Helen Radkey and name submissions

[rongo]

I'm wondering if anyone can help me wrap my mind around something. For decades, Helen Radkey has pointed out submissions of names and baptisms for Holocaust victims and celebrities. While I wouldn't put it past Mormons who would love to "do the work" for Mick Jagger or whomever,  it seems to me (from my experience) that it is impossible to just submit random people for ordinances. It is possible to submit and do ordinances for names that are already in the system, but this requires one to lie on the checkbox forms and claim to be a direct descendant. But for Holocaust victims, celebrities, etc., I don't see how it's even possible, but I'm not tech-savvy. 

Most recently, Helen Radkey has pointed out four Jewish victims in last weeks shooting in Florida have had their baptisms performed. (I can't open the link, but here it is):

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/forward.com/fast-forward/394758/mormons-consider-4-jewish-shooting-victims-for-baptism-rite/%3fgamp

This doesn't even seem possible to me, even if some Mormon somewhere wanted to do the baptisms for them.

Can someone explain how it is that people keep submitting names for ordinances that they aren't supposed to? And why the Church can't seem to stop these submissions?

Thanks!

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering if anyone can help me wrap my mind around something. For decades, Helen Radkey has pointed out submissions of names and baptisms for Holocaust victims and celebrities. While I wouldn't put it past Mormons who would love to "do the work" for Mick Jagger or whomever,  it seems to me (from my experience) that it is impossible to just submit random people for ordinances. It is possible to submit and do ordinances for names that are already in the system, but this requires one to lie on the checkbox forms and claim to be a direct descendant. But for Holocaust victims, celebrities, etc., I don't see how it's even possible, but I'm not tech-savvy. 

Most recently, Helen Radkey has pointed out four Jewish victims in last weeks shooting in Florida have had their baptisms performed. (I can't open the link, but here it is):

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/forward.com/fast-forward/394758/mormons-consider-4-jewish-shooting-victims-for-baptism-rite/%3fgamp

This doesn't even seem possible to me, even if some Mormon somewhere wanted to do the baptisms for them.

Can someone explain how it is that people keep submitting names for ordinances that they aren't supposed to? And why the Church can't seem to stop these submissions?

Thanks!

Yeah, like you, I don't even see how that would be possible.

[rchorse]

Especially since baptisms can't be performed until at least a year after the death date.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, rchorse said:

Especially since baptisms can't be performed until at least a year after the death date.

That's what I was thinking too. I texted my SIL who lives in FL and has several ties to the victims, but doesn' personally know any and she thought it was really weird and hasn't heard anything.  Then I verified with her about the 1 year wait since she does family history and I don't.  

My mom just verified the 1 year wait as well and served her mission in the family history center downtown and has worked in the stake one for about 10 years.

[USU78]

Radkey or her correspondent(s) are or have a really good hacker.

[Rain]

Ok. The names were submitted, not baptized yet. Checking to see if that makes a difference.

 

ETA - the article states the names have only been submitted, not baptized.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rain

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

That's what I was thinking too. I texted my SIL who lives in FL and has several ties to the victims, but doesn' personally know any and she thought it was really weird and hasn't heard anything.  Then I verified with her about the 1 year wait since she does family history and I don't.  

My mom just verified the 1 year wait as well and served her mission in the family history center downtown and has worked in the stake one for about 10 years.

I think the names have only been submitted (from what I read in the linked article).  Has anyone claimed that actual baptisms have already taken place?

Here's some interesting info on the 1 year waiting period:

Quote

 

The origin of the one year wait after death is an interesting one.  During the last part of President Joseph F. Smith’s leadership and the first few years of President Grant’s leadership, a trend developed among the members.  This trend took the form of urgent requests to do temple work, and to do it quickly enough so that the person who passed on could be buried in temple robes.

The church leaders found this to be a disturbing trend.  They did not want the members to ascribe to the temple robes some kind of “magical” qualities bestowed on the one who passed on, nor did they want the temple ordinances to be seen as a simple check box on the path to salvation.  Neither did they want to encourage the idea that some might neglect to get themselves to the temple their entire life and then have all done right at death.

So the Church leaders created the policy of waiting a year after death before any proxy temple work can be done.  This policy seems to have accomplished these goals to various degrees.  The Church also can grant exceptions to the policy or remove it entirely at a future date.  Exceptions might be granted in the cases of people who were actively preparing and seeking the temple but didn’t make it, because they died before it could happen.

https://askgramps.org/why-is-there-a-one-year-waiting-period-to-do-a-baptism-for-one-who-has-died/

 

 

 

[rongo]

I think it's obvious that there is hacking going on. Critics simply say, "Denial!" when this is pointed out. Or, when one points out that Radkey knows the instant any of these bogus submissions happen.

This raises some questions:

1) Is the Church's IT Team less-skilled than these hackers?

2) Why not point out the hacking? The Church's PR response is always to reaffirm that these submissions are against policy, and that the names have been removed. But why not point out that it isn't even possible, without hacking skills? Is it because the Church doesn't want to draw any more media attention to it than already exists?

3) Can't the Church go after the members whose log in info is used to access the system and submit these names? Why doesn't the Church discipline them?

 

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the names have only been submitted (from what I read in the linked article).  Has anyone claimed that actual baptisms have already taken place?

Here's some interesting info on the 1 year waiting period:

 

 

The OP mentions it, but rongo said he couldn't open the link.  Later when I opened it the article specifically states the names have only been submitted, not baptized.

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's obvious that there is hacking going on. Critics simply say, "Denial!" when this is pointed out. Or, when one points out that Radkey knows the instant any of these bogus submissions happen.

This raises some questions:

1) Is the Church's IT Team less-skilled than these hackers?

2) Why not point out the hacking? The Church's PR response is always to reaffirm that these submissions are against policy, and that the names have been removed. But why not point out that it isn't even possible, without hacking skills? Is it because the Church doesn't want to draw any more media attention to it than already exists?

3) Can't the Church go after the members whose log in info is used to access the system and submit these names? Why doesn't the Church discipline them?

 

4. Is this someone in the church who works with the site/IT team who is submitting the names? (Thinking of all the leaks coming from within).

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rain

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's obvious that there is hacking going on. Critics simply say, "Denial!" when this is pointed out. Or, when one points out that Radkey knows the instant any of these bogus submissions happen.

This raises some questions:

1) Is the Church's IT Team less-skilled than these hackers?

2) Why not point out the hacking? The Church's PR response is always to reaffirm that these submissions are against policy, and that the names have been removed. But why not point out that it isn't even possible, without hacking skills? Is it because the Church doesn't want to draw any more media attention to it than already exists?

3) Can't the Church go after the members whose log in info is used to access the system and submit these names? Why doesn't the Church discipline them?

 

How do you know that the hacking, if it is even happening, is from outside the church? Haven't there been a lot of improper names submitted in the past by members also? For all you know there may be a glitch, somehere in the system a member is unknowingly using.

The "We don't know how it is happening so it must be someone else fault"  is an argument from ignorance.

Edited February 20, 2018 by CA Steve

[Rain]

Ok. That was helpful and interesting. After a conversation with my mom about whether this is possible (and getting her past whether it is ok/honest) she suggested I go in and "try" to submit someone  to see if anything would stop me - my uncle who died in the last year. She was thinking that you would click on submit name for ordinances then it would come up as not being allowed. But I can't even get that far. When I click on ordinances it says, "not ready" for every spot ("not available" for sealing to spouse) even though he has been baptized and confirmed, but nothing else was done. -meaning it was not possible to submit my own uncle even if I wanted to lie.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rain

[Storm Rider]

It is my understanding that anyone who submits names for whom they are not related in some way i.e. they don't fit into their family tree, may have their site privileges revoked.  Yes, the church will know whose account was used to add the names of these recent victims.  

I suspect that we will again find a well-meaning, but ill-informed member was responsible for adding names of these recent victims of a massacre.  I also expect that we will find every one of those killed who are not LDS have had their names entered into the database not just these Jewish individuals.  

What I don't know is what controls exist at present that prevent an unrelated party from doing the work after the year period has passed.  Is there a difference between having names entered into a worldwide database and a database specifically for doing ordinances for the dead?

I just did a familysearch investigation on Jamie Guttenberg, one of those Radkey says had their names entered.  I could not find anything. It is possible that the names has already been removed.  Has anyone else found their names on the database now?

[bluebell]

When we were trying to do the work for my hubby's grandpa we had to 'testify' (for lack of a better word) that we had his mother's permission to do the work.  We also had to provide her contact information.  However, it would have been really easy to lie about it and I don't know that they ever contacted her to ask if she had actually given permission.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think the names have only been submitted (from what I read in the linked article).  Has anyone claimed that actual baptisms have already taken place?

Here's some interesting info on the 1 year waiting period:

Quote

 This trend took the form of urgent requests to do temple work, and to do it quickly enough so that the person who passed on could be buried in temple robes.

 

That's really interesting.  I don't think I'd read that before.

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is my understanding that anyone who submits names for whom they are not related in some way i.e. they don't fit into their family tree, may have their site privileges revoked.  Yes, the church will know whose account was used to add the names of these recent victims.  

I suspect that we will again find a well-meaning, but ill-informed member was responsible for adding names of these recent victims of a massacre.  I also expect that we will find every one of those killed who are not LDS have had their names entered into the database not just these Jewish individuals.  

What I don't know is what controls exist at present that prevent an unrelated party from doing the work after the year period has passed.  Is there a difference between having names entered into a worldwide database and a database specifically for doing ordinances for the dead?

I just did a familysearch investigation on Jamie Guttenberg, one of those Radkey says had their names entered.  I could not find anything. It is possible that the names has already been removed.  Has anyone else found their names on the database now?

Good question. I've texted my mom to see if she entered my uncle's death date or if it was put in some other way. No one else in the family would have entered in his death date. 

ETA - have read your question again and realized we were not thinking of the same thing. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rain

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When we were trying to do the work for my hubby's grandpa we had to 'testify' (for lack of a better word) that we had his mother's permission to do the work.  We also had to provide her contact information.  However, it would have been really easy to lie about it and I don't know that they ever contacted her to ask if she had actually given permission.

That's the kind of thing mom and I were talking about. I was wondering if it were possible to get permission that quickly (within 2 days) after putting in that you had permission. That's when she suggested testing to see what happens with my uncle and was stopped from submitting anything at all. 

[blueglass]

Delete

Edited February 21, 2018 by blueglass
not important

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering if anyone can help me wrap my mind around something. For decades, Helen Radkey has pointed out submissions of names and baptisms for Holocaust victims and celebrities. While I wouldn't put it past Mormons who would love to "do the work" for Mick Jagger or whomever,  it seems to me (from my experience) that it is impossible to just submit random people for ordinances. It is possible to submit and do ordinances for names that are already in the system, but this requires one to lie on the checkbox forms and claim to be a direct descendant. But for Holocaust victims, celebrities, etc., I don't see how it's even possible, but I'm not tech-savvy. 

Most recently, Helen Radkey has pointed out four Jewish victims in last weeks shooting in Florida have had their baptisms performed. (I can't open the link, but here it is):

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/forward.com/fast-forward/394758/mormons-consider-4-jewish-shooting-victims-for-baptism-rite/%3fgamp

This doesn't even seem possible to me, even if some Mormon somewhere wanted to do the baptisms for them.

Can someone explain how it is that people keep submitting names for ordinances that they aren't supposed to? And why the Church can't seem to stop these submissions?

Thanks!

One must wait at least a year after the death of someone to do any work -- if they are immediate relatives.  Otherwise, the 110 year rule kicks in.  So it seems quite unlikely that the Family Search computer would allow the names of Jewish kids killed last week to receive ordinances.

Actually, the Church does very well in preventing that nonsense currently.  That any name gets through at all is very rare, and the Jewish community is happy with current LDS restrictions.  Of course, nothing can mollify Helen Radkey.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One must wait at least a year after the death of someone to do any work -- if they are immediate relatives.  Otherwise, the 110 year rule kicks in.  So it seems quite unlikely that the Family Search computer would allow the names of Jewish kids killed last week to receive ordinances.

Actually, the Church does very well in preventing that nonsense currently.  That any name gets through at all is very rare, and the Jewish community is happy with current LDS restrictions.  Of course, nothing can mollify Helen Radkey.

How do these names get through, then? 

I think Rain and others must be right. Radkey has help and is tipped off by people with significant IT access in the COB. Given what is and will be leaked, this is not an outrageous possibility. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

It is my understanding that anyone who submits names for whom they are not related in some way i.e. they don't fit into their family tree, may have their site privileges revoked.  Yes, the church will know whose account was used to add the names of these recent victims.  

I suspect that we will again find a well-meaning, but ill-informed member was responsible for adding names of these recent victims of a massacre.  I also expect that we will find every one of those killed who are not LDS have had their names entered into the database not just these Jewish individuals.  

What I don't know is what controls exist at present that prevent an unrelated party from doing the work after the year period has passed.  Is there a difference between having names entered into a worldwide database and a database specifically for doing ordinances for the dead?

I just did a familysearch investigation on Jamie Guttenberg, one of those Radkey says had their names entered.  I could not find anything. It is possible that the names has already been removed.  Has anyone else found their names on the database now?

There is no factual basis at present for supposing that any of the names of those kids have been submitted for ordinances.  These are absurd claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

How do these names get through, then? 

I think Rain and others must be right. Radkey has help and is tipped off by people with significant IT access in the COB. Given what is and will be leaked, this is not an outrageous possibility. 

Where is the evidence supporting Radkey's claims?  Entering the names into the family trees in Family Search is not submitting them for baptism, and the article does not claim that they were submitted for baptism.  The article only says that they were entered into the larger database, which is not a violation of any rule.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

How do these names get through, then? 

I think Rain and others must be right. Radkey has help and is tipped off by people with significant IT access in the COB. Given what is and will be leaked, this is not an outrageous possibility. 

Just to clarify - I don't think that it was done by the IT people. I just thought of that as a possibility. With trying to put my uncle in and failing I can't see how any average member could do it with or without permission. 

After reading Robert's post I re-read: 

"The names of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students Jaime Guttenberg, Alyssa Alhadeff, and Alex Schachter, and teacher Scott Beigel, were submitted into the FamilySearch Family Trees database, according to Helen Radkey, a Salt Lake City-based independent researcher who has studied the Mormon practice of posthumous baptisms for two decades."

This makes sense and goes along with what Storm was saying. While the article talks about what "may" happen etc the whole thing really just isn't news, but the article suggests otherwise. 

I'm really glad you brought this up as it has potential for rearing up on my non LDS board and now I understand some things better.

 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Where is the evidence supporting Radkey's claims?  Entering the names into the family trees in Family Search is not submitting them for baptism, and the article does not claim that they were submitted for baptism.  The article only says that they were entered into the larger database, which is not a violation of any rule.

I might be ignorant about this, but can anyone enter anybody's name they want. I thought that you had to a) have good information, and b) be a descendant or family member. 

So, could I go in and enter the names of two high school kids who died at my high school last year? If so, that is news to me. 

The controversy, as I understand it, isn't any longer that ordinances are being performed, but that historical figures' and celebrities' names are being added, even though the Church said that they wouldn't allow that. If there is no way to stop people from doing it, then why has the Church insisted that it is stopping them?

[USU78]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

3) Can't the Church go after the members whose log in info is used to access the system and submit these names? Why doesn't the Church discipline them?

Unless a member who gets disciplined narcs himself out, how would we ever know?