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

[LDSToronto]

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

I am of the opinion that getting around what the church calls safeguards requires very little dishonesty, deception, and manipulation. I also happen to think that speeding kills, and that is much more dishonest.

H.

[zerinus]

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

If the Church has forbidden a practice, then breaking it (as a member of the Church) is dishonest. After all, you are only able to enter data into the system by virtue of your membership in the Church. It is a privilege that is granted to you by the Church. The Church has the right to withdraw that privilege from you if it believes that it is being abused. Every organization would have that right, including the Church.

[selek1]

I am of the opinion that getting around what the church calls safeguards requires very little dishonesty, deception, and manipulation. I also happen to think that speeding kills, and that is much more dishonest.

H.

The mating cry of the modern Pharisee:

"The difference between my sin and your sin is that I am sanctified by my holy cause, whereas you are not."

Edited March 6, 2012 by selek1

[blackstrap]

I leave my car in the Walmart parking lot with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. A teenager comes by and seeing the situation goes to open the door.He stops to read a sign on the door window."Please do not take this car" . He hesitates but then enters the car a sees another sign on the front seat which says," I really prefer that you not take this car!" He chuckles and reaches for the gear shift lever and notices a post-it note on the dash that reads," If you take this car there will be consequences !!". I come out of the store and find the car gone.

Now,the teenager is a thief,certainly.I can say that I made elaborate efforts to prevent the theft.I can claim that it takes deception and manipulation to take the car.Trouble is,the car is still gone.Sure I could have turned off the car and locked the doors,but why should I have to!

[Pahoran]

Please search for "Jesus of Nazareth" on familysearch.org. Tell me, which honest member feels they are a descendent of Jesus? For that matter, why are there multiple submissions for him? Under different names and from different people?

H.

Thank you, H. I have used this very example to point out that these submissions are absolutely not being made by believing Latter-day Saints.

Try to remember what you believed way back when you still did believe. Did it occur to you for a picosecond that there was anything Jesus need any mortal to do for His salvation?

This proves that submissions like this are being made, at best, by silly adolescents trying to see what they can get away with.

They do not hold sacred the Temple and its ordinances.

They do not regard the work for the Dead.

And they do not respect the Church's systems.

That sounds a lot like "apostates" to me; how about you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

I am of the opinion that getting around what the church calls safeguards requires very little dishonesty, deception, and manipulation. I also happen to think that speeding kills, and that is much more dishonest.

H.

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.

[Pahoran]

I leave my car in the Walmart parking lot with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. A teenager comes by and seeing the situation goes to open the door.He stops to read a sign on the door window."Please do not take this car" . He hesitates but then enters the car a sees another sign on the front seat which says," I really prefer that you not take this car!" He chuckles and reaches for the gear shift lever and notices a post-it note on the dash that reads," If you take this car there will be consequences !!". I come out of the store and find the car gone.

Now,the teenager is a thief,certainly.I can say that I made elaborate efforts to prevent the theft.I can claim that it takes deception and manipulation to take the car.Trouble is,the car is still gone.Sure I could have turned off the car and locked the doors,but why should I have to!

Interesting analogy. I have one that may be somewhat more apropos.

Your teenage nephew asks to borrow your car. You give your permission, on condition he takes it just where he says he is going to, observes the road rules including the speed limit, carries no passengers, and returns it with a full tank.

He agrees to those conditions. You then hand him the keys.

The next morning you notice the tank is 1/4 full. Two weeks later you get a speeding ticket in the mail for that evening, and a second ticket for running a red light. The second ticket is accompanied by a photograph. It shows your car, your nephew at the wheel and a young lady you don't know draped all over him. When you read the tickets, you discover he was in a completely different town from where he said he was going.

Is it your fault for trusting him, or his for breaking his agreement?

When you confront him, he blithely says, "Oh, I was just testing the system to see if it would stop me from misbehaving."

Do you then accept that excuse?

The Church deals with people on a basis of trust. It has always dealt with people on a basis of trust. Are you arguing that it has some responsibility treat everyone as if they're as dishonest, deceitful and dishonourable as, well, your hypothetical nephew?

Or anyone his hypothetical deeds might hypothetically resemble?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Thank you, H. I have used this very example to point out that these submissions are absolutely not being made by believing Latter-day Saints.

How do you know? And why havent' they been removed by the church?

[divinenature]

The temple work is being done by LDS with valid temple recommends...

[Jeff K.]

Anti Mormons have no honesty in their arguments. So when they tell you they are sincere regarding leaving the church (ie they left because they found some objective proof that led them to leave) they are most probably not telling the truth, they may be lying a little, for the greater good of course, when in fact they are simply covering up a personal short coming. But then, thats just a little lie isn't it? And we are supposed to tolerate those lies. But not the lies he accuses others of making? Does he realize that his credibility is zero?

[LDSToronto]

This might not come as a shock to you, but I have family that was butchered in the Holocaust.

I am deeply sorry that your family had to suffer.

H.

[Jeff K.]

And yet LDS Toronto, you have added to their suffering. Do you feel better now?

You forgot the more salient part....

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.

So when the church makes a mistake in its sincere efforts, and a surviving member of the family is hurt or offended by the act, you and some others get up in arms. But for you, their pain, their suffering, their names are merely an afterthought, you don't care about them. What is important to you is using them for your own peurile purposes, to boost your own ego.

And yet here you are, and people like you attacking the church. Your hypocrisy, combined with your dishonesty of the act makes for a very small individual. You are to be pitied for the smallness of your character.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jeff K.

[ERayR]

I am of the opinion that getting around what the church calls safeguards requires very little dishonesty, deception, and manipulation. I also happen to think that speeding kills, and that is much more dishonest.

H.

If you and others were honest no safeguards would be needed.

[LDSToronto]

If the Church has forbidden a practice, then breaking it (as a member of the Church) is dishonest. After all, you are only able to enter data into the system by virtue of your membership in the Church. It is a privilege that is granted to you by the Church. The Church has the right to withdraw that privilege from you if it believes that it is being abused. Every organization would have that right, including the Church.

I thought you said earlier that the church has a policy against sinning? Dishonesty is a form of sin. If so, the Church has forbidden the practice of dishonesty. I fail to see how you justify applying the "self-check" system in some scenarios and the "Church has forbidden it" in other scenarios.

H.

[Jeff K.]

I am deeply sorry that your family had to suffer.

H.

I doubt that, otherwise you wouldn't have used the names to boost your ego in the first place. Your words are empty and meaningless, especially given your dishonesty in the matter.

[LDSToronto]

And yet LDS Toronto, you have added to their suffering. Do you feel better now?

You forgot the more salient part....

So when the church makes a mistake in its sincere efforts, and a surviving member of the family is hurt or offended by the act, you and some others get up in arms. But for you, their pain, their suffering, their names are merely an afterthought, you don't care about them. What is important to you is using them for your own peurile purposes, to boost your own ego.

And yet here you are, and people like you attacking the church. Your hypocrisy, combined with your dishonesty of the act makes for a very small individual. You are to be pitied for the smallness of your character.

My conscience is clear; my character magnanimous and large.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Sociopaths have a clear conscience too, not a drop of empathy though.

[LDSToronto]

I doubt that, otherwise you wouldn't have used the names to boost your ego in the first place. Your words are empty and meaningless, especially given your dishonesty in the matter.

If my words are empty and meaningless, stop replying to them. Otherwise, they appear to have meaning for you.

H.

[Jeff K.]

They are empty and meaningless, we are simply reminding you of the dishonesty you seem to have trouble recognizing.

[LDSToronto]

They are empty and meaningless, we are simply reminding you of the dishonesty you seem to have trouble recognizing.

I recognize dishonesty. I admitted to deception in the article I wrote. That was the point of the article.

H.

[Bob Crockett]

Now that I've come to understand what you've done I don't know what you've proved. All a patron need to do is say is that he or she is a descendant and the Holocaust victim rule does not apply, and certainly does not apply if you are claiming descendancy from a survivor. There can be no software bar. There is no way to challenge your claim nor any record on earth to do so.

What interests me more is the duplicity directed at an institution you despise and boasting about it. Doesn't that just play into the hands of the more rabid around here? I mean, won't this thread be shown around by them to say, see how the church is persecuted through the Internet with vapid attacks?

Actually I'm not all that interested. I see your avatar and I can pretty much figure out what you want to say. Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame. But to really run with the big boys in bringing down the church you can't do so anonymously. With few exceptions Sunstone, Dialogue and Signature will kick you to the curb. Fame as an avatar is foolishness.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

Anti Mormons have no honesty in their arguments. So when they tell you they are sincere regarding leaving the church (ie they left because they found some objective proof that led them to leave) they are most probably not telling the truth, they may be lying a little, for the greater good of course, when in fact they are simply covering up a personal short coming. But then, thats just a little lie isn't it? And we are supposed to tolerate those lies. But not the lies he accuses others of making? Does he realize that his credibility is zero?

I received a private message from a well-known poster at the trailer park telling me how he is "coming around" again to the church and is about to get his recommend back, and how his attitude has changed.

Then I turn around and he is still HIGHLY critical of the church on the other board. I really don't understand the psychology of that at all.

Why would someone do that? He posts under a fake name, but virtually everyone knows his real name.

[Storm Rider]

Every time I come to this thread I feel more and more pity for your words and actions, T. You obviously don't see yourself as you are. Take some time to clean the mirror and take a long look. You have fallen far and are not cognizant of what you have become. You are defending vile actions with rationalizations. You stand up proudly to correction to justify yourself.

Would that you could be a source of peace in the world. The only reason I recognize it is because I too am a sinner; the difference is that I know what I am and you stand defiant in your darkness.

[JDave]

I recognize dishonesty. I admitted to deception in the article I wrote. That was the point of the article.

The point of the article was to show how dishonest you are? To prove that you are capable and willing to participate in deception just to point out that someone else's claims weren't accurate? To illustrate beyond doubt that you have no higher ground upon which to stand?

If you really wanted to make a point that the Church's statement wasn't accurate, that it was bordering on deceit perhaps in your view, it would behoove you not to participate in deceit to do so.

[mfbukowski]

From the Newsroom:

Sheesh, people.

Note that it does not SAY THAT IN THE LETTER as quoted. That comment was "from the newsroom".