Church Toughens Stand Against 'Improper' Proxy Name Submissions

[Calm]

In the meantime, it looks like Stephen Colbert has stepped into this controversy-

http://latimesblogs....to-judaism.html

I wish he had been more accurate in describing who went to what kingdom. It only adds to confusion to say that only LDS in mortality receive the CK and others even after proxy baptisms go to the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms, which is not what we believe at all, in fact completely misses the second point of why LDS do proxy work (to obey God and allow others to do the same and to create an eternal family with all of the Father's children who are willing).

[Stargazer]

in my 20+ years using the internet I have NEVER "stumbled" onto a porn site.

You haven't been doing enough surfing in your 20 years, then. I definitely recall stumbling upon one, once. The link on one website I had clicked on, that I was expecting would go to something of interest, had apparently been either hijacked or the website owner I was on was trying to improve his click-thru rate to the porn site. Anyway, it's not at all impossible.

It's just that the pornsites don't NEED to increase their traffic through such deception. They get enough intentional traffic that there is no point in going for inadvertant traffic.

I agree, though, that it is rather difficult to hit a porn site by accident. Just not impossible.

Does anyone remember that at one time "WhiteHouse.com" was a porn site, which quite a few people inadvertantly hit on when trying to reach the White House web site (US President website)? There's another way to do it -- a site that uses a domain name similar to one that can easily be misspelled. Like "microsfot.com" for example, which used to be Microsoft parody site, but Microsoft apparently owns it through an intermediary now.

[Stargazer]

So you lied when you agreed to abide by the rules of the submission process in order to gain access to the admission process to test it.

Any reason why we should ever take your word again as truth?

Oh, cut him some slack. There is a not a fine line, but a great gulf between seeing if something works the way it ought to and being deceptive in order to cause damage. I was about to test the limits myself to see if it were possible, but when LDSToronto said he did it I cooled my jets. Let him have to make the explanation to the Church, if it comes to it.

He will fill us in on whether he gets pushback from new.familysearch.org or not. He ought to get it, and if he doesn't then I agree that the in-bound data editing processes seriously need to be fixed.

[Calm]

Oh, cut him some slack. There is a not a fine line, but a great gulf between seeing if something works the way it ought to and being deceptive in order to cause damage. I was about to test the limits myself to see if it were possible, but when LDSToronto said he did it I cooled my jets. Let him have to make the explanation to the Church, if it comes to it.

He could have easily contacted the Church ahead of time to inform them he was going to do this.

Perhaps I have a rigid view of honesty, but if I sign an agreement or give a promise, I try to the best of my ability to abide by it and will not make a promise if I think it is likely something will fall through even though I intend to do it. I also figure if someone is willing to lie over little things that don't matter much...have little impact on their lives, how much more likely are they to lie about things that do matter to them so that they can get what they want.

[Stargazer]

He could have easily contacted the Church ahead of time to inform them he was going to do this.

Umm, yes, you might see it that way from your perspective, but telegraphing your intent is not the ideal thing to do if you're trying to test a system.

Perhaps I have a rigid view of honesty, but if I sign an agreement or give a promise, I try to the best of my ability to abide by it and will not make a promise if I think it is likely something will fall through even though I intend to do it. I also figure if someone is willing to lie over little things that don't matter much...have little impact on their lives, how much more likely are they to lie about things that do matter to them so that they can get what they want.

Well, LDST had a point to prove. One must sometimes take risks when one is dedicated to a cause.

He's actually on shaky ground deliberately violating the TOS (Terms of Service) of the site, but admitting it openly here does militate against the violation being anything other than a "pro-forma" test and not a willful attempt to sow discord or cause problems.

That being said, and speaking from the perspective of a software professional, it is generally NOT a good idea to try to demonstrate a vulnerability as an outsider in a PRODUCTION system. Testing a Beta Test system, sure, but when there happens to be a major firestorm going on about the system in question it is probably less than prudent to jiggle the handles in Production.

I wish he hadn't been tossed out of the thread, though. He needs to keep us informed of the results of his experiment!

[Stargazer]

In the meantime, it looks like Stephen Colbert has stepped into this controversy-

http://latimesblogs....to-judaism.html

So what else is new?

[Stargazer]

Here's a piece by Bill Hamblin and a colleague at BYU that some might find interesting, about attempts to "rescue the dead" in various world religions:

http://www.deseretne...-afterlife.html

Nice article, Dan! And Bill!

[ERayR]

In the meantime, it looks like Stephen Colbert has stepped into this controversy-

http://latimesblogs....to-judaism.html

Is he raving and slobbering?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, LDST had a point to prove. One must sometimes take risks when one is dedicated to a cause.

He's actually on shaky ground deliberately violating the TOS (Terms of Service) of the site, but admitting it openly here does militate against the violation being anything other than a "pro-forma" test and not a willful attempt to sow discord or cause problems.

How does bragging about it here mitigate the offense? He did it anonymously and, after being directly asked about it, he did not indicate any intention to admit the fraud to the administrators of the website or to disclose to them his identity.

The noble cause you're trying to ascribe to him is nothing more than malice born of arrogance and misguided contempt. This is not nearly as ethically gray as you make it out to be, and your attempt to rationalize his behavior is a crock.

[Stargazer]

How does bragging about it here mitigate the offense? He did it anonymously and, after being directly asked about it, he did not indicate any intention to admit the fraud to the administrators of the website or to disclose to them his identity.

The noble cause your trying to ascribe to him is nothing more than malice born of arrogance and misguided contempt. This is not nearly as ethically gray as you make it out to be, and your attempt to rationalize his behavior is a crock.

Well, excuuuuussse me.

I don't know if he plans to admit his "...fraud to the administrators of the website or to disclose to them his identity" or not. I also don't claim to know the thoughts and intents of his heart. And while LDST certainly writes like he is treading awfully close to the line of apostasy, I don't believe for a minute that he has gotten to the point of deliberately doing something to bring calumny upon the Church.

But I do think that you and a couple of others are getting unnecessarily hot under the collar about it.

Presumably the Church Information Services department now has safeguards in place to prevent any more of this nonsense from causing damage to the Church's reputation. If they don't then they better get around to it, and quickly. It is high time.

[blackstrap]

I'm curious as to how many names would have to be put on a "do not submit" list on order to avoid the vast majority of problems. I suspect that 100,000 would do the job,but maybe it would take 10 million.The sooner we start,the better.By a 'do not submit" list,I don't mean a list that the people are asked not to submit,but a list that is flagged from the beginning by program protocals.

[ERayR]

Well, excuuuuussse me.

I don't know if he plans to admit his "...fraud to the administrators of the website or to disclose to them his identity" or not. I also don't claim to know the thoughts and intents of his heart. And while LDST certainly writes like he is treading awfully close to the line of apostasy, I don't believe for a minute that he has gotten to the point of deliberately doing something to bring calumny upon the Church.

But I do think that you and a couple of others are getting unnecessarily hot under the collar about it.

Presumably the Church Information Services department now has safeguards in place to prevent any more of this nonsense from causing damage to the Church's reputation. If they don't then they better get around to it, and quickly. It is high time.

For a determined fraud I don't think there is any sure way to stop them. They seem to be able to lie their way around the safeguards.

[blueadept]

I'm curious as to how many names would have to be put on a "do not submit" list on order to avoid the vast majority of problems. I suspect that 100,000 would do the job,but maybe it would take 10 million.The sooner we start,the better.By a 'do not submit" list,I don't mean a list that the people are asked not to submit,but a list that is flagged from the beginning by program protocals.

What would qualify for a "do not submit" list? Would this be any different from a "do not baptize" list that living non-members have created over the years? Why would the LDS church honor one list over the other?

I'm amused at the RCC approach on the subject.

In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.[ [

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802443.htm

Then they have stated that the posthumous baptisms have no effect.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

So we are suppose to not to cooperate with something we don't believe has any affect anyways. And here I thought I could make my marriage work, I must have been insane.

[Scott Lloyd]

So we are suppose to not to cooperate with something we don't believe has any affect anyways.

There is good reason to cooperate, even if one does not believe in or care about Mormon temple ordinances. I have explained this before, when you were asking about ecumenism, but I will readily do so again:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through its organization FamilySearch has the well-deserved reputation of being the premiere provider of genealogical services in the world. The Church does this without charge and without regard to religious affiliation.

Millions of people around the world are intensely interested in identifying their ancestry. I believe this is a wholesome pastime. Its appeal is illustrated by the popularity of the American network television series "Who Do You Think You Are?" and the British TV series that inspired it.

The logic is really quite simple: By cooperating with the Church in its genealogical activities -- through such means as offering access to records or volunteering to index records already preserved, such as the soon-to-be-released 1940 U.S. Census — one serves the interests and needs of those who want to trace their own family tree.

It is worth noting that around the world, by far the predominant users of the Church's family history centers are not members of the Church. This has been the case for many years.

[blueadept]

So in good conscience, I shouldn't follow the guidance of my leaders..............no thanks.

Why are you putting me (and others) between the proverbial rock and a hard spot? I was simply explaining that it's not always easy to follow your intentions no matter how good they may be. It's best to find other areas to work together where there is no conflict.

[Scott Lloyd]

So in good conscience, I shouldn't follow the guidance of my leaders..............no thanks.

Why are you putting me (and others) between the proverbial rock and a hard spot? I was simply explaining that it's not always easy to follow your intentions no matter how good they may be. It's best to find other areas to work together where there is no conflict.

Calm down. I was merely addressing your implied assertion that there is no good reason to cooperate with the genealogical endeavors of the LDS Church if one doesn't believe in LDS temple ordinances.

Add on: I re-read your post and I think I understand it better now. I agree that it is ironic to forbid cooperating with something and then to later state that the effect of that thing is null and void. Presumably if the second statement is true, then there is no harm in cooperating in the first instance.

[volgadon]

Calm down. I was merely addressing your implied assertion that there is no good reason to cooperate with the genealogical endeavors of the LDS Church if one doesn't believe in LDS temple ordinances.

I know quite a few Jews who are keen on familysearch. Wanting to know who you are leads to questions about your family, their community, and their relatives and ancestors.

[cdowis]

Regardless of whether we will have 100% compliance, we are showing everyone that we are very serious about this issue, including removing violators not just from new.familysearch, but even excommunication. The accusation has been that we are not keeping our agreement, and these policies show that we seriously mean business. I think most people will understand if submissions slip through the holes, especially with the threat of excommunication. What else can we do?

[Pahoran]

I submitted 10 names this morning, like I said. I am not violating any agreement that I made with the church.

Yes you are. You are violating the terms of use of the FamilySearch website; terms to which you agreed when you chose to use it.

For an "Expert in Morality," you seem to be rather expert at rationalising immorality.

They are still there - just checked a few minutes ago. No, I won't give the names because that would reveal my identity and I don't trust any of you.

H.

This is wise. People who commit nefarious deeds need to protect themselves from exposure.

So in the meantime we have a confessedly dishonest person who has either tried to trick the name submission system, thus proving that he does not hold it sacred, on no other motive than to see what happens, or else that person merely told us he abused the system in order to see how we would react.

I think the mods here should offer to give the Church the details of his ISP and Internet address so that they can investigate any possible bogus submissions to FamilySearch.

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

Again,so even I can understand.What flags,filters,whatever,does the Church have currently to stop improper name submission,other than a firm,"Please don't " ? I don't see what threat there is to non-members( as has been said that they represent a large percentage of users).

[Saints Alive]

I must be computer illiterate or something, I went on the site today and it took me 30 min just to figure out how to reserve an ordinance for my own great-grandmother. I am not sure how you would even go about submitting a name of someone who isn’t in your ancestry.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again,so even I can understand.What flags,filters,whatever,does the Church have currently to stop improper name submission,other than a firm,"Please don't " ? I don't see what threat there is to non-members( as has been said that they represent a large percentage of users).

What experience do you have with new.familysearch.org and its names submission process for temple ordinances? If I recall correctly, you need a Church-issued log-in and password to even access the submission procedure. To obtain that, you have to provide your membership record number. Presumably, a non-member of the Church would not have that without obtaining it by fraudulent means.

[blackstrap]

What experience do you have with new.familysearch.org and its names submission process for temple ordinances? If I recall correctly, you need a Church-issued log-in and password to even access the submission procedure. To obtain that, you have to provide your membership record number. Presumably, a non-member of the Church would not have that without obtaining it by fraudulent means.

This procedure hinders the submiter.I am refering to the name submitted.That,in my opinion,is where the emphasis needs to be.

If I ,as a fully authorized member submit the name,Simon Weisenthal,either by accident(?) or intention,that name should be flagged immediately as on a "no fly" list. Not that such a name would be permanently blocked(there may be such a person born in 1735 that is a direct relative of a current member) ,but there would be a much more detailed inquiry instituted. Is such a procedure currently in place?

[cdowis]

If I ,as a fully authorized member submit the name,Simon Weisenthal,either by accident(?) or intention,that name should be flagged immediately as on a "no fly" list.

Some names are flagged already, but generally the church trusts the members to follow the rules. If there is a person who does not follow the rules, the church has given ample warning on what can be done.

The basic responsibility lies on the submitters, not for the church to expend enormous resources on blocking and prevention.

[Jeff K.]

I believe that is what so many other churches have a hard time getting their thoughts around. "How can you trust so many people to do the right thing". In the end it seems the only counter example is a relatively inactive member who doesn't believe the church to be true. It is somewhat telling.