Cobalt-70 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Unfortunately there are some who would disagree, that believe in no case should even a relation do the work.That's the point when they become unreasonable.
stemelbow Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 Why would anyone be embassed for practicing Baptism for the dead and Temple work?I don't think anyone should be. But to blatantly disrespect the guidelines of the Church in submitting names only to have Radkey point out the descrepancy, seems to be embarrassing to me, if that is indeed happening. Just follow the guidelines. There's no reason to rebelliously disrespect them.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I don't think anyone should be. But to blatantly disrespect the guidelines of the Church in submitting names only to have Radkey point out the descrepancy, seems to be embarrassing to me, if that is indeed happening. Just follow the guidelines. There's no reason to rebelliously disrespect them.It is embarrassing because it ostensibly appears the Church is not living up to its agreement. Those who violate the policy bring the Church of Jesus Christ into disrepute by their actions, and they should be severely reprimanded. If they are unrepentant, their membership status should be evaluated by a disciplinary council. Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 It is embarrassing because it ostensibly appears the Church is not living up to its agreement. Those who violate the policy bring the Church of Jesus Christ into disrepute by their actions, and they should be severely reprimanded.+1
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that they may be baptized by proxy for deceased ancestors who never had that opportunity.The policy of the Church is that members can request these baptisms only for their own ancestors. Proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited.In this case, the Wiesel family names were not submitted for baptisms but simply entered into a genealogical database. Our system would have rejected those names had they been submitted.In a few instances, names have been submitted in violation of policy. Whether this is done by simple error or for other reasons, the Church considers these submissions to be a serious breach of protocol.It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the Church's policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention. The Church will continue to do all it can to prevent such instances, including denying access to these genealogical records or other privileges to those who abuse them in this way.http://www.mormonnew...ogical-databaseI think this answers most of the issues raised, including a system which rejects the names submitted for ordinance work, and the penalty for attempting to circumvent systems. Edited February 16, 2012 by Jeff K. 1
blueadept Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 http://www.mormonnew...ogical-databaseI think this answers most of the issues raised, including a system which rejects the names submitted for ordinance work, and the penalty for attempting to circumvent systems.For those non-LDS folks who desire to be at least congenial with our LDS bretheren, understanding the process that LDS take to do the work definitely helps in this being a non-issue for me even if I disagree with the practice. I am now ready to defend your right and at least explain that it is a gift that you are offering that can be accepted or rejected in regards to talking to others if the subject comes up.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 http://www.mormonnew...ogical-databaseI think this answers most of the issues raised, including a system which rejects the names submitted for ordinance work, and the penalty for attempting to circumvent systems.The phrase "or other privileges" in the last line of the statement is significant, I think.
ERayR Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 For those non-LDS folks who desire to be at least congenial with our LDS bretheren, understanding the process that LDS take to do the work definitely helps in this being a non-issue for me even if I disagree with the practice. I am now ready to defend your right and at least explain that it is a gift that you are offering that can be accepted or rejected in regards to talking to others if the subject comes up.Thank you.
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 The policy of the Church is that members can request these baptisms only for their own ancestors. Proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited.The prohibition against Family members performing proxy work for their ancestors who are Holocaust victims is new. This prohibition was not in place the last time Helen reared her head - which was just a few years ago.
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 The prohibition against Family members performing proxy work for their ancestors who are Holocaust victims is new. This prohibition was not in place the last time Helen reared her head - which was just a few years ago.We don't know that. For all we know, given her hatred of the church, it could have been conveniently ignored. It certainly was not brought up by her recently.
J Green Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Elie Wiesel weighs in, arguing that Romney should have spoken out on this issue by now.http://www.haaretz.c...f-jews-1.413269
KevinG Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Calls for Romney to address this issue are pure politics. Romney is not a spokesperson for the LDS Church. He is a member of the LDS Church.When will Gingrich be asked about wayward Catholic Priests, or Santorum be called to provide answers for Southern Baptists resistance against school integration?Romneys run is turning into an excuse to give Mormon culture a root canal. sheesh!
LeSellers Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 When will ... Santorum be called to provide answers for Southern Baptists resistance against school integration?Never, I hope. Santorum is a Catholic.Lehi 1
KevinG Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Never, I hope. Santorum is a Catholic.LehiOops...
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) The prohibition against Family members performing proxy work for their ancestors who are Holocaust victims is new. This prohibition was not in place the last time Helen reared her head - which was just a few years ago.There is no such prohibition. Direct-line descendants of Holocaust victims can still have the baptisms performed for those ancestors. I don't know who you're quoting here, but I think you misunderstood.Add on: I now see that you are quoting the Feb. 14 Church statement. I still think you have misunderstood it. Here's a passage from the temple submisison policies on the New FamilySearch website:Restricted SubmissionsChurch members should not submit individuals that they are not related to (with the exception of close friends as described above). This includes:Famous people.Those gathered from unapproved extraction projects.Jewish Holocaust victims. Members cannot do the ordinances for Jewish Holocaust victims except under the following conditions:They are an immediate family member of the deceased (defined as parents, spouse, or children), orThey have permission of all living immediate family members, orThey have permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living. Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 It is embarrassing because it ostensibly appears the Church is not living up to its agreement.Then there's the claims that Mickey Mouse and other fictional characters have had their work done from them. It holds the ordinance up to mockery.
Calm Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Elie Wiesel weighs in, arguing that Romney should have spoken out on this issue by now.http://www.haaretz.c...f-jews-1.413269Right, because if certain Saints won't listen to their prophet and other leaders who have asked them not to submit inappropriate names (making it an explicit church policy they have to check they will abide by in order to use the system in the first place), having a politician call them on it will be so helpful. I say let's get the Osmonds, David Archuleta, Jimmer, Steven Covey and Bronco Mendenhall out there making sure that no one crosses the line. Edited February 16, 2012 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Right, because if certain Saints won't listen to their prophet and other leaders who have asked them not to submit inappropriate names (making it an explicit church policy they have to check they will abide by in order to use the system in the first place), having a politician call them on it will be so helpful. I say let's get the Osmonds, David Archuleta, Jimmer, Steven Covey and Bronco Mendenhall out there making sure that no one crosses the line.I'm unclear on what it is Wiesel thinks Romney should say about it. That the unapproved baptisms should not have happened? The Church itself acknowledges that.Or does Wiesel agree with the intemperate remarks expressed within the past few days by some in the Jewish community on this issue intimating that the Church should discontinue the practice of baptisms for the dead outright. I find such a sentiment to be manifestly intolerant.By the way, I note that the interviewer who elicited this comment from Wiesel is the anti-Mormon bigot Larry O'Donnel. You've heard of push-polling; I suspect that this is push-interviewing. Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 The Jewish religion and culture has survived through the ages by not allowing to the best of their ability nonJews to dictate to them how to live their religious faith and create their culture. I don't think many would feel that it was a sign of tolerance or appropriate for someone to demand or even suggest that they cease Passover because it celebrates the death of nonbelievers (a misinterpretation) or that they stop engaging in circumcision because of the perceived harm toward the infant.
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Scott,Yes I was quoting Church Official Statement. It says Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited, which would seems to trump the submission policies you presented. The submission policies you presented is what the policy was last time helen made a big to do about lds proxy work and holocaust victims.
Calm Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) From 2008:http://www.mormonnew...news-statementsThe Church stands by its word. It has no intention of performing baptisms or other rites in its temples for Holocaust victims, except in the very rare instances where such people may have living descendants who are members of the Church. Such exceptions were noted and agreed to in 1995. The understanding reached in 1995 determined that the Church would remove Holocaust names from its public database immediately, which the Church has done. It further said that Jewish groups would provide to the Church any names that reappeared on the database so the Church could remove them.Current statement:The policy of the Church is that members can request these baptisms only for their own ancestors. Proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited.Since it does not specify that Holocaust victims are an exception to the rule stated in the first sentence, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that means no proxy baptism of these victims whatsoever but think it is better to wait for clarification. Edited February 16, 2012 by calmoriah
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) calmoriah,Yes, the 2008 statement is what I remember. But the 2012 statement "strictly prohibits" baptism for Holocaust victims.this is not the first time, IMHO, that the Church PR machine has issued a statement that is not exactly kosher. Edited February 16, 2012 by frankenstein
Calm Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 calmoriah,Yes, the 2008 statement is what I remember. But the 2012 statement "strictly prohibits" baptism for Holocaust victims.this is not the first time, IMHO, that the Church PR machine has issued a statement that is not exactly kosher. I think it has given two contradictory statements so it is best to wait for clarification.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Scott,Yes I was quoting Church Official Statement. It says Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited, which would seems to trump the submission policies you presented. The submission policies you presented is what the policy was last time helen made a big to do about lds proxy work and holocaust victims.I think the most recent statement means the Holocaust-victim baptisms are strictly prohibited unless they fall under the very limited exceptions outlined on the official website new.familysearch.org. It doesn't ring true to me, for example, that a son or daughter would be prohibited from requesting baptisms for his/her own parents, even if those parents were Holocaust victims.I'm confident about my interpretation, but if you ask an authoritative source and get something to the contrary, I'm open to changing my understanding. Edited February 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Cobalt-70 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 The Church promised only to stop using lists of Holocaust victims for Name Extraction purposes. Individual Church members are still submitting names for Temple work. They are supposed to submit the names of their own ancestors, but it is impossible to actually police that.It isn't impossible. You just have to require that anybody who submits a name must be registered on the new FamilySearch. The church can verify, via new.familysearch.org, that the person who submits a name for temple work is a descendant of (or is perhaps once or twice removed from a descendant of) the person being submitted. Alternatively, if the person submitting the name does not have internet access, the church can require that they show a line of descendancy on paper, and make them sign it.
Recommended Posts