Church Toughens Stand Against 'Improper' Proxy Name Submissions

[thesometimesaint]

Blueadept:

I wouldn't say that we believe in Apostolic authority being past to the Bishops. We believe that the authority comes from Jesus Christ directly it is simply administered by the presently living Apostles.

I believe those early Bishops were operating in good faith(They were doing the best they could under the circumstances), but that is not the same thing as directed by Revelation from God.

[blueadept]

Blueadept:

I wouldn't say that we believe in Apostolic authority being past to the Bishops. We believe that the authority comes from Jesus Christ directly it is simply administered by the presently living Apostles.

I believe those early Bishops were operating in good faith(They were doing the best they could under the circumstances), but that is not the same thing as directed by Revelation from God.

I understand it's different from the LDS POV. In the RCC, the Catholic Bishops ARE the living Apostles with the Pope claiming his lineage from Peter that was given by Jesus Christ.

I don't really want to get into Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) which is the only other dogmatic document that came from Vatican II, but we do believe in Divine Revelation.

[Anijen]

Not everyone sees it as a gift that you are offering.

Not yet.

[Saints Alive]

Blueadept: if you get nothing else out of this thread I hope you Atleast now understand what it is like for us LDS to be told what we do and don't believe.

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate.

[Kenngo1969]

As a Catholic, I was amused by my LDS wife's reaction when I endorsed her going to the Temple but asked her to refrain from sharing which Catholic relative's she performed the proxy baptisms for. I've always marked that moment as the beginning to the end of my civil marriage. Oh my. I don't believe that others should be dictating to you how you should be practicing your faith. In the same sense, sensitivity should be shown others. Not everyone sees it as a gift that you are offering.

Of course, while we see the ordinances performed by proxy as a gift, the spirits of the departed are free to disagree and to reject the ordinances performed on their behalf.

[blueadept]

Blueadept: if you get nothing else out of this thread I hope you Atleast now understand what it is like for us LDS to be told what we do and don't believe.

Trust me, I'm familiar with this issue on multiple levels especially since I married a wonderful LDS person. With my non-LDS friends, I normally had to spend at least 10 minutes in correcting their misconceptions of my wife's faith before we could be at least be talking in the same ball park. That said, I cringed anytime my wife tried to explain anything in regards to my own faith. I originally came to this site to best understand my wife's faith and have the best answers even if I didn't necessarily agree with them. I've always credited her for making me the on-fire Catholic that I am, but I'm sure that wasn't her goal.

In regards to having outsiders tell us what Mormons or Catholics truly believe, we SHARE this commonality

[Calm]

Blueadept: if you get nothing else out of this thread I hope you Atleast now understand what it is like for us LDS to be told what we do and don't believe.

Blueadept has plenty of experience knowing what it is like being told what one does and does not believe rather that being simply allowed to speak for himself.

One reason I love him being on the message board is because he is a great resource for getting the LDS view but also being able to explain how the LDS ways may look to an 'outsider'. There's been only a very few things that I've felt that he didn't get some of the nuances, but since I've known LDS who haven't 'got' some of the nuances, his record is still outstanding.

[Daniel Peterson]

I weigh in a bit more on the topic of vicarious baptisms for the dead at

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765553203/A-Lutheran-bishops-perspective-on-Mormon-baptism-for-the-dead.html?pg=1

[Storm Rider]

Trust me, I'm familiar with this issue on multiple levels especially since I married a wonderful LDS person. With my non-LDS friends, I normally had to spend at least 10 minutes in correcting their misconceptions of my wife's faith before we could be at least be talking in the same ball park. That said, I cringed anytime my wife tried to explain anything in regards to my own faith. I originally came to this site to best understand my wife's faith and have the best answers even if I didn't necessarily agree with them. I've always credited her for making me the on-fire Catholic that I am, but I'm sure that wasn't her goal.

In regards to having outsiders tell us what Mormons or Catholics truly believe, we SHARE this commonality

Blue, I have thought for some time now that John Paul II was in many ways a prophet. Though he was a towering intellect, some of what he wrote could have only come from one source, the Holy Spirit. He was a man that the world of Christianity could focus on and appreciate. He spoke to the world and not just to the Catholic faithful. In so many ways a shepard for all.

I have never felt that way about any other Christian leader. Though there certainly have been some great ones, JP II was one of the greatest.

[LDSToronto]

I'm glad the Church has recognized the wishes of Holocaust survivors and their families. However, I am disturbed that the Church has threatened it's membership with disciplinary action for what amounts to a policy violation. Why not apply better error-proofing so that people can not submit restricted names?

This feels very wrong - using disciplinary action as a punitive threat.

H.

[Calm]

However, I am disturbed that the Church has threatened it's membership with disciplinary action for what amounts to a policy violation. Why not apply better error-proofing so that people can not submit restricted names?

I think the comment below explains quite well why they have taken the next step beyond "error-proofing":

It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place.

It is not a casual mistake or a submission based on ignorance that is getting through.

[LDSToronto]

I think the comment below explains quite well why they have taken the next step beyond "error-proofing":

"It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place."

It is not a casual mistake or a submission based on ignorance that is getting through.

I'd like to hear more about the deception and manipulation required to make an improper submission. Searching through new.familysearch.org, one can see that at least three people have submitted "Jesus of Nazareth". Doesn't seem all that difficult to make an improper submission to me.

Even so, how does this justify using church discipline as a threat of punishment? This is a policy violation, not a sin, as far as I can tell.

H.

[blackstrap]

I guess lying to the church is not a punishable offense.

[LDSToronto]

I guess lying to the church is not a punishable offense.

Nope, it's not.

H.

[Calm]

I believe being honest in your dealings is one of the temple recommend questions. At the very least then, it would seem that one should be able to lose one's temple recommend if one used deception to submit names.

[LDSToronto]

I believe being honest in your dealings is one of the temple recommend questions. At the very least then, it would seem that one should be able to lose one's temple recommend if one used deception to submit names.

I am still unclear what is meant by deception in this case. What does the church consider deception? Like I said, it's pretty easy to submit any old name; the responsibility should rest on the church to ensure it's technology is compliant with it's policies.

H.

[Storm Rider]

I am still unclear what is meant by deception in this case. What does the church consider deception? Like I said, it's pretty easy to submit any old name; the responsibility should rest on the church to ensure it's technology is compliant with it's policies.

H.

That makes sense to me. So when you children lie to you and then do something wrong, just remember that it is your fault that you were not able to recognize the lie immeidately and stop the action. Good luck on that and let me know how works for you.

[LDSToronto]

That makes sense to me. So when you children lie to you and then do something wrong, just remember that it is your fault that you were not able to recognize the lie immeidately and stop the action. Good luck on that and let me know how works for you.

Once again, you are taking the Church's word at face value. A claim of deception is too vague to warrant a threat against one's membership. The church claims it would take deception and manipulation to make improper submissions but anyone who uses familysearch.org knows that simply isn't true. So what does the Church mean by "deception and manipulation"? Like I said earlier, a clear example are the multiple submissions for "Jesus of Nazareth".

If my children were accessing websites that they shouldn't access, I wouldn't threaten punishment, I'd install technology measures to prevent the access. I've done this. I've also worked in IT and software development for many years and the cardinal rule is, "don't blame the user if your software lets them do stupid things".

H.

[Storm Rider]

Once again, you are taking the Church's word at face value. A claim of deception is too vague to warrant a threat against one's membership. The church claims it would take deception and manipulation to make improper submissions but anyone who uses familysearch.org knows that simply isn't true. So what does the Church mean by "deception and manipulation"? Like I said earlier, a clear example are the multiple submissions for "Jesus of Nazareth".

If my children were accessing websites that they shouldn't access, I wouldn't threaten punishment, I'd install technology measures to prevent the access. I've done this. I've also worked in IT and software development for many years and the cardinal rule is, "don't blame the user if your software lets them do stupid things".

H.

Again, and if you told them not to do certain things and they said, "Okay, we won't do it". And then you found out they still were doing it; are you responsible or the individual child? Who is responsible the parent or the child?

[LDSToronto]

Again, and if you told them not to do certain things and they said, "Okay, we won't do it". And then you found out they still were doing it; are you responsible or the individual child? Who is responsible the parent or the child?

The church is not a parent, the members not children. And disciplinary action has never been touted as something that is punitive until now.

H.

[Zeta-Flux]

The church is not a parent, the members not children. And disciplinary action has never been touted as something that is punitive until now.

What do you mean punitive? Historically, the church has excommunicated apostates who have given the church a bad name.

[selek1]

I've also worked in IT and software development for many years and the cardinal rule is, "don't blame the user if your software lets them do stupid things".

I, too, have worked in both IT and management (and in both physical and information security).

And each of those disciplines acknowledges the difference between "stupid things" and behaviors which are willful, destructive, and malicious.

There is a vast difference between accidentally over-writing critical data and manufacturing data wholesale.

There is a vast difference between misusing software through ignorance or incompetence, and the deliberate and willful bypassing of safeguards in order to destroy data or perpetrate fraud.

In many instances, the latter is a prosecutable criminal offense.

I have yet to see any company or other organization that will blindly look the other way while deliberate fraud, or other abusive, destructive, and even criminal behaviors are commited using their intellectual assets or physical property.

The Church should be no different, lest they suddenly find themselves liable or complicit.

And as comfortable and comforting as many find the "the Church is always wrong" meme to be, your attempt to paint Church leadership as some sort of careening bully just doesn't wash.

Church disciplinary practices are anything but aribitrary, and are designed (by default) to separate the innocent or unintentional transgressor from the willful apostate and malicious troublemaker.

Only the latter need fear.

And as others have noted- there is a vast difference in both motive and action between "an erroneous entry" and willful, deliberate "deception and manipulation."

As has been stated repeatedly- there are numerous safeguards already in place to prevent errors or duplicate submissions.

The process by which names and geneological data are entered are comparatively in-depth.

Sending them up for the actual ordinances adds another layer of what military strategists call "defense in depth."

Bypassing these safeguards, and manipulating the several layers of bureaucracy to perform invalid ordinances is not done lightly, and not without considerable effort.

To promote the idea that an innocent submitting grandma's name for baptism might somehow run afoul of the Church leviathan and be cast out without hearing or understanding is to engage in farce and self-parody.

[LDSToronto]

I, too, have worked in both IT and management (and in both physical and information and security).

And each acknowledges the difference between "stupid things" and behaviors which are willful, destructive, and malicious.

I have yet to see any company or other organization that will blindly look the other way while deliberate fraud, or other abusive, destructive, and even criminal behaviors are commited using their intellectual assets or physical property.

And as comfortable to outliers and would-be iconoclasts the "the Church is always wrong" meme might be perceived, your attempt to paint Church leadership as some sort of careening bully just doesn't wash.

Church disciplinary practices are anything but aribitrary, and are designed (by default) to separate the innocent or unintentional transgressor from the willful apostate and malicious troublemaker.

And as others have noted- there is a vast difference in both motive and action between "an erroneous entry" and willful, deliberate "deception and manipulation."

To promote the idea that an innocent submitting grandma's name for baptism might somehow run afoul of the Church leviathan and be cast out without hearing or understanding is to engage in farce and self-parody.

I'm suggesting that the only solution the church has offered is to threaten it's membership. They've left the barn door wide open with it's name submission system and until they can fix it, the thing they've opted for is to threaten members with action.

How do I know? To test this system, I submitted 10 names just this morning that should be restricted. No problem at all. I'll let you know if my account is suspended or if I'm disciplined.

H.

[blueadept]

I'm suggesting that the only solution the church has offered is to threaten it's membership. They've left the barn door wide open with it's name submission system and until they can fix it, the thing they've opted for is to threaten members with action.

How do I know? To test this system, I submitted 10 names just this morning that should be restricted. No problem at all. I'll let you know if my account is suspended or if I'm disciplined.

H.

A case study in progress. As an outsider you got to love it.