cinepro Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 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.It's not outside the realm of possibility that someone named "Mickey Mouse" could have had their work done for them.
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Per the earlier statement, they are indeed being tracked. As it is, it was input not for baptism but for genealogical purposes only......QuoteMembers 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.mormonnewsroom.org/article/jewish-names-entered-genealogical-databaseMeaning that it is being tracked, and the names were NOT being submitted for baptism.
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 It's not outside the realm of possibility that someone named "Mickey Mouse" could have had their work done for them.Then so are pigs falling from the sky, nothing is "outside the realm of impossibility" but it is also extremely unlikely or if you will significantly unlikely that such an event will occur. For one thing, bureaucracy makes it possible, but dedication to the ordinance within bureaucracy less so. I do know in the temple, that a name such as that would immediately raise flags, it isn't simply done and moved forward. It the temple you have many who take their responsibility with great seriousness and solemnity and joy. Nope, highly unlikely.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 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.Here's an update: I asked someone who is in a position to know. This person confirmed what I had already surmised: The policy has not changed. Immediate family members can still do the baptisms. The Newsroom release is just stating that those who are not an immediate family member are restricted from doing the baptisms.It is unfortunate that this Feb. 14 statement is not more carefully worded, but don't draw the wrong conclusion from it.
frankenstein Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Thanks Scott, as for not drawing the wrong conclusion...perhaps the church needs to reissue a statement that is clear.
Jeff K. Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Perhaps, but if you combine the earlier statement with that one, it does not contradict. There was no change in policy.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I've just posted another little item about baptism for the dead on my blog:http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/
wenglund Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I've just posted another little item about baptism for the dead on my blog:http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/For some people, reaching the zenith of banality presents quite a challenge, yet somehow Keith Oberman repeatedly makes it look quite effortless.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
frankenstein Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Perhaps, but if you combine the earlier statement with that one, it does not contradict. There was no change in policy.the earlier statement allows for baptism of holocaust vitcims. The current statement is a "strict prohibition" of baptizing holocaust victims.It does not make me apostate or a anti-mormon to point out that the PR machine has made a goof, and would do well to fix the goof.Radkey is already under the false impression, as are many other Jews, that the LDS prohibits the proxy work of holocaust victims - they all are under this false impression, despite the 1995 agreement which was reiterated in 2008 and posted by calmoriah I believe. Now, there can little room for doubt, the current statement is "strict prohibition" this is not a statement that, on its face, makes room for allowance. The Church needs to re-issue the statement clarifying when and IF proxy work for Holocaust victims is acceptable. As it stands, Helen Radkey now has all the right in the world to state the LDS Church has a "strict prohibition" against proxy work for holocaust victims.
cinepro Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Then so are pigs falling from the sky, nothing is "outside the realm of impossibility" but it is also extremely unlikely or if you will significantly unlikely that such an event will occur. For one thing, bureaucracy makes it possible, but dedication to the ordinance within bureaucracy less so. I do know in the temple, that a name such as that would immediately raise flags, it isn't simply done and moved forward. It the temple you have many who take their responsibility with great seriousness and solemnity and joy. Nope, highly unlikely.I'm not sure what you're saying.I was only pointing out that there are actual people (86, according to the linked website) with the name "Mickey Mouse". "Mickey" is a real first name, and "Mouse" is a real last name, so it would be possible for some parents with the last name "Mouse" to (cruelly) name their child "Mickey". People could also legitimately change their legal name to "Mickey Mouse".In either of these scenarios, such a person could have their work done for them, and it would be entirely appropriate and respectful of the ordinance. So, while there may have been fictional names sent through the system, I'm not sure we can say that work having been done for "Mickey Mouse" stands as proof of such a thing having occurred. Edited February 17, 2012 by cinepro
Daniel Peterson Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Incidentally, for what little it's worth:Apparently there's a claim in some anti-Mormon circles that the "Daily Beast/Newsweek" article about baptisms for the dead in which I was quoted has been yanked from the web. That having been established, a growing consensus has arisen among some critics that I'm the one who yanked it.The only question that remains, in such a case, is to determine my motivation for yanking it, and that's easily enough settled: I'm a coward, explain several of the critics, and I feared the consequences of what I had said.QED.Where all of this came from, I haven't the foggiest clue. I've just now checked, and the article is still up, quite intact:http://www.thedailyb...d-practice.html
volgadon Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Nevermind, apparently someone is actually using the title of Waugh's fictional daily. Edited February 18, 2012 by volgadon
Jeff K. Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 the earlier statement allows for baptism of holocaust vitcims. The current statement is a "strict prohibition" of baptizing holocaust victims.It does not make me apostate or a anti-mormon to point out that the PR machine has made a goof, and would do well to fix the goof.Radkey is already under the false impression, as are many other Jews, that the LDS prohibits the proxy work of holocaust victims - they all are under this false impression, despite the 1995 agreement which was reiterated in 2008 and posted by calmoriah I believe. Now, there can little room for doubt, the current statement is "strict prohibition" this is not a statement that, on its face, makes room for allowance. The Church needs to re-issue the statement clarifying when and IF proxy work for Holocaust victims is acceptable. As it stands, Helen Radkey now has all the right in the world to state the LDS Church has a "strict prohibition" against proxy work for holocaust victims.I think the earlier statement and the present one both strictly prohibit baptisms with the exception of family members. I do also agree with you, the public affairs department could have been more clear in their statement. If Radkey is against families doing the work, the question is what right does she have butting into someone elses family? Holocaust victims did not lose their families ties because of their victimization. Nor did they turn their families ties over to an organization.
Jeff K. Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 I'm not sure what you're saying.I was only pointing out that there are actual people (86, according to the linked website) with the name "Mickey Mouse". "Mickey" is a real first name, and "Mouse" is a real last name, so it would be possible for some parents with the last name "Mouse" to (cruelly) name their child "Mickey". People could also legitimately change their legal name to "Mickey Mouse".In either of these scenarios, such a person could have their work done for them, and it would be entirely appropriate and respectful of the ordinance. So, while there may have been fictional names sent through the system, I'm not sure we can say that work having been done for "Mickey Mouse" stands as proof of such a thing having occurred.My point is temple workers are zealous about getting it right, ie, making sure the name is real, versus, shall we say "animated".
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 The Church needs to re-issue the statement clarifying when and IF proxy work for Holocaust victims is acceptable. As it stands, Helen Radkey now has all the right in the world to state the LDS Church has a "strict prohibition" against proxy work for holocaust victims.As I've already indicated, I don't like the wording in the statement either. But the ambiguity is resolved by going to the page on FamilySearch.org to which I linked that gives the policies for names submission. The longer that page stays up unchanged, the more obvious it is that the conclusion to which you jumped -- that the Feb. 14 statement contradicts and "trumps" it -- is erroneous.
Calm Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 the earlier statement allows for baptism of holocaust vitcims. The current statement is a "strict prohibition" of baptizing holocaust victims.It does not make me apostate or a anti-mormon to point out that the PR machine has made a goof, and would do well to fix the goof.Radkey is already under the false impression, as are many other Jews, that the LDS prohibits the proxy work of holocaust victims - they all are under this false impression, despite the 1995 agreement which was reiterated in 2008 and posted by calmoriah I believe. Now, there can little room for doubt, the current statement is "strict prohibition" this is not a statement that, on its face, makes room for allowance. The Church needs to re-issue the statement clarifying when and IF proxy work for Holocaust victims is acceptable. As it stands, Helen Radkey now has all the right in the world to state the LDS Church has a "strict prohibition" against proxy work for holocaust victims.Are you going to write them? They ask for feedback and that includes correction. You seem very concerned about this.I've sent them something pointing out that a comment was confusing (and promptly forgot about it so I don't know if it was changed), but no one has come knocking at my door demanding my temple recommend yet.
Somebodyz Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Thank you.Though when you add their bured/married at the synogue it sorta gives it away. lolMy family is Jewish. The one thing that annoys me, is they way the Jews are spoken of, as if they all thought the same. Mine may be German/Polish, but when it comes to Jewish. Some lived their religion, some didn't.Some did,when it came to funerals, marriages, but nothing else. It was others that identified them as Jewish and put limits on who could do their work.
Calm Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Though when you add their bured/married at the synogue it sorta gives it away. lolMy family is Jewish. The one thing that annoys me, is they way the Jews are spoken of, as if they all thought the same. Mine may be German/Polish, but when it comes to Jewish. Some lived their religion, some didn't.Some did,when it came to funerals, marriages, but nothing else. It was others that identified them as Jewish and put limits on who could do their work.So are mine. German Jew as well, out of Baden-Baden, IIRC.
volgadon Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 So are mine. German Jew as well, out of Baden-Baden, IIRC.How very interesting, both of you. I found out that some of mine had been baptised and one was even a Greek Catholic clergyman.
Calm Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Unfortunately for me, so far....unless something has been changed in the last few years, the only knowledge of the family in Germany is from immigration information (a couple of sons went to England and then the US). There is uncertainty of that info, so they may have been from a different part of Germany.Now that I'm here in Utah, surrounded by experts and resources, I really need to get back into it. That line has been the only one neglected on either side because of the difficulty.
Jeff K. Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Though when you add their bured/married at the synogue it sorta gives it away. lolMy family is Jewish. The one thing that annoys me, is they way the Jews are spoken of, as if they all thought the same. Mine may be German/Polish, but when it comes to Jewish. Some lived their religion, some didn't.Some did,when it came to funerals, marriages, but nothing else. It was others that identified them as Jewish and put limits on who could do their work.The same, my people were on both sides of the border.
blarsen Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I went to the FB page for SW where several people had commented on the Mormons and their loony beliefs and condemning postmortem baptisms. I left a direct, frank comment. It did not last long and was summarily deleted. A more tolerant, enlightened group has seldom been found. For a group that demands tolerance of others, it is interesting that they have all the tolerance and intelligence of a rock. As a sometime practicing geologist and advocate of rocks, I take great offense to your comment implyiing that rocks have no tolerance and intelligence. On the contrary, rocks are some of the most long-suffering, tolerant portions of the creation in existence. They offer abosolutely no complaint to the most horrendous, calamitous usage of any portion of this creation. Any lack of tolerance they may show is simply part of their natural resistance to this ill useage, which is entirely passive They may be a little short in intelligence, but, come on, lack of tolerance?? 1
blarsen Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) erroneous multiple post. Was no indication my post, above was being recorded. You shouldn't be able to click o the 'save' button during an on-going save, and have it save a 2nd, 3rd, etc., time. Edited February 20, 2012 by blarsen
blarsen Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Erroneous multiple post. Edited February 20, 2012 by blarsen
blarsen Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Erroneous multiple post Edited February 20, 2012 by blarsen
Recommended Posts