Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Senator]

So you advocate misleading people just to placate them?

Yes, it may be right in this instance.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, it may be right in this instance.

Since you have defined a winking smiley as meaning "not to be taken seriously," I reserve the option not to take your posts seriously if they have winking smileys.

[Senator]

Since you have defined a winking smiley as meaning "not to be taken seriously," I reserve the option not to take your posts seriously if they have winking smileys.

Is that what a winking smiley means?

Ok, edited it for you.

[Bsix]

Good point Bsix. That is why I think we should be amenable to all passionate requests for name removal. After all, I do not believe that the ordinances become null and void just because we have edited a record.

We just need to add a little "winking eye" symbol next to the records of names in which the ordinance dates have been removed. or this little emoticon would do.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I don't care what other people or religions do with designating the membership status of ancestors as it relates to THEIR church records.

However, I don't think that under any circumstances anyone has the right to demand that the LDS Church remove anyone from OUR records.

Six

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that what a winking smiley means?

Ok, edited it for you.

Too late. I've already seen it and have etched it in stone. Your post is forever destined not to be taken seriously.

[Senator]

Too late. I've already seen it and have etched it in stone. Your post is forever destined not to be taken seriously.

Bummer

[Senator]

I think you misunderstand my point.

I don't care what other people or religions do with designating the membership status of ancestors as it relates to THEIR church records.

However, I don't think that under any circumstances anyone has the right to demand that the LDS Church remove anyone from OUR records.

Six

They have a right to "demand" till the cows come home. Unless there's been something illegal done, the church then has the right to either ignore them, or not.

[Senator]

Since you have defined a winking smiley as meaning "not to be taken seriously," I reserve the option not to take your posts seriously if they have winking smileys.

By the way, there's another meaning for the winking smiley, "a catch, or some subtle understanding"

[Scott Lloyd]

They have a right to "demand" till the cows come home. Unless there's been something illegal done, the church then has the right to either ignore them, or not.

I think the question is whether they have rational or ethical standing to make such demands. I maintain that they don't.

[jwhitlock]

I don't agree with that at all.

Whether you agree or not is up to you. However, I've articulated very clearly why the claimed "wounding" being the fault of the Church did not appear to be valid.

If you can supply evidence of a Church action that wounds everyone consistently - just like a bullet would - then your disagreement might become something other than just an unsubstantiated opinion.

[handys003]

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

You dont get to choose? How trollish is that? Everyone has a right to choose. Wheter others like the choice right or wrong. This isn't a ditatorship. Get a grip on reality. If you went into an opposing crowd and said your not taking that stance. You make a choice. Be prpepared for reprocussions of your actions. However everyone chooses.

[handys003]

Jesus died for the remission of EVERYONE'S sins. How come THE CHURCH doesn't simply baptize ONE person as proxy for EVERYONE who ever lived before? That would cover everyone and then there would be no need for the busy-work of geneology and proxy baptisms.

Do you understand the concept of the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms? Being baptized in Christs name is not enough to move to the CK as each individual name is counted among the book of life..

[Kristine]

So did your Catholic friend invite you to their heaven? There are no WoW in their universe. I was tempted one time, but my wife gave me that look.

You know, I want to laugh at this as it is funny, but I have never understood the fascination with alcohol. Unless you meant the other forbiddens. I admit to lingering inside the Starbucks with my hot cocoa...

[Kristine]

I don't think LDS people baptize your ancestors in the way you think of it. You would be well served to reread the thread and learn what is meant by the LDS term baptizing for the dead.

Let's say I plan a feast, invite hundreds of guests, and then make food for each who I have invited. Many of the invitees do not show up. Am I still 'feeding' those who decline the invitation and are absent? Would somebody be justified in their indignation that I invited, and prepared a plate for, one of their relatives who decided not to show? Would it be reasonable for somebody to be offended that somebody else was merely invited?

If you invite my cousin to a birthday party and prepare for him a treat bag, then wouldn't it seem silly if I were to be offended, whether or not the cousin decides to take up the invitation?

Well, let's see... If your cousin had been egregiously (yes, that's what I said) offended by the person who was offering the treat bag, and you yourself had been equally offended and were the only one who could speak for your cousin, and you felt that the contents of the treat bag were only shoving the proverbial knife in your and your cousins backs regarding the first offense, then I'd say the probability would be yes. You would be offended. For yourself, and for your cousin.

Especially when the offender doesn't give a crap and is certain that there is no way you could ever be right, completely invalidates anything you believe in, and treats you like an idiot for having any feelings about anything at all, telling you you have no right to feel that way anyway.

[Kristine]

My understanding is that the policy does not preclude a grandchild or some future direct-line descendant from submitting the name for temple work.

Last I heard it was closest living. My uncle had to ask his late brother's wife for permission. He didn't.

[Kristine]

Very well reasoned.

I find arguments that agree with mine also very well reasoned.

[jwhitlock]

Well, let's see... If your cousin had been egregiously (yes, that's what I said) offended by the person who was offering the treat bag, and you yourself had been equally offended and were the only one who could speak for your cousin, and you felt that the contents of the treat bag were only shoving the proverbial knife in your and your cousins backs regarding the first offense, then I'd say the probability would be yes. You would be offended. For yourself, and for your cousin.

Especially when the offender doesn't give a crap and is certain that there is no way you could ever be right, completely invalidates anything you believe in, and treats you like an idiot for having any feelings about anything at all, telling you you have no right to feel that way anyway.

Except, of course, that that's probably not the way it really happened; instead those who chose to be offended did so beforehand, and it didn't matter what the "offending party" did. It was going to be wrong, and it was going to be misrepresented, and hyped in the worst way possible.

You know, with this piece of creative writing, you've really lost any credibility at all in this discussion over what happened. This is pretty much a hyped up "I'm offended and I'm going to rationalize being offended in the worst way possible" scenario you've painted here. Not particularly balanced, nor particularly related to reality.

It's far more likely that the treat bag was offered, and kicked back in the face of the giver with some sort of "your existence offends me" kind of mentality. Your post raises some real flags about how justified this particular claimed offense is.

[Kristine]

Whether you agree or not is up to you. However, I've articulated very clearly why the claimed "wounding" being the fault of the Church did not appear to be valid.

If you can supply evidence of a Church action that wounds everyone consistently - just like a bullet would - then your disagreement might become something other than just an unsubstantiated opinion.

I think we're talking about different things, j. It's not like she hired a lawyer for punitives.

[bluebell]

Well, let's see... If your cousin had been egregiously (yes, that's what I said) offended by the person who was offering the treat bag, and you yourself had been equally offended and were the only one who could speak for your cousin, and you felt that the contents of the treat bag were only shoving the proverbial knife in your and your cousins backs regarding the first offense, then I'd say the probability would be yes. You would be offended. For yourself, and for your cousin.

Especially when the offender doesn't give a crap and is certain that there is no way you could ever be right, completely invalidates anything you believe in, and treats you like an idiot for having any feelings about anything at all, telling you you have no right to feel that way anyway.

Is there justification to be offended by the offering of a treat bag? Is the offense worthy of the response? Is it worthy of the offender changing their actions over, or is it one of those issues wehre you just have to say 'i'm sorry you're offended but that's not something that i can control and i'm not going to let your emotions hold me prisoner'?

I agree that we need to react with respect (which isn't always done) and that we need to be sensitive (again, some people are pretty bad at empathy) but let's face it, all adults know that not every offended person has justification to be offended. We've all had experiences with those kinds of people. I think these kinds of discussions tend to go off in the ditch when someone tries to assert that every emotion is equally valid to the person the emotion is being directed towards. I don't think you have done that Kristine but i'm speaking more from past experiences with the topic

I think that's the issue. People are going to be offended at all sorts of things. Are their feelings justification for someone to change what they've done or were going to do though, that's the question.

So, do you think the person in your analogy would be justified in being offended by the offering of a treat bag to a relative if the offering was sincere and done out of love?

[Kristine]

Except, of course, that that's probably not the way it really happened; instead those who chose to be offended did so beforehand, and it didn't matter what the "offending party" did.

Well, you can't speak to her dead relatives, but you are welcome to email her. And I don't know... I'm pretty offended by polygamy, and I haven't lived it. I would be pretty upset if someone tried to seal me to a man who already had a bunch of wives.

It was going to be wrong, and it was going to be misrepresented, and hyped in the worst way possible.

Why?

You know, with this piece of creative writing, you've really lost any credibility at all in this discussion over what happened. This is pretty much a hyped up "I'm offended and I'm going to rationalize being offended in the worst way possible" scenario you've painted here. Not particularly balanced, nor particularly related to reality.

Why not? I'm only giving an example of what I was told. I made none of it up. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not, on BOTH sides of the fence.

It's far more likely that the treat bag was offered, and kicked back in the face of the giver with some sort of "your existence offends me" kind of mentality. Your post raises some real flags about how justified this particular claimed offense is.

Yes. Our existence does offend her. She is a product of us, and a very painful part. I don't know you, j. I don't know your views on the doctrines, but they are offensive to many. No one is claiming right or wrong. It is what it is. If you don't agree, that doesn't make wrong how she feels. We have been counseled to respect that. You're not just disagreeing with her on this.

[Kristine]

Is there justification to be offended by the offering of a treat bag? Is the offense worthy of the response? Is it worthy of the offender changing their actions over, or is it one of those issues wehre you just have to say 'i'm sorry you're offended but that's not something that i can control and i'm not going to let your emotions hold me prisoner'?

I agree that we need to react with respect (which isn't always done) and that we need to be sensitive (again, some people are pretty bad at empathy) but let's face it, all adults know that not every offended person has justification to be offended. We've all had experiences with those kinds of people. I think these kinds of discussions tend to go off in the ditch when someone tries to assert that every emotion is equally valid to the person the emotion is being directed towards. I don't think you have done that Kristine but i'm speaking more from past experiences with the topic

I think that's the issue. People are going to be offended at all sorts of things. Are their feelings justification for someone to change what they've done or were going to do though, that's the question.

So, do you think the person in your analogy would be justified in being offended by the offering of a treat bag to a relative if the offering was sincere and done out of love?

Well that's just the point, isn't it? I have NO RIGHT to decide whether or not anyone is justified, do I? So, why do you think the church has a policy about this? Because we are curteous, as selek said? Are we "lying for the Lord" again? Making sure it gets done on our time table and then pretending to undo it?

I don't really want any part of deception. I will be baptized for the dead all the live long day until my fingers get all pruny, as long as I've done it all on the up and up, without telling people how they should or shouldn't feel.

[Kristine]

They have a right to "demand" till the cows come home. Unless there's been something illegal done, the church then has the right to either ignore them, or not.

deleted because I ate crow.

[bluebell]

Well that's just the point, isn't it? I have NO RIGHT to decide whether or not anyone is justified, do I?

Of course you do-humans do it all the time.

For example, have you ever wished someone a 'happy holiday' and have them say that you offended them by not wishing them a 'Mery Christmas'? If such a thing occurred, and you continued to wish people a 'happy holiday', you have then decided that the person's offense wasn't justified. After all, if it was a 'just' response you wouldn't continue to act in an offensive way on purpose, right?

Another example, have you had a homosexual person tell you that your beliefs that homosexuality was not condoned of God offended them? (or the reverse, have you ever had a straight person tell you that your support of the homosexual lifestyle was offense to them?) If you have, did that cause you to change your beliefs? If that reaction didn't cause you to change your beliefs then that means you have decided that that person's feelings about your beliefs weren't justified.

Have you ever told your child to stop crying when they threw a fit because they didn't get the sucker they wanted or to eat at chucky-cheese? Ever tell your teenager to stop being hysterical because they made a choice which got them grounded from the phone? Once again, that is a judgement you have made on the feelings of your child. You have decided that their reaction was not justified.

It sounds good to say 'what right do i have to decide whether someone's feelings are justified? but it's not accurate. We do it all the time whenever we think someone is being unreasonable in the expression of their feelings.

Is the reason you won't answer this question, and continue to relate it to your friend, because you know that actually being offended by the offering of a treat bag would be an unreasonable response?

So, why do you think the church has a policy about this?

Because the church is trying to be curteous and because the church knows it will get done eventually anyway (and i don't mean that it will be done in a devious manner but because we believe that everyone's work will be done before the millenium is over).

I don't really want any part of deception. I will baptize all the live long day until my fingers get all pruny, as long as I've done it all on the up and up,

I completely agree, but i havent' said anything about doing something deceptively, have i? That's a conversation you had with someone else. You've moved beyond the point of my post to you.

without telling people how they should or shouldn't feel.

Aren't you telling certain people in this thread right now how they should feel in regards to your friend? I mean, haven't you decided already that their reaction to your friend is unjustified?

See what i mean about how we do it all the time, most of the time without even realizing it?

[Kristine]

is it one of those issues wehre you just have to say 'i'm sorry you're offended but that's not something that i can control and i'm not going to let your emotions hold me prisoner'?

I think these kinds of discussions tend to go off in the ditch when someone tries to assert that every emotion is equally valid to the person the emotion is being directed towards. I don't think you have done that Kristine but i'm speaking more from past experiences with the topic

I think that's the issue. People are going to be offended at all sorts of things. Are their feelings justification for someone to change what they've done or were going to do though, that's the question.

So, do you think the person in your analogy would be justified in being offended by the offering of a treat bag to a relative if the offering was sincere and done out of love?

I think if one believed the offering was sincere and out of love, this would be a whole new ball game. I think too many people decide that everyone SHOULD believe that it is done sincerely and out of love. But the truth is, some do not.

I am the first to say that I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe in baptisms for the dead.

I also believe that our time table is not God's, all will work out in the end, and that I will love and respect my neighbor. If these baptisms were guaranteed NEVER to happen unless I did them right now, I would do it.

If I do something that offends someone when I intended no offense AND I DIDN'T KNOW they would be offended, I would say sorry and try to make it right, but I would not take responsibility for the offense.

If I do something that I know would deeply offend someone, and I was told by my church leaders not to do it, and I did it anyway, I would feel sorry, say sorry, take responsibility for myself, and try to make it right.

[Kristine]

Of course you do-humans do it all the time.

For example, have you ever wished someone a 'happy holiday' and have them say that you offended them by not wishing them a 'Mery Christmas'? If such a thing occurred, and you continued to wish people a 'happy holiday', you have then decided that the person's offense wasn't justified. After all, if it was a 'just' response you wouldn't continue to act in an offensive way on purpose, right?

If I decided it wasn't a just response? What if I didn't? Then I would apologize and do my best to remember to wish that person a Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays.

But if I decided that they shouldn't have been offended, then I would just keep wishing them Happy Holidays, or baptizing their ancestors without permission. But I still think it's none of my business whether or not I think they should have been offended. Only that they were.

Another example, have you had a homosexual person tell you that your beliefs that homosexuality was not condoned of God offended them?

Yes.

(or the reverse, have you ever had a straight person tell you that your support of the homosexual lifestyle was offense to them?)

Yes. Even though I don't support a homosexual lifestyle. I've also been told this by celibate Mormon homosexuals, even though I don't support a homosexual lifestyle. Kind of like what's happening on this thread, I suppose.

If you have, did that cause you to change your beliefs?

No on both counts.

If that reaction didn't cause you to change your beliefs then that means you have decided that that person's feelings about your beliefs weren't justified.

I think their feelings are none of my business. I think my feelings are none of their business. I have no way to know where they are with God, life, themselves, or any other factor that would or would not justify their beliefs.

Have you ever told your child to stop crying when they threw a fit because they didn't get the sucker they wanted or to eat at chucky-cheese? Ever tell your teenager to stop being hysterical because they made a choice which got them grounded from the phone? Once again, that is a judgement you have made on the feelings of your child. You have decided that their reaction was not justified.

Yes, their reaction was not justified, but their feelings are off limits to my opinions. If the child pummels his or her brother, then that is not justified. The child is welcome to have the feelings and react to them in an appropriate way that does not harm anyone else. If the teenager wants to be hysterical they have to go to another room where they will not bother anyone. If they will not, then there will be consequences. They can have their feelings all they want.

It sounds good to say 'what right do i have to decide whether someone's feelings are justified? but it's not accurate. We do it all the time whenever we think someone is being unreasonable in the expression of their feelings.

Is the reason you won't answer this question, and continue to relate it to your friend, because you know that actually being offended by the offering of a treat bag would be an unreasonable response?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but if there is a question I'm not trying to avoid it. I guess I'm not clear on what the question is. And no, I don't think refusing the treat bag is unreasonable. All of our reactions are about us, not the other person, and most often the reactions stem from pain or fear. I care about my friend, and I respect her. I personally would not be offended if someone baptized me in their church by proxy. But I'm not her.

Because the church is trying to be curteous and because the church knows it will get done eventually anyway (and i don't mean that it will be done in a devious manner but because we believe that everyone's work will be done before the millenium is over).

I believe that I can respect my friend and that the work will get done. We don't always have to choose between commandments.

I completely agree, but i havent' said anything about doing something deceptively, have i? That's a conversation you had with someone else. You've moved beyond the point of my post to you.

No, you didn't. Senator did when he was talking to someone else in this thread. I didn't realize that you expected that I only respond to your comments. I'm sorry. I will do my best to make sure that I don't do that again.

Aren't you telling certain people in this thread right now how they should feel in regards to your friend? I mean, haven't you decided already that their reaction to your friend is unjustified?

See what i mean about how we do it all the time, most of the time without even realizing it?

Yes, I am. I guess I hold Mormon's to a higher standard than the rest of the world because of what we proclaim. But I guess I have no right to. I guess maybe we are both wrong.