What Do Mormon And Helen Radkey Have In Common?

[zerinus]

What Do Mormon And Helen Radkey Have In Common?

Both appear to have an interest in genealogy.

Edited February 17, 2012 by zerinus

[bluebell]

Blatantly disingenuous? Pahoran's remarks honestly reminded me of what Ezra Taft Benson said. Do you disagree with President Benson on this point?

I can't take you seriously anymore.

[maklelan]

Interesting Washington Post article on Radkey and her background here (don't know if it's already been posted).

[Calm]

Radkey, an excommunicated Mormon who spends her days combing through databases at the church’s Family History Library

What bugs me is not so much that she is doing this...if she thinks it is wrong, then she should follow her convictions....it's that she is taking advantage of a free service to attack the very organization that is providing the service.

It's like a country accepting aid from another country and then using that aid to build up its military and invade the charitable country that opened itself to them. It is unethical in my view.

Radkey says that in the course of her research into what she describes as the postmortem marriages of the Romney ancestors, which she hopes to turn into a book, the genealogy experts of the library, which is open to the public, have been only polite and helpful. The feeling hasn’t always been mutual.

In 2006 and 2009, the library disciplined her for sneaking onto computers used by Mormons who had not logged off their terminals and then spending hours using their accounts to dig through the private church records.

“I don’t hack the database,” she said. “Let’s just say I have a way of accessing it through a confidential Mormon source.”

Compare to the claim:

This appeared to be a violation of the spirit of the Mormon agreement with Jewish groups not to posthumously baptize Holocaust victims

How is her basically stealing others' accounts (identity fraud more or less) and encouraging LDS to help her illegally access the database not a "violation of the spirit" of the unwritten agreement for usage of LDS genealogical resources? Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Okay, found another thing that bugs me about her:

The only thing I won’t talk about is my metaphysical work,” Radkey, 69, wearing a red sweater and black beret, said in her Australian accent. She explained that it would be used by the church to discredit her research.

So it is okay for her to use the Church's openness against them while protecting herself by being secretive about her own beliefs and work.

She's going to use polygamy to attack Romney and thus attack the Church and yet....:

More important for her, she found Romney’s depiction of polygamy — he called it “bizarre” and “awful” — in bad taste. “How dare he say that polygamy was horrible when it was what his ancestors believed?” she said. “I believe you should honor your bloodline. I have convicts in my bloodline. I don’t reject them.”

I am collecting evidence, which will be e-mailed to you, if requested, as long as there is a public stink.

At her request, groups such as the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors began to pay her for her research

She doesn't collect names to give them to concerned Jews for the principle, they have to pay for it and publicize it according to her demands.

I really don't see many ethical standards being reported here.

She bounced around from religion to religion, and soon after her third marriage fell apart, visited the shrine of Gabriel Lalemant, a 17th-century Canadian Jesuit who she believes was her son in a past life. (She still keeps a shrine to him, complete with a relic, in her bedroom.)

She gets ticked off that LDS dared baptized a dead man she had claimed for herself as her son. How is claiming a dead person as your son appropriate while performing a private religious ceremony that offers a choice to a dead individual inappropriate? Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Interesting Washington Post article on Radkey and her background here (don't know if it's already been posted).

Sloppy reporting that doesn't explain what the Church means when it says no polygamy in the afterlife and that Radkey has found in private databases that Romney has ancestors that were sealed to multiple spouses after they died. No mention that the sealing is only to individuals they were married to in mortality (though I suppose that a few might have been sealed to dead leaders as happened early on, much like the practice of sealing oneself into a leader's family rather than to one own's parents, but this practice is discontinued and not approved now). Since Radkey's discrediting of Romney is based on the premise this practice is inappropriate, they should have been more careful in describing what the practice meant instead of presenting it as if the Church was lying about the practice and attempting to hide it on "private databases".

The comments are interesting. The vast majority of the critics insist it is wrong to force conversion....ignoring apparently the explanations that there is no force about it. And many continue to claim it is all about collecting names for our membership rolls....again ignoring apparently the explanations that there is no force about it. One even equated it to black magic.

I like the comment that said the practice was either "silly or sacred" and those that pointed to the fact that it was attempting to get people into heaven rather than condemning them to hell and surely that should be looked on as a positive thing rather than negative, such a contrast to those who labeled it disgusting, vile and icky. "Dirty, disgusting hobbies and habits" make it sound equivalent to someone collecting child porn instead of someone trying to help others get to heaven.

Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[rongo]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

Not at all. I'm being completely honest. I've had anti-Mormons (from official ministries, who talk to people at the Mesa Temple at Easter and Christmas) frame this in terms of a Satan-worshipping group baptizing my ancestors in the name of Satan. I honestly wouldn't care, because I wouldn't think they have any authority or efficacy. It would be, like Brigham Young used to say, like the crackling of the thorns under a pot in the fire. And I honestly don't see why people who don't believe we have any authority or efficacy at all are up in arms about us performing temple work for their ancestors. How does that possibly affect or harm them, their memory, etc.?

[Calm]

I've had anti-Mormons (from official ministries, who talk to people at the Mesa Temple at Easter and Christmas) frame this in terms of a Satan-worshipping group baptizing my ancestors in the name of Satan.

It is surprising how many individuals use this as an argument against the LDS practice, I've seen it repeated over and over in every comment section of blogs and articles dealing with this topic.

And I honestly don't see why people who don't believe we have any authority or efficacy at all are up in arms about us performing temple work for their ancestors. How does that possibly affect or harm them, their memory, etc.?

If I look at it in terms of community identity, I can see why some people might feel distressed by the idea. If someone claimed that I did not belong in my family anymore for whatever reason and told others as well, I would protest and I would protest if someone suggested that my grandparents or other ancestors no longer were part of my family heritage, though as the connection fades with distance it would be likely less emotional and more about form.

However, baptism does not remove the community ties that exist for living individuals (they still have the 'heritage' of whatever religious community they have been a part of in their lives up to that point), it adds an identity to it. Still since for living individuals we would view someone who was baptized as no longer of the faith community they were members of in the past, it is understandable to me that members of that faith community might feel a loss of connection with the convert and it makes sense to me that they would protest any suggestion that the connection might be severed for those of their community that are dead as well.

Even when we say we leave it up to the individual, it can be perceived as saying if that individual does choose to embrace the baptism it means he likes us better than you no matter what connection he had with you through his life.

LDS tend to focus on conversions as people not leaving anything of value behind, bringing all that is good with them and simply adding to it more good things, but it is understandable to me why from the outside it may look more like they are forsaking one community in preference of another and transferring this feeling of rejection onto the concept of posthumous baptism is not a big step to my view.

Having said that, if baptism for the dead is a commandment from the Lord, concern for others' feelings should not stop the ordinance from being done but it can be done with sensitivity (I think the Church leadership is sensitive, even if some of its members are not). I would think the fact that we do not in general make any public announcement of the baptisms, that outside of those who participate the only notice is limited to names in our records of ordinances (as opposed to membership)---thus demonstrating we are not attempting to break the feeling of connection of other communities with their dead---would go a long way in satisfying concerns....but then one has people like Helen Radkey who use not only mistakes and policy violations, but baptisms based on personal and intimate love for another family member (as would be the case I would assume for the Romneys and the father of Sister Romney) to cause a "public stink" (and if some LDS flaunt/publicize baptism for their dead relatives to their living relatives when they know it makes their relatives unhappy or uncomfortable, they are missing the point of proxy ordinances in my opinion, placing their personal satisfaction in their achievement over the feelings of their near and dear instead of simply quietly keeping to themselves their satisfaction in knowing they have done their best for their loved ones, living as well as dead.)

I can see why people might get offended if someone stood up in public out of the blue and said a prayer that all could hear that included the statement that it was hoped that a particular person in the crowd would forsake his sinful ways and hell and accept the Lord, but this is very different thing than saying a prayer in the heart or at most saying it in a private circle of believers for someone without even informing the person one did it. I think it is unfortunate that people can't treat baptism for the dead the same way. Feel free to not participate in what one views as a false practice by refusing to provide documentation, feel free to preach the falseness of the doctrine, feel free to ask others not to inform one that such has been done, but don't waste one's emotion by being hurt or insulted if it is not meant to be and if it's not being waved in one's face, but one has to go looking for the 'insult'.

Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

I've just posted another little item about baptism for the dead on my blog:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/

[Robert F. Smith]

Not at all. I'm being completely honest. I've had anti-Mormons (from official ministries, who talk to people at the Mesa Temple at Easter and Christmas) frame this in terms of a Satan-worshipping group baptizing my ancestors in the name of Satan. I honestly wouldn't care, because I wouldn't think they have any authority or efficacy. It would be, like Brigham Young used to say, like the crackling of the thorns under a pot in the fire. And I honestly don't see why people who don't believe we have any authority or efficacy at all are up in arms about us performing temple work for their ancestors. How does that possibly affect or harm them, their memory, etc.?

The Church is officially trying hard to be very sensitive to the feelings of Jews who obviously feel that the LDS Church is nothing more than just another species of Christianity (too bad the rest of Christendom doesn't agree with them!!), which has been persecuting them for about two thousand years, and this includes a strong effort not to proselyte Jews (unless, outside of Israel, they come seeking info).

These feelings are genuine, but stem from a kind of category mistake in which it seems to nearly everyone that baptism into the LDS faith means a jettisoning of one's Jewish nature. This is false as a matter of official LDS doctrine, in which a Jew remains a Jew -- normally a member of the tribe of Judah, although some are of the tribe of Aaron and eligible for consideration of a bishopric without counselors, etc., as provided for in the Doctrine & Covenants. At the same time, the gathering of the Twelve Tribes (qibbutz Israel) is still in process, and many of you may live to see it completed in accordance with Romans 11 (and other relevant Scripture).

[Storm Rider]

I have visited the Simon Wiesenthal FB site and I am stunned at the vitriol, intolerance, and ignorance displayed by this group. I have had the pleasure of working with many Jews (Orhtodox and Reformed) and generally have found them, as individuals, to be wonderful. However, as a people they do appear to claim for themselves a special niche among the diverse peoples of the world. It is not pleasant, but it does help me to understand why they are called a stiffnecked people.

On the other hand, I would love to have the opportunity to talk the LDS who think it is their special right or need to do the work for famous people unrelated to themselves. They are boneheads and really should have been dealt with decades ago. It is good to see such a firm stand taken against them, if I understand that they will no longer be able to provide names to temples. A mistake is one thing, but this is just misguided ignorance presented as serving the dead.

[cdowis]

On the other hand, I would love to have the opportunity to talk the LDS who think it is their special right or need to do the work for famous people unrelated to themselves. They are boneheads and really should have been dealt with decades ago. It is good to see such a firm stand taken against them, if I understand that they will no longer be able to provide names to temples. A mistake is one thing, but this is just misguided ignorance presented as serving the dead.

I remember a news article where a reporter tracked down the person who submitted Hitler's name for temple ordinances. He basically told her that he thought it was only fair that everyone gets their work done, and Herr Hitler deserved his chance. What an idiot. It was interesting that a second person had done this as well, but they gave a fake name on the submittal form. Can anyone guess why.

[Gervin]

... Herr Hitler deserved his chance

Reminds me of the **** Cavett line when he would ask guests, "a house is burning and inside are Hitler and the Mona Lisa ... who or what do you save?"

Guests would get a little squirmy and Cavett would say, "you know, some people consider the Mona Lisa to be somewhat mediocre art."

carry on

[Jeff K.]

I don't know. I prefer the hands to the moustache.

[Kenngo1969]

Interesting Washington Post article on Radkey and her background here (don't know if it's already been posted).

I wonder why the Jews didn't want her? (I'm sure it has nothing to do with anyone wondering whether the actions the Church has taken against her are actually well-founded. ) Not to mention that I doubt she's motivated by any altruistic motives toward Jews as much as she's motivated by their willingness to pay her. I know, I know ... how horrible of me to question Radkey's motives!

[Calm]

I wonder why the Jews didn't want her? (I'm sure it has nothing to do with anyone wondering whether the actions the Church has taken against her are actually well-founded. ) Not to mention that I doubt she's motivated by any altruistic motives toward Jews as much as she's motivated by their willingness to pay her. I know, I know ... how horrible of me to question Radkey's motives!

I would assume that to convert to Judaism the Rabbis feel one needs to believe in Judaism and not in other faiths as well. At the very least she believes in reincarnation, which does not belong in any version of Judaism that I am aware of.

Since she wouldn't give them the names without being paid in the first place and has added the requirement of making a "public stink" as part of her payment, it would seem you are right about the motives.

[Pahoran]

Okay, found another thing that bugs me about her:

So it is okay for her to use the Church's openness against them while protecting herself by being secretive about her own beliefs and work.

She's going to use polygamy to attack Romney and thus attack the Church and yet....:

She doesn't collect names to give them to concerned Jews for the principle, they have to pay for it and publicize it according to her demands.

I really don't see many ethical standards being reported here.

She gets ticked off that LDS dared baptized a dead man she had claimed for herself as her son. How is claiming a dead person as your son appropriate while performing a private religious ceremony that offers a choice to a dead individual inappropriate?

There is no doubt that she's a wacko. But did anyone else notice this?

“I don’t hack the database,” she said. “Let’s just say I have a way of accessing it through a confidential Mormon source.”

How interesting; but in the very next paragraph we have this:

At the library, Radkey logged in for another session of Romney research, next to a man wearing earmuffs and other regulars in a small band of committed database diggers.

So when she's a "database digger" she can log in like everyone else. So why does she need a "confidential" (i.e. clandestine) method of accessing it?

Clearly for something other than mere "database digging."

Clearly for something she'd rather we didn't know she was up to.

Salting the mine, perhaps?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Aren't temple ordinances database only open to members?

[LeSellers]

Aren't temple ordinances database only open to members?

All it takes is a login name and a password. She could "borrow" them, either by stealth or from a corrupt "Saint", for few dollars more.

One way she could acquire one, and harm both the Church and the unsuspecting member, is to identify an older Saint and "help" him with his Family History.

Lehi

[Bob Crockett]

Aren't temple ordinances database only open to members?

Not in past history for decades. In fact, over the years many non-members, including those in various Jewish genealogy groups, have submitted names to the temple data bases. At times, that was the only way to ensure that the names would make it to the Church's records for perpetuation.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kenngo1969]

Reminds me of the **** Cavett line when he would ask guests, "a house is burning and inside are Hitler and the Mona Lisa ... who or what do you save?"

Guests would get a little squirmy and Cavett would say, "you know, some people consider the Mona Lisa to be somewhat mediocre art."

carry on

His name is Richard Cavett!!