Proxy Baptism Submission Restrictions

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53667482-78/church-names-radkey-mormon.html.csp

In his SLTrib article, Derek Jensen couldn't tell the difference between "censor" and "sensor" on the first page, and that may be indicative of the problem faced by those who hope that sincerity and integrity might prevail in name submissions, or in any other area where computer hacking is possible. After all, a determined and clever hacker can breach nearly any digital system, whether for money (industrial espionage, etc.) or for the pure joy of beating the system.

Years ago, when law enforcement began using sophisticated computer systems, there were the inevitably curious eyes wanting to access data on celebrities. Simply requesting that cops stop looking (unless it was a part of an investigation assigned to them) did not work. Only carefully tracking each account and actually disciplining law enforcement personnel brought a stop to such shenanigans. Today public employees can expect to be fired or prosecuted (or both) for such illicit access.

The computer technology consultants at the LDS Genealogical Society have no doubt constructed a monitoring system designed to flag any name from the general area and time of the Holocaust (1933-1945 Europe), along with general restrictions on submissions of names of those dying within the last century, and requirements that one be directly related to such names in any case. Constructing a list of names would be impractical, both because the Church may not have access to the full list of 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust (the Red Cross has the most complete list and restricts access) and because spelling variants and other imprecise data might allow occasional names to slip through the system. Humans may also be assigned to actively monitor the system to assure that it actually works, including those assigned to purposely hack and breach (and therefore iimprove) the system. Preventing access to celebrities' names may constitute a more difficult problem.

[LeSellers]

Years ago, when law enforcement began using sophisticated computer systems, there were the inevitably curious eyes wanting to access data on celebrities. Simply requesting that cops stop looking (unless it was a part of an investigation assigned to them) did not work. Only carefully tracking each account and actually disciplining law enforcement personnel brought a stop to such shenanigans. Today public employees can expect to be fired or prosecuted (or both) for such illicit access.

Unless one is a maxed-out O'bama donor, and a political appointee in the Child "welfare" office, like Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley in regards to Joe-the-Plumber.

Politicians (of both major USmerican parties) routinely abuse their office powers for political gain. Laws do not apply equally to all.

We also know, for instance, that people who "expose" unliked or mistrusted "others" get a pass, even when the activity otherwise carries serious legal consequences. There are some people who still respect Dan Rather. "Anonymous" and "wikileaks" founders have great respect among those who distrust their targets. On the other hand, they who released Climategate eMails (not "leaked" or "stolen", or "hacked", btw, they were part of a UK-equivalent Freedom of Information Act request) get routinely castigated and maligned.

Laws and protections of this sort are not foolproof. There will always be some fool who'll try to circumvent the safeguards and who will succeed. What happens to the fool afterward depends on whose ox was gored, and we can easily see who's in control of the processes.

Lehi

[Robert F. Smith]

Unless one is a maxed-out O'bama donor, and a political appointee in the Child "welfare" office, like Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley in regards to Joe-the-Plumber.

Politicians (of both major USmerican parties) routinely abuse their office powers for political gain. Laws do not apply equally to all.

We also know, for instance, that people who "expose" unliked or mistrusted "others" get a pass, even when the activity otherwise carries serious legal consequences. There are some people who still respect Dan Rather. "Anonymous" and "wikileaks" founders have great respect among those who distrust their targets. On the other hand, they who released Climategate eMails (not "leaked" or "stolen", or "hacked", btw, they were part of a UK-equivalent Freedom of Information Act request) get routinely castigated and maligned.

Laws and protections of this sort are not foolproof. There will always be some fool who'll try to circumvent the safeguards and who will succeed. What happens to the fool afterward depends on whose ox was gored, and we can easily see who's in control of the processes.

Lehi

I'll give you that, Lehi. Politicos frequently get away with things that the civil service employees simply cannot do. Life isn't fair. However, I believe that the LDS Church is serious about the improved system, and I hope that I am not disappointed. I have already written several letters of apology to prominent members of the Jewish community.

[Hestia]

Really, guys? How did this turn into a political discussion. Lehi is taking a break from this thread.

[orion88]

I have already written several letters of apology to prominent members of the Jewish community.

Are you apologizing to God for having regrets about performing the ordinance which you

believe would help that person or are you apologizing to the Jewish community for having

performed said ordinance or both?

[kolipoki09]

Are you apologizing to God for having regrets about performing the ordinance which you

believe would help that person or are you apologizing to the Jewish community for having

performed said ordinance or both?

While I can't speak for Robert, I would suggest that he isn't apologizing to God, but rather because a previous agreement between the Church and Jewish leaders was violated. A breach of trust is a breach of trust. There is a great deal we can and should do to reach out and build a sense of community and cooperation with our Jewish neighbors. The philo-Semitism of LDS doctrine/culture should serve as a springboard to help make that happen. The better relations we can foster with those not of our faith, the better.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you apologizing to God for having regrets about performing the ordinance which you

believe would help that person or are you apologizing to the Jewish community for having

performed said ordinance or both?

Those are my only choices, Grand Inquisitor?

I know that any person of high ethical and moral standing would be concerned first with truth, second with fairness, third with a breach of trust such as kolipoki09 mentions. Several members of the Jewish community (a community which I hold in very high esteem) have been offended by the actions of one or more members of my Church -- in their deliberate violation of the rules for name submission to temples for proxy work. I apologized to several prominent members of the Jewish community for that breach of trust, and I too am deeply offended at the lack of honor and integrity in some of my fellow Church members.

[orion88]

I apologized to several prominent members of the Jewish community for that breach of trust, and I too am deeply offended at the lack of honor and integrity in some of my fellow Church members.

I'm wondering if the apology of an ordinary lay person has any binding on the official

record keeping.

What does the LDS Church do now? Does she nullify (unloose) the proxied act from

her records or does she leave (bind) it as a validly performed ordinance anyways

because she believes that the person in the spirit world may have accepted the

"saving" ordinance?

[Okrahomer]

I'm wondering if the apology of an ordinary lay person has any binding on the official

record keeping.

What does the LDS Church do now? Does she nullify (unloose) the proxied act from

her records or does she leave (bind) it as a validly performed ordinance anyways

because she believes that the person in the spirit world may have accepted the

"saving" ordinance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#cite_note-42

"The LDS Church has urged members to submit the names of only their own ancestors for ordinances, and to request permission of surviving family members of people who have died within the past 95 years. Hundreds of thousands of improperly submitted names not adhering to this policy have been removed from the records of the church."

"Church officials have also stated that, in accordance with the 1995 agreement, it has removed more than 300,000 names of Jewish Holocaust victims from its databases, as well as subsequently removing names later identified by Jewish groups. Church officials have also stated that a new version of the database, New FamilySearch, has been developed and is currently being implemented that would help prevent the submission of Holocaust victim names for temple ordinances."

[volgadon]

I'm wondering if the apology of an ordinary lay person has any binding on the official

record keeping.

You, an ordinary layman, could apologise to the native tribes of Canada. Would that be binding on official record keeping?

Edited March 12, 2012 by volgadon

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm wondering if the apology of an ordinary lay person has any binding on the official

record keeping.

What does the LDS Church do now? Does she nullify (unloose) the proxied act from

her records or does she leave (bind) it as a validly performed ordinance anyways

because she believes that the person in the spirit world may have accepted the

"saving" ordinance?

I am wondering what a "lay person" is. I am also wondering what you imagine "official record keeping" to entail. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

As for the meaning of esoteric rituals which can be applied vicariously, do you have any idea what that might mean on the other side of the veil? In other words, do you imagine that acceptance is automatic, or that it isn't conditional?

Does honesty and integrity play any role at all in your consideration of such questions?

[kolipoki09]

I'm wondering if the apology of an ordinary lay person has any binding on the official

record keeping.

Who's records? Robert's apology won't be recorded and stored away in any vaults in Utah, and I don't think he was shooting for that.

But an apology was due, collectively and (for some) individually. The church as an organization has recommitted itself to maintaing good relations with the Jewish community.

[orion88]

I am wondering what a "lay person" is. I am also wondering what you imagine "official record keeping" to entail. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

As for the meaning of esoteric rituals which can be applied vicariously, do you have any idea what that might mean on the other side of the veil? In other words, do you imagine that acceptance is automatic, or that it isn't conditional?

Does honesty and integrity play any role at all in your consideration of such questions?

According to Wikipedia, a layperson or layman is a person who is not an expert in a given field

of knowledge. Usually also denotes someone who is not an official in a church, say Catholic for

example.

In regards to record keeping, it is my understanding that everything that happens in a temple

must be recorded - names, dates, type of ordinance, etc. So, assumming you have performed

any proxied ordinances for someone, all this is recorded.

When the church discovers any unauthorized baptisms, does she remove the proxied act from

her records or does she leave it in the record books as a validly performed ordinance anyways

because she believes that the person in the spirit world may have accepted the "saving"

ordinance?

If proxy baptism has any effect beyond the veil, then I believe's it is conditional. That is why I

wonder how the LDS Church knows what to do with their record of it (keep it or remove it) when

she doesn't know how the person responded on the other side of the veil and some group of

people come to complain.

[cdowis]

An ordinance is only valid if there exists avalid record, regardless of whether the ordinance was actually performed and accepted. As the scriptures tell us, we will be judged from the (written) records.

One of my daughter's church record did not have a record of her baptism, but the clerk was able to re-construct it from my journal notes. I had the date and performed the ordinance myself. Otherwise, it may have been necessary to do it again.

If the record is removed, it is as if the ordinance had not been performed. As Christ said to Peter, what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Edited March 13, 2012 by cdowis

[KevinG]

When the church discovers any unauthorized baptisms, does she remove the proxied act from

her records or does she leave it in the record books as a validly performed ordinance anyways

because she believes that the person in the spirit world may have accepted the "saving"

ordinance?

The Church removes that record as cited in recent press releases. IMO- It is up to God and the person who the proxy work was done for to decide what to do with the ordinance in the afterlife.

[Mormonme]

What are the rules for proxy baptism of people who have died more recently? For example: Both my grandparents on one side while alive very consciously wanted nothing to do with the Mormon church. Not long after each died (several years apart) they were proxy baptised by another relative. Is this allowed? What's the point? They both had ample opportunity in life and both chose not to be Mormons.

[Calm]

Depends on the closeness of the relationship.

To perform ordinances for a deceased person born in the last 110 years, you

must either be one of the closest living relatives, or you must obtain permission and

honor the wishes of the closest living relative. The closest living relatives are, in this

order:

An undivorced spouse. (The spouse to whom the individual was married when he

or she died.)

An adult child.

A parent.

A brother or sister.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qQ7GdRmt2GQJ:https://help.familysearch.org/kb/guides/en/policy.pdf+site:familysearch.org+holocaust+submitting&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShPL8-aaec8PdWJSiq15h1ioaM8U8WwIg2oYOvg1mgM8joKyRhNc4WEn2OUzJ-EtFHsFKzbXGV-ckqtzpq-SZ4wA7pte0lpqhik5MLMbGqDyURqI-iBCpqBP7YPxCCcXYnoxCtv&sig=AHIEtbQl9gF1Nr4yhtmrHRPSCVPRjjaaBQ

[Mormonme]

Depends on the closeness of the relationship.

The person was an adult child of the deceased, so met the requirements. But surely it's wrong? Knowing full well they very specifically wanted nothing to do with the religion whilst alive. Then baptising them into it the minute they were dead. How can this possibly be right or justifiable?

[Pahoran]

The person was an adult child of the deceased, so met the requirements. But surely it's wrong? Knowing full well they very specifically wanted nothing to do with the religion whilst alive. Then baptising them into it the minute they were dead. How can this possibly be right or justifiable?

Is this an honest question (for once) or are you merely trolling yet again?

The baptism wasn't performed "the minute they were dead." It would have been necessary to wait a year.

If they still want nothing to do with the Church, they can have their wish. Nothing we do takes away their agency.

But if they've since learned something that might change their mind, how are they supposed to communicate that? By ouija board?

So what harm, precisely, do you see being done? How could it possibly be wrong or unjustifiable?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mormonme]

Is this an honest question (for once) or are you merely trolling yet again?

Trolling again?

Might I remind you of the board guidelines.

Be respectful of others?

Judging Others?

Personal Attacks?

I was asking a serious question about my Grandparents.

I said a minute, because when I was 8 years old it felt like my grandmother was barely cold in the grave when she was being baptised into a religion she despised.

The thread topic is 'Proxy Baptism Submission Restrictions' - I wondered if there were any restrictions to baptising people who explicitly reject the religion whilst alive?

I discovered this board yesterday, so far I've posted on 2 topics. Both of which have had a serious impact on my life and both of which I care about deeply. I've now twice been accused of trolling? (I'm not even exactly sure what that means, but it sounds derogatory) And every syllable I've written has been either nit picked or criticised.

The board guidelines claim to want participation from both LDS and Non-LDS, this is obviously not the case.

It's a shame, I don't remember the Mormons from my childhood/youth being so deeply unpleasant or incredibly rude.

Frankly, you can keep it all to yourselves.

Tschüss xxx

[TAO]

I was asking a serious question about my Grandparents.

I said a minute, because when I was 8 years old it felt like my grandmother was barely cold in the grave when she was being baptised into a religion she despised.

The thread topic is 'Proxy Baptism Submission Restrictions' - I wondered if there were any restrictions to baptising people who explicitly reject the religion whilst alive?

Mmmm.... When they are in heaven, they get a choice, don'tcha know? A choice makes thing clean and clear, imho. =)

Who wants to not give somebody a choice? That wouldn't make sense really =/. A choice is a fine thing, that it is.

I discovered this board yesterday, so far I've posted on 2 topics. Both of which have had a serious impact on my life and both of which I care about deeply. I've now twice been accused of trolling? (I'm not even exactly sure what that means, but it sounds derogatory) And every syllable I've written has been either nit picked or criticised.

Peace bro. On the other hand, do realize, if you write with... less... tenseness... there will be people who will less react like this. Of course, there will always be people who react badly to another no matter what. But, it is oftentimes better, at least in my experience, to give other people a chance to react calmly. The best way that I have found to do this is to let the calmness weave in and out of your own posts =).

The board guidelines claim to want participation from both LDS and Non-LDS, this is obviously not the case.

It's a shame, I don't remember the Mormons from my childhood/youth being so deeply unpleasant or incredibly rude.

Naturally, the board is a bit biased twoards LDS. If you would like to post here, you will have to post in more moderation, for people to listen. But that isn't a bad thing. Even on sites which agree with my opinion, I try to (at least most of the time) post in moderation. There are a few exceptions (one of them was a few days ago), but generally, I have found people object far less if I don't bodyslam into their current position, but instead weave my way around it, showing why I disagree slowly, and most of all, in a way that shows I am not trying to offend anybody.

Again, that is just my experience, it may work for you, or it may not. But, if you'd like to try it, feel free. =)

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited March 14, 2012 by TAO

[Calm]

The person was an adult child of the deceased, so met the requirements. But surely it's wrong? Knowing full well they very specifically wanted nothing to do with the religion whilst alive. Then baptising them into it the minute they were dead. How can this possibly be right or justifiable?

I would assume that their child had enough respect for them to believe that they would want to know the truth and would accept it no matter what, even if they were certain that it wasn't the truth in their lifetime.

Their child would obviously be assuming that the LDS faith teaches the path to truth and thus his/her parents would accept it if presented to them by the Lord or his messengers and not be so prideful to have refused it just because they were so certain with the limited information they had before their death. The afterlife is not seen as such a place of uncertainty of what is truth and what is not as is this life.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Mormonme]

What the rest of the world thinks...

offensive website removed

Will have about as much effect in the afterlife.

[Calm]

And you and the rest of the world are perfectly entitled to hold that belief.

Is this any reason though that we should give up our belief, just because others believe differently?

If you believe something is truth, if someone else disagrees with you, do you feel obligated to change your belief or your behaviour based on their opinion rather than your own?

I understand why some are offended by the practice, among other things it feels like it is an intrusion into their community (which consists for many of both living and dead as it does for LDS). But if we are wrong, then the practice amounts to almost the same thing as copying names out of a telephone book.

LDS do not in general make a big public spectacle of it (unfortunately there are some that seem to like to gloat over the nonmembers in their family, but those from what I have been told by most are out of the ordinary.) If a nonmember in other circumstances doesn't ask, doesn't make an effort to obtain the information for him/herself, then there would be no way they would come across the information accidentally as the records are only used by those intending to do temple work, they are not used in any other way by church members. The genealogy information available to all can be accessed through a different database that does not list any ordinances even for those having living ordinances...except perhaps christening (which is not a saving ordinance) as I have seen some LDS put that information on records with that field (that field being available for the many records that have christening dates instead of birth dates).

As far as being offended because we consider ourselves right and others who differ from us wrong, as a good friend said to me the other day, what person holds opinions and beliefs that they believe are wrong? LDS simply see the conversation continuing on after death, I can understand why this bothers those who see things 'sealed' at death, but if we are wrong as you state above our efforts have no effect and if we keep our efforts private and among ourselves (as we should), then how is this an actual intrusion into someone's life? It changes nothing that happened during their life and anyone who knows enough to look up the records knows that it has nothing to do with the person's life. And if historians are so clueless in the far future to suppose that it does, then they will likely be clueless about the individuals' lives in the first place so it will not really change their understanding of that person at all, it will just be a name on a list to them. It is nothing like where Jews were forced to use parish records while alive in some European countries leading to confusion about whether or not they were Jewish.

And if we are right, then aren't we honouring the individual's own efforts to seek after truth and to live the best life possible by allowing them to continue to do so rather than assuming they will be too prideful to change or condemn them to live in error that most likely was not their fault.

The fact we baptize everyone means we are assuming that all have within them the ability to grow and to choose the right, we are not condemning anyone based on past decisions or knowledge to a lesser state, but giving them just as much chance to progress as any LDS who died in full fellowship in the faith after living a life obedient to and joyful in the Lord.

We baptize everyone because we choose NOT to make a decision for them, not because we are making the decision for them as it appears to many outside the faith.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It was quite funny in my opinion as well, especially the 'no undo'. My husband and I had a great laugh over it when it was first put up.

Of course it implies that sexual orientation can be changed.......not sure they want to do that.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah