Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

I think it is clear by the screencaps that any "dummy" is capable of submitting any name they desire without a step-by-step manual.

I understand that there are websites and books for "dummies" on how to commit suicide, and yet others on how to commit murder, and still others on terrorism (ask Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier). Some people may actually think these websites and books are performing a public good.

(Is this clear enough for you H?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

I understand that there are websites and books for "dummies" on how to commit suicide, and yet others on how to how to commit murder, and still others on terrorism (ask Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier). Some people may actually think these websites and books are performing a public good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't create a how-to guide. The article is written to refute the claim that a good deal of deception and manipulation is required to bypass the Church's safeguards. I used pictures to show what the safeguards are and how much deception and manipulation is required.

H.

Link to comment

So you deliberately created this site to harm the church and now you are bragging about it.

Really good idea.

And you are here to see if the letter the church generated to deal with your harm got read in sacrament meeting.

Kind of like an arsonist sticking around to watch the firemen wouldn't you say?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I didn't create a how-to guide. The article is written to refute the claim that a good deal of deception and manipulation is required to bypass the Church's safeguards. I used pictures to show what the safeguards are and how much deception and manipulation is required.

H.

I understand what your intent was. It is the potential results that you are failing to grasp--which is why I brought up the analogies and alluded to the banality and counter-productivity of your approach, though I doubt you will ever get it. You are too busy riding your high horse to see the low branch of practicality ahead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

So you pay lip service to the idea that the Church "should do something," but you want those who do not respect the name submission system and who do not hold the Temple and its ordinances sacred to be free to go on abusing the system for their own idle entertainment.

I wrote the article to refute the Church's claim that a good deal of deception and manipulation is needed to bypass safeguards. i believe the Church has access to sufficient financial and technical resources to build a system that can do a much better job at honouring it's commitment to the families of Holocaust victims. So, no, I'm not just paying lip service to the idea that the Church should do something. I'm suggesting the Church should do something more.

Threatening the general membership is one way to implement safeguards. No member in good standing wants their membership on trial, so it makes sense to issue an ultimatum, right? Well, I don't think it's right at all. Disciplinary action is not meant to punish or coerce. And ultimately, it is the Church that made the commitment, not the membership. Putting the onus on the membership to keep the church honest... No, I don't agree with that.

H.

Link to comment

I do believe the church should do something to respect the families of Holocaust victims and survivors. I do not support the notion that the members should be threatened with disciplinary action if they violate policy.

H.

This has got to be one of the disingenuous threads I've ever seen on this board.

On the one hand, all patrons to the temple ready system know that it is patron driven, and not church-driven. Except for the extraction program, which rigorously adheres to the respect of Holocaust victims and other inappropriate groups, to the extent the extraction program is still in effect [i have my doubts], names are submitted by patrons. Although I am not completely up to date with recent changes to the system, my life-long familiarity with the system is that anybody can submit names for temple work, including non-members.

In my once-close affiliation with Jewish genealogical groups, they submitted names to the system before Ancestry.com because it was the only game in town, and they knew the names would have work done for them. It was the only way to ensure preservation of their family in the IGI.

But, that meant that fake persons and dogs could have been submitted. To circumvent the current bar program is really easy -- alter spellings; get birthplaces and dates wrong, and the like. There is no possible way to determine that a name submitted is a real person, or that the name submitted is really an ancestor to the patron. I could submit the name of William the Conqueror (as thousands have done) and who could gainsay that?

And here you demonstrate that you circumvent the system by submitting names of Holocaust survivors. What does that mean, really? Eighty percent of residents in Israel in 1948 were probably Holocaust survivors. Indeed, all of Eastern Europe could be said to be Holocaust survivors. And with this boast you somehow condemn the Church? And, plus, you boast on the Shady Site the fact that you are an active member of the Church? Really now; I return to my original comment. Disingenuous. Even if you are a hardened secret apostate, why waste your time with such frivolity?

Putting the onus on the membership to keep the church honest... No, I don't agree with that.

If you are familiar enough with the system to submit names, then you know darn well that the program is patron-driven. There is no general authority or staff member eyeballing your name to see if it appears to be a real person. It cannot be done.

Yes, one can bar Holocaust victims, because they are in published lists in the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum. But, alter things a little and they slip by. Just as it is impossible to make Windows and Word impervious to malicious attacks, so is it impossible to make the patron system impervious to a fellow in Toronto who uses an avatar of a pedophile.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment

So what we have is someone acting dishonestly in order to prove a system isn't perfect. It is true the church takes members at their word for much of what is done. Paying tithing, getting temple recommends, all easily circumvented with some level of dishonesty. I worry in a sense that people who undermine honesty, relish doing so because they cannot imagine a Zion people. They reject it for themselves and so wish to destroy it for others.

Link to comment

So you deliberately created this site to harm the church and now you are bragging about it.

Really good idea.

And you are here to see if the letter the church generated to deal with your harm got read in sacrament meeting.

Kind of like an arsonist sticking around to watch the firemen wouldn't you say?

I didn't do any harm to the church and I am not bragging about it. A poster here asked me to provide the link. If I recall, Bob Crockett brought up the subject, not me. And the Church didn't send out the letter to deal with any alleged harm I have done. And finally, if the church feels I have done it harm, they know where to find me.

H.

Link to comment

And here you demonstrate that you circumvent the system by submitting names of Holocaust survivors. What does that mean, really? Eighty percent of residents in Israel in 1948 were probably Holocaust survivors. Indeed, all of Eastern Europe could be said to be Holocaust survivors. And with this boast you somehow condemn the Church? And, plus, you boast on the Shady Site the fact that you are an active member of the Church? Really now; I return to my original comment. Disingenuous. Even if you are a hardened secret apostate, why waste your time with such frivolity?

I submitted a Holocaust victim as well, as the article states.

H.

Link to comment

LDS Toronto, regardless of what you think you did or didn't do, what you are doing isn't causing progress.

Of course you can get around the system. But creating a foolproof system is nigh impossible. There is almost always a way around things. Proving something like this does absolutely nothing at all.

I don't really respect people who do things like this, just to annoy people.

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

And, plus, you boast on the Shady Site the fact that you are an active member of the Church? Really now; I return to my original comment. Disingenuous. Even if you are a hardened secret apostate, why waste your time with such frivolity?

He is not a secret apostate. He is a blatantly obvious and committed apostate. Just look him up at the trailer park and see his content.

Link to comment

I didn't do any harm to the church and I am not bragging about it. A poster here asked me to provide the link. If I recall, Bob Crockett brought up the subject, not me. And the Church didn't send out the letter to deal with any alleged harm I have done. And finally, if the church feels I have done it harm, they know where to find me.

H.

How. Did you submit your real name? The Church does bar malicious submitters, but I happen to know the submitters easily circumvent the bar via other or false names. You're just an anonymous malcontent. I don't really care that somebody is a malcontent, but it does require some courage to assert your disagreement with church policy with your own name.

I submitted a Holocaust victim as well, as the article states.

Well, I guess their family must be leaping with joy right now.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment

LDS Toronto, regardless of what you think you did or didn't do, what you are doing isn't causing progress.

Of course you can get around the system. But creating a foolproof system is nigh impossible. There is almost always a way around things. Proving something like this does absolutely nothing at all.

I don't really respect people who do things like this, just to annoy people.

I didn't do this to annoy people. I understand people may be annoyed, but that was not my motive. My motive was to show that "a great deal of deception and manipulation" is not required to bypass the Church's safeguards, and thus, the solution that the church has implemented, namely threatening it's members, is not the right solution.

And I disagree - I have provoked a lot of response across the internet. This little blog post has gotten noticed. Big time.

H.

Link to comment

How. Did you submit your real name? The Church does bar malicious submitters, but I happen to know the submitters easily circumvent the bar via other or false names. You're just an anonymous malcontent. I don't really care that somebody is a malcontent, but it does require some courage to assert your disagreement with church policy with your own name.

Yes, I used my real name which is associated with my real Church membership number to carry out this experiment. And I can be contacted through the blog post's comments section - I get an email. I'm not hiding.

H.

Edited by LDSToronto
Link to comment

I didn't do this to annoy people. I understand people may be annoyed, but that was not my motive. My motive was to show that "a great deal of deception and manipulation" is not required to bypass the Church's safeguards, and thus, the solution that the church has implemented, namely threatening it's members, is not the right solution.

My friend, what's the point of showing that? There isn't any.

Any system can be overcome with enough effort. Putting in more roadblocks isn't going to stop people from submitting inappropriate names. And putting in those roadblocks will definitely harm some people who are trying to do things the right way. If we put more roadblocks, people will just find other ways to do things. That's the way life works.

And I disagree - I have provoked a lot of response across the internet. This little blog post has gotten noticed. Big time.

H.

To me, that seems like a rather pointless reason to do things; it's the reason I don't like some journalists. Creating commotion to get noticed is something I dislike nearly as much as people trying to annoy others.

Link to comment

I don't know why I waste my time.

You asked, I answered.

I wonder how the families of those little boys affected by Harvey Milk felt. He's a great guy to have as an avatar.

Not quite sure what my avatar has to do with the current topic.

H.

Link to comment

And some with no effort at all.

H.

There's no such thing as no effort at all. What you meant was a little effort.

Regardless, you did not respond to my point. Creating a more restrictive system would be A) impractical and B) still possible to mess up, with nearly the same amount of effort.

You need to imagine the possible alternatives, and also imagine doing them yourself, before you start criticizing something. Otherwise, you will just end up creating pointless commotion, and for me, that is undesirable.

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

To get back to the original topic of the thread, the letter from the First Presidency wasn't read in my ward in Rexburg either. I'm guessing it likely will be next week.

Edited by Gohan
Link to comment

To get back to the original topic of the thread, the letter from the First Presidency wasn't read in my ward in Rexburg either. I'm guessing it likely will be next week.

Did anybody bother to notice that the letter doesn't SAY it is SUPPOSED to be read??? That it's supposed to be POSTED?

Cheesh people.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...