Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[handys003]

Wow. Ok, I have a close friend who is deeply hurt by our church's "arrogance" (her word) that ours is the only true religion, that hers is not good enough, and feels that we have, in effect, hi-jacked her ancestors names to do with as we please. She is the closest living relative, only living child of her parents and their ancestors, and was never asked permission (which as has been quoted on this thread, is against church policy.)

Yeah... so... it's the church's policy. Not ours to do with as we please...

Judge me if you will, but I found the address for her to write in and have the names removed. I wonder though, just because the names have been white-outed, have the ordinances? But I digress.

There are many people, (especially the Jews), who have been deeply offended and hurt by our decision to tell them they are wrong. It took the church over 10 years to clean up the mess with the holocaust victims, and last I heard, they continue to do so.

Yes, they are our ancestors. But... telling others that our "rights" to them are more important than theirs? Why do we trump them? And "because I have a testimony" or "because I felt the spirit" isn't a fair reply to them, is it? Seems to me that policy is policy, and for a reason.

Article of Faith 11:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

And yes, there is a check box if someone using the system does not want ordinances performed for their family members. Unfortunately, it often goes ignored, usually because of duplicate submissions. (My Daddy was a genealogy missionary.)

Kristine- We do not trump them and it has nothing to do with "rights". If your friend is spiritual in nature to whatever deity then she must realize that they are not property of anyone. They are their own spirits. As far as in relation to Christ and HF we believe they belong to him. DNA wise my wife is not mine. DNA wise half the children a half are mine and half hers. That does not even take account for adopted. However that is temporal (physical mans world) and not spiritual (HF world). We don't own them. They are their own spirits. We do this work out of care and love. It's to help in our view their progression. That does not mean they take the ordinances. They choose their path still in the spirit world. That should be explained to her. Those who object literally think they must own the rights to said individuals when they don't. That is slavery. Does she condone such. In fact if her views are so correct, then what we do is irrelevant as it won't have meaning. Her reactions just gives credence to our views as correct. Understand?

[selek]

Wow. Ok, I have a close friend who is deeply hurt by our church's "arrogance" (her word) that ours is the only true religion, that hers is not good enough,

Every religion on the planet- from the Lutherans and Calvinists to the little old lady selling "Jesus crystals" believes that they have it more "right" than the others. By implication, every single one of them is stating that the others aren't "good enough". And more often than not, their arguments are mutually exclusive.

Our belief that our religion is the only one that "gets it right" is neither exlusive nor damnable, nor is her preference on a wishy-washy, effeminate, non-judgemental Savior in any way binding upon us.

It's not our fault that she's insecure in the worth of her religion- but our mandate is not to "make people feel good about themselves"- it's to preach the Gospel boldly.

In fact, Scriptures are very clear- we are to proclaim the truth without concern for whether the wicked are offended and we are commanded to be either "hot" or "cold", or risk being vomitted out.

I'm sorry that your friend finds our position "offensive". I do note, however, that she hasn't demonstrated anywhere that our position is wrong.

and feels that we have, in effect, hi-jacked her ancestors names to do with as we please.

Hijacked? You mean illegally seized and diverted through the criminal use of force? Your friends needs to study her dictionary a bit.

We haven't seized or diverted anything. We are offering something to her ancestors.

There is no force (of any kind) involved.

She is the closest living relative, only living child of her parents and their ancestors, and was never asked permission (which as has been quoted on this thread, is against church policy.)

Are you quite certain that she's the only surviving relative, or is that just assumption on your part (and hers)?

Yeah... so... it's the church's policy. Not ours to do with as we please...

Nor is it hers to do with as she pleases. Her intransigence and arrogance are not sufficient cause to deny the ordinances to people who want them.

Judge me if you will, but I found the address for her to write in and have the names removed.

Why would I judge you for that? You provided an honest answer to an honest question. End of story.

I wonder though, just because the names have been white-outed, have the ordinances? But I digress.

Not if they were accepted by those for whom they were performed. Her stubborn insistence on ignorance and prejudice does not invalidate the blessings that others might receive.

There are many people, (especially the Jews), who have been deeply offended and hurt by our decision

No- there was a small, militant, obnoxious minority that chose to throw a hissy fit and a publicity stunt over something they didn't like in order to perpetuate their preferred victim status. Most Jews didn't care one way or another, or were completely ignorant of the supposedly "offensive" practice.

to tell them they are wrong.

Funny- "the Jews" (I love it when ark-steadiers throw out poorly defined categories of people and then pretend to speak for them) supposedly look down on the rest of us as the "great unwashed".

They are God's chosen, and the rest of us are second class citizens- and they have the chutzpah to call us arrogant.

"The Jews" have spent the better part of the last three thousand years telling the rest of us that our religions "aren't good enough". Guess it's not as much fun when you're on the receiving end.

It took the church over 10 years to clean up the mess with the holocaust victims, and last I heard, they continue to do so.

Incorrect. It took the Church ten minutes to clean up the "mess" and ten years for the unfounded whining to die down.

The issue was resolved quickly.

The periodic publicity stunts and media whoring were not.

The "issue" was settled long ago- it's just taken a decade for the media to get tired of the opportunists and jackals who periodically pop up in order to claim their ten minutes of fame.

Yes, they are our ancestors. But... telling others that our "rights" to them are more important than theirs?

Ummm....Skippy?

Who has said our rights "trump" theirs? At worst, we're telling them that their rights don't trump OURS- or those of our mutual ancestors.

Why do we trump them? And "because I have a testimony" or "because I felt the spirit" isn't a fair reply to them, is it? Seems to me that policy is policy, and for a reason.

You've got it precisely backwards. Our practice does them not one scintilla of harm. No one has demonstrated any "damage" or "injury" caused by our worship practices.

Not one.

Contrary to the current culture of self-indulgence and me-first narcissism, no credible Constitutional scholar has found the text delineating the "Right to meddle in how Mormons worship" or the much more popular "Right Not To Be Offended By the Opinion or Actions of Others".

Their (unstated but acknowledged) "Right to be an Ignorant ***" does NOT trump our stated and delineated Right to Worship in peace and privacy.

Article of Faith 11:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We're not PREVENTING them from worshipping how, why, or what they want. We simply refuse to bow to their attempts to infringe upon OUR rights.

We're not impinging upon their rights, we simply refuse to bow to their attempts to impinge upon ours.

And yes, there is a check box if someone using the system does not want ordinances performed for their family members. Unfortunately, it often goes ignored, usually because of duplicate submissions. (My Daddy was a genealogy missionary.)

You know, let's put this in terms everyone here can understand:

So long as there is no harm done, your worshipful, zealous, and cult-like adherence to a diet of tree leaves, grass, beano, and brussel sprouts does not trump my right to offer chocolate cake to our grandparents.

No matter how much better you think your diet is, you don't have the right to cut chocolate cake out of my diet, nor to deny chocolate cake to our ancestors.

No matter how indigant your protests, no matter how shrilly you wail, gnash your teeth, or tear your hair- YOUR preferences for raw lima beans doesn't trump my taste for chocolate- or my right to share that taste with others.

[handys003]

And yes, there is a check box if someone using the system does not want ordinances performed for their family members. Unfortunately, it often goes ignored, usually because of duplicate submissions. (My Daddy was a genealogy missionary.)

Kristine- Where is this "check box"? I went and checked on the www.newfamilysearch.org site. I found no such box.

[Kristine]

Kristine the church did not hijack anything. My right to have my grandparents work done is just as valid as my cousins right to protest having their work done.

It was her word, not mine. . And she is the closest living relative, so it's not quite the same.

[Kristine]

Kristine- We do not trump them and it has nothing to do with "rights". If your friend is spiritual in nature to whatever deity then she must realize that they are not property of anyone. They are their own spirits. As far as in relation to Christ and HF we believe they belong to him. DNA wise my wife is not mine. DNA wise half the children a half are mine and half hers. That does not even take account for adopted. However that is temporal (physical mans world) and not spiritual (HF world). We don't own them. They are their own spirits. We do this work out of care and love. It's to help in our view their progression. That does not mean they take the ordinances. They choose their path still in the spirit world. That should be explained to her. Those who object literally think they must own the rights to said individuals when they don't. That is slavery. Does she condone such. In fact if her views are so correct, then what we do is irrelevant as it won't have meaning. Her reactions just gives credence to our views as correct. Understand?

You know Handy, she does know all of this. Her grandfather came to Utah with Brigham Young, and left the church as soon as he could because of polygamy. He joined the Catholic faith. She raised her son Catholic and has since left organized religion of any kind, has a beautiful relationship with God, and is very satisfied. She is no one to be trifle with, and knows the history of the church as well as anyone here. I have great respect for her. 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.

Regardless of who owns them and who doesn't, church policy was not followed in her case. The policy is in place for a reason. And, as the oldest living relative, it is her right. It doesn't matter what I believe about the afterlife. It's simply not my business at this point.

[Kristine]

Kristine- Where is this "check box"? I went and checked on the www.newfamilysearch.org site. I found no such box.

I'll have to ask my father and get back to you. We did an exhaustive thread over at Beliefnet in the debate board a couple of years ago, and that's when I did all my research. I know they've changed the system since. I don't know that they've changed that option. I would be surprised. But I'll find out for sure.

Thx.

[Kristine]

Every religion on the planet- from the Lutherans and Calvinists to the little old lady selling "Jesus crystals" believes that they have it more "right" than the others. By implication, every single one of them is stating that the others aren't "good enough". And more often than not, their arguments are mutually exclusive.

Our belief that our religion is the only one that "gets it right" is neither exlusive nor damnable, nor is her preference on a wishy-washy, effeminate, non-judgemental Savior in any way binding upon us.

It's not our fault that she's insecure in the worth of her religion- but our mandate is not to "make people feel good about themselves"- it's to preach the Gospel boldly.

In fact, Scriptures are very clear- we are to proclaim the truth without concern for whether the wicked are offended and we are commanded to be either "hot" or "cold", or risk being vomitted out.

I'm sorry that your friend finds our position "offensive". I do note, however, that she hasn't demonstrated anywhere that our position is wrong.

Oh, she is hardly insecure with her religion. I've never met anyone more positive that the church isn't true. She knows how I feel, and there is a high level of mutual respect between us. I don't know about proving any position wrong or right, unless you mean the "no, we can't prove it is true, but you can't prove it isn't" argument. And.. yeah.. I don't think you are very sorry. But I'll tell her nonetheless.

The difference in this situation is that we're not just "saying" we have the truth, just like everyone else. We're actually taking people and putting them on our rosters.

Hijacked? You mean illegally seized and diverted through the criminal use of force? Your friends needs to study her dictionary a bit.

We haven't seized or diverted anything. We are offering something to her ancestors.

There is no force (of any kind) involved.

We didn't have her permission. Period. She used the word hi-jacked because that is how it felt to her. She doesn't want what we're offering her, and it is not our place to force it on her by ignoring her wishes and doing what we believe is right. That is the policy. Not gospel according to Kristine. Please do not confuse the two.

Are you quite certain that she's the only surviving relative, or is that just assumption on your part (and hers)?

I am absolutely 100% certain.

Nor is it hers to do with as she pleases. Her intransigence and arrogance are not sufficient cause to deny the ordinances to people who want them.

She doesn't believe in the ordinances. This argument makes no sense. And at least 4 of the people did not want the ordinances in life. That is certain. Her mother specifically asked her to make sure that no one did her work after she died. I'm not kidding you. This is real. Who is the arrogant one?

Not if they were accepted by those for whom they were performed. Her stubborn insistence on ignorance and prejudice does not invalidate the blessings that others might receive.

Nobody can say what those on the otherside want. She does not believe there is any blessing to be received. It doesn't matter what we believe. It is her choice. Not ours.

No- there was a small, militant, obnoxious minority that chose to throw a hissy fit and a publicity stunt over something they didn't like in order to perpetuate their preferred victim status. Most Jews didn't care one way or another, or were completely ignorant of the supposedly "offensive" practice.

CFR

Funny- "the Jews" (I love it when ark-steadiers throw out poorly defined categories of people and then pretend to speak for them) supposedly look down on the rest of us as the "great unwashed".

They are God's chosen, and the rest of us are second class citizens- and they have the chutzpah to call us arrogant.

"The Jews" have spent the better part of the last three thousand years telling the rest of us that our religions "aren't good enough". Guess it's not as much fun when you're on the receiving end.

Incorrect. It took the Church ten minutes to clean up the "mess" and ten years for the unfounded whining to die down.

The issue was resolved quickly.

The periodic publicity stunts and media whoring were not.

The "issue" was settled long ago- it's just taken a decade for the media to get tired of the opportunists and jackals who periodically pop up in order to claim their ten minutes of fame.

Yeah... it took a lot longer than 10 minutes. And yes, Oaks went back 10 years later to apologize for it happening again with more files of names removed. It never stopped. I wonder why.

Ummm....Skippy?

Who has said our rights "trump" theirs? At worst, we're telling them that their rights don't trump OURS- or those of our mutual ancestors.

Lol. My point is that their feelings are not more important than ours. We do what we can to help them understand. Some convert, some don't care, some do. We are supposed to respect that.

You've got it precisely backwards. Our practice does them not one scintilla of harm. No one has demonstrated any "damage" or "injury" caused by our worship practices.

Not one.

They are taking it personally. I'm just telling you what I know. I didn't create the policy. Why do you think the church did?

Contrary to the current culture of self-indulgence and me-first narcissism, no credible Constitutional scholar has found the text delineating the "Right to meddle in how Mormons worship" or the much more popular "Right Not To Be Offended By the Opinion or Actions of Others".

Their (unstated but acknowledged) "Right to be an Ignorant ***" does NOT trump our stated and delineated Right to Worship in peace and privacy.

That was lovely. Thank you.

You know, let's put this in terms everyone here can understand:

So long as there is no harm done, your worshipful, zealous, and cult-like adherence to a diet of tree leaves, grass, beano, and brussel sprouts does not trump my right to offer chocolate cake to our grandparents.

No matter how much better you think your diet is, you don't have the right to cut chocolate cake out of my diet, nor to deny chocolate cake to our ancestors.

No matter how indigant your protests, no matter how shrilly you wail, gnash your teeth, or tear your hair- YOUR preferences for raw lima beans doesn't trump my taste for chocolate- or my right to share that taste with others.

Take it to the top. Policy is policy. If there are two relatives with the same status as closest living, the Mormon one wins. That should make you happy.

[jwhitlock]

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.

This is a highly arguable statement; while she may consider herself wounded, it is hardly demonstrated as fact that she and her parents and grandparents, as claimed, were actually wounded. It is just as probable that she and the others made the decision to wound themselves because of their disagreements with the Church; they may have just as well allowed their bias and perspective to canker them until they could convince themselves that they were wounded and that it was the Church's fault. Such a scenario is just as likely as the opposite scenario that you paint here in making an absolutist statement about being wounded and it being the Church's fault.

Whether she considers it insulting or not is basically irrelevant. She chooses what to be insulted by; I can just as well be insulted by her demeaning attitude towards a religion that I hold sacred. It is just as arguable that her being insulted is highly subjective in nature, driven by her biases, and not really supported by any real offense that has directly, or even indirectly, affected her personally.

People choose to be offended for a variety of reasons. The rationale behind the offense here seems, to me, to be tenuous at best.

[blackstrap]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

[bluebell]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

It would be interesting to see what the percentages are.

I personaly would not care in the least. I would be grateful though that they cared enough to bother spending all the time, energy and money to save my or my ancestors. Greater love hath no man....

I honestly don't know how anyone could call something done out of sincere love and a desire to serve 'arrogance'.

[Kristine]

This is a highly arguable statement; while she may consider herself wounded, it is hardly demonstrated as fact that she and her parents and grandparents, as claimed, were actually wounded. It is just as probable that she and the others made the decision to wound themselves because of their disagreements with the Church; they may have just as well allowed their bias and perspective to canker them until they could convince themselves that they were wounded and that it was the Church's fault. Such a scenario is just as likely as the opposite scenario that you paint here in making an absolutist statement about being wounded and it being the Church's fault.

Whether she considers it insulting or not is basically irrelevant. She chooses what to be insulted by; I can just as well be insulted by her demeaning attitude towards a religion that I hold sacred. It is just as arguable that her being insulted is highly subjective in nature, driven by her biases, and not really supported by any real offense that has directly, or even indirectly, affected her personally.

People choose to be offended for a variety of reasons. The rationale behind the offense here seems, to me, to be tenuous at best.

Alright, and that's all fine and good. We all choose our feelings, no one is arguing that. Bottom line, we broke policy. We're at fault. It's black and white. The fact that "well, she shouldn't feel badly, we're really doing no harm," is irrelevant.

It's her fault that she feels badly, it's our fault that we ignored her request.

[selek]

The difference in this situation is that we're not just "saying" we have the truth, just like everyone else.

No, we do not say, "We have the truth just like everyone else." We say, "We are servants of the Lord, are about his business, and we would like to offer you the opportunity to join us."

We're actually taking people and putting them on our rosters.

Really? In what ward, precisely?

We are offering the departed an opportunity, nothing more. They are not counted in our membership numbers, nor are they extended callings or any of the other accoutrements that normally follow membership and baptism.

We didn't have her permission. Period.

We don't need her permission. We don't need her permission anymore now than we would in a hundred years. Any consultation with her is a courtesy- not a right.

We are doing the ordinances for those who have passed on- not for petulant children who like to stomp their feet and hold their breath til they turn blue.

If our beliefs are correct, then her ancestors can accept or reject the ordinances without any assistance, guidance, advice or interference from her.

If we are incorrect in our beliefs, then we are simply wasting our time, and doing no one any harm.

So the choices in the matter are stark: It's either "none of her business" or "of no consequence or harm to her".

Those are the only two choices.

She needs to suck it up and deal with it like a grown-up.

She used the word hi-jacked because that is how it felt to her.

And "how it felt to her" trumps reason, law, logic, and common sense, right? This is the same, "But I Want It!!!!" argument my five year old offered up when she wanted a cookie just before dinner.

My five year old didn't get her way, either.

[selek]

She doesn't want what we're offering her, and it is not our place to force it on her by ignoring her wishes and doing what we believe is right.

You keep perpetuating the myth that we're forcing anything on anybody. That is simply counterfactual.

She has rejected the ordinances for herself, as is her right. It's NOT her right to reject those ordinances on behalf of others.

Her wishes extend no farther than her own skin or the reach of her arm. Her wishes cannot be imposed upon others.

We are offering an ordinance to her ancestors. Nothing is being forced upon them.

Second, while it's not our place to force anything on her, it's not HER place to attempt to force anything on us. Nor is it her place to deny her ancestors the opportunity we offer.

For all your histrionics, and those of your "friend"- she's the one trying to force a position. We offer an opportunity, she's trying to deny others the choice.

That is the policy. Not gospel according to Kristine. Please do not confuse the two.

Nor should you confuse a policy made as a courtesy with immutable or eternal law.

Despite best efforts of pedants and perpetual-victims, EVERYONE will have the chance to accept or deny these ordinances for themselves.

Just because your friend chooses damnation doesn't mean she has the right to drag her ancestors down with her.

I am absolutely 100% certain.

Uh-huh.

She doesn't believe in the ordinances.

Then we are doing no harm to her or her ancestors. From her perspective, we're wasting our time.

The fun part is- it's our time to waste and, therefore, none of her business. Unless she can demonstrate that we're doing specific and demonstrable harm to either her or her ancestors- she's got no legal or moral leg to stand on.

This argument makes no sense. And at least 4 of the people did not want the ordinances in life. That is certain. Her mother specifically asked her to make sure that no one did her work after she died.

That doesn't mean they didn't change their minds.

I'm not kidding you. This is real. Who is the arrogant one?

She is- she's attempting to deny an opportunity to others and to interfere with private religious practices that do her no harm and in which she isn't invovled in any way.

Nobody can say what those on the otherside want.

You're absolutely right- SHE can't say what those on the otherside want, and therefore has no right or reason to deny them the opportunity to choose for themselves.

She does not believe there is any blessing to be received.

She's wrong- but it doesn't matter. Whether or not she believes there is a benefit is utterly irrelevent to whether or not we can make the offer.

It doesn't matter what we believe.

As stated above, if we're wrong in our belief, then we've done no harm. Unless we are doing harm, she has no right to interfere in our private worship.

It is her choice.

It is NOT her choice- the choice belongs to the people for whom the ordinance is performed.

Not ours.

We are making an offer- nothing more.

CFR

The malcontents who accused the Church (and as I recall began a lawsuit) numbered less than a hundred. There are several million Jews in America alone- that makes them a tiny handful of malcontents.

I'm going to toss the CFR right back at you- please demonstrate that the vast majority of Jews were even aware of the "Mormon controversy", let alone outraged by it.

Yeah... it took a lot longer than 10 minutes. And yes, Oaks went back 10 years later to apologize for it happening again with more files of names removed. It never stopped. I wonder why.

Spurred by a tiny handful of malcontents who alleged that those names were improperly submitted. The Church erred on the side of caution as a courtesy. The removal was done out of compassion, not because a court ordered it or because the agitators had a legal leg to stand on.

[selek]

Lol. My point is that their feelings are not more important than ours.

You're shifting the goalposts now. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

We do what we can to help them understand. Some convert, some don't care, some do. We are supposed to respect that.

I'm awful suspicious of that "we", but for the record, we DO respect that.

The Temple Ordinances offered to the dead are not binding unless the recipient CHOOSES to receive them.

They are taking it personally.

That's THEIR problem, not ours. Unless they can provide evidence of a demonstrable harm we are doing, then they've got no leg to stand on.

I'm just telling you what I know. I didn't create the policy. Why do you think the church did?

As a courtesy, and an act of compassion.

Take it to the top. Policy is policy. If there are two relatives with the same status as closest living, the Mormon one wins. That should make you happy.

Again, you are incorrect. The deceased relative wins- he or she gets to choose for himself (or herself) despite the antics of meddling do-gooders.

And THAT makes me happy.

[Kristine]

I honestly don't know how anyone could call something done out of sincere love and a desire to serve 'arrogance'.

This is not meant to sound flippant - but that is the problem. It's not easy to understand, I think, because our motives are pure.

The Catholic Church is none too thrilled. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802443.htm.

[selek]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

Undoubtedly. That doesn't mean, however, that we'd have any right to stop them from worshipping as they please.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

Which is the main reason why the vast majority of Mormons (IMO) would ultimately chalk it up as nothng more than a publicity stunt and go back to their callings and families.

[LeSellers]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

None, as far as I am concerned, at least.

If (and it is to me an extremely unlikely possibility) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not all she claims to be, then any help I might get would be most appreciated.

If, however, as I am convinced beyond any doubt, their efforts are ineffective, then there is neither harm nor foul.

Any energy wasted in fighting such a hypothetical program is just that, wasted. I have far better thing to do with my life. Let 'em have at it. And, as I said, I would actually appreciate it, as it would show an abundance of Christian love. (Which is sadly lacking, alas.)

Lehi

[selek]

We're actually taking people and putting them on our rosters.

Since you decided to go nuke-yuh-lar on this one Kristine, I'll reply in kind.

CFR.

Please demonstrate where we're adding the recipients to our rosters.

We record that the offer was made and upon what date- nothing more.

[handys003]

You know Handy, she does know all of this. Her grandfather came to Utah with Brigham Young, and left the church as soon as he could because of polygamy. He joined the Catholic faith. She raised her son Catholic and has since left organized religion of any kind, has a beautiful relationship with God, and is very satisfied. She is no one to be trifle with, and knows the history of the church as well as anyone here. I have great respect for her. 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.

Regardless of who owns them and who doesn't, church policy was not followed in her case. The policy is in place for a reason. And, as the oldest living relative, it is her right. It doesn't matter what I believe about the afterlife. It's simply not my business at this point.

Okay then if she is adamant about it being the Catholic style of heaven. Btw I've been offered an invite by some Irish buddies for beer. Then it shouldn't really matter to her. By Catholic standards it should be a silly practice by Mormons to her deceased. After all her deceased relatives must be thinking that those Mormons must be not getting it. Her relatives are probably thinking how cute it all must be of the salvation of souls by proxy. By Catholic version the deceased are probably not threatened by one bit. It would still be the point her relatives are alive and with God(provided they were saved). She still does not own them as they still belong to God. Since I accepted JC, and repented no doubt I would get to Catholic heaven as I was deceived by false prophets. Therefore I would be up there with my Irish drinking buds having a few good brewskies, probably several shots of whiskey and some saki and laughing over the past and my doing ordinances. Now then tell my why she should be still upset? She should be laughing at our foolish ways then, yes?

Second- in the old days as in my relatives there were many duplicates. this means there were many contributers. The system was old an archaic, but now has been modernized. Todays site requires more info on contribution and can be challenged. Much better than the old days. However I have submitted distant cousins. I had distant Hawaiian cousins submitting names on my behalf also that I did not know existed. Done by distant relatives. Am I upset about it? No. Even though they are my relatives they were done somewhere by another. How do I assert that my maternal grandmother was done by a Pratt member, who is a sibling descendant as not having the same right as myself. This was done years before knew anything and converted to this church. The underlying principle is no one owns anyone except their personal selves. Any assumption that they are that persons own relative to do with what they want is contradictory to Gods right of ownership. No matter any Christian sect. God owns the body and the soul. Not the child, not the spouse, not the aunties or uncles etc...

[Jeff K.]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

I cannot see how we would be offended since we do not recognize their authority on the issue.

[jwhitlock]

Alright, and that's all fine and good. We all choose our feelings, no one is arguing that. Bottom line, we broke policy. We're at fault. It's black and white. The fact that "well, she shouldn't feel badly, we're really doing no harm," is irrelevant.

It's her fault that she feels badly, it's our fault that we ignored her request.

I've read back through the thread; I do not necessarily see how the Church's own policy was ignored by the Church (people often claim that, though they take liberties in interpreting policy for their own ends) in this case. The Church is also under no particular obligation to grant every request that comes based on a person's narrow interpretations of "violations" of the policy; it still needs to be demonstrated that there is any real fault of the Church in this case.

Selek is absolutely correct in his observations concerning the rather small group of vocal Jewish activists who continually hound the Church. There are other Jews who have taken a far more balanced approach, and have publicly written concerning their puzzlement at why some of their fellow Jews are so offended by the Church's practice. Their writings contain a far more balanced approach in recognizing what the Church actually does, what the impact on Jews actually is, and also recognizes the logistic difficulties that the Church wrestles with in having an open database, and that the Church actually does a fairly good job in trying to keep up with valid concerns.

Still, this doesn't stop those who choose (there's that word again!) to take offense, from getting worked up. Given the lack of direct or even significant indirect personal effect on her, and given the other side of the story which she seems more than willing to ignore, I suspect that it is very much a choice, driven by her bias, on her part concerning how she reacts.

If the Church's actions were responsible for wounding people, then that wounding would occur in all cases where that Church action occurred. A bullet will wound anyone shot by it without exception; I am unaware of any Church policy, doctrine, principle, or action that has or does universally wound when applied. As such, the perception of wounding is often a choice made in the mind of the person claiming to be offended.

Of course, any clarification or additional factual evidence in this particular situation is welcome.

[handys003]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

Maybe a small set. I doubt as in myself would get bent out of shape over it. After all my PoV would be our heaven is correct, so what they do is irrelevant in doctrine perception. It won't affect my ancestors as their version of heaven does not exist. If anyone gets upset. It's like selek said they're threatened, and IMO in the back of the mind they must think our way could be true as a possibility.

[handys003]

I cannot see how we would be offended since we do not recognize their authority on the issue.

He said some of us. Normally in any large group there will be a small amount who will get upset. Just like most Catholics, Jews, Rastas, etc... Most don't care or feel threatened. However there are the exceptions.

[ERayR]

It was her word, not mine. . And she is the closest living relative, so it's not quite the same.

But she is not the only relative. Other relatives have a right to submit a relatives name. She does not own her grandmother. The relative has other relatives.

[Kristine]

You're shifting the goalposts now. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Take all the assumptions you want to take, selek. I hope you have a lovely time. Here is a references for the offended.

http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html.

This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm all for baptisms for the dead. Mormon arrogance bothers me, but since I have no way to "prove" that it actually bothers me, then I guess I have no right to say so. Lol.