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

[LDSToronto]

Harvey meet Toronto...

Um... did you miss the post earlier in the thread where I said I no longer held a temple recommend?

H.

[KevinG]

Um... did you miss the post earlier in the thread where I said I no longer held a temple recommend?

H.

So claiming you could go to the temple and do the work was simply a poorly framed rhetorical point. I get it now.

[KevinG]

As long as were on the subject. If you are not doing this for attention, noteriety or to publicly embarass the church why not report the issues in a politely worded letter to the Webmaster of the New Family Search?

[divinenature]

LDSToronto could have had the cards printed at the temple and handed them out for others to do the ordinances for...

[LDSToronto]

The Church has a policy against sinning; so if you are sinning, you are obviously breaking Church policy.

I am being quite serious here - please provide me with a reference to this policy.

I think you are reading it wrong. Every sin has an element of dishonesty within it. I can't think of one that doesn't.

Please show me how I am reading Handbook 1 incorrectly. It is quite specific - sections 6.7.1, 6.7.2, and 6.7.3 state when discipline is not needed, when it may be needed, and when it is absolutely needed.

H.

[LDSToronto]

So claiming you could go to the temple and do the work was simply a poorly framed rhetorical point. I get it now.

One could submit a name at 8AM and drive to the temple after work and perform a proxy baptism. My apologies if you felt that I was the only person who could perform this feat. I will try to be less ambiguous in the future.

H.

Your statements were more misleading than ambiguous. Don't be shocked when posters respond to claims you make. - Ares

[LDSToronto]

As long as were on the subject. If you are not doing this for attention, noteriety or to publicly embarass the church why not report the issues in a politely worded letter to the Webmaster of the New Family Search?

Free speech, and to generate public discourse.

H.

Edited March 6, 2012 by LDSToronto

[divinenature]

No Toronto (who appears to be a member in name only) has proven that himself. Keep trying to convince yourself that the continued submission of Holocaust victims is being done by faithful Latter-day Saints who follow the rules.

I never said it was done by members that follow the rules. That would be absurd. It is done by believing members who either don't know/understand the guidelines or choose not to adhere to them.

That is why in order for the church to keep the promise it made to the Jewish community it needs to have actual safeguards in place.

ETA: I do think that whomever submitted Mickey and Minnie Mouse is likely not a believing member. Nephi and his family...I am not sure who would have done that one.

Edited March 6, 2012 by divinenature

[KevinG]

Free speech, and to generate public discourse.

H.

That much is clear. However how do you equate intentinally feeding bad information into someones database with free speech and attempting to create or elevate an embarassing situation with public discourse?

That still doesn't answer the question: Why not correct the church privately and without creating a bigger mess than already exists due to ignorance, sabotage or disobedience (or all of the above)?

Other less savory intent could easily be implied by your actions and public (albeit anonymous) sabotage and boasting.

[KevinG]

I never said it was done by members that follow the rules. That would be absurd. It is done by believing members who either don't know/understand the guidelines or choose not to adhere to them.

That is why in order for the church to keep the promise it made to the Jewish community it needs to have actual safeguards in place.

ETA: I do think that whomever submitted Mickey and Minnie Mouse is likely not a believing member. Nephi and his family...I am not sure who would have done that one.

You said "lots of members". In your brilliant and informed analysis a few examples of idiocy in a database of tens of millions of names submitted by millions of members and non-members = lots of members".

This thread is not about the personalities of those posting. You are excused from the discussion. -Ares

[zerinus]

I am being quite serious here - please provide me with a reference to this policy.

"And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; . . ." (2 Nephi 33:5).

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" (D&C 1:31).

And from a Conference talk by Gordon B. Hinckley:

The story is told that one Sunday Calvin Coolidge, onetime president of the United States and a man noted for few words, returned from church. His wife asked him what the preacher spoke about. He replied, “Sin.” “What did he say?” she asked. “He was against it,” was his reply.

I think I could answer the question concerning gambling just that briefly.We are against it. Source.

Just to mention a few. The Church is against sin. That is a Church policy.

Please show me how I am reading Handbook 1 incorrectly. It is quite specific - sections 6.7.1, 6.7.2, and 6.7.3 state when discipline is not needed, when it may be needed, and when it is absolutely needed.

You name me one sin mentioned in the above sections for which discipline is "needed," and I will show you how it also involves dishonesty.

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus

[orion88]

I do not support the notion that the members should be threatened with disciplinary action if they violate policy.

Would this mean that the church should not revoke your temple recommend if you were

caught in the act of adultery?

I had a specific comment on this part of the article - "Without exception, Church members

must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names from unauthorized groups, such

as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims. If members do so, they may forfeit their New

FamilySearch privileges. Other corrective action may also be taken."

When the saints are doing FamilySearch for the first time, are they given any "to do"/"don't do"

guidelines?

If no, why not? If yes, then wouldn't this subsequent instruction be like telling temple goers not

to steal (or trepass) but then give them locks anyway so they can put on the lockers in the

wardrobe change area? Are any untrustworthy individuals allowed in the temple during the

ceremony?

[mfbukowski]

You are welcome. You can think of it as an innocent test of the Church discipline system if it comes to that.

[LDSToronto]

"And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; . . ." (2 Nephi 33:5).

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" (D&C 1:31).

And from a Conference talk by Gordon B. Hinckley:

The story is told that one Sunday Calvin Coolidge, onetime president of the United States and a man noted for few words, returned from church. His wife asked him what the preacher spoke about. He replied, “Sin.” “What did he say?” she asked. “He was against it,” was his reply.

I think I could answer the question concerning gambling just that briefly.We are against it. Source.

Just to mention a couple. The Church is against sin. That is a Church policy.

I think we could have a long talk about policy and doctrine and the differences. However, I don't want to get into other sensitive areas.

You name me one sin mentioned in the above sections for which indiscipline is "needed," and I will show you how it also involves dishonesty.

You are moving the goal lines. Initially you said that deception (or dishonesty) was a disciplinable offence. Just because dishonesty is involved in a disciplinable offense does not mean that all dishonesty is a disciplinable offense.

H.

[Jeff K.]

I think its amazing how people strive to cover for or cover up dishonest acts. Had someone acted honestly, but found an error in the system, a simple recognition of the system problem could have been sent to alert administrators. So why wasn't it done? The gleeful manner in which the system error was exploited reflects the mindset in place. The somewhat sketchy and self congratulatory manner also speaks to the state of mind of the individual.

Anti Mormons are thrilled when something like this occurs. They would never simply go to the administration of the system and inform the organization how to make the system better. No, anti Mormons would exhult to their cohorts at how they "tricked" those Mormons. What is interesting is Helen Radkey, an anti Mormon hasn't done this, she has simply used errors to exploit her position and seek fame for her attacks. Deliberately instilling information, and using one's knowledge to overcome safeguards, well that speaks to an entirely more insidious method. As such it is unfortunate, but the small minded will always find small ways to make themselves feel or look bigger. It is dishonest, it is deception, it goes directly to the integrity of a man who is using a service provided for free, that would, in the normal scheme of the world costs money (ancestry.com charges for the same service of locating ancestry). One can wrap the rat in free speech assertions, but in the end, it is still a rat.

I like the fact that our church plays fair, seeks to do what is right, and tries to accomodate the needs of all involved. As an organization, they are significantly more righteous than the individual who lied to make himself look better. Small men with big egos are not dangerous, they are only pitied.

[mfbukowski]

Are any untrustworthy individuals allowed in the temple during the

ceremony?

Isn't that what we are discussing? If liars and apostates can get in, I would suppose thieves could as well. Was that really hard to figure out, or couldn't you drop your critical attitude for even a moment to think it through?

[zerinus]

You are moving the goal lines. Initially you said that deception (or dishonesty) was a disciplinable offence. Just because dishonesty is involved in a disciplinable offense does not mean that all dishonesty is a disciplinable offense.

Every form of dishonesty, when not repented of, can be a disciplinary offence. One of the temple recommend interview questions asks, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" If answered negatively, you will not obtain a temple recommend. That is a form of disciplinary action. It is therefore a disciplinary offence.

[LDSToronto]

Every form of dishonesty, when not repented of, can be a disciplinary offence. One of the temple recommend interview questions asks, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" If answered negatively, you will not obtain a temple recommend. That is a form of disciplinary action. It is therefore a disciplinary offence.

In my experience this is not true. A simple test - how many times do you exceed the speed limit? Does this prevent you from holding a temple recommend?

[mfbukowski]

In my experience this is not true. A simple test - how many times do you exceed the speed limit? Does this prevent you from holding a temple recommend?

Obviously it is a question of degree- if by lying you embezzle 19 million dollars, that would be an offense for which you could get excommunicated.

This is a silly discussion- it depends on how seriously the disciplinary council saw it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

Obviously it is a question of degree- if by lying you embezzle 19 million dollars, that would be an offense for which you could get excommunicated.

This is a silly discussion- it depends on how seriously the disciplinary council saw it.

Of course it's a question of degree. And it's not a silly discussion because it seems as though the sticking point here is to what degree does one have to be dishonest to submit a name for proxy baptism.

I say "not very dishonest".

H.

[zerinus]

In my experience this is not true. A simple test - how many times do you exceed the speed limit? Does this prevent you from holding a temple recommend?

You are expected to be honest in your dealings with your fellowmen, period. Whether you think breaking the speed limit violates that rule for you or not is a question that you have to answer for yourself. The bishop doesn't ask you if you are breaking the speed limit or not, but if you are being honest or not. You answer that for yourself.

[Jeff K.]

In my experience this is not true. A simple test - how many times do you exceed the speed limit? Does this prevent you from holding a temple recommend?

Depends, are you honest in your dealing with your fellow man?

Is there anything you need to repent of?

[volgadon]

Of course it's a question of degree. And it's not a silly discussion because it seems as though the sticking point here is to what degree does one have to be dishonest to submit a name for proxy baptism.

I say "not very dishonest".

H.

So, flatly lying by claiming that you have permission from the nearest kin is "not very dishonest?"

[LDSToronto]

You are expected to be honest in your dealings with your fellowmen, period. Whether you think breaking the speed limit violates that rule for you or not is a question that you have to answer for yourself. The bishop doesn't ask you if you are breaking the speed limit or not, but if you are being honest or not. You answer that for yourself.

Then it follows that what I consider dishonest may not be the same as what you consider dishonest, correct?

[LDSToronto]

Depends, are you honest in your dealing with your fellow man?

Is there anything you need to repent of?

Nothing I can think of.

H.