Letter Regarding Name Submissions: Was It Read In Sacrament Today?

[Calm]

Ldstoronto clearly explained what he did and where he has to lie to get through the system. He also noted that he deleted the names after he entered them.

Then he's really proved nothing because he didn't go through the system, he just demonstrated that using deception one can submit inappropriate names. He has not yet proved that such names will make it all the way through the system to have ordinances done (I don't know whether or not they would, I would hope that no one would try this just to prove that they would).

One should be clear on what he has accomplished.

[Calm]

It is from the POV of the Jewish community.

Here is the actual promise for those who do not wish to click:

As a consequence of these discussions and the First Presidency's directive, the Church has agreed to:

• 
  Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.
  
• 
  Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
  
• 
  Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
  
• 
  Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.
  
• 
  Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
  
• 
  Release to the American Gathering The First Presidency's 1995 directive.
  

What in this list do you believe the LDS Church has not done?

[Calm]

Then he's really proved nothing because he didn't go through the system but just the first step, he just demonstrated that using deception one can submit inappropriate names. He has not yet proved that such names will make it all the way through the system to have ordinances done (I don't know whether or not they would, I would hope that no one would try this just to prove that they would).

One should be clear on what he has accomplished.

[divinenature]

Then he's really proved nothing because he didn't go through the system, he just demonstrated that using deception one can submit inappropriate names. He has not yet proved that such names will make it all the way through the system to have ordinances done (I don't know whether or not they would, I would hope that no one would try this just to prove that they would).

One should be clear on what he has accomplished.

Have you ever used temple ready?

Once the name is approved, as shown in the article, all one must do is take it to the temple and have the cards printed out.

The whole reason this article was even written is because these names are being submitted AND the temple ordinances are being completed...over and over and over again.

[divinenature]

What in this list do you believe the LDS Church has not done?

I recommend reading the article I linked to see what the Jewish community feels. They do not feel the church has kept its promises. I can't say that I blame them. When looking at this from the outside it appears the church has not ever even intended to keep the agreement to discontinue the ordinance work of Jewish dead.

Here is one example of where the church broke it's promise (copied from the linked site):

Dec. 12, 2003

By Mark Thiessen, azcentral.com

Associated Press [Excerpts]

Mormons still being accused of baptizing dead Jews

SALT LAKE CITY - Less than a year after the Mormon church promised, again, to stop baptizing dead Jews into its faith, the Mormons have raised concerns by buying - at 10 cents a sheet - thousands of names of dead Russian Orthodox Church members

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long collected names from government documents and other records worldwide. The names are then used in temple rituals, during which Mormon stand-ins are dunked in water to offer the dead salvation and entry to the Mormon religion.

Salt Lake City independent researcher Helen Radkey said she has found such notable non-Mormons as Adolph Hitler, Anne Frank, and even Roman Catholic popes and saints within the church's database - called the International Genealogical Index - of 600 million names.

In 1995 the Mormon church agreed with Jewish leaders to end its practice of posthumously baptizing Jews. However, after several Jewish organizations complained that the practice hadn't stopped and Radkey produced the names of at least 20,000 Jews in the index, the church last December rededicated itself to ending the practice and removing the names.

Radkey, however, said many names still have not been removed, despite what she called a "cosmetic" clean-up two months ago of Jews who died in concentration camps. In fact, within the last few months she has found the names of prominent Jews still in the database, albeit under their original names or those with alternate spellings.

They include David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, and Theodor Herzl, Hungarian journalist and the founder of Zionism.

Radkey said the inclusion of Ben-Gurion, listed by his birth name of David Green and baptized since 2000, indicates the Mormons are not sincere about abiding by the agreement with Jewish leaders.

"If he would be done since the 1995 agreement, then they'll do any Jew," she said.

Edited March 6, 2012 by divinenature

[Calm]

Once the name is approved, as shown in the article, all one must do is take it to the temple and have the cards printed out

but he hasn't shown that the work will be done at the temple automatically since he didn't take the cards to the temple. It is possible that it would be, he just hasn't demonstrated that.

Part of the system's effectiveness as agreed to in the Church's agreement with Jewish leaders would include if the ordinances are left in place or removed.

In other words, safeguards could exist at different levels and until one works through one level, one won't know about the safeguards in place in the next level.

If one claims that one has identified all the safeguards in place but it really is only the safeguards at the submission level, don't you think that is an incomplete and inaccurate report?

It is quite possible that other safeguards are based on honesty and self-reporting as well, I am not making any claim about the quality or quantity of safeguards for any of the next steps of the work being done. I am merely pointing out that all he has 'exposed' is level one safeguards.

[divinenature]

The church also promised to:

Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.

For some reason I cannot find this policy on the very website used to submit names for temple ordinance work. A member can very easily use FS and temple ready without ever being made aware of this policy because of this oversight.

[Calm]

I recommend reading the article I linked to see what the Jewish community feels. They do not feel the church has kept its promises. I can't say that I blame them. When looking at this from the outside it appears the church has not ever even intended to keep the agreement to discontinue the ordinance work of Jewish dead. Here is one example of where the church broke it's promise (copied from the linked site):

But the agreement does not say that they will be able to stop all submissions and work being done, it says it will direct members not to do it and then if members ignore that instruction, it will remove from the IGI any names that are identified to have been improperly included.

The Church never claims that it will have a perfect system in place preventing all improper submissions, it states that it will remove them when found....which it has, has it not?

If people are misreading what the agreement says and holding it to a standard it did not agree to, how is that the Church's fault?

[Calm]

The church also promised to: Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church. For some reason I cannot find this policy on the very website used to submit names for temple ordinance work.

If they don't read the directions they may not be aware of a lot of things. However, if they follow even just the directions given on the submission pages to not submit names that they are not directly related to, that would still cover the restriction agreed to for holocaust victims.

On the page specifically outlining what is and is not appropriate: https://help.familys.../067faq0443.htm

Restricted Submissions

Church 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), or

They have permission of all living immediate family members, or

They have permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living.

Also in the user's guide: https://help.familysearch.org/kb/UserGuide/en/policy/r_wws_policy_what_ordinances_should_i_not_do.html

Edited March 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[divinenature]

But the agreement does not say that they will be able to stop all submissions and work being done, it says it will direct members not to do it and then if members ignore that instruction, it will remove from the IGI any names that are identified to have been improperly included.

The Church never claims that it will have a perfect system in place preventing all improper submissions, it states that it will remove them when found....which it has, has it not?

If people are misreading what the agreement says and holding it to a standard it did not agree to, how is that the Church's fault?

If you spend a little time reading the articles you will see that the Jewish community would like the church to actually keep its promise to eject Jewish names from the system without having to be policed by others. They want the church to be responsible for its own mistakes. If they are not going to install blocks for those names then someone needs to be going through the system weekly to delete the Jewish names that are being submitted.

It is the church's fault because they made a promise and are not doing their best efforts to keep it. It has been 15 years since this agreement was made and they still haven't come up with a way to enforce it.

As they say, the buck stops here.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you spend a little time reading the articles you will see that the Jewish community would like the church to actually keep its promise to eject Jewish names from the system without having to be policed by others. They want the church to be responsible for its own mistakes. If they are not going to install blocks for those names then someone needs to be going through the system weekly to delete the Jewish names that are being submitted.

It is the church's fault because they made a promise and are not doing their best efforts to keep it. It has been 15 years since this agreement was made and they still haven't come up with a way to enforce it.

As they say, the buck stops here.

What matters is what the agreement says, not what some people think it should say.

Some people think the Church agreed to exclude names of all Holocaust victims, even those with Church members in their immediate family. That, of course, is false.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have you ever used temple ready?

.

Are you aware that TempleReady is outdated? See here.

The use of TempleReady has been discontinued. Instead, you should start adding your family history information to the new FamilySearch website.

[Scott Lloyd]

The promise is not limited to Holocaust victims. It includes all Jews who are not directly related to the submitter.

That regulation pertains to all peoples, not just Jews. People are not permitted to submit for temple work names of persons to whom they are not related. Period.

Nothing shocking here.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[divinenature]

According to the agreement:

Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.

The church promised to issue a directive to members and officials to discontinue any further baptisms of deceased Jews (not just Holocaust victims) except in the case they are a direct ancestor of a living church member or had the WRITTEN permission of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.

A direct ancestor is one of the following: mother/father, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.

The FamilySearch website does not ask for documentation of permission from family members. I cannot see anything in the system that prompts for it or a way to send it to church authorities prior to submission.

The FS website allows members to submit people who are not related. This makes it very simple to submit deceased Jews to the system, as well as famous people.

I think that what matters is how the church handles the agreements it has made to others. Does it use semantics to worm their way out of responsibility or do they take a stand and move towards an amicable solution that will preserve relationships between these two religious communities?

So far we have seen that they blame the membership and claim to have safeguards in place to help prevent this type of thing happening. We have seen that they do not eject names from the system until the name is brought to their attention by an outside source.

In difficult conversations, such as between the LDS leadership and Jewish community, understanding is more important than CYA with semantics.

[divinenature]

Are you aware that TempleReady is outdated? See here.

Yeah. At the FHC we still refer to the new system as temple ready. LOL Old habits die hard.

[divinenature]

Plus, Anne Frank is still in FamilySearch and over a dozen people have contributed to her records.

What the church does is hide the ordinance information from view.

Edited March 6, 2012 by divinenature

[Scott Lloyd]

The FS website allows members to submit people who are not related. This makes it very simple to submit deceased Jews to the system, as well as famous people.

Admittedly, I don't know my way around New FamilySearch very well yet, but from the times I've been on there, and from what I can tell, I cannot easily submit someone's name for temple work who is not displayed on my personal pedigree. To do so, I would have to take pains to circumvent the system (and thereby defraud the Church) somehow. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

[divinenature]

I guess the church signed a 6 page agreement. I have been unable to find the actual 6 page document. All I can find are summaries and outlines.

I did find this particular article interesting. It was written at the time of the agreement being signed.

Brough said the posthumous baptisms were a mistake that violated church policy. Baptism is a basic Mormon tenet, but only ancestors of church members are normally entitled to posthumous baptism, he said.

This is not really true. It was said back in 1995. It completely leaves out the extensive name extraction program the church has used. Members are told to submit their own relatives and ancestors, but the extraction program did not follow that guideline. When a member goes to the temple and gets a name there, it is not an ancestor.

Brough said the 380,000 Jews had been given the "temple ordinance" of baptism by nine well-meaning but overzealous Mormon record-gatherers.

The nine, whom he did not name, were motivated by "love and compassion" after visiting Holocaust museums and memorials, Brough said.

"The nine are apologetic, and appalled that they did not understand the sensitivities that were involved here," the church official said.

The church acknowledged that this was done by well-meaning believing members of the LDS church.

[sjdawg]

The more he justifies his actions, the more difficult it will become to justify it to the Savior.

I find it a little odd that we can justify polyandry, the priesthood ban, and many other curious aspects of Church History but we are ready to lynch LDSToronto because he tested the safeguards in the family history software program and dared post his results.

[divinenature]

Admittedly, I don't know my way around New FamilySearch very well yet, but from the times I've been on there, and from what I can tell, I cannot easily submit someone's name for temple work who is not displayed on my personal pedigree. To do so, I would have to take pains to circumvent the system (and thereby defraud the Church) somehow. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

These are the options under the "Add Information" tab:

Add Information

*Add a family or individual that is connected to my family tree (Go to me and my ancestors)

*Add a family that is not connected to my family tree

*Add an individual that is not connected to my family tree

*Contribute a GEDCOM file

These are clickable links on the website that open up boxes where you can type in the name, dates and place names of the individual.

Edited March 6, 2012 by divinenature

[Bob Crockett]

The church promised to issue a directive to members and officials to discontinue any further baptisms of deceased Jews (not just Holocaust victims) except in the case they are a direct ancestor of a living church member or had the WRITTEN permission of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.

As Scott Lloyd points out, this requirement has applied to all patrons and all ehtnicities since the 1990s. I cannot submit a Scot's name if he is not my ancestor.

Moreover keep in mind there is no way to know is most cases whether a person was or was not a living Jew, unless perhaps they were buried in a Jewish cemetery and even then that info is not submitted. For many years the Germans rewuired that Jews be buried in Lutheran cemetaries

Just because a name appears Jewish is no test at all. That is the father's name and since the middle ages almost all Jewish communities look to the religion of the mother as a determinative factor.

The onus for complying with the rule is on the patrons. They submit the names, except for what remains of the extraction program. As to that, no Jewish burial records are used. The church responds to complaints and removes names when notified.

[Scott Lloyd]

These are the options under the "Add Information" tab:

Add Information

*Add a family or individual that is connected to my family tree (Go to me and my ancestors)

*Add a family that is not connected to my family tree

*Add an individual that is not connected to my family tree

*Contribute a GEDCOM file

These are clickable links on the website that open up boxes where you can type in the name, dates and place names of the individual.

Does merely adding information enable you to submit the name of a non-relative for temple work?

[cdowis]

I find it a little odd that we can justify polyandry, the priesthood ban, and many other curious aspects of Church History but we are ready to lynch LDSToronto because he tested the safeguards in the family history software program and dared post his results.

He deliberately violated the agreement that he clicked on when he submitted those names, and he was cognizant of the recent church policy letter. He boasted how he was able to violate that policy with no consequence, that he was not caught.

I find it interesting that you are bothered, not by his violation of the policy, but by those who do follow the prophet and church policy. A fulfillment of the BOM prophecy that there will be those who say, "Good is evil, and evil is good."

A prophecy fulfilled right here on the forum.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cdowis

[LDSToronto]

In my opinion what LDS Toronto did is not that sever (yet still very wrong) and even if not taken out will be fixed eventually, so will the Adolph Hitlers etc. We will have a 1000 years to work on temple ordinances etc. However I feel his flaunting it on the internet, describing to others how to do it, and his condescending attitude is worse than the act. A mistake by a member of the church can be fixed, as well as intentional sabotage. A flagrant attempt to circumvent the system and then tell potentially millions (via the internet) others how to flood the system with names that the church has agreed not to put in (if there is no familial line) then IMO that is apostasy plain and simple and is wrong.

The more he justifies his actions, the more difficult it will become to justify it to the Savior.

The only people that can submit names for LDS temple ordinances are members of the church. The overwhelming consensus is that members are good, honest folk and the Church can rely on them to do the right thing. Most of you agree that this is good enough security. So I wonder why the hyperbole? Why claim that I have shown millions of people how to flood the system with names? The two claims seem to be at odds.

H.

[LDSToronto]

It's like this.

1) The Temple and its ordinances are sacred.

2) The submission of names for Temple ordinances is sacred and important to Latter-day Saints.

3) Toronto made bogus submissions, thus corrupting a database that exists for sacred purposes.

3a) Toronto then removed the individuals from the database, ensuring no temple ordinances are done for them.

4) He then wrote a "Corrupting the Mormon Database for Dummies" how-to manual.

4) He then wrote a "Here's why I disagree with the statement, 'a good deal of deception and manipulation is needed to bypass the safeguards'" article

5) He went on to argue that the lies he told represent a "minimal" amount of deception.

6) Believing Latter-day Saints, a group to which he has not belonged for a very long time, and to which he has been unable to relate for almost as long, are not pleased.

6) Believing Latter-day Saints, a group to which I no longer belong, but to which I feel empathy and to whom I still relate, have not really said much. A handful of board members here have been vocal, and I understand why.

H.