Mormon Church Blocks Whistle-Blower’S Access To Proxy Baptism Data

[Craig Paxton]

Because we really wouldn't want anyone finding out that the church is still postumately baptizing holocaust victims and celebrities would we....why that would publically embarrass the church.... ,irony indended.

It begs the question…what is the church scared of, that they need to stop some whistle blower from making sure that they are keeping their promise not to perform these baptisms?

IF they have nothing to hide…I think they would make it easier to do these searches…

Ummm….wonder what else they’re hiding…

Edited March 8, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

I have to chuckle at the paranoia of the anti Mormons. They are so darn consistent its amazing. To them everything is suspicious, to them everything is evil, they are caught in their own little video game loop, the hero in a fantasy that simply does not exist. Apparently Jewish leadership appears to be happy, the anti Mormons? Well, their happiness is derived from their grumbling as the wingnuts that hold their universe together.

Wingnut away little people, wingnut away......

[zerinus]

What?! Of course nonmembers can pay tithing! Where'd you get the idea that they couldn't? It doesn't happen often, but it happens. There's a nonmember who attends our ward all the time who pays tithing. Don't ask me why he does and yet doesn't get baptized, but that's his business.

I think you got that wrong. Tithing is recorded against your name and membership number in the Church. You can't pay tithing if you are not a member. When you receive your tithing receipt, in it in your name as it is recorded in the Church's membership records. You can pay other kinds of voluntary donations if you are not a member, but not tithing. The person you are referring to is probably making other voluntary donations. Excommunicated members cannot pay tithing. They are advised to save their tithings, and pay it after they have repented and been rebaptized into the Church (unless the policy has changed). I may be mistaken, but I think another way that exed members can pay tithing is through another member of record who is able to pay tithing. The donation will be recorded against the other person's membership name.

[Pahoran]

This is very much the business of the Jewish community whom the church made an agreement to over 15 years ago. They promised to keep Jewish names (non-ancestors of living LDS members) out of the database. They have had difficulty keeping that promise in the years following the agreement.

I am aware of this popular bit of agitprop. But that last sentence is absolutely false. The Church has kept every part of that agreement.

I invite you to review the agreement the Church made. It included (1) not using exclusively-Jewish sources for name extraction, and (2) reminding the members of the responsibility to do the work for our own ancestors. It absolutely did not include any guarantee that nobody would ever submit an inappropriate name.

So, the Church has consistently kept its agreement, and whoever told you different is a barefaced liar, and you should never trust them again.

If the church has a policy or rule that celebrities not be submitted for ordinances by a non-family member and it is discovered that this policy is not being followed it is something that becomes of interest to members and the general public.

Perhaps so, but it is the fault of those unscrupulous and/or unprincipled individuals who knowingly flouted the Church's policy and the terms of use.

You see, the Church at all times has a perfect right to expect those who use its facilities to use them in accordance with the conditions under which the Church grants them access thereto.

Therefore, to say that the Church has not kept its agreement is to assert something that is not true.

It seems that bringing it to public attention is the only thing that causes change. Although, we usually see the change in the form of restricting access to the ordinance information, not making it more difficult to submit unauthorized names.

Explain, please, how it is possible to submit a name for ordinances without first accessing it?

(He asked, with the patient manner usually reserved for explaining to a four-year-old why sharp things can cut.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[rodheadlee]

Because we really wouldn't want anyone finding out that the church is still postumately baptizing holocaust victims and celebrities would we....why that would publically embarrass the church.... ,irony indended.

It begs the question…what is the church scared of, that they need to stop some whistle blower from making sure that they are keeping their promise not to perform these baptisms?

IF they have nothing to hide…I think they would make it easier to do these searches…

Ummm….wonder what else they’re hiding…

So what is it that you want tthe church to do? Would you like the Temples closed and all work stopped?

[Jeff K.]

That is exactly what they want.

[Pahoran]

Is it a 'manufactured problem' when the church is found to be in breech of their agreement?

The Church is not in "breech" of their agreement. They're not even in breach of it. Individuals who knowingly flouted the submission rules are responsible.

The change reported makes it harder to flout those rules.

Is the problem the person who found it, and reported it?

It is if the person merely "found" what they themselves had planted. Isn't it amazing how Radkey keeps right on finding all those needles, no matter how big the haystack gets!

They should block the submission of inappropriate names. They have agreed to do as much. But what value is there in blocking verification?

It's like this: in order to submit the names, you first have to access the names.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

one of the best Bishops I ever had was Jewish, very, very spiritual guy!

I had one who was Catholic and he wasn't too bad either.

Edited March 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Because we really wouldn't want anyone finding out that the church is still postumately baptizing holocaust victims and celebrities would we....why that would publically embarrass the church.... ,irony indended.

It begs the question…what is the church scared of,

No, it doesn't "beg the the question." (See here for a proper understanding of the phrase to beg the question.) It doesn't even prompt or raise the question, unless one is already predisposed, without evidence, to assume ill will on the part of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Here's an exercise for you today. Try to come up with 10 sentences in which the phrase to beg the question is properly used. If you do, I'm thinking you'll cease being prone to use it improperly. (Hint: It is similar in concept to circular reasoning.)

Ummm….wonder what else they’re hiding…

To regard an earnest effort on the part of the Church to tighten up its temple names submission process as evidence of one's own unfounded assumption that the Church commits nefarious deeds and then covers them up strikes me as an instance of begging the question (as the phrase is properly understood).

Edited March 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[maxrep12]

I would not give a key to my house to a thief. It is not that I have anything to hide, but it is my property. Critics will complain no matter the position we take.

Talk about how critics are thiefs...

Edited March 8, 2012 by maxrep12

[Jeff K.]

The operative meaning of critics in this case is those who criticize regardless of what is done. And yes, through surreptitious theivery they have abused the system in order to show how the system can be abused, and then exulted in it.

[KevinG]

I guess this is what the church means when they say, 'Family First' - "some things are just none of their business because they didn't pay tithing" That is what you are saying, you realize?

H.

If your concern is for those who receive the gift of salvation without paying tithing in this life:

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire ^alabourers into his vineyard.

2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his ^avineyard.

3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing ^aidle in the marketplace,

4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

6 And about the ^aeleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the ^alabourers, and give them their ^bhire, beginning from the last unto the first.

9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. (Matt 20)

If your concern is that those who receive the free use of our Famiy History Centers and Database without contributing financially:

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

If yor concern is that we feel we have the right to set the rules of access and use since we built and run the system:

"Yeah - we do."

Edited March 8, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Since this was the subject of recent newspaper articles, I wanted to see how they handled her record. I discovered that the entire genealogical record was there and they locked out the ordinance information. I mentioned this policy in a post.

BTW, I violated no policy by looking at her record.

Thanks for that information... You have put another critics lie to rest.

[wenglund]

It is a shame that now the church is effectually trying to hide information and considering the quote highlighted by Jeff k the church does need to hide information; as the Jewish community is convinced that proxy work for holocaust victims is prohibited, which may or may not be the position of the church

At least the busy-bodies aren't getting paid for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

This is very much the business of the Jewish community whom the church made an agreement to over 15 years ago. They promised to keep Jewish names (non-ancestors of living LDS members) out of the database. They have had difficulty keeping that promise in the years following the agreement.

When you make a promise to someone it becomes their business if you are keeping it or not.

If the church has a policy or rule that celebrities not be submitted for ordinances by a non-family member and it is discovered that this policy is not being followed it is something that becomes of interest to members and the general public. It seems that bringing it to public attention is the only thing that causes change. Although, we usually see the change in the form of restricting access to the ordinance information, not making it more difficult to submit unauthorized names.

(I'm quite fond of purple, large letters as well)

If it helps your reading comprehension I will gladly put the entire article in large purple letters for you.

Question: If you buy a swimming pool for nieghborhood use and promise to keep it clean, then your own toddler poops in the pool so you clean the pool and require all children to wear swim diapers - are you dishonest or did you break your promise to the neighborhood?

Edited March 8, 2012 by KevinG

[wenglund]

Perhaps we are mistaken to think that the busy-bodies are open to reason, and this because were they inclined towards the reasonable, it is likely that they wouldn't be busy-bodies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I have to chuckle at the paranoia of the anti Mormons. They are so darn consistent its amazing. To them everything is suspicious, to them everything is evil, they are caught in their own little video game loop, the hero in a fantasy that simply does not exist. Apparently Jewish leadership appears to be happy, the anti Mormons? Well, their happiness is derived from their grumbling as the wingnuts that hold their universe together.

Wingnut away little people, wingnut away......

I almost responded to the last couple of comments before yours... then I realized no matter what facts were presented (and had been presented in this thread) about anyone with business to do the work - access is wide open. They would still accuse me of being part of the comspiracy. The level of silly about this one has far exceeded my expectations.

[KevinG]

The Church is not in "breech" of their agreement. They're not even in breach of it.

I wondered if anyone would get my human cannon reference. Or should that be human canon?

Edited March 8, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Talk about how critics are thiefs...

Right over your head...

The theif in this instance was a parallel for those who would misuse the database and therefore have had their keys taken away. The critics are those who complain about the keys being taken away from the thief. While the two are different groups there could be a subset of theives who are also critics but it does not necessarily follow from Pa Pas comments that this is the case.

If nothing else this thread has illustrated the great need for reading comprehension and critical thinking in schools.

[Jeff K.]

I wondered if anyone would get my human cannon reference. Or should that be human canon?

Church cannon is very limited in scope but not necessarily range.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Calm]

Question: If you buy a swimming pool for nieghborhood use and promise to keep it clean, then your own toddler poops in the pool so you clean the pool and require all children to wear swim diapers - are you dishonest or did you break your promise to the neighborhood?

Okay, that definitely settles the question of whether or not to buy that pool Walmart was advertising today.

[KevinG]

Perhaps we are mistaken to think that the busy-bodies are open to reason, and this because were they inclined towards the reasonable, it is likely that they wouldn't be busy-bodies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes - but it is so entertaining to watch them launch bad assumptions into the air like so many clays and them shoot them down with a shotgun blast of common sense. Or in the cases where the clay failed to leave the launcher in one piece a silly video or sarcasm.

[LeSellers]

Church cannon is very limited in scope but not necessarily range.

The only "church cannon" I have heard of (although I'm sure it is but one of a myriad), was the time Michelangelo's statue of Pope Julius (I,IV?) was melted down and reformed into an artillery piece. (It's been three decades since I read The Agony and the Ecstasy.)

I know it was common to melt church bells and roofs into cannonballs, but that's not exactly the same thing.

With apologies:

One-enned canons are sacred tomes.

Two-enned cannons hurl great bombs.

But I will bet my stunted banyan,

You'll never see a three-enned cannnon.

Lehi

Edited March 8, 2012 by LeSellers

[KevinG]

Suggestion for headline change:

"LDS Church Bends Over Backwards To Avoid Offending Anyone, Critics Still Unhappy, Anti-Mormons Sill Paranoid, No One Surprised"

[KevinG]

The only "church cannon" I have heard of (although I'm sure it is but one of a myriad), was the time Michelangelo's statue of Pope Julius (I,IV?) was melted down and reformed into an artillery piece. (It's been three decades since I read The Agony and the Ecstasy.)

I know it was common to melt church bells and roofs into cannonballs, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Lehi

Does that make Pope Julius a big shot?