Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Huh? I didn't write the SLTrib article...You are right. I made an assumption that you agreed with the article because you chose to end the quote by posting the criticisms in the article.If you had quoted a few more lines, I would likely have assumed something else. For example the very next lines after you stopped were:Although the new system may block a watchdog, it also is expected to help the church live up to its agreement with Jewish groups by excluding Holocaust victims from proxy baptisms.Now, those names will trip the new censors, so FamilySearch users can neither input nor search for such names, unless they are family. Even so, the church concedes no system is foolproof.If you'd cared to explain why you quoted only what you did, I'd be interested. Edited March 8, 2012 by calmoriah 1
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Of course you did!! Don't deny it!Good grief people, are we so full of spite and mercilessness that we have to pile on no matter what? Some of you obviously didn't even read the article before criticising.Here's some advice: Before Commenting, Read the Freaking Article.If he hadn't posted this (because he is concerned about the issue) then I don't know how long it would have taken the story to come out. And what if it had been ME that posted the link and quote to the article? Would you have piled on top of me, too? I doubt it. Just because it is LDSToronto and you don't like his attitude doesn't mean that you have to put the scorn on automatically.Call for Dr. Pavlov! Your dog is slobbering!Woof! Before scolding read the comments. I was congratulating LDSToronto on getting his wish. He was just too modest to take credit for his heroic campaign for free speech and public discourse (which was not civil disobediance or the mythical religious disobedience).
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 This latest "safeguard" does not in any way stop FS users from submitting the names of Jews and famous people.
Jeff K. Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Anti Mormons are small that way. They complain that what they wanted isn't what they wanted. Too bad, no soup for you!
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Here's some advice: Before Commenting, Read the Freaking Article.I did and I noticed what he left out. And I made assumptions based on what he left out in comparison to what he chose to highlight. If I am wrong in my assumption, I apologize for my misreading on his intentions.
Stargazer Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Woof!Before scolding read the comments. I was congratulating LDSToronto on getting his wish. He was just too modest to take credit for his heroic campaign for free speech and public discourse (which was not civil disobediance or the mythical religious disobedience).I wasn't necessarily including you in the scold. The Pavlov's dog reference was not a reflection on your avatar -- which is a neat avatar btw, is that a Dutch Shepherd? -- it was a reference to people who jump when someone says "frog". Nobody here uses a frog in their avatar so i think I'm safe on that one.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 This latest "safeguard" does not in any way stop FS users from submitting the names of Jews and famous people.I think you are mistaken. You could not submit a name for temple work without calling it up in the database in the first place. I'm pretty sure if someone entered one of these forbidden names they would face the same restriction and probably more severe church discipline than someone who merely searched for it.Of course LDSToronto can continue his campaign of free speech and public discourse by attempting to submit Anne Frank for temple work at 8:30am then recruit a baptism team to perform the ordinance that afternoon. He can report back and let us know how that worked.
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Anti Mormons are small that way. They complain that what they wanted isn't what they wanted. Too bad, no soup for you!What was wanted is for members to stop submitting (for ordinances) the names of Jews and famous people. This latest action in no way prevents these submissions from happening.Too bad...
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 This latest "safeguard" does not in any way stop FS users from submitting the names of Jews and famous people.The article states: Although the new system may block a watchdog, it also is expected to help the church live up to its agreement with Jewish groups by excluding Holocaust victims from proxy baptisms.Now, those names will trip the new censors, so FamilySearch users can neither input nor search for such names, unless they are family. What do you know that the article doesn't know?
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I think you are mistaken. You could not submit a name for temple work without calling it up in the database in the first place. I'm pretty sure if someone entered one of these forbidden names they would face the same restriction and probably more severe church discipline than someone who merely searched for it.Of course LDSToronto can continue his campaign of free speech and public discourse by attempting to submit Anne Frank for temple work at 8:30am then recruit a baptism team to perform the ordinance that afternoon. He can report back and let us know how that worked.I think you are mistaken. There is no grand master list of forbidden names.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I wasn't necessarily including you in the scold. The Pavlov's dog reference was not a reflection on your avatar -- which is a neat avatar btw, is that a Dutch Shepherd? -- it was a reference to people who jump when someone says "frog". Nobody here uses a frog in their avatar so i think I'm safe on that one.I take EVERYTHING personally!!!! (kidding)The pic is my Chow, Aussie Shepard and Retreiver mix when she was a puppy. She looks like a chocolate collie with a purple tongue and fuzzy butt now she is grown. Horribly neurotic - but what do you expect from my dog?
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 What do you know that the article doesn't know?Thank you for pointing this out. Where can we find a list of these forbidden names?
BCSpace Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) If I were programming for the Church, I'd have a special tidbit for Helen's computer.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqkKlK85TVI&feature=related Edited March 8, 2012 by BCSpace 3
Stargazer Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I did and I noticed what he left out. And I made assumptions based on what he left out in comparison to what he chose to highlight. If I am wrong in my assumption, I apologize for my misreading on his intentions.I am not absolutely sure I know what LDSToronto's intentions are, I would just prefer to err on the side of mercy and charity. I was about to say "mercy and grace" but someone (like mercyngrace) might have taken that wrong. Besides, his avatar is such a charming guy!
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I think you are mistaken. There is no grand master list of forbidden names.And your source of information?
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Never mind you found Cals quote... Edited March 8, 2012 by KevinG
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 And your source of information?I have seen no evidence for such. If someone can produce a list I shall believe.
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Thank you for pointing this out.So you hadn't read the article yet?
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 So you hadn't read the article yet?I've read it in full once.
KevinG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Thank you for pointing this out. Where can we find a list of these forbidden names?Try randomly inserting names of Holocaust victims, celebrities and other famous people not related to you. I'm pretty sure you will have a high ratio of hits- then you can create your own list.(Seriously I'm sure the work the LDS Church has been doing with the Jewish community on this issue for years has generated a list already)
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I have seen no evidence for such. If someone can produce a list I shall believe.I would assume it would be counterproductive to release a "master list" if the Church wants to prevent deception and manipulation.
LDSToronto Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 What term would use use to describe intentionally breaking the rules a church has put in place to protect the integrity of their geneological database?Curious.H.
divinenature Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 I would assume it would be counterproductive to release a "master list" if the Church wants to prevent deception and manipulation.If it triggers alarms and they are able to deny people access I would think it would be the exact course of action to take.
Calm Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Try randomly inserting names of Holocaust victims, celebrities and other famous people not related to you. I'm pretty sure you will have a high ratio of hits- then you can create your own list.(Seriously I'm sure the work the LDS Church has been doing with the Jewish community on this issue for years has generated a list already)One only has to go look at the Jewish research aid the Church puts out to figure this out.
Recommended Posts