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

[Jeff K.]

No, but definately bombastic

[Calm]

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

People with purple crayons are known for making up their own reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPHvHlUcqFw&feature=related

[LeSellers]

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.)

Does that make Pope Julius a big shot?

No, but definately bombastic

They'll be here all week, folks. Please tip your servers.

Lehi

[Craig Paxton]

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

Actually no...I would die fighting for the rights of LDS members to particilate in their temple rituals...surprized?

[KevinG]

Actually no...I would die fighting for the rights of LDS members to particilate in their temple rituals...surprized?

Perhaps it is better to live assisting them to do the work than to die while defending their right to do it, since we're not to that point yet?

[Craig Paxton]

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.)

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).

Brother Lloyd....first off...why does Lloyd have 2 "L's"? Kinda redundant...

Second....we're going to completely disagree on this point....the mere point that the church has taken steps to prevent so called whistles blowers from checking up on the Family Search sight...to prevent them from keeping the fire to the feet of the church and making sure that the church actually keeps the agreements (there were seveal) that the church made with the Jewish community (which they clearly were caught NOT DOING)...confirms that they no longer want anyone checking up on them...what other reasons would there be?

So YES, it BEGS the question...what are they afraid of? Why not throw the doors open for all to inspect and check....why hide anything? I mean if they are not afraid of being exposed...there should be no reason to hide or close the sight to anyone.

But they didn't open the sight for free inspection...instead they closed the door put a padlock on it to keep unwanted eyes out...to hide what? If they are keeping the agreement THEY made....why hide it? If they have something to hide....then I would agree that they should lock it up and make it available only to only persons...they feel are trustworthy.

The mere fact that they have taken steps to close access to the sight...confirms my point...they don't want it available for open and free inspection....which again begs the question...what are they afraid those unwanted eyes will find??? Ummmm....purhaps more Jews, Celebraties and maybe even some nepharious historical figures that the gift of baptism was extended to?

Edited March 8, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Somebodyz]

This latest "safeguard" does not in any way stop FS users from submitting the names of Jews and famous people.

That's true it doesn't stop a user submitting. Personally I don't find my ancestors via the church site, the set up, irritates me. So I use Ancestry.co.uk and then copy and paste over. My famiies Jewish and my names put in for the temple, on New search have all recently been put on hold. Wonder if I've been flagged and being checked.

[Jeff K.]

Brother Lloyd....first off...why does Lloyd have 2 "L's"? Kinda redundant...

Second....we're going to completely disagree on this point....the mere point that the church has taken steps to prevent so called whistles blowers from checking up on the Family Search sight...to prevent them from keeping the fire to the feet of the church and making sure that the church actually keeps the agreements (there were seveal) that the church made with the Jewish community (which they clearly were caught NOT DOING)...confirms that they no longer want anyone checking up on them...what other reasons would there be?

So YES, it BEGS the question...what are they afraid of? Why not throw the doors open for all to inspect and check....why hide anything? I mean if they are not afraid of being exposed...there should be no reason to hide or close the sight to anyone.

But they didn't open the sight for free inspection...instead they closed the door put a padlock on it to keep unwanted eyes out...to hide what? If they are keeping the agreement THEY made....why hide it? If they have something to hide....then I would agree that they should lock it up and make it available only to only persons...they feel are trustworthy.

The mere fact that they have taken steps to close access to the sight...confirms my point...they don't want it available for open and free inspection....which again begs the question...what are they afraid those unwanted eyes will find??? Ummmm....purhaps more Jews, Celebraties and maybe even some nepharious historical figures that the gift of baptism was extended to?

What are "they" afraid of. Not the opinion of Anti Mormons surely. What are "you" afraid of? An ordinance that has no power in your view? A church that has no authority in your view? Temples, whose rites have no hold on you?

Or maybe, just maybe, you are hoping to simply cause and/or create more embarrassment. I mean if Jewish leadership is happy why aren't you? You have literally nothing to do with the issues in anyway. But then paranoia makes us seek out and create whole cloths of conspiracy out of nothing. The "truthers" and "birthers" tip their hat to you.....

[cdowis]

Craig,

The hate mongers make it necessary to protect this information. There are legitimate reasons for these ordinances to be performed, and we do not want to expose the privacy of those relatives who submit names for those ordinances.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it would only fuel the fire of hatred. Your recent post is just one example of fanning those flames. We can only imagine what would happen if someone like yourself had the entire database at your disposal ==.. it would create of firestorm of hatred as each name is examined and exposed.W

What are we "afraid of"? People like yourself. The safeguards should be sufficient to take care of the issue.

Edited March 9, 2012 by cdowis

[Pahoran]

Craig,

I have noticed that there are people who operate by just two rules. These are:

1) Whatever the Mormon Church does is wrong.

2) In case the Mormon Church ever does something right, refer to rule 1.

Brother Lloyd....first off...why does Lloyd have 2 "L's"? Kinda redundant...

Welsh names often have two L's. Like Llewellyn the Great.

Second....we're going to completely disagree on this point....the mere point that the church has taken steps to prevent so called whistles blowers from checking up on the Family Search sight...to prevent them from keeping the fire to the feet of the church and making sure that the church actually keeps the agreements (there were seveal) that the church made with the Jewish community (which they clearly were caught NOT DOING)...confirms that they no longer want anyone checking up on them...what other reasons would there be?

To start with, the accusation that the Church was "caught NOT DOING" what it had agreed to do is a thoroughly discredited canard, and I'm afraid that you do not have a good faith basis to claim to believe what you assert.

I keep saying this over and over and over, in the hope that it will eventually sink in: NOT ONE of the Church's agreements EVER promised that malicious individuals would be unable to make rogue submissions.

And, please note: what you smugly and counterfactually say the Church was "caught NOT DOING" was a bunch of rogue submissions made by malicious individuals.

So the latest action simply prevents malicious, unprincipled individuals from getting access to the system.

The only people who have any reason to complain about that are those malicious, unprincipled individuals who want to get into the system and cause trouble, and those equally malicious, unprincipled individuals who cheer from the sidelines.

So tell us please, Craig: why you are you complaining?

Or did I just answer my own question?

So YES, it BEGS the question...what are they afraid of? Why not throw the doors open for all to inspect and check....why hide anything? I mean if they are not afraid of being exposed...there should be no reason to hide or close the sight to anyone.

As Scott has pointed out: you are using the phrase "beg the question" incorrectly. Your question actually "begs the question" because it assumes that "they," whoever "they" might be, are "afraid of" something, and proceeds on the basis that that question has been settled in your favour.

It has not.

And the word is "site," not "sight."

But they didn't open the sight for free inspection...instead they closed the door put a padlock on it to keep unwanted eyes out...to hide what? If they are keeping the agreement THEY made....why hide it? If they have something to hide....then I would agree that they should lock it up and make it available only to only persons...they feel are trustworthy.

Only Church members are supposed to be able to access the FamilySearch site anyway. The fact is that whoever made the recent bogus submissions was deliberately abusing the system, as a certain unprincipled individual unwittingly demonstrated recently. Until now, bogus submissions could not be spotted until after the event. Now, by trapping the rats sniffing around names that are not supposed to be submitted, the Church is forestalling the submissions in advance.

It is also taking action to cut off access for those who abuse the system. This is something that all honest people admit it has every right to do, since the Church owns the system and is beholden to nobody else.

The mere fact that they have taken steps to close access to the sight...confirms my point...they don't want it available for open and free inspection....which again begs the question...what are they afraid those unwanted eyes will find??? Ummmm....purhaps more Jews, Celebraties and maybe even some nepharious historical figures that the gift of baptism was extended to?

As every honest, informed person acknowledges, the Church has kept its agreement from the very beginning. Individuals have abused the system by submitting names they had no right to submit. Some people have complained that the Church doesn't do enough to prevent people abusing the system, and have dishonestly insinuated that it is quietly facilitating the abuse.

Now that it is taking overt steps to prevent it, sure enough, we see the two-rule crowd manufacturing baseless accusations that it must have "something to hide."

This is a mere projection of the accuser's level of honesty.

Clearly, Craig, it bothers you that the opportunity to sow discord is going to be reduced. The worthless Ms Radkey is obviously bitter about the effect it's going to have on her ability to pursue her vendetta. But to right thinking people, these are positive consequences, and additional reasons for us to be pleased.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 9, 2012 by Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

You are talking nonsense, and you do realize. Tithing has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I assume, then, that Storm Rider was talking nonsense? He's the one that mentioned the connection between tithing and access to ordinances. I was just questioning it.

You could have just answered his post.

[LDSToronto]

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

One of the best rabbi's I've met was Mormon.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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."

I have none of those concerns. But thanks for taking the time to type all that out.

H.

[zerinus]

If you are not in possession of a temple recommend or are not a member of the LDS Church committed to doing temple work, why should you have the right to peruse the LDS Church's temple records? Not to be too gentle, but it is none of your (their) business! Member funds are not to be used to satisfy the prurient interests of non-members. Tithing funds, which go to promote this technology and software, is not provided for non-members. Our tithing funds are used to provide access to genealogy records for all freely at great cost. I suggest that you don't look that gift horse in the mouth and just say thank you.

As is clear, I have pretty much had it up to "here" with whining about something of which non-members have no comprehension.

Even non-members who are family of deceased who have had their temple work done? It's none of their business because they didn't pay tithing?

What other things are not their business because they don't pay tithing?

It is none of their business whether they paid any tithing or not. You are supposed to do the work for your closest relatives (if they died within the previous hundred years). If a closer living relative exists, you are supposed to ask their permission before you do the work. I have an aunt who died more than twenty years ago. Her husband is also dead. But her children (not Mormons) are still living. I would have to ask their permission before doing the work for her. I could lie about it on the website and do the work anyway, but then I would be acting against Church policy. If I have dead ancestors who died more than a hundred years ago, then no permission is required, because I can claim as much relationship to the person as anybody else, and I have as much right to do the work as anybody else does to oppose it. So still it is none of their business.

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?

You are talking nonsense, and you do realize. Tithing has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I assume, then, that Storm Rider was talking nonsense? He's the one that mentioned the connection between tithing and access to ordinances. I was just questioning it.

You could have just answered his post.

You were replying to me, not to him. Your reply to him was silly, and your reply to me was nonsensical.

[Duncan]

One of the best rabbi's I've met was Mormon.

H.

what is his story on how he became a Rabbi after he was a member?

[frankenstein]

could someone explain why a person should not be in the database looking for names that are not suppose to be there?

[CA Steve]

could someone explain why a person should not be in the database looking for names that are not suppose to be there?

Yes but it involves 10 pages of explaining why you have to shoot the messenger first.

[Jeff K.]

Could someone explain to me why people with nothing to do with the issue are complaining? Would the anti Mormons find another hobby? Access is cut off at the beginning to avoid further mischief, I think that is fine. If one does not trust the church to agree to its commitments, then why remain, leave it, leave well enough alone and go find a church you can trust.

Sigh, these people. Face palm, obviously.

[LDSToronto]

You were replying to me, not to him. Your reply to him was silly, and your reply to me was nonsensical.

You're right. I should have just agreed with his assertion that tithing is somehow connected to access levels in FamilySearch.

[KevinG]

I assume, then, that Storm Rider was talking nonsense? He's the one that mentioned the connection between tithing and access to ordinances. I was just questioning it.

You could have just answered his post.

Um.... no. The tithing was referenced to managing the database and process. Those who don't pay tithing still have access to the benefits- they do not have the right to tell us how to manage the process that generates those benefits. Frankly those who do pay tithing don't have the right to micromanage the process.

Like I said before this thread is a clear demonstration that we need more reading comprehension and critical thinking courses in our schools.

[KevinG]

I have none of those concerns. But thanks for taking the time to type all that out.

H.

I know, I know... you are just curious. How's your access to the database today. Still got it?

[KevinG]

Could someone explain to me why people with nothing to do with the issue are complaining? Would the anti Mormons find another hobby? Access is cut off at the beginning to avoid further mischief, I think that is fine. If one does not trust the church to agree to its commitments, then why remain, leave it, leave well enough alone and go find a church you can trust.

Sigh, these people. Face palm, obviously.

Shoveling manure in the hopes of finding a pony inside...

[LDSToronto]

I know, I know... you are just curious. How's your access to the database today. Still got it?

Yes.

[zerinus]

You're right. I should have just agreed with his assertion that tithing is somehow connected to access levels in FamilySearch.

Accessing the site has nothing to do with tithing, and has everything to do with membership of the Church. It is designed exclusively for members of the Church. You need your membership number to register. Now there are many Church members who are not faithful tithe payers. They may even be inactive members. But they still have access to the site by virtue of their membership of the Church. The system is expensive and costs money. That money comes out of the tithes of Church members. But still, all members have access to it by virtue of their membership of the Church. Non-members do not have access to the site.

Since it is a Church system, the Church has the right to decide whom to grant access to the system, and whom not to. It has decided to give access to members, and refuse access to non-members. The fact that the system is paid for by the tithing donations of Church members, that is one of the factors that legitimizes the Church to decide whom to grant access to the system and whom not to. But it is not the only reason. Paying for the system is one of the factors that gives the Church the right of ownership of it, to decide whom to give access to and whom not to. But ultimately, the decision to give access to Church members and deny access to non-members is not related to tithing in the Church. The genealogical libraries for example are also expensive and are paid for out of the tithing of Church members. But non-members are given full access given to those facilities gratis, as a favor from the Church.

Edited March 9, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

Yes.

Whose sign on are you using? Helen Radkey would probably appreciate you sharing.