was more of what Stargazer has supposed. I just need to follow up, though I'm not sure she will want to go there, nor want me to. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to ask her, but I will post here when I find out, if the thread is still active.

[Kristine]

In the course of this thread, Kristine has endeavored to re-frame the argument in terms of whether the Church and its members ought to follow the Church's stated policy with regard to submission of names for temple work. I will here and now stake out a position that those policies ought to be followed. I don't think that has ever been in dispute in this thread.

I'm not sure I agree with this, Scott. Starting in post #16 Stargazer brought up the issue of closest living relative, and in went from there. Selek has said repeatedly that Church policy is nothing more than a courtesy and is not necessary, and that those who are offended shouldn't be. His position has been seconded by more than one other person.

Moreover, if there be any members of the Church who deliberately violate the policy, I say they should be reprimanded and more, not because someone has any particularly substantial standing to take offense, but because such errant actions tend to bring the Church of Jesus Christ into disrepute and needlessly render it vulnerable to the barbs of hostile outsiders.

I think this is very well said, Scott. I appreciate the way you've worded it. To some it may seem unnecessarily apologetic to try to get along with others, but I believe that it has other benefits for us, too, and would allow us to do the work not only more effectively, but more comprehensively. There will always be some who take offense, but I see no reason why we shouldn't try to minimize the possibility as much as we can.

In my opening post, I cited an e-mail from an individual seeking to insist that names be removed from the Church's database, not just his own name or those of his parents, siblings or grandparents, but presumably all of his ancestors extending into antiquity as far back as they can be traced. I said then, and I reiterate, that he has no prerogative, ethical or otherwise, to insist such a thing; that they are not just his ancestors; that depending on how far back in time one goes, a specific individual could have hundreds, thousands or millions of descendants; that the choice of accepting ordinances of salvation belongs to the deceased individual, not to any one of his descendants; that performance of proxy ordinances for the individual by Mormons does not interfere with the right, for the freedom to choose is left with the individual.

Now, 13 pages later, I don't see that anybody has persuasively rebutted that logic.

I'm sorry if you've seen my posts as a threadjack. I was responding to comments that came after yours. I don't disagree with your point in the TP. I just probably have a bit more sympathy for how the emailer must feel, though I don't know that for sure.

[Scott Lloyd]

When I asked you how Christ taught it, I was hoping for an example similar to the one I tried to give. I wasn't asking for the scripture, figuring that was a given. I should have been more clear. It is not uncommon for people to misunderstand and misuse gospel teachings, and that's what I was referring to.

I understand that people occasionally misuse gospel teachings. But "sugar-coated narcissism" is definitely not what I have in mind when I speak of the golden rule or the spirit in which the Savior taught it. Is it really necessary to come up with an example to understand this?

Stating the platinum rule was not meant as scripture, nor to invalidate the teachings of the Savior. I was trying to point out that others have a different point of view about our practices, and that in order to understand their point of view, we must see it from the perspective of what they want, not what we want, regardless of the reason.

Paloma said it best when explained that outsiders do not see baptism for the dead on the same level as prayer, and while Mormon's often say they would not care if another religion used their names for a proxy ordinance, it is possible our attitude about that stems from an understanding of proxy work that other people do not have and therefore may not be a fair comparison.

So it goes back to what I said about their reacting from lack of informed understanding, and I don't feel obliged to accommodate such prejudice. We can try to be patient and courteous in explaining the doctrine, teachings and practice to those who are willing to listen, but in the end, we have to stand for what is right.

It has nothing to do with grasping the concept. The way you stated your feeling before, saying that it's not a matter of what's best for them, I interpreted to mean best for the dead, and that you cared more about keeping others from hindering you from doing what you wanted rather than doing what was best for "them", whomoever "they" are. It's not such a stretch.

No, my frame of reference in that exchange was the people complaining about our practice of proxy temple ordinance work. That's what I meant, and I thought that's what you meant. I do have the interests of deceased individuals at heart when I champion the unhindered performance of vicarious temple ordinances. I hope that's clear now.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure I agree with this, Scott. Starting in post #16 Stargazer brought up the issue of closest living relative, and in went from there. Selek has said repeatedly that Church policy is nothing more than a courtesy and is not necessary, and that those who are offended shouldn't be. His position has been seconded by more than one other person.

I will have to defer to them to clarify their meaning individually. If they are saying it is not necessary to follow the Church's policy in submission of names, I would have to disagree.

I think this is very well said, Scott. I appreciate the way you've worded it. To some it may seem unnecessarily apologetic to try to get along with others, but I believe that it has other benefits for us, too, and would allow us to do the work not only more effectively, but more comprehensively. There will always be some who take offense, but I see no reason why we shouldn't try to minimize the possibility as much as we can.

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree.

I'm sorry if you've seen my posts as a threadjack. I was responding to comments that came after yours. I don't disagree with your point in the TP. I just probably have a bit more sympathy for how the emailer must feel, though I don't know that for sure.

I don't know that I would call it a threadjack. I think we've been able to sort out the issues, and for that I'm glad.

[ERayR]

It's certainly possible. I would have to get the actual names in order to look it up. I assume my friend knows who did it. I didn't ask because she is the closest living relative and so it wouldn't have mattered, as per Church policy she should have been asked.

I suspect it was more of what Stargazer has supposed. I just need to follow up, though I'm not sure she will want to go there, nor want me to. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to ask her, but I will post here when I find out, if the thread is still active.

I have no problems with the concept of people following the rules. What I have a problem with is the concept of the closest living relative "owning" them. I beleive that no matter how closely related neither you or I or anyone else can own a progenator. A relative no matter how connected has as much right (i don't like that term) to include the name on geneology charts as the other relative has to have it left out.

My problem is with any one owning a relative. Your friend certainly can voice her opinion about removing the name but cousin XXX certainly can include them in her genology.

[Kristine]

I have no problems with the concept of people following the rules. What I have a problem with is the concept of the closest living relative "owning" them. I beleive that no matter how closely related neither you or I or anyone else can own a progenator. A relative no matter how connected has as much right (i don't like that term) to include the name on geneology charts as the other relative has to have it left out.

My problem is with any one owning a relative. Your friend certainly can voice her opinion about removing the name but cousin XXX certainly can include them in her genology.

And I suppose you are just as entitled to your opinion as she is. I'm comfortable with this:

Last 95 years and Restricted Submissions

To do ordinances for a deceased person born in the last 95 years, please obtain permission and honor the wishes of close relatives. Relatives may not want the ordinaces performed, or may want to do the ordinances themselves. The closest living relatives are, in this order: an undivorced spouse, an adult child, a parent, or a brother or sister.

[Kristine]

I understand that people occasionally misuse gospel teachings. But "sugar-coated narcissism" is definitely not what I have in mind when I speak of the golden rule or the spirit in which the Savior taught it. Is it really necessary to come up with an example to understand this?

It's not the first thing that comes to mind, no. I was just going to see if with an example you gave it could be made more effective with the platinum rule. It doesn't matter. I'm not against the Golden Rule. It would be interesting to go back to the original text and see if there is further information or possible differences.

So it goes back to what I said about their reacting from lack of informed understanding, and I don't feel obliged to accommodate such prejudice. We can try to be patient and courteous in explaining the doctrine, teachings and practice to those who are willing to listen, but in the end, we have to stand for what is right.

I guess there was a misunderstanding of a disagreement about this. Or perhaps just varying levels of sympathy. If someone thinks we should cease the practice all together, I don't agree with that, though I do respect how they feel as valid and within reason am willing to accomodate.

No, my frame of reference in that exchange was the people complaining about our practice of proxy temple ordinance work. That's what I meant, and I thought that's what you meant. I do have the interests of deceased individuals at heart when I champion the unhindered performance of vicarious temple ordinances. I hope that's clear now.

Crystal.

[Kristine]

I don't know that I would call it a threadjack. I think we've been able to sort out the issues, and for that I'm glad.

[selek]

Given what you tried to impute to me above, Kristine, I will appear one last time to clarify, and then leave you to twist in the wind.

I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated that members disregard Church policy regarding baptisms for the dead.

My point was, and remains, that the Church's policy is itself a courtesy- and were they to do away with it tomorrow, your friend would have no more right to cry, complain, moan, or foam at the mouth about these ordinances than she does now.

The policy was set in place as a magnanimous gesture of compassion. It is neither legally binding nor eternal. It was created with the stroke of a pen and can be revoked just as quickly.

Your friend- no matter how deeply she feels about temple ordinances- has no legal or moral right to contrain the Church or it's members in their worship. She has no legal or moral right to tell us that her ancestors might not receive the ordinances.

None.

Her wishes do not have the force of law, nor can she summon a policeman or a lawyer to try and stop us from worshipping according to the dictates of our own conscience. Were she to try, they'd either laugh her out of court or institutionalize her.

The Church's policy is just that- a policy. It is not legally binding and it does not force the Church to behave in any particular way for one moment longer than it decides is necessary. It is a courtesy, nothing more.

For all her overwrought hystrionics and sense of aggreivement, no demonstrable harm has been proven or even implied. Until that happens- until she can demonstrate that she's got a genuine reason to get her panties in a twist, your friend has no moral or legal right to stop us, and no means of enforcing her will- nor should she.