Thinking Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, The Nehor said: So if this goes like church discipline has recently we will end up with a 70 year old woman tape recording a conversation with her bishop explaining why she wrongfully listed her parakeet Snookums as her great great grandmother to ensure the bird exaltation. That sounds amazing. I support this plan. This is why I don't think the problem can be completely fixed. The different levels of required discipline would add too many pages to an already too long CHI.
carbon dioxide Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 I tried to submit the smoking man of the X files but it keeps being rejected as he never seems to die. 2
Calm Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Thinking said: This is why I don't think the problem can be completely fixed. The different levels of required discipline would add too many pages to an already too long CHI. I think it is problematic if the Church is held rigidly responsible for ensuring the open to the general public 24/7 free genealogical service FamilySearch Family Trees section stays free of Jewish or celebrities names unless submitted by relatives. Assuming there is a list of names submissions get run against, it would probably slow the program down too much to have them checked as inputted. According to wiki, "At the end of 2015 FamilyTree had 1.1 billion persons added by 2.47 million of contributors". Besides banning from the service, there is nothing the Church can or should do to nonmembers. Requiring significant id info to ensure no sock puppets after banning would, imo, require too much private information the Church shouldn't be keeping track of. If they were to hire the needed experts and pay for a rigid checking service for Family Trees, I doubt it would be able to remain free. Significant investment into ensuring proper usage should come at the next level which is limited to Church members and involves approval for ordinances. If reports are correct, this is happening though it will likely never reach the perfection level. Edited February 22, 2018 by Calm 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 On 2/20/2018 at 12:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Agents provocateurs could indeed create problems on purpose, with or without the cooperation of Helen Radkey, but they could probably be traced and prosecuted for conspiracy, and they might not want to go to jail. For example, recall the Jews who have been caught putting swastikas on synagogues in order to falsely create a hue and cry against the Nazis. Could be very embarrassing at best, and mean jail time at worst. I know you don't think much of my legal acumen (such as it ... Ahem! ... might be ... or not ), Robert, so I hope you don't mind if I display my ignorance here (while, at the same time, offering you an opportunity to display your unquestionable legal brilliance ) but conspiracy requires an underlying crime. You probably know that there's no such thing as mere "conspiracy": Conspiracy requires intent to commit some other crime; what's the underlying crime here? There's little doubt in my mind that Ms. Radkey and any of her confederates have engaged in wrongdoing; their conduct, which likely is motivated by an the-ends-justify-any-means-necessary zeal, is reprehensible. That said, how is it criminal? Thanks in advance for deigning to enlighten li'l ol' me with your no-doubt incisive, keen, penetrating legal insight! (And granting for the sake of discussion that there's a crime here, does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints risk winning the "war" against this crime while at the same time losing the public relations battle by being seen as The Big, Bad, Mean Ol' Church coming down with entirely-too-heavy a hand on this Poor, Frail, Defenseless, Elderly Lady? 1
rodheadlee Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 7 hours ago, Jeanne said: I promise...I am not being snarky on this LDS board...I would like to know if anyone but me believes that any and/or all of this said Temple work is absolutely necessary to be with your family? I don't want a fight or argue or anything. YES! 1
Rain Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Calm said: I think it is problematic if the Church is held rigidly responsible for ensuring the open to the general public 24/7 free genealogical service FamilySearch Family Trees section stays free of Jewish or celebrities names unless submitted by relatives. Assuming there is a list of names submissions get run against, it would probably slow the program down too much to have them checked as inputted. According to wiki, "At the end of 2015 FamilyTree had 1.1 billion persons added by 2.47 million of contributors". Besides banning from the service, there is nothing the Church can or should do to nonmembers. Requiring significant id info to ensure no sock puppets after banning would, imo, require too much private information the Church shouldn't be keeping track of. If they were to hire the needed experts and pay for a rigid checking service for Family Trees, I doubt it would be able to remain free. Significant investment into ensuring proper usage should come at the next level which is limited to Church members and involves approval for ordinances. If reports are correct, this is happening though it will likely never reach the perfection level. I think the church realizes this which is one reason why they have not made an agreement about names in the database and just for names having ordinances done.
Recommended Posts