Here We Go Again-Holocaust Victim Baptisms

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:28 PM, kiwi57 said:

So passionately that she thinks the end justifies the means. So the question is, if she's prepared to dishonestly and illegally use someone else's password, what else is she willing to do? Salt the mine, perhaps?

Indeed.  It's not without precedent that people who are at the least apathetic, if they're not outright antipathetic, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have gained access to one or more temples for nefarious purposes (such as surreptitiously filming one of the ceremonies).  Unfortunately, that makes it not much more of a stretch to posit that such a person, as a confederate of Helen Radkey, might even go so far as to gain entry to one if its temples under false pretenses in order to perform proxy ordinances for alleged 32nd cousin, 64 times removed (and deceased Holocaust survivor) Yaacov ben Israel for the very purpose (and nothing more) of providing yet more grist for Helen Radkey's fevered mill.

[Thinking]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:44 AM, pogi said:

She wastes countless hours of her time researching proxy baptisms and leaks this private information to the press to try and shame the church, and to be seen by the world as the protagonist - the protector of the dead.  What a joke!

It's ironic that one whose church is trying to save the dead is critical of one who is trying to protect the dead.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's ironic that one whose church is trying to save the dead is critical of one who is trying to protect the dead.

Is she?  How?

[Thinking]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is she?  How?

You said it.

On 12/22/2017 at 11:44 AM, pogi said:

the protector of the dead.  What a joke!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

You said it.

 

Seems to me he was deriding that notion. 

The dead are in no danger from Mormon temple ordinance work. Even if one believed it is efficacious — which I dare say those who are complaining longest and loudest don’t — it amounts to a non-binding offer to the deceased, which they are free to reject at will. Nothing more.

If anything, those who are working against the best interests of the deceased in this matter are those who would seek to deprive them of the choice by trying to pressure Mormons to abandon their work for the dead. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

You said it.

 

And I’ll say it again...”what a joke!”

She knows that she is not saving dead people from anything.  She was Mormon after all.  That is just the story she uses to appear altruistic, when really she is just an imbittered excommunicated member resorting to illegal measures to try and strike the church through a public shamming campaign.  What a joke!

[Thinking]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems to me he was deriding that notion.

It doesn't matter. He introduced the term then questioned why I would classify her as such. I was simply pointing out the irony.

As to your second point...

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The dead are in no danger from Mormon temple ordinance work. Even if one believed it is efficacious — which I dare say those who are complaining longest and loudest don’t — it amounts to a non-binding offer to the deceased, which they are free to reject at will. Nothing more.

If anything, those who are working against the best interests of the deceased in this matter are those who would seek to deprive them of the choice by trying to pressure Mormons to abandon their work for the dead. 

Even if you don't think it should be offensive to the relatives of the deceased, it is.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It doesn't matter. He introduced the term then questioned why I would classify her as such. I was simply pointing out the irony.

As to your second point...

Even if you don't think it should be offensive to the relatives of the deceased, it is.

 

Which is why the Church has rules in place about waiting times and gaining permission from the closest living relative, etc., before ordinance work can be performed. 

But after a couple of generations, a  deceased person’s descendants begin to increase geometrically. Can you see the implications of that, Thinking?  It means that my Mormonism-hating distant cousin has no greater claim on one of our shared ancestors than I do. It means I can go ahead and have a harmless, non-obligatory ritual performed for that ancestor, and my distant cousin can not reasonably object to it, on ethical or any other grounds. 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But after a couple of generations, a  deceased person’s descendants begin to increase geometrically. Can you see the implications of that, Thinking?

Of course I can.

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It means that my Mormonism-hating distant cousin has no greater claim on one of our shared ancestors than I do. It means I can go ahead and have a harmless, non-obligatory ritual performed for that ancestor, and my distant cousin can not reasonably object to it, on ethical or any other grounds. 

Shared ancestors is not the issue.

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

Shared ancestry is not the issue.

That's a nice dodge.  Your deliberate evasion of Scott's point is transparently evident to any good-faith interlocutor, so, at the risk of becoming "Captain Obvious," I'll give him the answer you should have: As regards distant relatives such as those to which he alluded, one distant relative's veto should not and does not override another distant relative's determination to see that temple ordinances are performed.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Exiled]

I personally don't have a problem with mormons baptizing the dead relatives of anyone.  What's the harm in performing religious rights for someone who is not around?  I fail to see the harm in it and it seems that maybe someone is trying too hard to play the victim card in this case?  I am sure most people outside of mormonism don't even give it a second thought and find it meaningless.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

It doesn't matter. He introduced the term then questioned why I would classify her as such. I was simply pointing out the irony.

It is only ironic if she was really trying to save the dead from anything. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... But after a couple of generations, a  deceased person’s descendants begin to increase geometrically. Can you see the implications of that, Thinking?  ...

 

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

Of course I can. ...

I think you've made it rather plain that you, in fact, cannot see the implications of Scott's reasoning (likely because you choose not to).  If you could, you would have answered his question much differently.  Either that, or you think that the opinion of a distant relative who takes umbrage on behalf of his departed ancestor at the very notion that proxy ordinances might be performed for that ancestor automatically should be privileged over the desire of another distant relative to see that such ordinances are performed on the deceased ancestor's behalf.

That's ... troubling.  

Edited December 26, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Let's call a spade a spade: Ms. Radkey's concern isn't to preserve the dignity of the dead. (Indeed, the question rightly can be asked whether Ms. Radkey even believes they continue to exist beyond this mortal sphere.)  No, Ms. Radkey's concern, as it is with so many who have left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but who cannot leave it alone, is simply with making the Church look as bad as possible, as often as possible.  As I said earlier, I think it's very likely that she has at least one confederate who's a [putatively-temple worthy ... Ahem!  "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?" ] MINO who serves as proxy for the person Ms. Radkey then conveniently finds has had temple ordinances performed on his or her behalf.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Thinking said:

Of course I can.

Shared ancestors is not the issue.

Then perhaps you need to clarify for us what you think is the issue. 

[kiwi57]

On 12/26/2017 at 12:41 PM, Thinking said:

It's ironic that one whose church is trying to save the dead is critical of one who is trying to protect the dead.

Why is it ironic that one whose church is trying to save the dead is critical of one who attacks that church under the spurious pretext of trying to protect the dead?

Given that the spurious protection is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the work of salvation.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Let's call a spade a spade: Ms. Radkey's concern isn't to preserve the dignity of the dead. (Indeed, the question rightly can be asked whether Ms. Radkey even believes they continue to exist beyond this mortal sphere.)  

The descriptions of her belief would seem to indicate she has a definite belief in the continued existence of the dead, including reincarnation.  And given the unusualness of some of her beliefs, I think it is an unsafe assumption to believe she doesn't sincerely believe the Church's rituals can in some way harm the dead.

[Thinking]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then perhaps you need to clarify for us what you think is the issue. 

Submitting names of non-ancestors.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:07 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Holocaust also targets homosexuals, JW, and any other excuse of a dissenter. 

CFR?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

CFR?

The Germans killed about 6 million Jews during WWII and roughly 6 million others, each group specifically targeted because of their perceived inferiority. 

This link has a good breakdown of who was killed (ignore the Russian POW stats since those were killed for political reasons).

 

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Submitting names of non-ancestors.

I don't know why the church just doesn't have the prophet do the proxy work for everyone at one time. He is supposedly a righteous individual like Christ was and Christ's sacrifice supposedly covered everyone.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

The descriptions of her belief would seem to indicate she has a definite belief in the continued existence of the dead, including reincarnation.  And given the unusualness of some of her beliefs, I think it is an unsafe assumption to believe she doesn't sincerely believe the Church's rituals can in some way harm the dead.

OK.  I admit, I have only a rather casual acquaintance with Ms. Radkey.  Perhaps I ought to read up a bit, but, frankly, where she stands is rather low on my list of priorities of things about which I ought to inform myself.

 

58 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't know why the church just doesn't have the prophet do the proxy work for everyone at one time. He is supposedly a righteous individual like Christ was and Christ's sacrifice supposedly covered everyone.

CFR that the prophet "is supposedly a righteous individual like Christ."  On at least one occasion, even Christ, when the rich young man who had kept all of the commandments "from [his] youth up" addressed Christ as "Good Master" and asked, "What lack I yet?" to achieve exaltation, asked that young man, "Why callest thou me 'good'?  There is none good but one, that is, God" (see Mark 10:17-25).  Among the principles Christ was trying to teach, I think, is that more than simple goodness or righteousness is required.  Christ was uniquely positioned to offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind because not only was He "good" (indeed, not only was He sinless, and not even the prophet can say that), He was the only person who had power to lay down His mortal life and to take it up again (see John 10:15-18).  

But even He asked the Father if there might be some other way for humankind to be redeemed: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:39). Fortunately for us, however, He says, "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me" (John 6:38).  And so He told the Father after pleading with Him to let the cup pass from Him, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). Fortunately for us, as Christ says in the Doctrine and Covenants, "Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, for I partook and finished my preparations among the children of men" (Doctrine & Covenants 19:19).

Proxyhood in temple ordinances, however, whatever similarities it may bear to Christ's sacrifice, is a different animal.   While only Christ could serve as a proxy sacrifice for sin because of His sinlessness and because of His power both to lay down His mortal life and to take it up again, neither Christ (even though He is perfect) nor President Thomas S. Monson (good as he is) is commanded to seek after my kindred dead, nor vice versa.  The Brethren have stated repeatedly that while salvation might be an individual undertaking, exaltation is a family affair.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Submitting names of non-ancestors.

Which, of course, is already prohibited by the Church and which happens so infrequently these days as to be "infinitesimal," according to this person charged with monitoring the Church's compliance with the agreement with Holocaust survivors:
 

Quote

 

Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, the former national director of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee, watches the LDS database on behalf of the World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. He has asked church leaders to regularly remind Mormons about the church policy.

He defended the LDS Church, saying the number of names found by Radkey "are infinitesimal" in scope, that the church has "an astonishingly good record" and that the process he oversees is working.

"As somebody who's been involved at this level for many years," Greenebaum said, "I find it sort of extraordinary that someone is still wanting to say that the church is not acting in good faith, because I think it is acting in extraordinarily good faith."

Greenebaum has been watching the church for more than a dozen years at the request of the late Ernest Michel, an Auschwitz survivor who worked on the 1995 agreement. The LDS Church sends Greenebaum a monthly report on submissions of Holocaust victims and updates him on how each case is resolved.

 

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't know why the church just doesn't have the prophet do the proxy work for everyone at one time. He is supposedly a righteous individual like Christ was and Christ's sacrifice supposedly covered everyone.

Because covenanting with God cannot be done on a group basis.  It's an individual thing.  One by one.  And no, the church does not teach that the prophet is righteous the same way that Christ was righteous.  In fact, the church doesn't teach that the prophet is more righteous than other members.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Because covenanting with God cannot be done on a group basis.  It's an individual thing.  One by one.  And no, the church does not teach that the prophet is righteous the same way that Christ was righteous.  In fact, the church doesn't teach that the prophet is more righteous than other members.

Covenanting and then remembering the covenants is the whole point of going to the temple, right? So, proxy work is really incidental to this.