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

[Jeff K.]

How is this a 'false canard'? What do you value more, money or ancestors?

You forgot honesty. Oh that is a foreign concept for you. Luckily I know quite a few Canadians, you thankfully are the rare exception to those men of integrity.

[LDSToronto]

Luckily I know quite a few Canadians

I know more.

H.

[LDSToronto]

You forgot honesty. Oh that is a foreign concept for you. Luckily I know quite a few Canadians, you thankfully are the rare exception to those men of integrity.

Let me help you. If you value your ancestors more than you value your money, why not put your money into an institution that protects your assets with a terms of use policy and nothing more? After all, that's the type of system that protects your ancestors, and I would assume that you value your ancestors far more than you value your money, right?

H.

[Brade]

Ok, we get it. Lots of you believe that LDSToronto is an evil, wicked liar and Jesus is mad at him, or something like that. Now that that's out of the way, here's a T/F quiz.

1. What LDSToronto did required a great deal of deception. True or false?

[Stargazer]

class Dishonesty : inherits Sin

{

private bool selfCheck

init(bool selfCheck) {this.selfCheck = selfCheck}

bool IsSelfCheckAllowed(){return this.selfCheck}

}

bool IsSinfulBehaviour(Sin potentialSin)

{

if (potentialSin == typeof(Dishonesty))

return (Dishonesty)potentialSin.IsSelfCheckAllowed()

return TRUE

}

Dishonesty ldsTorontoDishonest.init(selfCheck = FALSE)

Dishonest zerinusDishonest.init(selfCheck = TRUE)

print ("LDSToronto is dishonest: %s", IsSinfulBehaviour(ldsTorontoDishonest))

print ("Zerinus is honest: %s", IsSinfulBehaviour(zerinusDishonest))

H.

Thanks for that! I nearly laughed myself silly.

Oh, wait...

[Jeff K.]

Ok, we get it. Lots of you believe that LDSToronto is an evil, wicked liar and Jesus is mad at him, or something like that. Now that that's out of the way, here's a T/F quiz.

1. What LDSToronto did required a great deal of deception. True or false?

Not so much evil and wicked as craven and dishonest. In other words your attempt at hyperbole to lessen Toronto's cynical use of holocaust victims in order to attack the church doesn't quite hit the mark.

Now lets get something clear that even you could understand.

Are members supposed to be honest when they do their work for the temple? yes or no?

Do anti Mormons even care about holocaust victims? yes or no

Do those who defend the cynical use of holocaust victims reflect a certain lack of integrity or honesty? and when they attack the church, isn't the hypocrisy rather obvious? yes or no?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Stargazer]

Ok, we get it. Lots of you believe that LDSToronto is an evil, wicked liar and Jesus is mad at him, or something like that. Now that that's out of the way, here's a T/F quiz.

1. What LDSToronto did required a great deal of deception. True or false?

I say false. It required a small amount of deception.

I have also been trying to defend LDSToronto because while I believe what he did was unnecessary and fairly pointless, I also believe that he may genuinely want to find out just how hard it was to make such a submission.

I am very much afraid that he is tripping lightly on the road to apostasy and eternal damnation, but for some reason I don't believe that this experiment on the name submission process is part of it, necessarily.

It is very clear to me, based on what LDSToronto has reported, that the Church has provided no front-end technical means for the prevention of unauthorized submissions. This surprises me, but upon reflection it does make some sense, especially when one considers how important it is to get the work done for the dead.

I, too, am a software professional, and I can tell you it is relative child's play to put the kind of barrier into place that would prevent an exact match of Anne Frank of Diary fame from getting into the system, or anyone else matching a Holocaust victim, on the front end. Perhaps a second level of validation exists -- and I gather that LDSToronto deleted his submissions after verifying that they actually got into the system, so we won't find out about that from him. But I believe it is valuable to know that the safeguards in place against unauthorized submissions are as soft as they apparently are.

But LDSToronto also confirms that it does take deception to get unauthorized submissions into the system. But in my opinion, at least, not a "great deal" of deception, since the barrier to entry is set rather low.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, we get it. Lots of you believe that LDSToronto is an evil, wicked liar and Jesus is mad at him, or something like that. Now that that's out of the way, here's a T/F quiz.

1. What LDSToronto did required a great deal of deception. True or false?

FWIW I think I didn't fully understand earlier what he had done and now I realize it wasn't as bad as I imagined. But it was still dishonest and the "how to" website was uncalled for imo.

[LDSToronto]

Are members supposed to be honest when they do their work for the temple? yes or no?

Yes.

Do anti Mormons even care about holocaust victims? yes or no

Yes. You are confusing anti-Mormon with anti-Semite.

Do those who defend the cynical use of holocaust victims reflect a certain lack of integrity or honesty? and when they attack the church, isn't the hypocrisy rather obvious? yes or no?

I don't know - I haven't seen anyone use Holocaust victims in a cynical manner.

H.

[Brade]

Not so much evil and wicked as craven and dishonest. In other words your attempt at hyperbole to lessen Toronto's cynical use of holocaust victims in order to attack the church doesn't quite hit the mark.

Well, I did say "something like that". Several people have called him a liar. You've said several times that he's been dishonest (a point he doesn't contest; in fact that's part of the point of the whole exercise). Lying is a form of evil and wickedness, no? Earlier somebody said something about how God would have something to say to him. If I've missed the mark, it's not by much.

Now lets get something clear that even you could understand.

Are members supposed to be honest when they do their work for the temple? yes or no?

Yes, members are supposed to be honest when they do temple work.

Do anti Mormons even care about holocaust victims? yes or no

I can't possibly answer this question as I don't pretend to know what all anti-Mormons think. I do think, however, it's highly unlikely that all anti-Mormons don't care about holocaust victims, and if I were forced to bet on it I'd wager that most do care about holocaust victims.

Do those who defend the cynical use of holocaust victims reflect a certain lack of integrity or honesty?

So I take it the idea is this. If Bob says something like, "Yeah, I think it's an ok thing to do to ignore the wishes of an organization and use holocaust victims' names to make that organization look bad", then, yes, I think that reflects a certain lack of honesty.

when they attack the church, isn't the hypocrisy rather obvious?

Yes (I actually think there are some assumptions we'd need to make here, but I'd rather get to the point and just grant this as it is).

Again, the point I'm trying to make is this. Ok, bad LDSToronto. No, No! Go to your room! So, now let's answer the question of whether the Church's claim that it takes a great deal of deception is true or false. Your turn.

Edit: Here, I won't leave you hanging. The answer, it seems to me, is, no, it does not take a great deal of deception to submit a holocaust victim's name. The Church's claim is false. Now, Jeff, please take great care to notice here that I'm not claiming the author of that statement is a liar. I doubt very much that he or she is. They appear to have merely made a claim that isn't true. It's not that big a deal. They can amend it, or not. Either way, and of more importance for the parties concerned, I'm sure somebody is working behind the scenes right now to improve security or whatever. Yes, yes, I know. Honesty ought to be all the security we need. It isn't.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Brade

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Do anti Mormons even care about holocaust victims? yes or no

Yes. You are confusing anti-Mormon with anti-Semite.

I don't think so, it fits rather seamlessly given the willingness to overlook the pain caused to Jews who died in the holocaust simply to gin up some controversy by being dishonest.

Quote

Do those who defend the cynical use of holocaust victims reflect a certain lack of integrity or honesty? and when they attack the church, isn't the hypocrisy rather obvious? yes or no?

I don't know - I haven't seen anyone use Holocaust victims in a cynical manner.

Which speaks to the depth of your dishonesty. Allow me to familiarize you again to the very salient point made in regards to what you have done.

What I think you are actually trying to say is that it was easy. I really don't know how you measure it as requiring very little dishonesty whe you were flagrantly lying.

This might not come as a shock to you, but I have family that was butchered in the Holocaust. Your behaviour, a cynical use of Holocaust victims and survivors in order to do little more than stir the pot, is disgusting. No other word for it.

As someone said, "It’s easy to see without looking too far

That not much is really sacred."

The irony of it all is that I actually agree that better safeguards need to be in place.

Given your record of deceit Toronto, I would venture to say Volgadon is significantly more truthful in his assessment than you are in your denial.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Do anti Mormons even care about holocaust victims? yes or no

I can't possibly answer this question as I don't pretend to know what all anti-Mormons think. I do think, however, it's highly unlikely that all anti-Mormons don't care about holocaust victims, and if I were forced to bet on it I'd wager that most do care about holocaust victims.

They would consider the cynical use of holocaust victims to be a lesser evil than attacking the church. I have not seen it as highly unlikely, the silence from the anti Mormon gallery regarding the acts of Toronto in effect shout that it is indeed more likely than not, that they don't care about the holocaust victims, they only care about attacking the church.

[Jeff K.]

Again, the point I'm trying to make is this. Ok, bad LDSToronto. No, No! Go to your room! So, now let's answer the question of whether the Church's claim that it takes a great deal of deception is true or false. Your turn.

Dismissive as you desire to be, your obvious need to overlook what is hypocrisy reflects more on your dislike for the church than anything else. Can you show me where the church claimed a great deal of deception was needed while you defend someone who crassly used holocaust victims in order to carry out hypocrisy?

[Brade]

They would consider the cynical use of holocaust victims to be a lesser evil than attacking the church. I have not seen it as highly unlikely, the silence from the anti Mormon gallery regarding the acts of Toronto in effect shout that it is indeed more likely than not, that they don't care about the holocaust victims, they only care about attacking the church.

I'm amazed that you're able to make an assessment of so broad a category as all anti-mormons. Will you explain in more detail how it's done? Can this method be used to make assessments about all Mormons, Jews, Canadians, congressmen, rock climbers, Volkswagen owners, sushi lovers, etc.? I look forward to your response as I often spend a great deal of time getting to know people and if there's a way I can more quickly assess peoples' characters I'd very much like to know.

[volgadon]

Sushi-eating Volkswagen owners are the bane of civilised soicety.

Edited March 7, 2012 by volgadon

[Brade]

Dismissive as you desire to be, your obvious need to overlook what is hypocrisy reflects more on your dislike for the church than anything else. Can you show me where the church claimed a great deal of deception was needed while you defend someone who crassly used holocaust victims in order to carry out hypocrisy?

Why do you believe I need to overlook hypocrisy? Will you please provide the evidence of this need you believe I obviously have? Also, please provide statements of mine that explicitly or implicitly show that I defend what LDSToronto did?

Again, you're missing my point. I'm interested to address a single nitpicky question: Is the claim that the Church made about how much deception and manipulation is needed to enter an improper submission true or false?

Clearly some deception is needed, and, clearly, LDSToronto engaged in deception to see how much deception is needed. LDSToronto was dishonest, and it does seem to me that he wants to stir the pot a bit. I don't think it's right. Though, I'll admit that I'm tempted sometimes to stir the pot, since we're focusing on honesty here.

I'm just trying to set that to one side for a minute to hear what people think of the question of whether the Church's claim about how much deception and manipulation is needed accurately describes how much deception and manipulation is needed.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Brade

[Brade]

Sushi-eating Volkswagen owners are the bane of civilised soicety.

I'll schedule an appointment with my bishop.

[TAO]

I, too, am a software professional, and I can tell you it is relative child's play to put the kind of barrier into place that would prevent an exact match of Anne Frank of Diary fame from getting into the system, or anyone else matching a Holocaust victim, on the front end. Perhaps a second level of validation exists -- and I gather that LDSToronto deleted his submissions after verifying that they actually got into the system, so we won't find out about that from him. But I believe it is valuable to know that the safeguards in place against unauthorized submissions are as soft as they apparently are.

I was trying to ask Toronto about this earlier, but I didn't get an answer I was satisfied with - what use would simple protection like this do, if the people who are submitting will just switch to other things which become harder and harder to catch.

Creating a software block will just make them more innovative, and cause the problems I talked about earlier - people using slight misspelling and other misinformation to pass the bad data through. It'll probably stop some of the simple stuff. But it'll make the other stuff a ton harder to catch. Adding a software catcher like this will just cause people to adapt. And a strict hardware system will just cause more hassle for those who use the software. In other words, adding software blocks is basically a lose-lose situation, other than for PR, which is a slight win.

I'm trying to understand why those who think software is the solution think it can be done practically and effectively. In all attempts I've seen, except with major companies like search engines/social sites (who have access to a large input of user data and lots of money), it's not been too successful. There are better ways for the Church to approach problems like this.

I don't mean to be stark or harsh Stargazer. I'm not irritated at Toronto because he tried this. I'm irked because proving this was useless; this is a problem that most software that does things close to this has. We need a practical solution... one that works well, and doesn't cause the offenders to adapt and create harder to recognize problems.

Edited March 7, 2012 by TAO

[rodheadlee]

Why do you believe I need to overlook hypocrisy? Will you please provide the evidence of this need you believe I obviously have? Also, please provide statements of mine that explicitly or implicitly show that I defend what LDSToronto did?

Again, you're missing my point. I'm interested to address a single nitpicky question: Is the claim that the Church made about how much deception and manipulation is needed to enter an improper submission true or false?

Clearly some deception is needed, and, clearly, LDSToronto engaged in deception to see how much deception is needed. LDSToronto was dishonest, and it does seem to me that he wants to stir the pot a bit. I don't think it's right. Though, I'll admit that I'm tempted sometimes to stir the pot, since we're focusing on honesty here.

I'm just trying to set that to one side for a minute to hear what people think of the question of whether the Church's claim about how much deception and manipulation is needed accurately describes how much deception and manipulation is needed.

I'm barely computer literate, but I can tell you in the last 2 years they have added extra precautions to the ordinance routine. I was doing my family members and friends heavily in June 2010. Now I just went back today and there are extra steps to take to do my friends ordinaces. One friend needs his done and a window pops up and gives a whole spiel about who you can and cannot do, Then when you click on the name to do them another window pops up to have you select why you have permission to do them. You only have to lie once to get them temple ready. If you are not a direct line relative you need permission from the closest living relative or you have to lie about it.

[LDSToronto]

I was trying to ask Toronto about this earlier, but I didn't get an answer I was satisfied with - what use would simple protection like this do, if the people who are submitting will just switch to other things which become harder and harder to catch.

Creating a software block will just make them more innovative, and cause the problems I talked about earlier - people using slight misspelling and other misinformation to pass the bad data through. It'll probably stop some of the simple stuff. But it'll make the other stuff a ton harder to catch. Adding a software catcher like this will just cause people to adapt. And a strict hardware system will just cause more hassle for those who use the software. In other words, adding software blocks is basically a lose-lose situation, other than for PR, which is a slight win.

TAO, one has to match the level of security to the purpose of the system. This might surprise you (and others), but I really do think the level of security the Church has implemented on familysearch is appropriate.

My dispute lies in the claim that the safeguards are more secure than what they actually are. My dispute also lies in the shift of burden from the Church to the membership through coercive means.

What you need to understand when implementing security on any system (and I use the term 'security' broadly) is the profile of the typical 'bad' user - someone who intentionally or unintentionally uses the system to something it wasn't meant to do. Familysearch isn't a hacker-rich target; it's biggest security hole is the ability to enter restricted names. Thus, a system that makes it slightly harder to enter restricted names will deter most people. You don't need Fort Knox level security, you need just enough security to make it a hassle for most people.

Sure, some people will get through, but at least you could label those people 'determined' and know that they do have ill-intent and deal with them on an exceptional basis.

H.

[Jeff K.]

It all goes to motivation. Toronto could just as easily overcome more difficult obstacles and claim it isn't enough. It's not as if his integrity exists for honest reporting the issue or seeking to help. He doesn't want to help.

Now setting aside the little man. Consider the difficulty the church has with its world wide organization and open access to members based on trust. Do we cut the members off? Local work versus centralized, and the Internet is not universal, and one wonders if data bases are easily updated, and then there are duplicate names, similar sounding names, Partial names. Make no mistake, small minded people who cynically and shamelessly exploit holocaust victims as Toronto has done will not be satisfied until they force the church to stop completely. That is the goal of anti Mormons.

[Jeff K.]

For those with integrity

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, has taken its fair share of grief throughout its relatively short 180-year-old history.

From its founding in upstate New York by Joseph Smith, they were beaten, banned, murdered and exiled — before finding a safe haven in Utah.

Now it is taking it on the chin once again for the supposed “proxy-baptism” of Anne Frank and slain American Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl. It is another example of an unthinking attack on a religion that still has to beg for respect.

Despite it dropping polygamy from its teachings more than 100 years ago it is still accused of practicing polygamy. Because it uses other sacred texts outside of the Bible it is accused of being un-Christian and a cult by many so-called real Christians. And even during the present Republican primary, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith still appears to be a big deal, especially among evangelicals who cannot conceive of a Mormon in the White House.

None of this is fair. And most of it is from ignorance or just plain old bigotry. But anyone who is religious who goes after Mormons should look at their own particular beliefs — and then consider how odd they might seem to an outsider.

It is worth keep in mind that many secular people think all religions are delusional and all religious are demented.

Just witness this letter to the National Post:

“Reading the book excerpt on Mormon founder Joseph Smith reinforced my belief that ‘religion’ and ‘cult’ are one and the same, as they both have rites and ceremonies, and are based in a faith in a higher power controlling one’s destiny,” wrote one reader. “All one needs is a charismatic leader (J. Smith, Ron Hubbard, Jesus, Muhammad) to entice those around him to follow, and, voilà, a religion (cult) is born. The Ringling Brothers knew whereof they spoke: A sucker is born every minute. All of which is to say that all religions, all cults, and for that matter all gods are fabrications of a very few con men.”

A few weeks ago news reports began circulating that Mormons had posthumously baptized Frank and Pearl. Mormons believe in something called “proxy-baptism” which is a rite in which the souls of the dead are offered posthumous baptism and hence salvation and the entrance to eternal life.

The proxy baptism for Frank took place last month in a Mormon church in the Dominican Republic. It was found that Daniel Pearl was posthumously baptized in an Idaho temple in June.

Related

What baptism for the dead means to Mormons

It sounds odd, I know, but then ask a Catholic about the real presence in the mass and then decide which is stranger. Personally, neither is strange: they just grow out of different theologies and tradition. On the other hand I am religious so I am used to what secular people would call odd.

But the Mormon image was not going to be helped by doing a proxy baptism  — especially on an icon like Anne Frank.

There was much outrage but none of this was a legal act in the Mormon Church. It would be akin to someone bringing a roast pork to a Passover Seder.

Last week, the president of the Church issued a statement that could not have been clearer that these acts were against Mormon belief and simply beyond the pale.

“Without exception, church members must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names from unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims,” said Thomas S. Monson.

Those Mormons who perform such baptisms, he said, are in danger of losing their good standing in the faith.

The only people who can be submitted for proxy-baptism are direct relatives of Mormons, he added.

In effect, certain Mormons were not as up on their own religion as they should have been and went ahead with a ritual they were not supposed to perform. This should not be a surprise given there are Jews who know little about their religion and Protestants who have no idea who Martin Luther was.

National Post

• Email: clewis@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

[Brade]

It all goes to motivation. Toronto could just as easily overcome more difficult obstacles and claim it isn't enough. It's not as if his integrity exists for honest reporting the issue or seeking to help. He doesn't want to help.

Now setting aside the little man. Consider the difficulty the church has with its world wide organization and open access to members based on trust. Do we cut the members off? Local work versus centralized, and the Internet is not universal, and one wonders if data bases are easily updated, and then there are duplicate names, similar sounding names, Partial names. Make no mistake, small minded people who cynically and shamelessly exploit holocaust victims as Toronto has done will not be satisfied until they force the church to stop completely. That is the goal of anti Mormons.

Ok. Again, LDSToronto is an apostate and engaged in dishonesty. (1) Will you please provide quotes of people contesting that, and (2) will you answer the question of whether the Church's claim about how much deception and manipulation it takes to make improper submissions accurately reflects how much deception and manipulation it takes to make improper submissions? I'm noticing a trend here where you ask direct questions and I make a sincere effort to answer your questions and I ask you questions and you ignore them.

[Ares]

This is getting highly personal. Enough.