Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[jwhitlock]

Sorry I was snippy.

Your post was very magnanimous and is accepted and returned in the spirit it was given.

I too apologize for the tone of my responses.

[handys003]

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.

I went back and saw her other posts (face palm). Thanks for pointing that out Kristine. I jumped the gun on where it was pointing. Sorry Emeliza I will cross out my earlier post.

[Kristine]

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 will miss you as I twist.

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

I stand corrected.

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.

I'm not arguing legal Selek. Moral may be a matter of perception IMHO.

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.

Still not arguing legal.

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.

Still not arguing legal. Nor is she, actually. Moral, I suppose that may be a question of definition, but I'm not trying to argue you further. Opinions are just that, I suppose.

And I've always prefered the phrase "knickers in a bunch", should you like some variety.

Always a pleasure, Selek.

[Nathair/|\]

I am going to come down on the side of fearing God more than man, but I think we should temper our presentation of that with charity to all.

[Kristine]

Your post was very magnanimous and is accepted and returned in the spirit it was given.

I too apologize for the tone of my responses.

Thank you on both counts.

[thesometimesaint]

The solution is quite simple. If the dead don't want the work done. They can come back and tell the Church in person that they don't want it done.

[Senator]

I am going to come down on the side of fearing God more than man, but I think we should temper our presentation of that with charity to all.

Aww...but that takes all the fun out of it for those that want to exercise their 'rebuke with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost' skills.

[Pahoran]

Oh please. Have you come to join the ranks of the (self) righteous? Welcome to the party!

Thank you for admitting that the self-righteous party is the one you are hosting.

Have you not read the Church's policy either? Or do you too choose to regard it as "only a suggestion"? Things that are simply read from the pulpit at church that don't really matter, like Prop 8 voting suggestions. Barf.

Nice attempt to wrap yourself in the Church's policy, as if that had anything to do with the matter in dispute.

It does not.

Unless there is some other policy, known only to yourself, to the effect that we should never do any proxy ordinance work for any person who has a living relative who includes anti-Mormon bigotry among their personality flaws.

Because if there is such a policy, it comes as news to me.

Senator and I are not creating our own rules. It has nothing to do with either of us, as you would so like to believe. But then where would your fun begin?

I have demanded nothing, and I aim to appease no one. Your pretty words are nothing but a "B" grade interpretation of a story you yourself have invented.

I'm sorry, perhaps I have misunderstood you. So now you are saying that it is and always was your position that if someone whines about us doing the work for their fifth great-grandmother, we should just do it anyway?

Is that in fact your position?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kristine]

Thank you for admitting that the self-righteous party is the one you are hosting.

Nice attempt to wrap yourself in the Church's policy, as if that had anything to do with the matter in dispute.

It does not.

Unless there is some other policy, known only to yourself, to the effect that we should never do any proxy ordinance work for any person who has a living relative who includes anti-Mormon bigotry among their personality flaws.

Because if there is such a policy, it comes as news to me.

I'm sorry, perhaps I have misunderstood you. So now you are saying that it is and always was your position that if someone whines about us doing the work for their fifth great-grandmother, we should just do it anyway?

Is that in fact your position?

Regards,

Pahoran

My position has always been to follow Church policy as outlined on familysearch.org. I apologize if there was any confusion.

[Stargazer]

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 got onto new.familysearch.org last night just to make sure I could tell if someone's work had been done during life and was simply recorded there and so on. I selected a couple of historical persons (Brigham Young being one), and was able to get their baptismal and endowment dates just fine, and naturally these were during the dates of his life. Once we have the vital stats on the individuals in question it is certain we can find out when the work was done.

One thing that crops up frequently is that work gets submitted by members of collateral lines and not just direct descendants. In my own case, I am descended from John and Margaret (Helderman) Proffer, who lived across the turn of the 18th century, probably married in Pennsylvania, moving to North Carolina, then later Missouri. They had a large family, and all of their children had large families, so when it came down to doing temple work for them I found that at least four other of their descendants were submitting temple work at the same time I was, and submitting it for collateral lines as well as direct. A few of my ancestors in that descendency were baptized multiple times! Besides my theory as presented, Kristine's friend's family might very well have collateral descendants who submitted their work at some point.

With the new system, duplication is greatly reduced, but past duplication still exists.

It's all very exciting!

[Scott Lloyd]

Aww...but that takes all the fun out of it for those that want to exercise their 'rebuke with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost' skills.

In your view, what in Doctrine and Covenants 121:42 is inconsistent with charity? Or have I misunderstood your remark?