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

[zerinus]

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.

That made no sense at all. I thought computer programmers had logical minds. This is an illogical argument if I ever heard one. How would you convert that into a computer algorithm I wonder?

The Church forbids something (say the word of wisdom). The Church trusts you to be honest in a temple interview, and tell the truth if you are breaking the word of wisdom, and grants you a temple recommend on the basis of that trust. Later the Church discovers that you have been dishonest and not been telling the truth. The Church takes disciplinary action as deemed appropriate for the occasion. What is there about that scenario that you find difficult to understand?

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

double post

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus

[LDSToronto]

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.

You are right. If I really wanted fame I should have used my real name. I guess fame wasn't driving me after all.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I am not a sinner, nor are you, StormRider. Don't be so hard on yourself.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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.

No. The point of the article was to quantify the amount of deceit required to bypass the Church's safeguards. The Church claimed a good deal of deception and manipulation was needed, I found that a good deal of deception and manipulation was not needed. You are welcome to refute the claim.

H.

[LDSToronto]

That made no sense at all. I thought computer programmers had logical minds. This is an illogical argument if I ever heard one. How would you convert that into a computer algorithm I wonder?

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.

[jskains]

This all seems like some thief coming to your house, finding out one of your doors are open, taking your nice 60" TV, then claiming they did it to show how lacking in house security you are. Or hackers who break into people's computers to to show how poor your computer security is.

People do malicious things all the time, then justify them with some pseudo vigilanty smokescreen. The reality is they are just making it impossible for honest people to function. It's sad really.

JMS

Edited March 6, 2012 by jskains

[LDSToronto]

This all seems like some thief coming to your house, finding out one of your doors are open, taking your nice 60" TV, then claiming they did it to show how lacking in house security you are. Or hackers who break into people's computers to to show how poor your computer security is.

People do malicious things all the time, then justify them with some pseudo vigilanty smokescreen. The reality is they are just making it impossible for honest people to function. It's sad really.

JMS

I've seen a few of these analogies. What you, and others, are describing is thievery and burglary. What I did is not thievery or burglary. Nothing was stolen and the system was left intact. There are not two additional records in FamilySearch because of what I did.

If you need an analogy, think of what I did as investigative reporting, sort of like this: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insanity-201112

Of course, that type of investigation is way out of my league. Then again, so is thievery and burglary.

H.

[jskains]

I've seen a few of these analogies. What you, and others, are describing is thievery and burglary. What I did is not thievery or burglary. Nothing was stolen and the system was left intact. There are not two additional records in FamilySearch because of what I did.

If you need an analogy, think of what I did as investigative reporting, sort of like this: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insanity-201112

Of course, that type of investigation is way out of my league. Then again, so is thievery and burglary.

H.

Whatever means you need to justify your behavior. You are not a reporter or a consultant in charge of testing systems. Your just some guy. I think you and God will have a lot to discuss.

[Bob Crockett]

No. The point of the article was to quantify the amount of deceit required to bypass the Church's safeguards. The Church claimed a good deal of deception and manipulation was needed, I found that a good deal of deception and manipulation was not needed. You are welcome to refute the claim.

H.

To claim you are a descendant when you are not is all the deception necessary. You think it nothing. The church thinks it is sufficient deception to revoke and ban. But there isn't any way to catch such deception.

What the church does it get a complaint about a name. It then asks the submitter about it. If the submitter continues to maintain descendancy usually the name is not removed.

Without a complaint the church accepts as truthful the claim of descendancy.

In your case these procedures never kicked in because you removed the names and claimed victory. But, in reality, the system prevailed because your names are not there.

Now, you've posted a blog telling others how to repeat what you've done. Go for it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[zerinus]

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.

LOL! That looks too much like a piece of code I found in Stuxnet. If you tried to code that into your computer it would be worse than division by zero. Your hard drive would spin out of control the CPU would go up in smoke!

[LDSToronto]

To claim you are a descendant when you are not is all the deception necessary.

Exactly my point.

You think it nothing.

I think it's less than the church claims it to be.

The church thinks it is sufficient deception to revoke and ban.

That is their prerogative.

But there isn't any way to catch such deception.

There are plenty of ways to catch such deception.

What the church does it get a complaint about a name. It then asks the submitter about it. If the submitter continues to maintain descendancy usually the name is not removed.

Is that why "Jesus of Nazareth" is still in the system? Adolph Hitler?

Without a complaint the church accepts as truthful the claim of descendancy.

That seems irresponsible.

In your case these procedures never kicked in because you removed the names and claimed victory. But, in reality, the system prevailed because your names are not there.

My names are not there because I removed them. And I'd disagree - no one would have complained about the two names I entered unless the names were searched out and complaints were submitted. By then I could have had them baptized, confirmed, initiated, endowed, and sealed.

Once again, I refer you to "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Adolph Hitler", who remain in the system. Multiple times.

Now, you've posted a blog telling others how to repeat what you've done. Go for it.

I've not told anyone to repeat what I did. It's not as though I used a secret, previously unknown technique. I did what every other member of the LDS church can do. And, unless people have a membership number, they can't do what I did anyways. And, since you believe that most all members are honest, what do you have to worry about?

H.

[LDSToronto]

LOL! That looks too much like a piece of code I found in Stuxnet. If you tried to code that into your computer it would be worse than division by zero. Your hard drive would spin out of control the CPU would go up in smoke!

It's pseudo-code (programmers shorthand) that I whipped up on the fly. It won't run on any computer because I didn't use a specific language to write it. And it's not a virus.

H.

[sjdawg]

I'm a little stunned by the hostility in this thread. 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. The hostility seems disproportionate to the crime

[Somebodyz]

My intent was not to solve the Church's problems. But let me give you a freebie solution:

1. Use a loose pattern matching algorithm to check submissions against a list of restricted names. Such lists are easily obtainable.

2. Sequester names that are flagged as possible matches.

3. Do a more thorough check on sequestered names. This can be done low-cost - have service missionaries do it. Create a protocol that checks for verifies proof of permission.

Yes, this system can be circumvented. But it would take much more effort to circumvent than the current system.

H.

Still don't see how this would work. Say Rebecca Erhlich died at one of the camps. How do you restrict her name?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Somebodyz

[Brade]

Whatever means you need to justify your behavior. You are not a reporter or a consultant in charge of testing systems. Your just some guy. I think you and God will have a lot to discuss.

I don't think so.

[JDave]

No. The point of the article was to quantify the amount of deceit required to bypass the Church's safeguards. The Church claimed a good deal of deception and manipulation was needed, I found that a good deal of deception and manipulation was not needed. You are welcome to refute the claim.

But if you really have a problem with the Church claiming something that isn't true, why don't you have any problem with yourself when you claimed something that isn't true?

You don't have any problem with your own personal deception, so why worry about a misstatement from the LDS Church (to which you don't even feel any current allegiance)?

[zerinus]

It's pseudo-code (programmers shorthand) that I whipped up on the fly. It won't run on any computer because I didn't use a specific language to write it. And it's not a virus.

Seriously though, you have got it wrong with regard to how the Church is implementing its policy of preventing inappropriate name submission for Holocaust victims, and should be willing to admit it.The Church has got the balance right, by advising Church members against it, without making the system impractical to use for ordinary members (which wouldn't be very effective deterrent anyway). Since only Church members are able to use the system, and they are bound to abide by the Church's rules (and the vast majority of them do), that is the most appropriate way that the Church could tackle the problem. I think you should find something more useful to do with your time than wasting it trying to show up the Church in a bad light. It is not going to work, and you are going to end up looking the worse off rather than the Church. It is like that funny woman, what's her name, who has been talked about here recently.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm a little stunned by the hostility in this thread. \

Actually, what is really silly is that this thread has gone on for 11 pages. Guys, this is pointless. "H" feels justified and there is nothing you guys can say or do that will change his mind.

[Anijen]

I don't think so.

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.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[jskains]

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just adding my voice that I agree what he did was very wrong if not unethical. I am tired of these self assigned vigilantes trying to expose weaknesses. I think most of it is for attention.

JMHO.

[Pahoran]

I'm a little stunned by the hostility in this thread. 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. The hostility seems disproportionate to the crime

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.

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

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.

Regards,

Pahoran

[divinenature]

I hunted down the agreement that the LDS church made with the Jewish community. It can be found here: http://www.avotaynu.com/mormons/MormonAgreement.pdf

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

An informative article chronicling the issue can be found here: http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

[Pahoran]

I hunted down the agreement that the LDS church made with the Jewish community. It can be found here: http://www.avotaynu....onAgreement.pdf

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

An informative article chronicling the issue can be found here: http://www.jewishgen...s/ldsagree.html

To see how "informative" it is, check out the title:

Mormons Hijack Dead or Alive Jewish Souls

This is not information, it is manipulation; we are clearly in the realm of agitprop.

Of course a title is only a title; it does not, because it cannot, tell the whole story. But when we read the text, we come across gems like this one:

The wrongful posthumous baptism of Jewish dead continues, despite repeated denials by the disingenuous Mormon leadership.

And:

Mormons are hijacking history. In a hundred years, who will know the true facts about you and your heritage? Who will know anything about your family? No one. Very possibly no one! Because in a hundred years the record will apparently show that they were allegedly converts without making clear that it was by no act of their own.

This, incidentally is a recurring theme. It is absolutely bogus, but the article harps on it. Why? Because without it they have nothing to complain about.

Regrettably, their baptismal records place before the public a revisionist view that these deceased Jews were Mormons, a position they would have rejected in life.

No. They do not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[divinenature]

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.