Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Kristine]

Platnium rule? We follow the words of men mingled with scripture?

I know what I want. I want to be a billionaire. Can you or HF satisfy that? I pray to HF to help become one. However I don't always get what I want because it's not what I need as determined by HF. This is a sales approach subject to the feel, felt, found principle as discussed in the Psychology of Selling. It is a variation of such, and a good marketing gimmick to ta shell out a few bucks to listen to this diatribe in motivational seminars for suckers. This Platinum rule is for the ways of men and to part your money for a service or product. In caters to the narccissitic tendancies inside us all. Has nothing to do with spiritual.

Handy, I think you know quite well I never intended to quote the Platinum Rule as scripture.

I know where the rule came from, and I know it has been used for selling. Do you remember the Missionary Guide? I don't know Preach My Gospel nearly as well, but the Church uses the same techniques. If it is done with the spirit of service, it is hardly a gimmick.

It is still funny to me that these same kinds of arguments can be applied to the Golden Rule. Ya'll know what I mean by the Platinum Rule. Like I said, we use it in mediation. Rarely is any negotiation about "the facts at hand". It's about the person and what is important to them. When that is discovered, an agreement can be made where both parties are happy because the agreement is of their own design. Much better than a judge deciding for them what they want. And statistically, mediation agreements are more often followed through because the parties decided for themselves what they wanted, and thus are more willing to stick to it.

I think it would be wise to be more willing to negotiate. Long-term benefits...

[handys003]

Handy, I think you know quite well I never intended to quote the Platinum Rule as scripture.

Whew! I was getting worried there.

I know where the rule came from, and I know it has been used for selling. Do you remember the Missionary Guide? I don't know Preach My Gospel nearly as well, but the Church uses the same techniques. If it is done with the spirit of service, it is hardly a gimmick.

Was never a missionary. Convert 10 years ago at age 39. However it is a gimmick as the invention of a salesman. I would frown upon such notion, and if it's inferred in Preach My Gospel (which I'll take a look Sunday) Somebody's gonna catch an earful.

It is still funny to me that these same kinds of arguments can be applied to the Golden Rule. Y'all know what I mean by the Platinum Rule. Like I said, we use it in mediation. Rarely is any negotiation about "the facts at hand". It's about the person and what is important to them. When that is discovered, an agreement can be made where both parties are happy because the agreement is of their own design. Much better than a judge deciding for them what they want. And statistically, mediation agreements are more often followed through because the parties decided for themselves what they wanted, and thus are more willing to stick to it.

I think it would be wise to be more willing to negotiate. Long-term benefits...

Platinum rule is fine in temporal (mans) situation of obtaining goods, but it's not in ways of Spiritual. We don't mediate/negotiate with HF. His authority and word is final.

LOL! This is racing through my mind.

Oh God the Eternal Father,

I tell you what,

If you let me get the business loan for my new business concept,

I will be more obedient and do more proactive missionary work,

that is a deal then?

I covenant with thee this new deal, Mahalo ala nui and Amen.

Yeah like the Platinum rule will work then.

Not!

ROFL!

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand the concepts very well, having 14 Mormon (I'm SO glad it's OK to use that name again!) pioneer ancestors ....

Not to derail my own thread, but it never was not OK to use that name in usages such as "Mormon pioneer ancestors." I don't know where you got the idea it was.

Incidentally, having a specified ancestry is not necessarily an automatic indicator of understanding. My Lloyd family name is Welsh, but I know very little about Wales. I've never been there, and I've never paid the price in book learning to have more than a marginal acquaintance with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why not [apply the same logic to the golden rule]?

Theoretically, someone with decent principles would not expect or require from others something that was immoral, harmful, illicit, patronizing, etc. Hence, that person would not do such things for others.

The platinum rule doesn't mean you become someone's puppet. And no one gets to "require" behavior, as nothing is "required" nor puppeted with the Golden Rule.

In this context, you seem to be justifying or rationalizing the accommodation of others in their irrational, ill-informed prejudices. I don't think that does anyone a favor, not in any substantial sense.

Sometimes the Golden Rule is just sugar coated narcissism.

Not in the spirit that Christ taught it.

Well, why don't you enlighten me.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have never argued that we give up a substantial measure of religious liberty. Simply that our diplomatic effort to educate does not need to invalidate others reasons for offense.

If the reason for offense is, in fact, already invalid, then any honest effort to educate will make that clear in the short or long run, no matter how diplomatically it is framed.

[emeliza]

BIZ: What if my cousin told you firmly, well in advance of you creating the guest list and sending out the invites, that he would not be attending the wedding and to cross him off the list and not bother preparing a treat bag for him? That he appreciates the thought and wishes everyone well, but that he will NOT be attending, so sorry!

Under these conditions, my cousin should not be sent an invite to the wedding, as he should NOT be on the guest list,thus no treat bag need be prepared for him and he will not be "absent". He decided IN ADVANCE he would not be attending and notified you of it in time for you to NOT INVITE HIM, hence you can now invite someone else who MAY want to, or be able to, attend instead.

Wouldn't it be foolish and a waste of time and effort to put him on the guest list, send him an invite, and prepare a treat bag for him? KNOWING he would not be there, no matter how much you might want him to?

No, not necessarily. I am sending invites for my wedding to people I know will not attend. I have relatives that live far away and I am making sure I invite them, even the ones who have told me in advance they can't come. I have one family who has told my fiance and I that they won't go even though they live nearby (they are mad at us), but I am making sure they still get an invite. This is so they will feel included and that they also can't say they were never invited or given the opportunity. It puts the choice of their attendance on them and let's them know we were thinking of them. If they all show up miraculously, great. If they don't, that is fine too. But I definitely think they should be invited.

[Senator]

If the reason for offense is, in fact, already invalid...

Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Others will simply not agree us. That is a given. All the more the the need for long suffering, kindness and gentle persuasion.

[Jeff K.]

The validation of the reason depends upon mutually acceptable reasons that are decided by parties discussing the issue, and the creation of context, it can be cultural, legal, political and so on....

At one time discrimination of skin color was a valid reason, it is no longer so.

At one time the lack of an education was not considered a valid reason in some quarters, today that is not so.

At one time a distinction to men and women and their primary differences in perception was valid, and invalid, and not it is invalid and valid, or in flux.

You would need to establish some mutually acceptable grounds.

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

No. It is not presumptuous to say one has no standing to take offense over a private religious ritual

[Scott Lloyd]

No, not necessarily. I am sending invites for my wedding to people I know will not attend. I have relatives that live far away and I am making sure I invite them, even the ones who have told me in advance they can't come. I have one family who has told my fiance and I that they won't go even though they live nearby (they are mad at us), but I am making sure they still get an invite. This is so they will feel included and that they also can't say they were never invited or given the opportunity. It puts the choice of their attendance on them and let's them know we were thinking of them. If they all show up miraculously, great. If they don't, that is fine too. But I definitely think they should be invited.

Another good analogy.

[Senator]

We can try to be longsuffering, kind and gently persuasive, but in the end, the honest conclusion, and ideally, the recognized fact, will be that there is no validity for objections to Mormon proxy temple ordinances, properly understood.

Very well Scott. I do not care to go around and around with you over this. I could end with the oft used phrase "we'll just have to agree to disagree", even though I sense you would not agree with my disagreement, for it being invalid, irrational and all. Oh well...tis life.

[Scott Lloyd]

Very well Scott. I do not care to go around and around with you over this. I could end with the oft used phrase "we'll just have to agree to disagree", even though I sense you would not agree with my disagreement, for it being invalid, irrational and all. Oh well...tis life.

If agreeing to disagree means in general that Latter-day Saints will be left in peace to continue practicing their harmless proxy temple ordinance work unhindered and unmolested, I suppose I can be content with that.

[Senator]

If agreeing to disagree means in general that Latter-day Saints will be left in peace to continue practicing their harmless proxy temple ordinance work unhindered and unmolested, I suppose I can be content with that.

It means to accept a state of disagreement, while not reaching a reconciliation of the particulars of the disagreement.

[Jeff K.]

I think this afternoon I will go into my house, and invoke the name of my neighbors dad and thus insult her by saying the name of her dead father.

[Scott Lloyd]

It means to accept a state of disagreement, while not reaching a reconciliation of the particulars of the disagreement.

I know what it means. If accepting a state of disagreement means that people will stop meddling in the private religious affairs of Mormons, I'm fine with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this afternoon I will go into my house, and invoke the name of my neighbors dad and thus insult her by saying the name of her dead father.

But... but... [gasps, sputters, blinks,] how arrogant of you!

[Senator]

I know what it means. If accepting a state of disagreement means that people will stop meddling in the private religious affairs of Mormons, I'm fine with that.

So, people must agree with you in order for the disagreement to be cool with you? That's a nifty arrangement you've got going there.

[Kristine]

Theoretically, someone with decent principles would not expect or require from others something that was immoral, harmful, illicit, patronizing, etc. Hence, that person would not do such things for others.

Applicable to the Golden Rule, but reversed.

In this context, you seem to be justifying or rationalizing the accommodation of others in their irrational, ill-informed prejudices. I don't think that does anyone a favor, not in any substantial sense.

That would be the essence of the thread topic. 11 pages later... and I still find myself surprised.

Not in the spirit that Christ taught it.

How did Christ teach it?

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.

So, you're not even doing this because you think it's best? You're only doing this to prove a point that no one can tell Mormons what they can or cannot do?

[Kristine]

I think this afternoon I will go into my house, and invoke the name of my neighbors dad and thus insult her by saying the name of her dead father.

Boo.

[Kristine]

Was never a missionary. Convert 10 years ago at age 39. However it is a gimmick as the invention of a salesman. I would frown upon such notion, and if it's inferred in Preach My Gospel (which I'll take a look Sunday) Somebody's gonna catch an earful.

I didn't say the church copied a "salesman" technique called The Platinum Rule. I said they use the same approach in the spirit of service in the Missionary Guide. When one is providing value, there is nothing gimmiky about it. Not all selling is manipulation.

Platinum rule is fine in temporal (mans) situation of obtaining goods, but it's not in ways of Spiritual. We don't mediate/negotiate with HF. His authority and word is final.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I didn't say anything about negotiating with HF. I'm talking about negotiating with his son's and daughters who are offended by some of our practices.

LOL! This is racing through my mind.

Oh God the Eternal Father,

I tell you what,

If you let me get the business loan for my new business concept,

I will be more obedient and do more proactive missionary work,

that is a deal then?

I covenant with thee this new deal, Mahalo ala nui and Amen.

Yeah like the Platinum rule will work then.

Not!

ROFL!

Oh dear.

[jwhitlock]

If so, such disagreement is irrational. That's what I've been saying all along. Disagreement does not automatically carry validity; it has to be based on sound logic, reason and informed understanding. I see all three of these characteristics lacking in typical objections to proxy temple ordinances.

And yet I don't think this fact is sinking in.

[selek]

I'm talking about negotiating with his son's and daughters who are offended by some of our practices.

A negotiation involves compromise.

Which of our God given rights and mandates are you willing to throw upon the bargaining table?

...and precisely how cheaply are you willing to sell your birthright?

A mess of pottage?

A little whine?

Or is the approbation of Babylon sufficient to buy you?

You keep insisting that the Church- and the faithful who reside therein- should bow and scrape before the pomp of Babylon- but you never tell us precisely why we should.

Their feelings and objections are not valid simply because they are held.

"Cuz I feel that way" or "Cuz I want it" doesn't cut it in adult discourse.

My step-father harbored an irrational resentment of everyone who's skin wasn't the same color as his. He routinely slandered and despised ethnic minorities as "dirty", "unkempt", "ignorant" and "stupid"- and was unwilling to be told otherwise, nor would he address facts that were contrary to his deeply-cherished prejudices.

Should we respect and validate his bigotry just because it was valid "to him"?

If not, then why should we respect and validate the bigotry of those who demand we stop a Temple practice they neither understand nor care to and which is not harming them one jot, one tittle, or one iota?

I've grown weary of your antics.

Instead of playing cutesy games and dancing around the issue, please tell us the precise moral and legal grounds upon which these apostates, sons of Perdition, and ignorant bigots may demand that we cease a practice that does them no harm whatever.

You want to be loved by Babylon and her myriad whores- and seem willing to throw the Church (and our ancestors) under the bus to get it.

My price is somewhat higher.

[ERayR]

A negotiation involves compromise.

Which of our God given rights and mandates are you willing to throw upon the bargaining table?

...and precisely how cheaply are you willing to sell your birthright?

A mess of pottage?

A little whine?

Or is the approbation of Babylon sufficient to buy you?

You keep insisting that the Church- and the faithful who reside therein- should bow and scrape before the pomp of Babylon- but you never tell us precisely why we should.

Their feelings and objections are not valid simply because they are held.

"Cuz I feel that way" or "Cuz I want it" doesn't cut it in adult discourse.

My step-father harbored an irrational resentment of everyone who's skin wasn't the same color as his. He routinely slandered and despised ethnic minorities as "dirty", "unkempt", "ignorant" and "stupid"- and was unwilling to be told otherwise, nor would he address facts that were contrary to his deeply-cherished prejudices.

Should we respect and validate his bigotry just because it was valid "to him"?

If not, then why should we respect and validate the bigotry of those who demand we stop a Temple practice they neither understand nor care to and which is not harming them one jot, one tittle, or one iota?

I've grown weary of your antics.

Instead of playing cutesy games and dancing around the issue, please tell us the precise moral and legal grounds upon which these apostates, sons of Perdition, and ignorant bigots may demand that we cease a practice that does them no harm whatever.

You want to be loved by Babylon and her myriad whores- and seem willing to throw the Church (and our ancestors) under the bus to get it.

My price is somewhat higher.

Selek your analysis is spot on.

Kristine why do you insist on selling your birthright and insist on dragging the rest of us with you?

[Kristine]

I could end with the oft used phrase "we'll just have to agree to disagree", even though I sense you would not agree with my disagreement, for it being invalid, irrational and all. Oh well...tis life.

I agree to agree with the Senator.

[Kristine]

Kristine why do you insist on selling your birthright and insist on dragging the rest of us with you?

Quite the accusation, ERayR. How exactly am I dragging you anywhere?