Ask a Mormon

[snow96]

<link removed just to be safe>
A member PM'ed me with the concern that " this site is used for data mining for these proxy ordinances which discount the choice of faith people made in life. Could that be considered as a disregard or respect for our chosen faith?". I agree with him. It can be and is disrespectful.

Did you go to the side FW? Did you have to put ANYTHING in other than a name and possible dates and where they lived?

The only part that needs a password is *IF* you want to share something. To just go to the web site and search a name it is free.

Go to the web site and LOOK at it FW.

[scipio337]

If one so chooses to use it that way. Aslo information from a tombstone can be used that way. I think you are confusing free access to those who are non members to the information already stored there with uploading information from users who know what it is used for.I would object to using tombstones for that practice, also. Either way, even per the announcement of the church, this website is used for the tracking of such ordinances, which are disrespectful to the chosen religion of the dead in this life.

Or are you telling me if I start a family tree on the website, those names won't be used for proxy ordinances? It has already been shown that some don't adhere to the "direct descendent" ruling, and those have come about only since the protest of Holocaust survivors in 1995.....

[MobyMule]

I would object to using tombstones for that practice, also. Either way, even per the announcement of the church, this website is used for the tracking of such ordinances, which are disrespectful to the chosen religion of the dead in this life.

Or are you telling me if I start a family tree on the website, those names won't be used for proxy ordinances? It has already been shown that some don't adhere to the "direct descendent" ruling, and those have come about only since the protest of Holocaust survivors in 1995.....

scipio it is apparent nothing that is said or done will ever satisfy you on this issue. Suffice it be for the complete discontinuation of it. That is what it comes down to for you does it not? Because at some point down someones family line there comes a time where there will be no direct descendent or very many and who has the rights on someone who has thousands of progenators.

For me I will do my best to do my line and teach that it is done that way by example.

[basilisk]

Like it or not, folks, proxy work for the dead is part of our theology. We really don't need anyone's permission to engage in it. If it offends you that much, lobby your Congressman to outlaw it and see if it passes muster with the First Amendment and the general voting populace.

[justamere10]

I would object to using tombstones for that practice, also. Either way, even per the announcement of the church, this website is used for the tracking of such ordinances, which are disrespectful to the chosen religion of the dead in this life.



There are many different religious beliefs and practices among the followers of Jesus Christ, and thus a great need for respect and tolerance among Christians of all sects and denominations.

On occasion a hue and cry is raised about the Latter-day Saints doing baptisms for the dead by proxy in their temples. The charge is that doing so is somehow "disrespectful" or "offensive" to the living and/or the dead, even though the critics invariably would say that LDS Priesthood and temple ordinances are not valid anyway.

The fact remains that the Latter-day Saints believe that they have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to do that work. That's part of our doctrine and beliefs just as much as many other doctrines and beliefs are associated with the thousands of other Christian sects and denominations.

It doesn't matter to me that others who worship the same God and the same Savior have different beliefs and religious practices. Nor, in my opinion should it matter to inactive or non-LDS what the Saints do inside their temples.

Regarding the charge of "disrespect" or "offensive" to use just one example. I was a Roman Catholic for 22 years so I am aware of the doctrine of "transubstantiation" in which Catholics believe (as I understood it when I was a Catholic) that during communion the priest literally transforms the eucharist (host - similar to a round piece of light bread) into the body of Jesus Christ. Catholics then take that 'body of Jesus Christ' into their mouth and swallow it.

That's ok with me, they believe that they are honoring and remembering our Savior, and they have every right to that belief, just as the Latter-day Saints have to theirs.

But if I allowed it to bother me that each Sunday there are possibly millions of people on earth deliberately consuming what they consider to be the flesh of my Savior, I could construe that to be grossly disrespectful and offensive.

I think we all need to tolerate each other's cherished beliefs and cease to attack fellow followers of Jesus Christ because they have some different beliefs and religious practices.

That's how I see it.

(Edited to remove references to chewing the host. As I recall now that's a no no, it is designed to melt in the mouth. My apologies for the misinformation.)

[noelle12]

There are many different religious beliefs and practices among the followers of Jesus Christ, and thus a great need for respect and tolerance among Christians of all sects and denominations.

On occasion a hue and cry is raised about the Latter-day Saints doing baptisms for the dead by proxy in their temples. The charge is that doing so is somehow "disrespectful" or "offensive" to the living and/or the dead, even though the critics invariably would say that LDS Priesthood and temple ordinances are not valid anyway.

The fact remains that the Latter-day Saints believe that they have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to do that work. That's part of our doctrine and beliefs just as much as many other doctrines and beliefs are associated with the thousands of other Christian sects and denominations.

It doesn't matter to me that others who worship the same God and the same Savior have different beliefs and religious practices. Nor, in my opinion should it matter to inactive or non-LDS what the Saints do inside their temples.

Regarding the charge of "disrespect" or "offensive" to use just one example. I was a Roman Catholic for 22 years so I am aware of the doctrine of "transubstantiation" in which Catholics believe (as I understood it when I was a Catholic) that during communion the priest literally transforms the eucharist (host - similar to a round piece of light bread) into the body of Jesus Christ. Catholics then take that 'body of Jesus Christ' into their mouth, chew on it, and swallow it.

That's ok with me, they believe that they are honoring and remembering our Savior, and they have every right to that belief, just as the Latter-day Saints have to theirs.

But if I allowed it to bother me that each Sunday there are possibly millions of people on earth deliberately biting into what they consider to be the flesh of my Savior, I could construe that to be grossly disrespectful and offensive.

I think we all need to tolerate each other's cherished beliefs and cease to attack fellow followers of Jesus Christ because they have some different beliefs and religious practices.

That's how I see it.

That was well said.

[scipio337]

Being offended about the practice has nothing to do with your continual linking to a site created almost exclusively for the tracking and collection of those ordinances on a forum that is supposed to be respectful of others faiths.

The LDS will continue the practice. This I understand. I would just say it is in poor tact to link the IGI on these boards.

[MobyMule]

Being offended about the practice has nothing to do with your continual linking to a site created almost exclusively for the tracking and collection of those ordinances on a forum that is supposed to be respectful of others faiths.

The LDS will continue the practice. This I understand. I would just say it is in poor tact to link the IGI on these boards.

If you feel that way that is fine. But when you just do searches it isn't tracking anything. You only will contribute to this tracking and collection if you add to it.

[noelle12]

Doesn't know what he's talking about? I think he damn well does know what he's talking about. So did another poster whom the Mormo_Mafia managed to get silenced through back channels and emails. Funny thing though..I'm been privy to several of those "mormon only" emails that are sent out on a fairly regular basis.

Like it or not, the Mormons are going to be treated as any other religious group around here. No better, no worse..despite the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude of a portion of your group.

Who is the "Mormo_Mafia" to which you refer?

[justamere10]

Being offended about the practice has nothing to do with your continual linking to a site created almost exclusively for the tracking and collection of those ordinances on a forum that is supposed to be respectful of others faiths.

The LDS will continue the practice. This I understand. I would just say it is in poor tact to link the IGI on these boards.

My guess is that you can provide valid information about Catholics. But you do not provide valid information about Latter-day Saints, even though you apparently think you do.

The link I provided (now banned by FireWatch) is NOT to the IGI which is only one of many huge databases of vital data on that website. The link I provided is (was) to a website that was designed to help, and does help, millions of people all over the world trace their family roots. It is NOT "a site created almost exclusively for the tracking and collection of those ordinances" as you a non-LDS declare it to be.

I am very grateful for the owners and operators of this board who provide a way for Latter-day Saints to speak the truth about their beliefs for themselves, and help clear up misunderstandings such as those you are creating on this thread by speaking as if you know more about things LDS than do the LDS posters.

But enjoy the day Scipio.

[Reeder]

What happened around here while I was gone? RJ is banned again, OT is on a time out........I think I'll head back to Disneyland. :D

[noelle12]

What happened around here while I was gone? RJ is banned again, OT is on a time out........I think I'll head back to Disneyland. :D

Things got a little heated today. Welcome back! :mrgreen: How was Disneyland?

[Reeder]

Things got a little heated today. Welcome back! :mrgreen: How was Disneyland?

We need RayMan and/or Hadassah to cool things off, eh? Disneyland was WONDERFUL! I hate leaving that place. I'm still debating whether the Happiest Place on Earth is Disneyland, or the Temple. :mrgreen:

[outdamyboat]

We need RayMan and/or Hadassah to cool things off, eh? Disneyland was WONDERFUL! I hate leaving that place. I'm still debating whether the Happiest Place on Earth is Disneyland, or the Temple. :mrgreen:

Thank goodness you're back....

Did you find the Green Army Men?

[noelle12]

We need RayMan and/or Hadassah to cool things off, eh? Disneyland was WONDERFUL! I hate leaving that place. I'm still debating whether the Happiest Place on Earth is Disneyland, or the Temple. :mrgreen:

I am ashamed to say I have never been to Disneyland. Maybe some day . . .

[outdamyboat]

I have to agree. If there are members of the LDS church who think that there is hypocrisy here that needs to be exposed, then light it up and let's talk about it.

:eek:

Public confession?...and not in the Temple but on an internet forum...wow...glad I don't have to do that stuff.

[justamere10]

:eek:

Public confession?...and not in the Temple but on an internet forum...wow...glad I don't have to do that stuff.

Confession may not be in order, that accusation was raised by someone who is not LDS. I and other LDS just want to get to the bottom of it to see if there is any real substance to the charge.

I still don't know of any LDS on this board who are thinking the LDS community is involved with "hypocrisy". If there are, I invite them to speak it out so we can all learn more about each other together. Otherwise, it remains a serious charge from someone who is not LDS, and it remains to be detailed and proven.

[Frazzled]

:eek:

Public confession?...and not in the Temple but on an internet forum...wow...glad I don't have to do that stuff.

Confession? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[orbitaldecay]

Like it or not, folks, proxy work for the dead is part of our theology. We really don't need anyone's permission to engage in it. If it offends you that much, lobby your Congressman to outlaw it and see if it passes muster with the First Amendment and the general voting populace.

+1

The practice isn't going away anytime soon. It is a part of our belief, we beleive it is a commandment from God.
We're are sorry you are offended by the practice.

But Moses wouln't stop sacrificing animals if the people at PETA complained to him.

(And I apoligize if anyone was offended because they thought I had compared them to PETA, for some, that's worse than the "bannable comparison"):mrgreen:

[outdamyboat]

Confession? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

see post above yours...justamere10 will explain.

[CID_0687]

I have a confession...


I ate the last Snickers bar.

That is all
Carry on

[justamere10]

see post above yours...justamere10 will explain.

I think it was outdamyboat who came up with the idea of public "confession". But as I understand it the reference is to post 1989 where FireWatch (a moderator) writes:

"I'm saying that a few fellow mormons are tired of the hypocrisy and have let the cat out of the bag."

I am personally not aware of any LDS acting in a hypocritical manner on this board, and several other LDS have also weighed in that they aren't either. So I posted a message for this matter to be discussed publicly in this thread so everyone can be enlightened together.

Or, so that charge by a respected moderator who is not LDS can be shown to be a misunderstanding.

That's how I understand it.

[outdamyboat]

+1

The practice isn't going away anytime soon. It is a part of our belief, we beleive it is a commandment from God.
We're are sorry you are offended by the practice.

But Moses wouln't stop sacrificing animals if the people at PETA complained to him.

(And I apoligize if anyone was offended because they thought I had compared them to PETA, for some, that's worse than the "bannable comparison"):mrgreen:

Yup...I think you will probably see this 'court' fight in the future....some see this as one person's religious rights infringing on anothers...but if I felt God was telling me to do some thing I would do it also..probably, unless it was illegal.

What I don't understand is why would an LDS continue to post some thing that they were told not to post on a private forum? It is countering the premise that LDS follow the 'law'. Obviously, if the rule is 'foul' then it is 'foul'....this is a private enterprise.

It would appear that the rules are for every one but LDS. Or that the LDS are trying to stir up a fight, playing the 'discrimination' card.

[Frazzled]

Exactly.

All LDs members are not in lock-step on everything. If a member believes that there has been hypocrisy on this board then stand up and let's discuss it.

From what I see, 95% of the offense that is taken here is due to mis-understanding, so if air needs to be cleared, let's try to clear it.

[terri910]

Maybe not getting around it but being considerate and polite instead of either side behaving as they did. And I know some will say we aren't considerate in our practice of this doctrine. Well I would tend to agree to a point. Some aren't and they should be chastened. It will get better imho because technology and the the policies will be easier to enoforce because of technology imho.
I had to re-read this post twice to understand exactly what you were saying (re: technology).

I would say that technology is not going to help a whole lot as to whether people are considerate and polite.

Unless you have heard about some sort of chip that can implanted for that! That would be kewl! :mrgreen:

[noelle12]

I have a confession...


I ate the last Snickers bar.

That is all
Carry on

I ban you from all snickers consumption for 1 week!

[Reeder]

Thank goodness you're back....

Did you find the Green Army Men?

You don't mean this guy, do you?

:mrgreen:

[CID_0687]

If you have a problem with your brother or sister arent you suppose to go to that person and try to resolve it. There's no reason anyone needs to backbite, or name call and whatnot. In the words of a great philosopher "Can't we all just get along?"

[orbitaldecay]

Yup...I think you will probably see this 'court' fight in the future....some see this as one person's religious rights infringing on anothers...but if I felt God was telling me to do some thing I would do it also..probably, unless it was illegal.

However there is no contradiction between law and and the practice of proxy-baptism.

What I don't understand is why would an LDS continue to post some thing that they were told not to post on a private forum? It is countering the premise that LDS follow the 'law'. Obviously, if the rule is 'foul' then it is 'foul'....this is a private enterprise.

We'll leave it up to the other mods to rule if the posting a link to that website that shall not be named is a bannable offense.

[terri910]

What happened around here while I was gone? RJ is banned again, OT is on a time out........I think I'll head back to Disneyland. :D
Now that's a plan I could get on board with.

Disneyland, I mean. Not just YOU heading back to Disneyland. (Hope you had a great trip)

[CID_0687]

I ban you from all snickers consumption for 1 week!
That's cool, there's plenty of Reese's cups.:mrgreen:

[Reeder]

Now that's a plan I could get on board with.

Disneyland, I mean. Not just YOU heading back to Disneyland. (Hope you had a great trip)

Thanks, Terri. It WAS a great trip!

Sometimes I envy all of you native Cali residents. You're much closer to that place than I.

[noelle12]

That's cool, there's plenty of Reese's cups.:mrgreen:

You are worse than a kid finding loopholes! I have been foiled in my attempt at discipline (probably an omen of things to come).

[terri910]

Thanks, Terri.

Sometimes I envy all of you native Cali residents. You're much closer to that place than I.
Envy my son and our foster granddaughter. They both got the Premium annual passports for Christmas. They go all the time....

I don't think I've been since last summer.

[Frazzled]

....<snip>......

What I don't understand is why would an LDS continue to post some thing that they were told not to post on a private forum? It is countering the premise that LDS follow the 'law'. Obviously, if the rule is 'foul' then it is 'foul'....this is a private enterprise.

It would appear that the rules are for every one but LDS. Or that the LDS are trying to stir up a fight, playing the 'discrimination' card.

Why is this an LDS issue?

An individual poster posted something and a mod took exception to it. Several other individual posters have questioned the mod's decision, and now suddenly all LDS members are guilty of something?

[CID_0687]

You are worse than a kid finding loopholes! I have been foiled in my attempt at discipline (probably an omen of things to come).
Haven't you learned by now that there's always a way around the system?

[Reeder]

Envy my son and our foster granddaughter. They both got the Premium annual passports for Christmas. They go all the time....

I don't think I've been since last summer.


Yes, I'm envying them. However, I DID receive a Dream Fastpass while I was there. The chances of actually getting one are slim to none. I guess thats the best I can do. But still, I'm envying your son and foster granddaughter..........oh BOY am I envying them!! :mrgreen:

[outdamyboat]

Why is this an LDS issue?

An individual poster posted something and a mod took exception to it. Several other individual posters have questioned the mod's decision, and now suddenly all LDS members are guilty of something?


hello...read my post carefully, I think you will figure it out...

[noelle12]

Haven't you learned by now that there's always a way around the system?

I never bothered with loopholes. I just always figured that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. :whistle: (Kidding):mrgreen:

[Frazzled]

hello...read my post carefully, I think you will figure it out...


...:rolleyes: your meaning was quite clear.

[Reeder]

hello...read my post carefully, I think you will figure it out...

To be honest with you, I'm not following. Are you referring to "the LDS" in general? And I assume you're speaking of Old Tex posting that link, even after FW asked him not to?....and you're comparing that to following the law??? I'm lost.

[CID_0687]

Can't argue with that logic..:lol:...on to the Reese's cups!!!

[Frazzled]

Can't argue with that logic..:lol:...on to the Reese's cups!!!

....in times of stress do you turn to chocolate? :mrgreen:

[outdamyboat]

You don't mean this guy, do you?

:mrgreen:

YES ! :clap: MORE Pictures, plz???

[CID_0687]

....in times of stress do you turn to chocolate? :mrgreen:
Isn't there something about chocolate that just brings a smile to your face?

[terri910]

Isn't there something about chocolate that just brings a smile to your face?
....and a pound to the hips.

Guess which one lasts longer... :((

[justamere10]

....in times of stress do you turn to chocolate? :mrgreen:

A long long time ago when I was living in Australia there was a very popular mint candy being marketed by a song on the radio. The line I will always remember goes:

"In times like these you need Minties." :-)

[CID_0687]

....and a pound to the hips.

Guess which one lasts longer... :((
I have a philosophy on that too...I've met many miserable skinny people, but most of us chubby folks are very content...I'll take fat and happy over skinny and hungry any day.:mrgreen:

[noelle12]

....and a pound to the hips.

Guess which one lasts longer... :((

Did you have to bring that up? :naughty:

[noelle12]

I have a philosophy on that too...I've met many miserable skinny people, but most of us chubby folks are very content...I'll take fat and happy over skinny and hungry any day.:mrgreen:

Amen brother!

[justamere10]

It looks like our thread views count is almost 1,000 again today after several days in the doldrums. I guess that proves that emotions really do sell newspapers.

Er, maybe it was the chocolates? :-)

[RayMan]

We need RayMan and/or Hadassah to cool things off, eh? Disneyland was WONDERFUL! I hate leaving that place. I'm still debating whether the Happiest Place on Earth is Disneyland, or the Temple. :mrgreen:

Either way some folk will brand you a heretic...Speaking of which...;)

If would be really sweet if everybody around here could spend a week or two focusing on being a Christian rather than a Mormon, Catholic, or (dare I say it?) a Pentecostal.

I often look at the stats at the bottom of the thread page and notice that there are 2 or 3 times as many guests as members viewing the RF at any given time. What kind of witness are we presenting to them as we squabble over one doctrine or another?

Reeder and I disagree agreeably over proxy baptism.
Buf and i disagree agreeably over almost everything except that Hadassah is da bomb.

I consider both of these guys to be my brothers in Christ although I don't agree with either of them considering the primacy of their particular denomination.

How about we focus on Jesus for awhile rather than whose Church is The Church? Just a thought.

Peace,
ray

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give you, to love one another; that as I have loved you, you also may love one another.
Joh 13:35 It is by this that every one will know that you are my disciples--if you love one another."

[orbitaldecay]

Either way some folk will brand you a heretic...Speaking of which...;)

If would be really sweet if everybody around here could spend a week or two focusing on being a Christian rather than a Mormon, Catholic, or (dare I say it?) a Pentecostal.

I often look at the stats at the bottom of the thread page and notice that there are 2 or 3 times as many guests as members viewing the RF at any given time. What kind of witness are we presenting to them as we squabble over one doctrine or another?

Reeder and I disagree agreeably over proxy baptism.
Buf and i disagree agreeably over almost everything except that Hadassah is da bomb.

I consider both of these guys to be my brothers in Christ although I don't agree with either of them considering the primacy of their particular denomination.

How about we focus on Jesus for awhile rather than whose Church is The Church? Just a thought.

Peace,
ray

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give you, to love one another; that as I have loved you, you also may love one another.
Joh 13:35 It is by this that every one will know that you are my disciples--if you love one another."

:clap:
Nicely put Ray.

[Dancer]

To be honest with you, I'm not following. Are you referring to "the LDS" in general? And I assume you're speaking of Old Tex posting that link, even after FW asked him not to?....and you're comparing that to following the law??? I'm lost.I think what she is saying is:

Fire Watch said "the link is no longer allowed here."

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=27760981&postcount=1983

Within three posts, Old Tex turned around and posted it again...in direct violation of a statement by a mod no more than three posts earlier.

That is contempt of a mod's ruling. If OT didn't appreciate being told not to post that link, then he should have gone to the mod forum and asked why instead of simply ignoring a moderator's ruling and directly violating it.

That has nothing to do with Mormon doctrine, it has to do with board rules. ;)

[outdamyboat]

To be honest with you, I'm not following. Are you referring to "the LDS" in general? And I assume you're speaking of Old Tex posting that link, even after FW asked him not to?....and you're comparing that to following the law??? I'm lost.

Reeder, fellow mouseketeer:

I am saying that I have been reading this enlightening thread since it began...again, and again, it has been stated concerning the LDS doctrine and LDS 'spirit' (polygamy big example) that LDS are peace loving, law abiding Christians...so, mock if you see fit...but yes, if the 'law of Hannity' says....'foul' and then an LDS gives him the 'too bad, I'll do what I want' signal, we call that in my Christian world...rebellion...not following the rules...breaking the 'law'....giving the community a black eye

That is my opinion...and I think that maybe some LDS on this thread just don't care for my opinion...:flag:

[outdamyboat]

:clap:
Nicely put Ray.

Peace; Peace. No Jesus; No Peace.

[RayMan]

:clap:
Nicely put Ray.

Thanks O.D.

(Those were my grandpa's initials. Being from Arkansas he was always called O.D. rather than Oscar Dowdy. I think we can all see why he preferred O.D.. :mrgreen:)

[orbitaldecay]

Thanks O.D.

(Those were my grandpa's initials. Being from Arkansas he was always called O.D. rather than Oscar Dowdy. I think we can all see why he preferred O.D.. :mrgreen:)

Those initials are also important to me, as my great grandmother died from...
uh nevermind...

edit: okay that really wasn't funny, I apologize for the lack of tact.

[MobyMule]

I had to re-read this post twice to understand exactly what you were saying (re: technology).

I would say that technology is not going to help a whole lot as to whether people are considerate and polite.

Unless you have heard about some sort of chip that can implanted for that! That would be kewl! :mrgreen:

i mean that technology will help keep names from being done that for unseen reason may be on a list to not be done or to keep it to a direct family line. That is what I meant.

[RayMan]

Those initials are also important to me, as my great grandmother died from...
uh nevermind...

edit: okay that really wasn't funny, I apologize for the lack of tact.

I didn't know whether you were joking and i should :mrgreen:

Or whether you were serious and i should :pray:

I don't think you need to apologize for contributing to lightening things up around here though.

Peace,
ray

[noelle12]

I'm a little late on this, but I just want to take a moment to celebrate 2,000 (plus) posts on this thread. Yeah us!

[noelle12]

I was just reading the Catholic Q&A thread and somebody mentioned something about 12 cows going to the father of the bride or something, which made me think of the great LDS classic film Johnny Lingo. Ah, the memories. What is your favorite LDS genre film (recent or old)? I remember some great ones like Uncle Ben, Blind Love, The Phone Call. Am I the only one who saw those? Then there are the new ones like God's Army, The Singles Ward, The Work and the Glory. What are some of your favorites?

[justamere10]

Reeder, fellow mouseketeer:

I am saying that I have been reading this enlightening thread since it began...again, and again, it has been stated concerning the LDS doctrine and LDS 'spirit' (polygamy big example) that LDS are peace loving, law abiding Christians...so, mock if you see fit...but yes, if the 'law of Hannity' says....'foul' and then an LDS gives him the 'too bad, I'll do what I want' signal, we call that in my Christian world...rebellion...not following the rules...breaking the 'law'....giving the community a black eye

That is my opinion...and I think that maybe some LDS on this thread just don't care for my opinion...:flag:

I was going to ignore Dancer's comments but you seem to have turned this into an "all LDS break the law" thing so I feel that I should comment.

First of all, you are quick to judgment, too quick I think to stand up in any court of law. There is no proof that OT ever saw FW's ban order. And he never got a chance to defend himself even in Talk to a Mod either, he was instantly banned from even reading this website. (Which is every mod's right to do of course, but it doesn't bring out the facts.)

Quite often it takes me quite a while to prepare a finished comment and hit "submit". That's how I sometimes miss messages because several may have been posted during that time I am preparing my post.

If OT in fact did see the ban order and went ahead and posted the banned url anyway then he is at fault, if in fact the url OT posted was the same one FW originally banned.

But none of that makes the LDS community on this board: "rebellion...not following the rules...breaking the 'law'....giving the community a black eye," as you indicate it does.

That's how I see that.

[scipio337]

My guess is that you can provide valid information about Catholics. But you do not provide valid information about Latter-day Saints, even though you apparently think you do.

The link I provided (now banned by FireWatch) is NOT to the IGI which is only one of many huge databases of vital data on that website. The link I provided is (was) to a website that was designed to help, and does help, millions of people all over the world trace their family roots. It is NOT "a site created almost exclusively for the tracking and collection of those ordinances" as you a non-LDS declare it to be.Am I incorrect that the banned site is part of the IGI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index

If temple ordiances aren't tracked on that site, why is there a specific log in space for LDS, where those ordinances performed can be viewed (they can not by non LDS)?

Even an "official" link OT provided implies as much:

To help these members in tracing their genealogies, the Church has microfilmed vital records throughout the world that identify hundreds of millions of persons who have died. The Church provides access to these records through the Family History Library in Salt Lake City and in over 3,000 local family history centers. The Church has also developed large databases of genealogical information. Further information about these resources is available on the Internet at <link to banned site deleted>

http://www.lds.org/temples/familyhistory/0,11267,1906-1,00.html

I am very grateful for the owners and operators of this board who provide a way for Latter-day Saints to speak the truth about their beliefs for themselves, and help clear up misunderstandings such as those you are creating on this thread by speaking as if you know more about things LDS than do the LDS posters.

But enjoy the day Scipio.I don't believe I'm creating a misunderstanding, perhaps you can correct me where I'm wrong. Certainly I'm not the first to be offended by such practices, but I felt the touting of that website as a "free service, courtesy of...." didn't let on the relation to practices that some of other faiths would take offense to, and might disrespect the faiths of non LDs who post here.

Essentially, that is the reason the leaders of my faith have asked local bishops not to provide this information, because those records form the basis of genealogical research from which names for baptism by proxy are drawn. I believe the lay person deserves to know that information they would give to the banned site might be used for purposes they may find objectionable.

In all, I wish the entire situation was handled with a little more sensitivity.

Sorry to all, have a good evening.

[justamere10]

I'll probably get banned for the following but if I am, so be it, I'm more interested in getting the truth out.

Here is how I understand the matter that is apparently causing some non-LDS to think LDS are "law breakers' etc. and that got a fellow LDS banned.

In post 1983 FW posted an order banning a certain URL.

In post 1985 there is evidence that OT did in fact see FW's order because he quoted what FW posted in 1983.

However, as you can plainly see from the quote in 1985, FW did NOT ban the URL that OT posted in 1985!

Sometime after OT posted 1985, FW went back to 1983 and edited his post to change the banned URL from the one OT saw to the one FW banned him for.

So, as I see it, OT has been banned unjustly, and the LDS community has been maligned unjustly.

That I believe is the truth of the matter.

Enjoy your board if I get banned for telling it the way it is, truth matters to me...

.

[outdamyboat]

I'll probably get banned for the following but if I am, so be it, I'm more interested in getting the truth out.

Here is how I understand the matter that is apparently causing some non-LDS to think LDS are "law breakers' etc. and that got a fellow LDS banned.

In post 1983 FW posted an order banning a certain URL.

In post 1985 there is evidence that OT did in fact see FW's order because he quoted what FW posted in 1983.

However, as you can plainly see from the quote in 1985, FW did NOT ban the URL that OT posted in 1985!

Sometime after OT posted 1985, FW went back to 1983 and edited his post to change the banned URL from the one OT saw to the one FW banned him for.

So, as I see it, OT has been banned unjustly, and the LDS community has been maligned unjustly.

That I believe is the truth of the matter.

Enjoy your board if I get banned for telling it the way it is, truth matters to me...

.

The true colors and motive of this thread are finally exposed...and before God...Justamere10...it is good to 'come clean'.
EDIT:
I apologize b/c I had a TOTALLY ABSOLTULELY BLONDE MOMENT...and if it wasn't so passionate...(the posting.)..it would make you LOL....
I will go to sleep now!! Good night...and really God Bless all of us crazy Christians!

[Meriweather]

I'll probably get banned for the following but if I am, so be it, I'm more interested in getting the truth out.

Here is how I understand the matter that is apparently causing some non-LDS to think LDS are "law breakers' etc. and that got a fellow LDS banned.

In post 1983 FW posted an order banning a certain URL.

In post 1985 there is evidence that OT did in fact see FW's order because he quoted what FW posted in 1983.

However, as you can plainly see from the quote in 1985, FW did NOT ban the URL that OT posted in 1985!

Sometime after OT posted 1985, FW went back to 1983 and edited his post to change the banned URL from the one OT saw to the one FW banned him for.

So, as I see it, OT has been banned unjustly, and the LDS community has been maligned unjustly.

That I believe is the truth of the matter.

Enjoy your board if I get banned for telling it the way it is, truth matters to me...

.

I watched this all unfold from work today where I couldn't respond. I may be wrong, but I think after review, and after a little light is shed on genealogy sites in general, that part will be cleared up.

Further, IF Old Tex and Fire Watch crossed posts, that can be handled, too.

I saw a lot of crossed wires in here today, but I truly believe it will all be straightened out to everyone's satisfaction.

Many of you know me--I am rabidly agin proxy baptisms, but I love genealogy. LDS has a very good site. Anyone on ANY genealogy site needs to be careful what they post about their family for a variety of reasons--we all know that--or we should. No one needs to be any more careful at the LDS site than they need to be on ANY site.

Nor, does anyone--or any group--need to be protected from any Moderator on this forum. Rather than being wrapped in cotton batting, all of us need a wake-up call from time-to-time, as painful as that may be. Further, we all have the intelligence to to smooth things out.

Isn't it time for a group hug, and a decision that we will all move gracefully forward? Let's keep the trust.

[justamere10]

Am I incorrect that the banned site is part of the IGI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index

If temple ordiances aren't tracked on that site, why is there a specific log in space for LDS, where those ordinances performed can be viewed (they can not by non LDS)?

Even an "official" link OT provided implies as much:



http://www.lds.org/temples/familyhistory/0,11267,1906-1,00.html

I don't believe I'm creating a misunderstanding, perhaps you can correct me where I'm wrong. Certainly I'm not the first to be offended by such practices, but I felt the touting of that website as a "free service, courtesy of...." didn't let on the relation to practices that some of other faiths would take offense to, and might disrespect the faiths of non LDs who post here.

Essentially, that is the reason the leaders of my faith have asked local bishops not to provide this information, because those records form the basis of genealogical research from which names for baptism by proxy are drawn. I believe the lay person deserves to know that information they would give to the banned site might be used for purposes they may find objectionable.

In all, I wish the entire situation was handled with a little more sensitivity.

Sorry to all, have a good evening.

Yes, you are incorrect. The banned site is not part of the IGI, the IGI is part of the banned site. (The IGI is just one of many huge databases that genealogical researchers have access to on the banned site, which is by the way an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, similar to an official Vatican website.)

You write: "I believe the lay person deserves to know that information they would give to the banned site might be used for purposes they may find objectionable."

That is correct, every person has that right to know, but not every person finds the religious practices of other churches as objectionable as you do, and those databases are used for people to find their ancestors. My guess is that the vast majority of people who use the banned site only take away data, they do not contribute to the data bases.

I'm sure every church has information that it does not make available to to the public. Genealogy researchers are fortunate that the LDS Church has made available the IGI, a huge database owned by the LDS Church.

You can decide to take "offense" that the LDS Church provides a free service that benefits millions of people around the world, just as I could take "offense" that millions of Catholics take part in a Sunday service that to most other Christians could be construed as grossly offensive.

Your church has every right to keep its vital records from benefitting genealogical researchers, and my church has every right to make its vital records available.

My guess is that hundreds of thousands of Catholics will continue to benefit from free access to the databases the LDS Church has accumulated at enormous cost and makes available to everyone regardless of denomination.

Shall we leave it at that and stop criticising each other's beliefs and religious practices? That would be the Christian thing to do I would think.

[noelle12]

The true colors and motive of this thread are finally exposed...and before God...Justamere10...it is good to 'come clean'.

What do you mean by "true colors and motive"?

[justamere10]

The true colors and motive of this thread are finally exposed...and before God...Justamere10...it is good to 'come clean'.


I don't understand your comment, please explain, thanks.

[Dancer]

The true colors and motive of this thread are finally exposed...and before God...Justamere10...it is good to 'come clean'.
Actually, AFTER OT was banned, I was trying to shed some light on the matter by responding to Reeder when I noticed that FW had been typing so fast that, although the spirit was clear in his post, he had forgotten a single word.

My exact words to him were, "You might want to add a "no" to that post since you know that someone is going to nitpick even though the spirit clearly comes across as to what you are saying."

I am very sad to see that I was correct.

You might note the time stamp of him changing it is right before I posted my response to Reeder.

The timing was well after he had banned Old Tex.

[justamere10]

There was more to the story (a history) than most (+90%?) of the posters on this thread were unaware of ..it was not 'in the light'. But, now past hurts and offenses are exposed to the light....and they can be reconciled and forgiven or people can continue in bitterness and contempt of one another. I have felt the tension on this thread from day one....it has been filled w/ disunity and IMO no brotherly love has been communicated.

Obviously, the history of offenses was passed from person to person (we call that picking up a brother's offense...also not Biblical)...my goodness the 1980's!!!!! Let God be your defender.

Personally, if there are offenses that were commited by Hannity members, Biblical principles would mandate that those offenses be settled privately...not through a thread that is 'bleeding' with old wounds and hurts (in my Christianity it works this way).

I think it is time for this thread to be layed to rest....it is not serving any Christian purpose, IMO. And, if any thing, it is hurting the testimony of the LDS.

I still don't understand your reasoning. I do not see "bitterness" and "contempt" in this thread. I do not think anyone is being hurt by this thread and I know for a fact that the testimony of NO Latter-day Saint is "hurting" because of anything written in this thread. Surely you are not serious?

You write: "now past hurts and offenses are exposed to the light...."

Please explain what happened today so that in your mind "now" all that you find hurtful and offensive is "exposed". Somehow it seems to be related to one of my last posts. I am curious to know how that worked for you.

In my opinion it is only you and maybe a very few others who are choosing to be "offended" by things the Latter-day Saints have been writing in this thread.

It is my observation that the LDS have been trying to teach interested people the truth about what Mormons believe. That has only been sidetracked when a few people began writing off topic posts. (Though I admit that LDS will join in levity when it presents itself, and yes some of us may have occasionally written in a manner that could have been considered offensive by a reader with very thin skin or an unusual level of intolerance for the beliefs of others.)

I understand your desire to shut down this thread. But how about the 1400 views by other people today? Maybe they would like this to continue.

I respect your right to post in this thread, but instead of shutting it down for you, maybe you should consider removing yourself if it creates such "hurts" and "tensions" in you. It doesn't do that for me, not even your posts...

[justamere10]

Actually, AFTER OT was banned, I was trying to shed some light on the matter by responding to Reeder when I noticed that FW had been typing so fast that, although the spirit was clear in his post, he had forgotten a single word.

My exact words to him were, "You might want to add a "no" to that post since you know that someone is going to nitpick even though the spirit clearly comes across as to what you are saying."

I am very sad to see that I was correct.

You might note the time stamp of him changing it is right before I posted my response to Reeder.

The timing was well after he had banned Old Tex.

I can't read the timing of edits but if it is as you say, then OT was, as I pointed out, banned for posting an URL that was not at the time he posted it a banned URL.

[Fire Watch]

I can't read the timing of edits but if it is as you say, then OT was, as I pointed out, banned for posting an URL that was not at the time he posted it a banned URL.
That is NOT true. As any moderator can see, the post of OT's that I deleted made it perfectly clear that he understood my directive, and deliberately disobeyed it.

[justamere10]

That is NOT true. As any moderator can see, the post of OT's that I deleted made it perfectly clear that he understood my directive, and deliberately disobeyed it.

Then that's the way it is then and I guess I need to apologize to you. Apparently I cannot read what moderators can see, including deleted posts, I was going only by the data that I could see.

It is not my desire to offend anyone, just to out the truth as I see it. In this case perhaps I was wrong then. Good night.

[outdamyboat]

I still don't understand your reasoning. I do not see "bitterness" and "contempt" in this thread. I do not think anyone is being hurt by this thread and I know for a fact that the testimony of NO Latter-day Saint is "hurting" because of anything written in this thread. Surely you are not serious?

You write: "now past hurts and offenses are exposed to the light...."

Please explain what happened today so that in your mind "now" all that you find hurtful and offensive is "exposed". Somehow it seems to be related to one of my last posts. I am curious to know how that worked for you.

In my opinion it is only you and maybe a very few others who are choosing to be "offended" by things the Latter-day Saints have been writing in this thread.

It is my observation that the LDS have been trying to teach interested people the truth about what Mormons believe. That has only been sidetracked when a few people began writing off topic posts. (Though I admit that LDS will join in levity when it presents itself, and yes some of us may have occasionally written in a manner that could have been considered offensive by a reader with very thin skin or an unusual level of intolerance for the beliefs of others.)

I understand your desire to shut down this thread. But how about the 1400 views by other people today? Maybe they would like this to continue.

I respect your right to post in this thread, but instead of shutting it down for you, maybe you should consider removing yourself if it creates such "hurts" and "tensions" in you. It doesn't do that for me, not even your posts...


Well I'm staying....but here is my edited post which you missed...we cross posted.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=27809081&postcount=2066

Really, God Bless!

[justamere10]

I would very much appreciate if someone would post in this thread any decision announced by a moderator regarding yesterday's banning of a link to an official LDS website.

To me that is an extremely serious matter because it infers that there is something wrong with the banned website, with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that owns and operates the banned site, and with the LDS community on this board who firmly believe that genealogical research is important, and that what we do in our temples is a commandment from God.

I invite all to quietly and anonymously browse at http://www.mormon.org to learn the truth about the Latter-day Saints and how they can enrich their own lives and better prepare for the eternities as forever families.

.

[Meriweather]

justamere10, last night I posted a proposal in the Hannity Etiquette thread about the discussion of proxy baptisms. I would very much like your (and others) considered thoughts on it.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=27813941&postcount=144

[justamere10]

justamere10, last night I posted a proposal in the Hannity Etiquette thread about the discussion of proxy baptisms. I would very much like your (and others) considered thoughts on it.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=27813941&postcount=144

If it's a discussion about the beliefs and religious practices of Mormons it belongs in this thread. I invite you to post it here if you think it needs to be discussed yet AGAIN. Others may go to another thread if they so choose but as for me this thread is where I discuss all things LDS.

[Meriweather]

If it's a discussion about the beliefs and religious practices of Mormons it belongs in this thread. I invite you to post it here if you think it needs to be discussed yet AGAIN. Others may go to another thread if they so choose but as for me this thread is where I discuss all things LDS.


I may be wrong. . . .I'm wondering if you missed the point of my post. It was asking if this topic should be banned from this forum all together.

[stormy]

I may be wrong. . . .I'm wondering if you missed the point of my post. It was asking if this topic should be banned from this forum all together.

Sure, along with , oneness doctrine, baptism, transubstiantion (sp?), Jesus Christ, God,creationism, evolution, polygamy, Book of Mormon, once saved; always saved.....

What other theologies and beliefs do others here find "disrespectful" or "offensive" that we should ban from this forum?

Let's just take it religion by religion by religion. Let's make a list of everything even one person finds disrespectful and offensive and let us burn it. Let's show Salem how it's really done! Let the witch hunt begin!

Let's not stop with random beliefs. Let's ban those religions one finds offensive or disrespectful- beginning with Mormon's, Catholics, Jews, Muslims....

[terri910]

If it's a discussion about the beliefs and religious practices of Mormons it belongs in this thread.
:eek:

Someone needs to realize they are not in charge of this forum.

[justamere10]

I may be wrong. . . .I'm wondering if you missed the point of my post. It was asking if this topic should be banned from this forum all together.

I appreciate your desire to be helpful but I tend to agree with Stormy's comments in post 2081.

[MobyMule]

I also would like to know the reason family search is banned as a link. It doesn't make sense to me. As Justamere pointed out the IGI is just one of many many databases that can be searched from to find ancestors. No one is required to upload anything or add to a database. It is just like using google to find your ancestors. Does google track? Yes. Can it lead to every offensive website known to man? Yes. Is it banned?

[MobyMule]

I think common sense and this forum have completely split ways.

[justamere10]

:eek:

Someone needs to realize they are not in charge of this forum.

Right, my mistake, for you I need to preface my remarks with "in my opinion". In no way was I inferring that I am in charge of anything on the Hannity board. What I was trying to say is that if it's a discussion about anything LDS, this thread is the place where I personally will participate. And yes, someday I may find myself standing alone. But at least I'll be comfortable in my own space. :-)

Enjoy the day Terri.

[justamere10]

I watched this all unfold from work today where I couldn't respond. I may be wrong, but I think after review, and after a little light is shed on genealogy sites in general, that part will be cleared up.

Further, IF Old Tex and Fire Watch crossed posts, that can be handled, too.

I saw a lot of crossed wires in here today, but I truly believe it will all be straightened out to everyone's satisfaction.

Many of you know me--I am rabidly agin proxy baptisms, but I love genealogy. LDS has a very good site. Anyone on ANY genealogy site needs to be careful what they post about their family for a variety of reasons--we all know that--or we should. No one needs to be any more careful at the LDS site than they need to be on ANY site.

Nor, does anyone--or any group--need to be protected from any Moderator on this forum. Rather than being wrapped in cotton batting, all of us need a wake-up call from time-to-time, as painful as that may be. Further, we all have the intelligence to to smooth things out.

Isn't it time for a group hug, and a decision that we will all move gracefully forward? Let's keep the trust.


Your suggestion for a "group hug" is attractive. But a raging battlefield is not usually a good place to turn one's back on the enemy and engage in such behavior. :-)

It is known that appeasement almost invariably results in a lessening of freedoms, and ultimately slavery. For as long as that ban on an official LDS website remains in effect I will not stand down. If I and other LDS stand down on this very serious matter, the next ban might be on a Vatican website or an official Baptist or Pentecostal website or whatever.

I don't understand why others are not vigorously fighting this matter along with us. It's in the best interests of all Christians that every church be allowed to own and operate their own official websites, and in my opinion it's in the best interests of every member of the Hannity community to be allowed to point others to official policies etc. and to have free and easy access to those sites to learn more about each other and to better understand each other. I consider the banning on Hannity of links to any church's official website/s to be an extremely serious infringement of the things Sean Hannity stands and fights for, as I understand them.

It is my observation that although we are far from perfect and sometimes stumble, most temple-worthy Latter-day Saints will try hard to not give the first offence. But it is also my observation that when attacked we WILL defend ourselves!

I ask the powers that be on this board to quickly reverse yesterday's ban on linking to an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to let us know that has been done in this thread so we can all be aware of it and go on with the peaceful discussion of things that are important to us. (Perhaps even including virtual group hugs. :-)

[terri910]

Right, my mistake, for you I need to preface my remarks with "in my opinion". In no way was I inferring that I am in charge of anything on the Hannity board. What I was trying to say is that if it's a discussion about anything LDS, this thread is the place where I personally will participate. And yes, someday I may find myself standing alone. But at least I'll be comfortable in my own space. :-)

Enjoy the day Terri.
:rolleyes:

The ONLY thing I -- or anyone else (unless they are psychic) -- has to go by here, are the words we post. You may not have meant to imply (that is what you would do with your words -- imply -- "infer" is what others do with your words) that you are in charge, but that is the impression those words left. More people need to realize this and actually think about what they post before they post, and then when it is clear that someone else has been left with an erroneous impression, take it as an opportunity to clarify rather than an opportunity to be snide.

Just because you won't venture outside the thread you've originated doesn't mean that every subject touching on something that might have something to do with the LDS faith has to be brought to it.

[Meriweather]

Sure, along with , oneness doctrine, baptism, transubstiantion (sp?), Jesus Christ, God,creationism, evolution, polygamy, Book of Mormon, once saved; always saved.....

What other theologies and beliefs do others here find "disrespectful" or "offensive" that we should ban from this forum?

Let's just take it religion by religion by religion. Let's make a list of everything even one person finds disrespectful and offensive and let us burn it. Let's show Salem how it's really done! Let the witch hunt begin!

Let's not stop with random beliefs. Let's ban those religions one finds offensive or disrespectful- beginning with Mormon's, Catholics, Jews, Muslims....


Yes. I addressed that in my post last night. (Did you even read it?) I wasn't asking for sarcasm, Stormy, but was hoping for a peaceful discussion. I already understood the possible repercussions, and hoped for a discussion on this specific topic.

[justamere10]

:rolleyes:

The ONLY thing I -- or anyone else (unless they are psychic) -- has to go by here, are the words we post. You may not have meant to imply (that is what you would do with your words -- imply -- "infer" is what others do with your words) that you are in charge, but that is the impression those words left. More people need to realize this and actually think about what they post before they post, and then when it is clear that someone else has been left with an erroneous impression, take it as an opportunity to clarify rather than an opportunity to be snide.

Just because you won't venture outside the thread you've originated doesn't mean that every subject touching on something that might have something to do with the LDS faith has to be brought to it.

That's right, discussions about the LDS faith do not have to be brought to this thread. But my personal participation in LDS discussions will be only in this thread. I have many other things to do, that's the only way I can keep track of happenings that I'm involved in. (I did participate in the Catholic miracles thread, but that wasn't an LDS matter.)

With respect, it is my opinion that you would do well to lighten up a bit and give the writer the benefit of the doubt if you judge something to be offensive. I think most people routinely do that instead of looking for faults in a word...

[Meriweather]

Your suggestion for a "group hug" is attractive. But a raging battlefield is not usually a good place to turn one's back on the enemy and engage in such behavior. :-)

We're now enemies?

It is known that appeasement almost invariably results in a lessening of freedoms, and ultimately slavery. For as long as that ban on an official LDS website remains in effect I will not stand down. If I and other LDS stand down on this very serious matter, the next ban might be on a Vatican website or an official Baptist or Pentecostal website or whatever.

I believe you have made a tempest in a teapot that could have easily been resolved without all the hoopla.

I don't understand why others are not vigorously fighting this matter along with us. It's in the best interests of all Christians that every church be allowed to own and operate their own official websites, and in my opinion it's in the best interests of every member of the Hannity community to be allowed to point others to official policies etc. and to have free and easy access to those sites to learn more about each other and to better understand each other. I consider the banning on Hannity of links to any church's official website/s to be an extremely serious infringement of the things Sean Hannity stands and fights for, as I understand them.

We're not fighting because we don't have to fight. I've already posted my two cents in TTTM and again here.

It is my observation that although we are far from perfect and sometimes stumble, most temple-worthy Latter-day Saints will try hard to not give the first offence. But it is also my observation that when attacked we WILL defend ourselves!

I ask the powers that be on this board to quickly reverse yesterday's ban on linking to an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to let us know that has been done in this thread so we can all be aware of it and go on with the peaceful discussion of things that are important to us. (Perhaps even including virtual group hugs. :-)

I think it already would have been reversed had it been handled differently.

[justamere10]

We're now enemies?

I believe you have made a tempest in a teapot that could have easily been resolved without all the hoopla.

We're not fighting because we don't have to fight. I've already posted my two cents in TTTM and again here.

I think it already would have been reversed had it been handled differently.

We are not enemies. The 'enemy' is a policy to not allow anyone to link to an official LDS website. That's what I'm fighting, not people.

I did not create a tempest. The "tempest" was created yesterday by the decision of a moderator to ban links to an official LDS website.

I too posted in TTTM but that thread is locked so we can't discuss there. I think we are all waiting for a moderator to rule on this issue so we can get back to peaceful discussion.

Noted... :-)

I appreciate your participation in this thread.

[terri910]

With respect, it is my opinion that you would do well to lighten up a bit and give the writer the benefit of the doubt if you judge something to be offensive. I think most people routinely do that instead of looking for faults in a word...
I will try harder, justamere10. I do try to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. But I will try harder. It is more difficult, of course, when one remembers the history of a person's posting.

...and I'm afraid that lately, I would diagree with your last sentence. More's the pity, of course.

[stormy]

Yes. I addressed that in my post last night. (Did you even read it?) I wasn't asking for sarcasm, Stormy, but was hoping for a peaceful discussion. I already understood the possible repercussions, and hoped for a discussion on this specific topic.
Meriweather, lighten up a bit.

I am painting for you a picture of things to come and trying to break a tense situation.

I would post a link to specific biblical scripture but someone may be offended, or find disrespectful, the bible version I choose - and we don't want that do we?

[justamere10]

Iggy has posted a ruling in the TTTM forum that appears to completely support FireWatch.

But he said nothing about what to me is the most serious issue, the banning of links to an official LDS website. The thread was unlocked as of a minute or so ago.

[Meriweather]

We are not enemies. The 'enemy' is a policy to not allow anyone to link to an official LDS website. That's what I'm fighting, not people.

I did not create a tempest. The "tempest" was created yesterday by the decision of a moderator to ban links to an official LDS website.

I too posted in TTTM but that thread is locked so we can't discuss there. I think we are all waiting for a moderator to rule on this issue so we can get back to peaceful discussion.

Noted... :-)

I appreciate your participation in this thread.


The Moderators have a lot to deal with here on Hannity as it affects this website. So you can't post a link while certain things are being ironed out! It's not as if people can't find the site unless they have a link to it right here on Hannity.

In my opinion, we simply need to chill while the problems are being worked on. I know we pride ourselves on our faith in God, but right now, I think we need to have faith in Fire Watch and the other Moderators. I was disgusted by the call to have a Moderator removed from ruling on certain topics. They deserve better than that from us.

[Meriweather]

Meriweather, lighten up a bit.

I am painting for you a picture of things to come and trying to break a tense situation.

I would post a link to specific biblical scripture but someone may be offended, or find disrespectful, the bible version I choose - and we don't want that do we?

I'm sorry, but you've entirely missed my point.

[stormy]

I'm sorry, but you've entirely missed my point.Believe it or not Meriweather, I did not miss your point.

[scipio337]

Yes, you are incorrect. The banned site is not part of the IGI, the IGI is part of the banned site. (The IGI is just one of many huge databases that genealogical researchers have access to on the banned site, which is by the way an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, similar to an official Vatican website.)Thanks for clearing that up, but it appears the original premise was right: the banned site is used for proxy ordinances.

You write: "I believe the lay person deserves to know that information they would give to the banned site might be used for purposes they may find objectionable."

That is correct, every person has that right to know, but not every person finds the religious practices of other churches as objectionable as you do, and those databases are used for people to find their ancestors. My guess is that the vast majority of people who use the banned site only take away data, they do not contribute to the data bases.Fine, but then perhaps a disclosure by you and the LDS Church is in order? Does the average person know that any information provided to the banned site could (would?) be used for proxy ordinances? I just found your touting of the site as some type of magnanimous gesture without noting what that information signifies, and what any information contributed could be used for to be dishonest.

I'm sure every church has information that it does not make available to to the public.I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others.

Genealogy researchers are fortunate that the LDS Church has made available the IGI, a huge database owned by the LDS Church.Fine, but they should also know what your church uses that information for, and what any information contributed could be used for. Is that too much to ask?

You can decide to take "offense" that the LDS Church provides a free service that benefits millions of people around the world, just as I could take "offense" that millions of Catholics take part in a Sunday service that to most other Christians could be construed as grossly offensive.Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense.

I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do.

Your church has every right to keep its vital records from benefitting genealogical researchers, and my church has every right to make its vital records available.you need an asterisk next to "available*", as noted before, the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS.

My guess is that hundreds of thousands of Catholics will continue to benefit from free access to the databases the LDS Church has accumulated at enormous cost and makes available to everyone regardless of denomination.My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active in a practice they might object to. Shouldn't they have the right to make that decision?

Shall we leave it at that and stop criticising each other's beliefs and religious practices? That would be the Christian thing to do I would think.I'm not criticizing the practice, but providing the link that supports that practice on this board where we have the mutual respect of faiths.

I've said my peace on what I think of proxy ordinances. I'm not part of the faith, obviously, so I don't care what you do inside of your faith, but I would loathe to see these boards used to promote a site that is tied to a religious practice many here find objectional, without any mention of that potentially objectional practice on your part.

I'm willing to let the mods decide on the issue, and appreciate your thread and attempt at dialouge

[terri910]

I know we pride ourselves on our faith in God, but right now, I think we need to have faith in Fire Watch and the other Moderators.
I've said prayers for them all. I know they all care, are good people, and are doing a job that requires the wisdom of Solomon....

[MobyMule]

Thanks for clearing that up, but it appears the original premise was right: the banned site is used for proxy ordinances.

Fine, but then perhaps a disclosure by you and the LDS Church is in order? Does the average person know that any information provided to the banned site could (would?) be used for proxy ordinances? I just found your touting of the site as some type of magnanimous gesture without noting what that information signifies, and what any information contributed could be used for to be dishonest.

I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others.

Fine, but they should also know what your church uses that information for, and what any information contributed could be used for. Is that too much to ask?

Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense.

I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do.

you need an asterisk next to "available*", as noted before, the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS.

My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active in a practice they might object to. Shouldn't they have the right to make that decision?

I'm not criticizing the practice, but providing the link that supports that practice on this board where we have the mutual respect of faiths.

I've said my peace on what I think of proxy ordinances. I'm not part of the faith, obviously, so I don't care what you do inside of your faith, but I would loathe to see these boards used to promote a site that is tied to a religious practice many here find objectional, without any mention of that potentially objectional practice on your part.

I'm willing to let the mods decide on the issue, and appreciate your thread and attempt at dialouge

Lets ban all geneology sites and the social security database. Anything that could be used to support the practice of proxy baptism. This whole issue of the website doesn't make any sense. Any family information anywhere that is open to the public could be used for such practice regardless where it is put.

[AugustGem]

Can I still ask a mormon a question?

Where does the name "mormon" come from. LDS Latter Day Saints, I understand I think. It's what the church is called.

I'm sorry if it is beyond stupid for a question.

[MobyMule]

Can I still ask a mormon a question?

Where does the name "mormon" come from. LDS Latter Day Saints, I understand I think. It's what the church is called.

I'm sorry if it is beyond stupid for a question.

Because we believe in additional scripture called the Book of Mormon. It was a nickname given to those who joined the Church because of the name of the book. Mormon was we believe a prophet who helped put together the writings in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith translated.

[Reeder]

Either way some folk will brand you a heretic...Speaking of which...;)

If would be really sweet if everybody around here could spend a week or two focusing on being a Christian rather than a Mormon, Catholic, or (dare I say it?) a Pentecostal.

I often look at the stats at the bottom of the thread page and notice that there are 2 or 3 times as many guests as members viewing the RF at any given time. What kind of witness are we presenting to them as we squabble over one doctrine or another?

Reeder and I disagree agreeably over proxy baptism.
Buf and i disagree agreeably over almost everything except that Hadassah is da bomb.

I consider both of these guys to be my brothers in Christ although I don't agree with either of them considering the primacy of their particular denomination.

How about we focus on Jesus for awhile rather than whose Church is The Church? Just a thought.

Peace,
ray

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give you, to love one another; that as I have loved you, you also may love one another.
Joh 13:35 It is by this that every one will know that you are my disciples--if you love one another."

Ya see? Now THAT's what I'm talking about. Ray, you're peacemaking ability is refreshing.

[justamere10]

In the once again locked Talk To The Moderator thread about Fire Watch, Iggy recently stated that if anyone starts another thread on the issue they will be banned. So, it's unclear to me if this Ask a Mormon thread is in effect also locked or not. I have a reply ready to Scipio's post but I think it prudent to hold off in respect to Iggy's ruling until that is clarified. Hopefully we'll get a final ruling from the moderators soon.

[Reeder]

In the once again locked Talk To The Moderator thread about Fire Watch Iggy recently stated that if anyone starts another thread on the issue they will be banned. So, it's unclear to me if this Ask a Mormon thread is in effect also locked or not. I have a reply ready to Scipio's post but I think it prudent to hold off in respect to Iggy's ruling until that is clarified. Hopefully we'll get a final ruling from the moderators soon.


I'd say thats a good decision.

[MobyMule]

My main concern isn't Old Tex. I could really care less about that tbh. I think they banning of the website though is just ridiculous. That is my concern. I find it just be outside the realm of common sense.

[terri910]

In the once again locked Talk To The Moderator thread about Fire Watch, Iggy recently stated that if anyone starts another thread on the issue they will be banned. So, it's unclear to me if this Ask a Mormon thread is in effect also locked or not. I have a reply ready to Scipio's post but I think it prudent to hold off in respect to Iggy's ruling until that is clarified. Hopefully we'll get a final ruling from the moderators soon.
If this thread gets locked, we'll all know it. No one will be able to post within it.

But it is probably wise to avoid discussing the issue(s) contained in the thread in the Mod Forum.

[AugustGem]

Because we believe in additional scripture called the Book of Mormon. It was a nickname given to those who joined the Church because of the name of the book. Mormon was we believe a prophet who helped put together the writings in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith translated.

Thank you :)


Where did he get the word mormon? Was it on the plates?

[MobyMule]

To me if you ban that site you should ban all links to religious websites. Because obviously there will be practices and beliefs at all of them that someone will find wrong or offensive. Either you accept all official chruch websites or you don't.

[MobyMule]

Thank you :)


Where did he get the word mormon? Was it on the plates?

Sorry Mormon was the name of a prophet in the Book itself. And Mormon was the one who put all the different scripture in the Book together on plates.

[terri910]

Sorry Mormon was the name of a prophet in the Book itself. And Mormon was the one who put all the different scripture in the Book together on plates.
Am I correct in my understanding that the LDS believe it was the Angel Moroni that led Joseph Smith to the plates?

I've been told that the golden angel with the trumpet (or horn) facing east at the top of every LDS Temple represents the Angel Moroni, is that true?

[Reeder]

Thank you :)


Where did he get the word mormon? Was it on the plates?

There were many ancient records kept by the Nephites, Mulekites, Jaredites, etc. (all ancient civilizations in the Americas). Mormon was one of the two prophets who abridged those records into what we now call "The Book of Mormon." His son, Moroni, also abridged some of the records (the records were inscribed onto plates of gold.......the same gold plates that Joseph Smith translated 1400 years later). Mormon and Moroni were the last two prophets among the Nephites before their civilization was destroyed. Since the Book is called "The Book of Mormon," many non-LDS nick-named the Latter-day Saints "The Mormons" and the name has stuck ever since.

[Reeder]

Am I correct in my understanding that the LDS believe it was the Angel Moroni that led Joseph Smith to the plates?

I've been told that the golden angel with the trumpet (or horn) facing east at the top of every LDS Temple represents the Angel Moroni, is that true?

Both true, terri.

Mormon abridged the majority of the Nephite records, however. Moroni added a few scriptures of his own to the end of the book, and he also abridged the 24 gold plates written by the Jaredite civilization (which had come to the Americas after the Lord confounded the languages.......Babel). Moroni held the keys to the "stick of Joseph," (which is why it was him that directed Joseph Smith to the plates) but since Mormon abridged the majority of the records, the Book came to be known as "The Book of Mormon."

The Angel Moroni statue at the top of all the LDS Temples represents the angel spoken of in Revelations 14: 6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


The statues always face east, which points to the direction from which we believe the Lord will come at His Second Coming.

[MobyMule]

Both true, terri.

Mormon abridged the majority of the Nephite records, however. Moroni added a few scriptures of his own to the end of the book, and he also abridged the 24 gold plates written by the Jaredite civilization (which had come to the Americas after the Lord confounded the languages.......Babel). Moroni held the keys to the "stick of Joseph," (which is why it was him that directed Joseph Smith to the plates) but since Mormon abridged the majority of the records, the Book came to be known as "The Book of Mormon."

The Angel Moroni statue at the top of all the LDS Temples represents the angel spoken of in Revelations 14: 6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


Thanks Reeder. Good summation.

[terri910]

Both true, terri.

Mormon abridged the majority of the Nephite records, however. Moroni added a few scriptures of his own to the end of the book, and he also abridged the 24 gold plates written by the Jaredite civilization (which had come to the Americas after the Lord confounded the languages.......Babel). Moroni held the keys to the "stick of Joseph," (which is why it was him that directed Joseph Smith to the plates) but since Mormon abridged the majority of the records, the Book came to be known as "The Book of Mormon."

The Angel Moroni statue at the top of all the LDS Temples represents the angel spoken of in Revelations 14: 6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,


The statues always face east, which points to the direction from which we believe the Lord will come at His Second Coming.
I think I may have learned something new.

So, Moroni is believed to have been Mormon's son. And Moroni also added something to the plates?

I always understood Mormon to be believed a human being, so I assume Moroni was also. How do you believe Moroni became an angel? (Was he unmarried?)

[AugustGem]

Sorry Mormon was the name of a prophet in the Book itself. And Mormon was the one who put all the different scripture in the Book together on plates.

Thank you!

I find the LDS religion very interesting. From time to time I pop on and read bits and bobs. I'm not very religious although I come from a very religious family.

[snow96]

I think I may have learned something new.

So, Moroni is believed to have been Mormon's son. And Moroni also added something to the plates?

I always understood Mormon to be believed a human being, so I assume Moroni was also. How do you believe Moroni became an angel? (Was he unmarried?)

If you ever want a good summer vacation Terri. Manti Utah in June. They have the Mormon Miricle Pageant that starts with Joseph Smith as a boy questioning all religions, to finding the plates, to translating them, to being killed. Then following Brigham Young West to Utah. The pageant also portrays many scenes from the BOM.

http://www.mormonmiracle.org/index.html

Click on History . . . gives the history of the pageant.

Here are pictures I took a couple years ago of the pageant

http://www.pbase.com/snowphoto/mmp

Picture 47 depicts Mormon and his son Moroni

picture 51 depicts Moroni adding the final comments to the plates

picture 53 depicts Moroni hiding the plates.

Picture 22 depicts the angel Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith in his home before finding the plates.

[justamere10]

It's nice to see some "Ask a Mormon" topic messages flowing again. But I'd still like to respond to Scipio's message. Does anyone know if the mods have made their decision and that I can go ahead with Scipio's matter without being disrespectful of a mod?

[AugustGem]

It's nice to see some "Ask a Mormon" topic messages flowing again. But I'd still like to respond to Scipio's message. Does anyone know if the mods have made their decision and that I can go ahead with Scipio's matter without being disrespectful of a mod?

decision made, I would drop it

[justamere10]

decision made, I would drop it

What's the decision? Can we now post links to our church's official websites?

[goodlife]

You can discuss your religion without using that link. Everybody needs to move on....we'll discuss the issue and make a decision later.

[justamere10]

You can discuss your religion without using that link. Everybody needs to move on....we'll discuss the issue and make a decision later.


Thanks for clearing that up. How will we know your decision? TTTM?

[Reeder]

I think I may have learned something new.

So, Moroni is believed to have been Mormon's son. And Moroni also added something to the plates?

Yes, Moroni wrote some of what is found in Mormon (the third-to-last book) and Moroni (the last book of the BoM). He also abridged the Jaredite record (called the Book of Ether - the second-to-last book in the BoM).


I always understood Mormon to be believed a human being, so I assume Moroni was also.


Yes, they were both ancient prophets. They lived about 4 centuries after Christ. I believe the last thing Moroni wrote on the plates was in about 421 A.D. Moroni ultimately buried the plates, along with the translators (the Urim and Thummim), and some other items, including the sword of Laban, in what is now called the "Hill Cumorah," which is located in the state of New York.


How do you believe Moroni became an angel? (Was he unmarried?)

I don't know whether or not Moroni was married. We can only speculate. However, I have my own opinion on the matter. I believe Moroni to be in a unique circumstance, since his mission on the earth was not finished at his death. He held the keys to the Stick of Joseph (the BoM), and was destined to reveal the records to Joseph Smith, and direct him in the matter of translating them. It is clear from Joseph Smith's writings that Moroni HAD been resurrected. I don't believe all righteous people up to that point had been resurrected.......only those who lived before Christ, or who had special missions to fulfill.

I don't believe Moroni had yet received his final judgement because he died well after the time of Christ. Again, this is all speculation and opinion on my part. I don't believe there is much information regarding Moroni, other than what Joseph Smith and some of the other early church leaders have mentioned.

Not sure if that makes sense, or not. Sometimes its tough to put into writing what I want others to understand.

[justamere10]

I think I may have learned something new.

So, Moroni is believed to have been Mormon's son. And Moroni also added something to the plates?

I always understood Mormon to be believed a human being, so I assume Moroni was also. How do you believe Moroni became an angel? (Was he unmarried?)

I think there may be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding of who or what is an angel.

However, in the matter of Moroni, my guess is that you believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected and perhaps you believe that ultimately every human being will be resurrected also. (Resurrection meaning having one's physical body and spirit body eternally melded into one.)

Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected among those who lived or will yet live on this planet. Moroni last wrote in the Book of Mormon in 421 AD. He was a resurrected being when he appeared on several occasions to Joseph Smith and others in the early 1800's.

[terri910]

He held the keys to the Stick of Joseph (the BoM)
I've never heard this phrase before.

Can you explain further?

[terri910]

I think there may be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding of who or what is an angel.
This is a possibility (that we have different ideas of who or what is an "angel"). But I thought I had recently learned that the LDS believed that unmarried persons would become "as angels". But, I do believe the timing was AFTER Christ's return (?).

Who or what do you believe an "angel" is?

[Reeder]

I've never heard this phrase before.

Can you explain further?

I'll try. :mrgreen:

Ezek. 37: 16, 19 says:

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
• • •
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.



We believe that the stick of Judah represents the record of God's people in the Old World.....in other words "The Bible."

Likewise we believe the stick of Joseph represents the record of God's people who descended from Joseph of Egypt. The Nephites and Lamanites were descendants of Joseph, and we believe their record (the BoM) is the stick of Joseph.

D&C 27: 5 says:

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;



In other words, Moroni was in charge of bringing forth the Book of Mormon. It was he who set the translation of the BoM in motion through the Prophet Joseph Smith. He was given the power (the keys) to do so by God.

[basilisk]

You can discuss your religion without using that link. Everybody needs to move on....we'll discuss the issue and make a decision later.
Does that mean the complaint about Rick's behavior as a moderator is still an open question? I realize stormy was banned for CoM, but I'd still like an answer to her complaint, because I think it was valid.

If the mods are banning discussion of genealogy because someone finds an LDS practice offensive, it seems we are tossing the long-held principle of "no one has the right to not be offended" right out the window. Does Rick have the right to not be offended because he's a moderator? If so, it's a double standard. If not, then the link cited is not offensive and did not merit a ban. Either way, it's a difficult question for the mods to decide.

You know, a simple apology from Rick would certainly go a long way to soothing hurt feelings on this issue, and it wouldn't force the mods to make decisions that contradict long-held principles of how they moderate the site. Then we could all say, "End of story!"

[outdamyboat]

Does that mean the complaint about Rick's behavior as a moderator is still an open question? I realize stormy was banned for CoM, but I'd still like an answer to her complaint, because I think it was valid.

You know, a simple apology from Rick would certainly go a long way to soothing hurt feelings on this issue, and it wouldn't force the mods to make decisions that contradict long-held principles of how they moderate the site. Then we could all say, "End of story!"

:eek:

relentless, unbelivable.....:cry:

BOUNDARIES....can we have a boundary lesson?

[justamere10]

Thanks for clearing that up, but it appears the original premise was right: the banned site is used for proxy ordinances.

Fine, but then perhaps a disclosure by you and the LDS Church is in order? Does the average person know that any information provided to the banned site could (would?) be used for proxy ordinances? I just found your touting of the site as some type of magnanimous gesture without noting what that information signifies, and what any information contributed could be used for to be dishonest.

I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others.

Fine, but they should also know what your church uses that information for, and what any information contributed could be used for. Is that too much to ask?

Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense.

I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do.

you need an asterisk next to "available*", as noted before, the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS.

My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active in a practice they might object to. Shouldn't they have the right to make that decision?

I'm not criticizing the practice, but providing the link that supports that practice on this board where we have the mutual respect of faiths.

I've said my peace on what I think of proxy ordinances. I'm not part of the faith, obviously, so I don't care what you do inside of your faith, but I would loathe to see these boards used to promote a site that is tied to a religious practice many here find objectional, without any mention of that potentially objectional practice on your part.

I'm willing to let the mods decide on the issue, and appreciate your thread and attempt at dialouge


I guess I'm on safe ground as long as I don't post a link to "the banned website". So here's my response to Scipio about matters that are apparently very important to him. Hopefully politely discussing those matters will help us all better understand each other even if it only concludes with an agreement to disagree about each other's religious beliefs and practices. It is never my intention to offend anyone but I suppose some of the things I believe could be considered offensive to others who have contrary beliefs.

Personally, I don't let the beliefs of others offend me, though I could if I so chose. I am completely secure in my own faith, and I hope others are in theirs as well. We're all children of the same God, having an earthly experience that can sometimes be scary and confusing. (Fear and trembling?)

----
I too appreciate your attempt at dialogue Scipio. :-)

The banned site is not "used for proxy ordinances." Proxy ordinances are sacred religious observances that take place inside LDS temples.

As I explained, many Latter-day Saints use the databases on the banned site and on other websites to research their own family tree. They then have the right to submit the names of their ancestors for proxy ordinances.

The names of deceased people who have had proxy ordinances completed were (maybe still are) recorded in a database called the "IGI" or International Genealogical Index that was compiled by and is owned by the LDS Church. My guess is that millions of people have found ancestors by searching the IGI and are grateful that the LDS Church makes it available for research.

Some people have recently complained that names of historical people or names of their own ancestors appear in the IGI. As I understand it the LDS Church takes such complaints seriously, and removes from public view any names that could be reasonably construed to be offensive. The complainers are probably invariably people who are not Latter-day Saints and/or do not understand the importance of baptism for the salvation and progress of each of Heavenly Father's children.

LDS believe that if someone did not have an opportunity during their lifetime to be baptized by someone with authority to do so, that baptism needs to be done for them by proxy in a temple on this planet. The departed then have a choice to make, to accept, or to reject that ordinance. If baptism is essential for everyone, as LDS declare it to be, then if baptisms for the dead were not done by proxy there would be no choice in the spirit worlds even for those who are willing and waiting to accept the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but cannot progress until they have been baptized.

Part of the recent 'problem' is that in times past some zealous individual members of the LDS Church pressed beyond the mark of Church policy and submitted the names of historical and other deceased people not in their own ancestral line, thinking they were doing good for those people. Ok, maybe they were, but some people such as yourself who would instantly say that LDS Priesthood and temple ordinances are invalid anyway complained that the deceased had been baptized.

So, as I understand it Church officials have issued instructions to remove some of the offending names on the IGI from public view. What's done is done, and there may still be overzealous members who contrary to Church policy get names approved for proxy ordinances that are not in their direct family tree, the Church is working on eliminating that. The LDS Church is sensitive and responsive to the concerns of others, but we're talking about millions of people. It takes time to address modern 'issues' that have been created by people who in my opinion should have more tolerance for the religious beliefs, practices, and constitutional freedoms of others.

Latter-day Saints believe they are making choices and progression possible for deceased people who had no opportunity to hear and accept or reject the Gospel in their lifetimes. In our belief, those who are trying to prevent the LDS from doing that are trying to take away from the choices available to others. If complainers think it's all invalid, then why not just let the Saints have religious freedom and carry on unhindered with their 'invalid' religious practices instead of possibly taking away choices for the departed if the Saints turn out to be right?

That's how I see it. I'll follow up with a second post to get to your other concerns Scipio. As usual you give me a lot of work to do. :-)

[justamere10]

Thanks for clearing that up, but it appears the original premise was right: the banned site is used for proxy ordinances.

Fine, but then perhaps a disclosure by you and the LDS Church is in order? Does the average person know that any information provided to the banned site could (would?) be used for proxy ordinances? I just found your touting of the site as some type of magnanimous gesture without noting what that information signifies, and what any information contributed could be used for to be dishonest.

I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others.

Fine, but they should also know what your church uses that information for, and what any information contributed could be used for. Is that too much to ask?

Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense.

I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do.

you need an asterisk next to "available*", as noted before, the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS.

My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active in a practice they might object to. Shouldn't they have the right to make that decision?

I'm not criticizing the practice, but providing the link that supports that practice on this board where we have the mutual respect of faiths.

I've said my peace on what I think of proxy ordinances. I'm not part of the faith, obviously, so I don't care what you do inside of your faith, but I would loathe to see these boards used to promote a site that is tied to a religious practice many here find objectional, without any mention of that potentially objectional practice on your part.

I'm willing to let the mods decide on the issue, and appreciate your thread and attempt at dialouge


As mentioned earlier, my guess is that very few people actually contribute to the databases at the banned site. They just search and take any data they find of interest. It is possible that some new data for deceased people that has been voluntarily contributed to and accepted as additions to an LDS data base could tie into the family lines of some researchers who are LDS. (The same as contributing data to any other non-LDS website could do.) In that case, names submitted for temple work would be ancestral names of the LDS who submit the name/s. So, in my opinion submitting those names are just as valid as any 'claim' a complainer might have to take away from the choices of that mutual descendent. No 'disclosure' is needed in my opinion, and no dishonesty is intended or present except as complainers may choose to find and entertain in their own minds and/or discuss amongst themselves.

Those databases are used by millions of people to find long lost ancestors. That's what they are intended to be and are used for. In my opinion what the LDS Church is doing in making enormously costly databases easily available free of charge for genealogical researchers is magnanimous. It's the tithing of ordinary Latter-day Saints that makes that possible. I consider that to be a great service to mankind, as is the preservation of as many of the world's vital records (birth, marriage, children, death) as owners will allow the Saints to take care of for them. Your church obviously disagrees.

You write: "I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others."

I find your statement ironic because it is your church that has been so diligent for so many centuries to record the vital data of its members, but by decree from the Vatican chooses to hide that data from genealogical researchers, including I'd guess hundreds of thousands of Catholics. Yes, family members can probably still travel many miles to distant parishes to inquire of the parish priest about the records of their ancestors, assuming they are still legible. But they could have been able to do that at home if those records had been allowed to be digitized and placed in searchable online databases.

Perhaps you can find "Papal Bulls" etc. but do you have access to the membership records of the Catholic Church? That's the kind of information that I was writing about as being not normally available for public scrutiny. (I'd probably find my own name in the Catholic membership records too, but that doesn't bother me.)

You write: "Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense. I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do."

Those are pretty strong words about the religious beliefs and practices of others. Regarding "dishonest obfuscation" I could probably come back with some words about what the Athanasian and other Catholic creeds have done to people's knowledge of who their Heavenly Father is, but that would just be tit for tat. Yes, the LDS Church does provide a free service to help people find their ancestors. There is only "dishonest obfuscation" when complainers about what the Latter-day Saints do choose to so judge it in their own minds.

You write: "the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS."

EVERY name on the IGI is there because proxy ordinances have been done for that individual, that's what it is! Some of the data is no longer available to researchers because of complainers such as yourself. Some of the data (such as the temple in which the ordinance work was done) is not pertinent to the general public so may not at present appear on the public interface, including my own computer.

You write: "My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active participants in a practice they might object to."

I agree! With respect for the absolute right of your church to do so, because of a recent command from one man or perhaps a council of men in a far away foreign nation, millions of Americans and people worldwide (including Catholics) who want to find their ancestors will not have access to the wealth of genealogical data that is in the possession of the Catholic Church, but apparently by decree from the Vatican is kept secret.

Every argument that you pose to justify your position regarding the banned LDS website would apply equally as well to every other genealogical website in the world. (See Cindy's List for thousands.) Those websites exist to help people trace their ancestors. Ancestors of living members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could potentially be found on ANY other non-LDS website, in which case they might submit the names of their ancestors for temple work, and THAT is what you are having a problem with as I see it.

So, in my opinion, banning genealogical websites of any or no religious denomination is really not the answer to YOUR chosen problem... (Admittedly you are not the only one who objects to the religious practices of Latter-day Saints, my Church is sensitive to that 'issue' and is doing what it can to address it while continuing to keep the commandments of God to His Saints in these the fulness of times.)

[Frazzled]

:eek:

relentless, unbelivable.....:cry:

BOUNDARIES....can we have a boundary lesson?

Hello...Pot meet Kettle :rolleyes:

[noelle12]

If you ever want a good summer vacation Terri. Manti Utah in June. They have the Mormon Miricle Pageant that starts with Joseph Smith as a boy questioning all religions, to finding the plates, to translating them, to being killed. Then following Brigham Young West to Utah. The pageant also portrays many scenes from the BOM.


I grew up in upstate New York, not far from Palmyra, which is where Joseph Smith lived during his youth, and where much of early LDS church history occurred, so I am admittedly biased, but another really good pageant is the Hill Cumorah pageant which takes place on the Hill Cumorah. The performance dates for 2008 are July 11,12 Friday and Saturday and July 15-19 Tuesday through Saturday. The scenes in this pageant are almost exclusively taken from the Book of Mormon.

When I was a kid our summer vacation nearly every year included participating in that pageant, and I loved it. Here is a link to get more information about the Hill Cumorah pageant: http://www.hillcumorah.org/Pageant/

[CALady]

You can discuss your religion without using that link. Everybody needs to move on....we'll discuss the issue and make a decision later.

I missed all the hoopla so forgive me for asking a question. Are you saying that the decision on banning that web site is something you will "discuss...and make a decision later"? So it may not be banned afterall? I hope so, because I think the banning was simply a misunderstanding of it's content.

As for OT posting after he was told not to, I understand that ruling and am not questioning it. However, I think OT was a little confused on just what on that link was banned thinking it was a specific path and not the root address itself.

[terri910]

If you ever want a good summer vacation Terri. Manti Utah in June. They have the Mormon Miricle Pageant that starts with Joseph Smith as a boy questioning all religions, to finding the plates, to translating them, to being killed. Then following Brigham Young West to Utah. The pageant also portrays many scenes from the BOM.

I visited much of Utah in my teens, on family vacations.

It was beautiful, but I don't see my husband and I spending much time there during whatever time we have left to travel on this earth! Too many places we have NOT seen yet!

[Reeder]

I visited much of Utah in my teens, on family vacations.

It was beautiful, but I don't see my husband and I spending much time there during whatever time we have left to travel on this earth! Too many places we have NOT seen yet!


May I suggest Andalusia, Spain? You won't regret spending some of your remaining time there....I can promise you that. Oh, and of course....Disneyland. :D

[scipio337]

Once more, with feeling......

I guess I'm on safe ground as long as I don't post a link to "the banned website". So here's my response to Scipio about matters that are apparently very important to him. Hopefully politely discussing those matters will help us all better understand each other even if it only concludes with an agreement to disagree about each other's religious beliefs and practices. It is never my intention to offend anyone but I suppose some of the things I believe could be considered offensive to others who have contrary beliefs.

Personally, I don't let the beliefs of others offend me, though I could if I so chose. I am completely secure in my own faith, and I hope others are in theirs as well. We're all children of the same God, having an earthly experience that can sometimes be scary and confusing. (Fear and trembling?)

----
I too appreciate your attempt at dialogue Scipio. :-)

The banned site is not "used for proxy ordinances." Proxy ordinances are sacred religious observances that take place inside LDS temples.I'm with you so far

As I explained, many Latter-day Saints use the databases on the banned site and on other websites to research their own family tree. They then have the right to submit the names of their ancestors for proxy ordinances.

The names of deceased people who have had proxy ordinances completed were (maybe still are) recorded in a database called the "IGI" or International Genealogical Index that was compiled by and is owned by the LDS Church. My guess is that millions of people have found ancestors by searching the IGI and are grateful that the LDS Church makes it available for research.What you don't realize is that the banned site is just on online search engine for the "IGI". Every single entry on the banned site has "International Genealogical Index / CE" as the source.

You are not addressing the simple fact that the IGI/banned site

A) is a database of proxy ordinances, not just "genealogy". A great deal (ALL?) of the people listed on the banned site have had ordinances performed.

B) those ordinances are hidden from public view, and are accessible to LDS ONLY.

Some people have recently complained that names of historical people or names of their own ancestors appear in the IGI. As I understand it the LDS Church takes such complaints seriously, and removes from public view any names that could be reasonably construed to be offensive. The complainers are probably invariably people who are not Latter-day Saints and/or do not understand the importance of baptism for the salvation and progress of each of Heavenly Father's children.And this is what the "disrespect" focuses on. Whether they "do not understand....." or not is NOT the issue, it is about showing respect the faith of the dead.

LDS believe that if someone did not have an opportunity during their lifetime to be baptized by someone with authority to do so, that baptism needs to be done for them by proxy in a temple on this planet. The departed then have a choice to make, to accept, or to reject that ordinance. If baptism is essential for everyone, as LDS declare it to be, then if baptisms for the dead were not done by proxy there would be no choice in the spirit worlds even for those who are willing and waiting to accept the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but cannot progress until they have been baptized.I understand the doctrine, but by that measure, there shouldn't be anyone in the IGI born after 1839 or so.....

Part of the recent 'problem' is that in times past some zealous individual members of the LDS Church pressed beyond the mark of Church policy and submitted the names of historical and other deceased people not in their own ancestral line, thinking they were doing good for those people. Ok, maybe they were, but some people such as yourself who would instantly say that LDS Priesthood and temple ordinances are invalid anyway complained that the deceased had been baptized

So, as I understand it Church officials have issued instructions to remove some of the offending names on the IGI from public view. What's done is done, and there may still be overzealous members who contrary to Church policy get names approved for proxy ordinances that are not in their direct family tree, the Church is working on eliminating that. The LDS Church is sensitive and responsive to the concerns of others, but we're talking about millions of people. It takes time to address modern 'issues' that have been created by people who in my opinion should have more tolerance for the religious beliefs, practices, and constitutional freedoms of others..[/quote]Moot point. This is about the RF rules of respect. You admit the site has problems.

When was the edict that only only descendants could submit names?

Example: I find nothing under "Karol Józef Wojtyła", but I do find his father, "Karol Wojtyla", whose family shows wife "Enilia Kaczorowska" and children "Unavailable".

Not hard to figure out the child is Pope John Paul II (who had every "opportunity during their lifetime to be baptized by someone with authority to do so", in your view) YET DID NOT get your "valid" baptism. How is it that his "descendants" submitted his name?


And of course, being non LDS, I don't have access to what ordinances were performed.


You can't even admit the validity of people's offense to the practice! People should have "more tolerance", while people in your faith hijack the names of dead people for their own beliefs? On a website you want to post links to HERE?????

Does that arrogance know any bounds???


Latter-day Saints believe they are making choices and progression possible for deceased people who had no opportunity to hear and accept or reject the Gospel in their lifetimes. In our belief, those who are trying to prevent the LDS from doing that are trying to take away from the choices available to others. If complainers think it's all invalid, then why not just let the Saints have religious freedom and carry on unhindered with their 'invalid' religious practices instead of possibly taking away choices for the departed if the Saints turn out to be right?The argument isn't about the validity or invalidity of your belief, it is about the rules of respect on this forum. Funny that you cry "religious freedom", yet you want to deny in death what faith people chose in life. And don't pull the "they can accept or deny" argument, because you and I both know the ordinances are progressive. You can't have a Temple Endowment without accepting the previous ordinances. Acceptane is an implied assumption.

That's how I see it. I'll follow up with a second post to get to your other concerns Scipio. As usual you give me a lot of work to do. :-)


Hopefully you can understand why some find proxy ordinances troublesome.

Hopefully you can understand why a database used for the mining of material to perform those ordaninces would be considered disrespectful to the people of other faiths in this forum, and a violation of the rules of respect.

[goodlife]

Does that mean the complaint about Rick's behavior as a moderator is still an open question? I realize stormy was banned for CoM, but I'd still like an answer to her complaint, because I think it was valid.

If the mods are banning discussion of genealogy because someone finds an LDS practice offensive, it seems we are tossing the long-held principle of "no one has the right to not be offended" right out the window. Does Rick have the right to not be offended because he's a moderator? If so, it's a double standard. If not, then the link cited is not offensive and did not merit a ban. Either way, it's a difficult question for the mods to decide.

You know, a simple apology from Rick would certainly go a long way to soothing hurt feelings on this issue, and it wouldn't force the mods to make decisions that contradict long-held principles of how they moderate the site. Then we could all say, "End of story!"


Iggy ruled on that...that matter is closed.
the only thing open for discussion amongst us mods is linking to that website. We will discuss it and address it later.

[noelle12]

Can I still ask a mormon a question?

Where does the name "mormon" come from. LDS Latter Day Saints, I understand I think. It's what the church is called.

I'm sorry if it is beyond stupid for a question.

I think this is a very good question. The name "Mormon" comes from the Book of Mormon, which is an additional book of scripture (additional to the Bible) used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of four different sets of plates, which contain the records of three different groups of people who came to the land we call America. The first group that came were the Jaredites. The Jaredites were people who scattered to escape the confounding of the languages (the Tower of Babel). Their society grew and flourished, and eventually through warfare they killed themselves off. Their record was found on 24 gold plates. The last person from that group was a man named Coriantumr. I'll come back to him in a bit.

The next group of people were the descendants of the prophet Lehi who fled Jerusalem in 600 BC, before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. Their record was contained on two separate groups of plates. The large plates of Nephi contained a political history, the kings, and their wars. The small plates of Nephi contained the religious history, the teachings, the prophecies, and things like that.

The third group of people were the Mulekites. They left Jerusalem as they fled the Babylonians. They left shortly after the people of Lehi. They did not bring any records with them.

The fourth group of plates that were used in writing what we call the Book of Mormon were the Brass Plates. They were brought by the family of Lehi, and contained the five books of Moses as well as a record of the Jews.

As the plates were handed down from leader to leader, they eventually all came to be in the possession of Mormon, a prophet and a military leader. He abridged the plates that he had in his possession, but he was not able to complete the task, and so passed it on to his son Moroni. Moroni finished the abridgment, and added a few of his own words, then hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah which is located close to Palmyra NY.

The name "The Book of Mormon" comes from the fact that it was written mostly by the hand of Mormon. The nickname "Mormon" came to be commonly used to refer to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I hope this explanation was not too verbose, and that it helped a little.

[Dancer]

May I suggest Andalusia, Spain? You won't regret spending some of your remaining time there.I agree! See the horses! ;)

[MobyMule]

Once more, with feeling......

I'm with you so far

What you don't realize is that the banned site is just on online search engine for the "IGI". Every single entry on the banned site has "International Genealogical Index / CE" as the source.

You are not addressing the simple fact that the IGI/banned site

A) is a database of proxy ordinances, not just "genealogy". A great deal (ALL?) of the people listed on the banned site have had ordinances performed.

B) those ordinances are hidden from public view, and are accessible to LDS ONLY.

And this is what the "disrespect" focuses on. Whether they "do not understand....." or not is NOT the issue, it is about showing respect the faith of the dead.

I understand the doctrine, but by that measure, there shouldn't be anyone in the IGI born after 1839 or so.....

Moot point. This is about the RF rules of respect. You admit the site has problems.

When was the edict that only only descendants could submit names?

Example: I find nothing under "Karol Józef Wojtyła", but I do find his father, "Karol Wojtyla", whose family shows wife "Enilia Kaczorowska" and children "Unavailable".

Not hard to figure out the child is Pope John Paul II (who had every "opportunity during their lifetime to be baptized by someone with authority to do so", in your view) YET DID NOT get your "valid" baptism. How is it that his "descendants" submitted his name?


And of course, being non LDS, I don't have access to what ordinances were performed.


You can't even admit the validity of people's offense to the practice! People should have "more tolerance", while people in your faith hijack the names of dead people for their own beliefs? On a website you want to post links to HERE?????

Does that arrogance know any bounds???


The argument isn't about the validity or invalidity of your belief, it is about the rules of respect on this forum. Funny that you cry "religious freedom", yet you want to deny in death what faith people chose in life. And don't pull the "they can accept or deny" argument, because you and I both know the ordinances are progressive. You can't have a Temple Endowment without accepting the previous ordinances. Acceptane is an implied assumption.




Hopefully you can understand why some find proxy ordinances troublesome.

Hopefully you can understand why a database used for the mining of material to perform those ordaninces would be considered disrespectful to the people of other faiths in this forum, and a violation of the rules of respect.

Scipio I believe you don't fully understand databases or mining of information. But I may be wrong. There is more than one database on family search. IGI is a big part of it. But no one is forced to provide information to it. People can search it to find family. So your saying that because the practice is offensive to the dead that no one would use it to find a family member in their tree. I just don't buy it. You can't mine anything from someone on that website unless they upload it to the site. Merely searching doesn't add anything to the site.

[terri910]

May I suggest Andalusia, Spain? You won't regret spending some of your remaining time there....I can promise you that. Oh, and of course....Disneyland. :D
I have a difficult time getting my husband to go to D-land anymore. :cry:

I would love to go to Spain. (It's on my wish list) But hubby is shooting for the Baltics next year! We're hoping to get in as much of the world that we haven't seen before we're so old we don't want to even LOOK at airport, let alone be in one again!

Utah would probably go on the "see again" list if it was in the Caribbean. :shifty:

[MobyMule]

I have a difficult time getting my husband to go to D-land anymore. :cry:

I would love to go to Spain. (It's on my wish list) But hubby is shooting for the Baltics next year! We're hoping to get in as much of the world that we haven't seen before we're so old we don't want to even LOOK at airport, let alone be in one again!

Utah would probably go on the "see again" list if it was in the Caribbean. :shifty:

I have always wanted to go to Rome and then see the Italian countryside.

[Dancer]

I have always wanted to go to Rome and then see the Italian countryside.It is worth it. While I haven't been to Rome, I loved Tuscany when we were there. If I were wealthy I would retire there.

IMnsHO, northern Italy is the most beautiful place in the world. The people are friendly, the food is spectacular and the history is all nearby.

[terri910]

I have always wanted to go to Rome and then see the Italian countryside.
Once again, beautiful. But if I ever get the chance to return to Italy, I'd like to see Venice. For me, Tuscany: been there, done that! (okay, maybe not quite THAT blase') Rome, is another story, of course. There is so much to see that there is no way for us to have seen it all in our one trip there.

And everyone has "special places" that they fall in love with -- and could visit over and over and over again. For me, that place is England. And Disneyland. :mrgreen:

[scipio337]

As mentioned earlier, my guess is that very few people actually contribute to the databases at the banned site.Speculation. Yet you linked the site without any disclosure that any information submitted could be used for religious ceremonies. They just search and take any data they find of interest. It is possible that some new data for deceased people that has been voluntarily contributed to and accepted as additions to an LDS data base could tie into the family lines of some researchers who are LDS. (The same as contributing data to any other non-LDS website could do.) In that case, names submitted for temple work would be ancestral names of the LDS who submit the name/s. So, in my opinion submitting those names are just as valid as any 'claim' a complainer might have to take away from the choices of that mutual descendent. No 'disclosure' is needed in my opinion, and no dishonesty is intended or present except as complainers may choose to find and entertain in their own minds and/or discuss amongst themselves.So, you admit that by submitting information to this "free service....courtesy of.....", people could be unwittingly submitting information for religious purposes? Why would you say that doesn't require disclosure? I don't note any mention of that in the banned site itself.

There is also no due diligence, whatsoever, on the part of the LDS church that a submitter is indeed a descendent, is there??

Those databases are used by millions of people to find long lost ancestors.So can any number of genealogy websites, without the risk of having any information you submit used for religious ceremonies they may or may not be aware of...That's what they are intended to be and are used for.With all due respect, bull snot! The Family History Libary and IGI were created so non LDS could do geneology searches????

Wiki disagrees:

Its main purpose is to fulfill one of the LDS Church fundamental tenets: that church members can be baptized in behalf of deceased family members, especially ancestors, into the church so that they may receive salvation. Other ordinances can also be performed for the dead. These ordinances are performed in Temples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_History_Library

The IGI contains information submitted for vicarious ordinances by LDS researchers, records obtained from contributors who are not members of the church, and data taken from various birth or marriage records that Church members have microfilmed....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index

In my opinion what the LDS Church is doing in making enormously costly databases easily available free of charge for genealogical researchers is magnanimous.And in my opinion, the LDS has the ulterior motive of having people who know nothing about the practice of proxy ordinances unwittingly contribute information to their database.

It's the tithing of ordinary Latter-day Saints that makes that possible. I consider that to be a great service to mankind, as is the preservation of as many of the world's vital records (birth, marriage, children, death) as owners will allow the Saints to take care of for them. Your church obviously disagrees.Because my church, and many other people, know the data is collected for their own purposes, proxy ordinances.

We can't obviously keep that all that information from you (See Holocaust Victims), but we can refuse to give it over ourselves for your use.


You write: "I can't find any in my faith. I can find Papal Bulls going back to 1059, even the ones that arent' flattering. Just because your faith does, doesn't mean that others do, or that that practice is somehow acceptable to others."

I find your statement ironic because it is your church that has been so diligent for so many centuries to record the vital data of its members, but by decree from the Vatican chooses to hide that data from genealogical researchers, including I'd guess hundreds of thousands of Catholics.That informatin is provided to people entitled to see those records, namely, direct descendent. I have first hand experience. It is not "hidden", and it certainly isn't going to be compiled for our own use in our own religious practices. Yes, family members can probably still travel many miles to distant parishes to inquire of the parish priest about the records of their ancestors, assuming they are still legible. But they could have been able to do that at home if those records had been allowed to be digitized and placed in searchable online databases.Those who are entiled to those records are provided access.

Perhaps you can find "Papal Bulls" etc. but do you have access to the membership records of the Catholic Church? That's the kind of information that I was writing about as being not normally available for public scrutiny. (I'd probably find my own name in the Catholic membership records too, but that doesn't bother me.)It isn't hidden from non-Catholics, I can guarantee you. But I digress.

You write: "Its not the "free service" anyone objects to, its the dishonest obfuscation of what that information represents and is used for. I'm not the only one who takes offense. I can't change the practice, but we certainly can handle the situation with more sensitivity. Obviously something, at this point, you are not willing to do."

Those are pretty strong words about the religious beliefs and practices of others. Regarding "dishonest obfuscation" I could probably come back with some words about what the Athanasian and other Catholic creeds have done to people's knowledge of who their Heavenly Father is, but that would just be tit for tat.Not to mention, that "come back" would only be more obfuscation of the topic at hand. I can give an objective statement that "The LDS is not disclosing what these records are used for on the banned site" without a hint of irony

Yes, the LDS Church does provide a free service to help people find their ancestors. There is only "dishonest obfuscation" when complainers about what the Latter-day Saints do choose to so judge it in their own minds.And use that data for their own purposes?

Yes or no???

You write: "the proxy ordinances done for a majority of the people listed is not viewable by non-LDS."

EVERY name on the IGI is there because proxy ordinances have been done for that individual, that's what it is! Some of the data is no longer available to researchers because of complainers such as yourself. Some of the data (such as the temple in which the ordinance work was done) is not pertinent to the general public so may not at present appear on the public interface, including my own computer.And there's the rub: EVERY name on the IGI has had proxy ordinances performed, and any data someone might submit would ALSO be used for those ordinances.

If it isn't a dishonest obfuscation:

A) Why is there no mention, anywhere, in any way, shape or form that the information on and submitted to that banned site can, has, and will be sued for proxy LDS ordinances??

B) Why don't non LDS deserve to see which ordinances are performed?

In my mind, the answer is simple: Because the LDS Church (who also copyrights that information by by Intellectual Reserve, Inc) doesn't want the average, non LDS person to know what is being done with this database.

You have linked it repeatedly, but never, ever, made any mention of proxy ordinances. Something I and other find not only disrespectful to the many faiths represented here, but also potentially underhanded

.....continued....

[scipio337]

....continued.....

You write: "My guess is that with the recent letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, more people will be aware of what that information is used for, and not be willing participants by providing their own genealogy information and be active participants in a practice they might object to."

I agree! With respect for the absolute right of your church to do so, because of a recent command from one man or perhaps a council of men in a far away foreign nation, millions of Americans and people worldwide (including Catholics) who want to find their ancestors will not have access to the wealth of genealogical data that is in the possession of the Catholic Church, but apparently by decree from the Vatican is kept secret.Still love the "council of men" jab don't you? I'll let it slide.

They will also have the peace of mind that any data they provide won't be used for religious ceremonies that disrespect the faith of the deceased.

There are other genealogy websites and services in this country, which don't attach potential use in a religious ceremony as a terms of service.

Every argument that you pose to justify your position regarding the banned LDS website would apply equally as well to every other genealogical website in the world.No, because the makers and administrators of those sites aren't run by a Church with a vested interest in the data and don't catalouge the information to be used in religious ceremonies...


(See Cindy's List for thousands.) Those websites exist to help people trace their ancestors. Ancestors of living members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could potentially be found on ANY other non-LDS website, in which case they might submit the names of their ancestors for temple work, and THAT is what you are having a problem with as I see it.That's it, exactly. You have confirmed that ALL of the names on the IGI/banned site have had proxy ordinances performed. I can't find that on ancestry.com. Ancestry.com does not catalouge the information with the expressed purpose of use in relgious ceremonies. Ancestry.com doesn't violate the rules of respect on this forum.

So, in my opinion, banning genealogical websites of any or no religious denomination is really not the answer to YOUR chosen problem...Strawman. See above.

(Admittedly you are not the only one who objects to the religious practices of Latter-day Saints, my Church is sensitive to that 'issue' and is doing what it can to address it while continuing to keep the commandments of God to His Saints in these the fulness of times.)
I am glad to hear that. I hope you are also sensitive to the issue of the currently banned link, and understand why some here think it violates this particular forum's rules of respect.

[Reeder]

Once again, beautiful. But if I ever get the chance to return to Italy, I'd like to see Venice. For me, Tuscany: been there, done that! (okay, maybe not quite THAT blase') Rome, is another story, of course. There is so much to see that there is no way for us to have seen it all in our one trip there.

And everyone has "special places" that they fall in love with -- and could visit over and over and over again. For me, that place is England. And Disneyland. :mrgreen:

I met this lady in Disneyland the other day. She was working in the Pirates shop called "Pieces 'O Eight" or something like that (she was the cashier). She was probably about 65 years old. She asked me how my day was going, and if I was enjoying Disneyland. I told her that I couldn't be happier at that place. She told me that she feels that way every day. She said that she loves the place so much that she even came in to work on her day off the week before.

I'm wondering.......do you think Heaven will be like Disneyland? :D I mean, everyone is always so happy there (well, almost everyone). To me, its a piece of heaven.

[orbitaldecay]

>snip

I am glad to hear that. I hope you are also sensitive to the issue of the currently banned link, and understand why some here think it violates this particular forum's rules of respect.

I personally feel that the banned site is not inherantly disrespectful site. When discussing nature of proxy-baptisms many found the practice to be abhorent, other (non-lds) didn't mind.
Because the site didn't specifically target a specific faith or honored guest, I don't see how it explicitally violates the rules of respect. (I'll respect the mods desicion either way), but we had a thread about the respectful or disrespectful nature of of proxy-baptisms that exceeded a thousand posts, obviously there is debate whether or not the practice and thus the site is disrespectful.

Finally, Is it disrespectful to say that (being doctrine of my church) that my church is the truest church on the Earth? Because that implys that there are churches that are not as true and have doctrinal flaws. Which seems to be a big aspect of this enitre proxy-baptism debate.

[Dancer]

Once again, beautiful. But if I ever get the chance to return to Italy, I'd like to see Venice. For me, Tuscany: been there, done that! (okay, maybe not quite THAT blase') Rome, is another story, of course. There is so much to see that there is no way for us to have seen it all in our one trip there.

And everyone has "special places" that they fall in love with -- and could visit over and over and over again. For me, that place is England. And Disneyland. :mrgreen:

I loved Venice too...which is why I said that "Northern Italy" is the most beautiful place in the world.

I liked Great Britain, but I didn't get to see as much of it as I would have liked. There was nothing like coming over on the ferry and seeing the "White Cliffs of Dover" at sunrise. ;)

[scipio337]

I personally feel that the banned site is not inherantly disrespectful site. When discussing nature of proxy-baptisms many found the practice to be abhorent, other (non-lds) didn't mind.
Because the site didn't specifically target a specific faith or honored guest, I don't see how it explicitally violates the rules of respect. (I'll respect the mods desicion either way), but we had a thread about the respectful or disrespectful nature of of proxy-baptisms that exceeded a thousand posts, obviously there is debate whether or not the practice and thus the site is disrespectful.

Finally, Is it disrespectful to say that (being doctrine of my church) that my church is the truest church on the Earth? Because that implys that there are churches that are not as true and have doctrinal flaws. Which seems to be a big aspect of this enitre proxy-baptism debate.Thank you for at least recognizing that, OD. It goes a long way for me at least having someone recognize that point.

While the practice of proxy ordinances is what it is (a belief you hold dear that I don't share), I found the continual linking to that site and the "we're gonna still do it, tough ****!" attitude more troubling, at least on these boards.

I can't say that the second statement is "disrespectful" as "truth" is not a know, measurable quantity. It's not a provable claim, but a subjective statement of faith.

These names, IMHO, are.

I know, you guys get it...I'll shut up now :)

[CALady]

Thank you for at least recognizing that, OD. It goes a long way for me at least having someone recognize that point.

While the practice of proxy ordinances is what it is (a belief you hold dear that I don't share), I found the continual linking to that site and the "we're gonna still do it, tough ****!" attitude more troubling, at least on these boards.

I can't say that the second statement is "disrespectful" as "truth" is not a know, measurable quantity. It's not a provable claim, but a subjective statement of faith.

These names, IMHO, are.

I know, you guys get it...I'll shut up now :)

Yes, some people get tired of the topic and unfortunately, it's human nature to get irritated and respond with "tough!". However, apparently having a rather irritable attitude isn't grounds for someone being banned. ;)

And I will also say that I'm sorry you find that database offensive, but again, how is that grounds for banning the website? I find a lot of things linked here and discussed here offensive, but I've never asked for any of it to be banned, largely because I realize that there are many different faiths here and there should be a level of tolerance.

I will speak out against something I disagree with, as you have done, but asking for something that honestly is so benign on it's face is, IMHO, not a precedent you really want to set. Otherwise, we'll be asking for the banning of just about any Church's web site because certainly someone somewhere will be offended by it.

[terri910]

Finally, Is it disrespectful to say that (being doctrine of my church) that my church is the truest church on the Earth? Because that implys that there are churches that are not as true and have doctrinal flaws. Which seems to be a big aspect of this enitre proxy-baptism debate.
Not that this is news to anyone...*LOL*...but I think it is disrespectful to say that as fact, but not disrespectful to say you believe it is the truest church on the Earth.

[terri910]

II'm wondering.......do you think Heaven will be like Disneyland? :D I mean, everyone is always so happy there (well, almost everyone). To me, its a piece of heaven.
I think what you've said would make Walt very happy....:hug:

[basilisk]

While the practice of proxy ordinances is what it is (a belief you hold dear that I don't share), I found the continual linking to that site and the "we're gonna still do it, tough ****!" attitude more troubling, at least on these boards.
Scipio, it is our belief. My point in saying that, is that it should be respected, just as your own religious beliefs, and those of everyone else, should be respected. Those are the rules of this site, plain and simple. I find it troubling that talking about a religious belief of someone here is seen as inherently disrespectful because someone doesn't like that religious belief. Where is the respect in that?

In talking about my religious belief, I am not being disrespectful of the beliefs of others; I am addressing my own. It is a personal choice to take offense at the belief of someone else. That is the difference. That is why I find a ban on the link to that site to be completely contrary to the governing principles of this forum. It throws out the window the governing principle that has always ruled here: "No one has the right to not be offended."

Do we have the right to our religious belief or don't we?

[Meriweather]

Do we have the right to our religious belief or don't we?

No. We do not. The LDS Church says their rights to their beliefs trumps my rights to my beliefs. And they proved it.

[CALady]

No. We do not. The LDS Church says their rights to their beliefs trumps my rights to my beliefs. And they proved it.

Huh?

[snow96]

Speculation. Yet you linked the site without any disclosure that any information submitted could be used for religious ceremonies. So, you admit that by submitting information to this "free service....courtesy of.....", people could be unwittingly submitting information for religious purposes? Why would you say that doesn't require disclosure? I don't note any mention of that in the banned site itself.

There is also no due diligence, whatsoever, on the part of the LDS church that a submitter is indeed a descendent, is there??

So can any number of genealogy websites, without the risk of having any information you submit used for religious ceremonies they may or may not be aware of...With all due respect, bull snot! The Family History Libary and IGI were created so non LDS could do geneology searches????

Wiki disagrees:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_History_Library



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genealogical_Index

And in my opinion, the LDS has the ulterior motive of having people who know nothing about the practice of proxy ordinances unwittingly contribute information to their database.

Because my church, and many other people, know the data is collected for their own purposes, proxy ordinances.

We can't obviously keep that all that information from you (See Holocaust Victims), but we can refuse to give it over ourselves for your use.


That informatin is provided to people entitled to see those records, namely, direct descendent. I have first hand experience. It is not "hidden", and it certainly isn't going to be compiled for our own use in our own religious practices. Those who are entiled to those records are provided access.

It isn't hidden from non-Catholics, I can guarantee you. But I digress.

Not to mention, that "come back" would only be more obfuscation of the topic at hand. I can give an objective statement that "The LDS is not disclosing what these records are used for on the banned site" without a hint of irony

And use that data for their own purposes?

Yes or no???

And there's the rub: EVERY name on the IGI has had proxy ordinances performed, and any data someone might submit would ALSO be used for those ordinances.

If it isn't a dishonest obfuscation:

A) Why is there no mention, anywhere, in any way, shape or form that the information on and submitted to that banned site can, has, and will be sued for proxy LDS ordinances??

B) Why don't non LDS deserve to see which ordinances are performed?

In my mind, the answer is simple: Because the LDS Church (who also copyrights that information by by Intellectual Reserve, Inc) doesn't want the average, non LDS person to know what is being done with this database.

You have linked it repeatedly, but never, ever, made any mention of proxy ordinances. Something I and other find not only disrespectful to the many faiths represented here, but also potentially underhanded

.....continued....

I hope I don't eat a ban on this. I'm correcting information. wiki is good but not gospel.

This is from the family history site that a link to is banned.

here is what THEY say they are for.

Background:

• Founded in 1894 to gather genealogical records and assist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with their family history and genealogical research
• Largest library of its kind in the world
• Open to the general public at no charge
• Visited by an estimated 1,900 patrons or more each day

Records Collection:

• The collection includes over 2.4 million rolls of microfilmed genealogical records; 742,000 microfiche; 310,000 books, serials, and other formats; 4,500 periodicals; 700 electronic resources.
• The Ancestral File database contains more than 36 million names that are linked into families.
• The International Genealogical Index database contains approximately 600 million names of deceased individuals. An addendum to the International Genealogical Index contains an additional 125 million names. These names have been patron submitted or extracted from thousands of original birth, christening and marriage records.
• The Pedigree Resource File database contains over 80 million names that are linked into families.
• Records available are from the United States, Canada, the British Isles, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
• In 2003, the collection increased monthly by an average of 4,100 rolls of film, 700 books, and 16 electronic resources.
• A majority of the records contain information about persons who lived before 1930.
• Approximately 200 cameras are currently microfilming records in over 45 countries. Records have been filmed in over 110 countries, territories, and possessions.


Along with submissions, they get information from census, governments, social security birth/death index. The MAIN purpose of the information is geneoligical research.

I know because I've got three boxes of forms tracing my family on my mother side all the way back. To where . . . names in the bible that lead back to adam.

So the MAIN purpose of the index is genolagical. The other is just a spin off of it.

[orbitaldecay]

No. We do not. The LDS Church says their rights to their beliefs trumps my rights to my beliefs. And they proved it.

Where, When!?!

[outdamyboat]

Scipio, it is our belief. My point in saying that, is that it should be respected, just as your own religious beliefs, and those of everyone else, should be respected. Those are the rules of this site, plain and simple. I find it troubling that talking about a religious belief of someone here is seen as inherently disrespectful because someone doesn't like that religious belief. Where is the respect in that?

In talking about my religious belief, I am not being disrespectful of the beliefs of others; I am addressing my own. It is a personal choice to take offense at the belief of someone else. That is the difference. That is why I find a ban on the link to that site to be completely contrary to the governing principles of this forum. It throws out the window the governing principle that has always ruled here: "No one has the right to not be offended."

Do we have the right to our religious belief or don't we?


What other religious belief system...breaks boundaries by looking at personal information for the purpose of making one (dead or alive) a part of their religious belief system?

With the present enormity of information that is available on the internet, many such practices (non-religious) are being challenged in courts. Just because there is information available to me via the internet does not make it ethically correct to use it for my own purposes. Certainly, the use of Catholic records is a breach of my confidentiality, just as viewing any medical information, including demographics, is illegal without the written permission of a patient. It is just a matter of time before the court system catches up w/ such invasions of privacy.

[orbitaldecay]

What other religious belief system...breaks boundaries by looking at personal information for the purpose of making one (dead or alive) a part of their religious belief system?

With the present enormity of information that is available on the internet, many such practices (non-religious) are being challenged in courts. Just because there is information available to me via the internet does not make it ethically correct to use it for my own purposes. Certainly, the use of Catholic records is a breach of my confidentiality, just as viewing any medical information, including demographics, is illegal without the written permission of a patient. It is just a matter of time before the court system catches up w/ such invasions of privacy.

If you want to talk legalistically, the limited historic records of the dead which only includes name, DOB, DOD, children, spouses, parents is NOT personal protected information.

In other words its public info because its historic fact.

I understand if you don't want people baptizing by proxy your dead ancestors. If the LDS individuals stick to the "policy" and only do the work for their ancestors, you shouln't have to worry. But if a distant cousin of your's deceides to baptizes your ancestors, they have as much "right" to research them as you do.

[Meriweather]

Where, When!?!

With every LDS proxy baptism that is done to someone who lived another faith. I promise not to answer any post to this, so it doesn't start this up again, but if LDS truly believed everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, they would be the first to work within their own church to stop this horrible practice.

I read earlier, either in this thread or another, where someone mentioned that in Judaism, baptism was the second most offensive word--rape being the third. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that proxy baptism is a rape--an unwanted, fought against intrustion. It certainly was in my family.

But continue to fool yourselves that it is not really forcing anyone--and you are doing God's will--and every other whitewash you choose to pour on--If you respected Catholic, Jewish, Quaker (and probably untold other) religous beliefs like you say you do, you wouldn't be a part of this rape that you call "Proxy Baptism." Tell yourself the dead has the final choice--I'm sure it is a great comfort to you. . . .isn't the woman supposed to always enjoy it?

THERE! THAT IS MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF ABOUT LDS PROXY BAPTISMS! DOES EVERYONE RESPECT THAT!?

[CALady]

With every LDS proxy baptism that is done to someone who lived another faith. I promise not to answer any post to this, so it doesn't start this up again, but if LDS truly believed everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, they would be the first to work within their own church to stop this horrible practice.

I read earlier, either in this thread or another, where someone mentioned that in Judaism, baptism was the second most offensive word--rape being the third. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that proxy baptism is a rape--an unwanted, fought against intrustion. It certainly was in my family.

But continue to fool yourselves that it is not really forcing anyone--and you are doing God's will--and every other whitewash you choose to pour on--If you respected Catholic, Jewish, Quaker (and probably untold other) religous beliefs like you say you do, you wouldn't be a part of this rape that you call "Proxy Baptism." Tell yourself the dead has the final choice--I'm sure it is a great comfort to you. . . .isn't the woman supposed to always enjoy it?

THERE! THAT IS MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF ABOUT LDS PROXY BAPTISMS! DOES EVERYONE RESPECT THAT!?

Yes, certainly we respect your belief. Why wouldn't we? I think we have all along.

[Meriweather]

Yes, certainly we respect your belief. Why wouldn't we? I think we have all along.

If you had, LDS proxy baptisms would have stopped years ago.

[oldtimer]

What other religious belief system...breaks boundaries by looking at personal information for the purpose of making one (dead or alive) a part of their religious belief system?

With the present enormity of information that is available on the internet, many such practices (non-religious) are being challenged in courts. Just because there is information available to me via the internet does not make it ethically correct to use it for my own purposes. Certainly, the use of Catholic records is a breach of my confidentiality, just as viewing any medical information, including demographics, is illegal without the written permission of a patient. It is just a matter of time before the court system catches up w/ such invasions of privacy.If they are related to me, you have no say so. Even if they are related to you as well…. I will do my work for my deceased relatives, you can hinder the work for your deceased relatives that are not related to a Mormon doing the work. Yet, with 13 million members, you are out of luck once you get back 4 generations (in most cases).

[CALady]

The U.S. Constitution allows for freedom of expression of religious faith. Freedom to worship according to our conscience. The limit is that we are not to practice something that breaks the law.

The Constitution forbids a state church that requires all citizens to become members.

I read that as allowing me to believe what I want and be able to "express" it wherever it is legal for me to do so. I can write a book, I can write on a web site where they allow me to, I can go on TV, I can stand on a street corner (as long as I don't break any civic law about disturbing the peace).

I can express my faith all day long. You are also free to express yours.

What I can't do is demand that you believe what I believe. I can't force you to deny your faith and accept mine.

However, what neither of us can do is assure each other that something about our respective faiths will never upset or offend the other. That's not reasonable.

Beyond the constitution, we have our common sense of decency and fairness.

I won't ask you to give up mass. I won't ask you to remove the statues of Mary. I won't ask you to not build your church in my town. I won't ask you to not post your opinion here. I honestly wouldn't dream of doing any of that.

I will allow you to express your belief as I hope you allow me to express mine.

My church has a web site that expresses our beliefs. You are not required to read it. You are certainly not required to believe it. You are free to ignore it, speak against it with your opinion. But we are most certainly free to express our beliefs.

This in no way trumps anything to do with your faith. You are not required to believe any of it. But we are most certainly free to express it and to practice our faith as you are free to practice yours.

[scipio337]

Scipio, it is our belief. My point in saying that, is that it should be respected, just as your own religious beliefs, and those of everyone else, should be respected. Those are the rules of this site, plain and simple. I find it troubling that talking about a religious belief of someone here is seen as inherently disrespectful because someone doesn't like that religious belief. Where is the respect in that?

In talking about my religious belief, I am not being disrespectful of the beliefs of others; I am addressing my own. It is a personal choice to take offense at the belief of someone else. That is the difference. That is why I find a ban on the link to that site to be completely contrary to the governing principles of this forum. It throws out the window the governing principle that has always ruled here: "No one has the right to not be offended."

Do we have the right to our religious belief or don't we?Thank you bas. I do respect your right to your own beliefs, and even the expression of them here, but I find it different case altogher linking that site specifically.

On that site, we have not just the expression of a belief, but a demonstration of that belief in human terms. I still find it hard to accept that LDS won't admit, and most people are unaware that nearly every person listed on the IGI/banned site has had these ordinances performed, or why the LDS church goes through such great length to hide that practice from the casual user of that site.

Even the "about us" section that snow 96 posted (thank you) gives not even the slightest implication of that useage of the data.

To be honest, before posting here I wouldn't have though twice about using, or even posting my own information on that site for genealogical purposes, not knowing what may be done with data.

That being said, for all the fluff about "my descendant.....", the LDS Church provides no due diligence that I can find to confirm people are actually related (hence, the John Paul II multiple baptisms, continued Holocaust victim usage, etc....)

[scipio337]

Could someone answer a simple question:

Is information given to the site by non LDS subject to use for proxy ordinances? A simple yes or no is appreciated.

[CALady]

...
That being said, for all the fluff about "my descendant.....",

That "fluff" is a stated church policy.

the LDS Church provides no due diligence that I can find to confirm people are actually related (hence, the John Paul II multiple baptisms, continued Holocaust victim usage, etc....)

All care is taken to keep people from baptizing non-relatives. But the Church isn't the Gestapo and sometimes people slip things in. I do believe that some of the rumors about John Paul II is just that, rumors. Fear-mongering perhaps.

Does the Catholic Church publish all members baptism and confirmation records? Can I see them someplace?

[CALady]

Could someone answer a simple question:

Is information given to the site by non LDS subject to use for proxy ordinances? A simple yes or no is appreciated.

If that person is my great great grandmother only. And I happen to find her there. Or if I happen to find her by going to the Social Security index. Or if I happen to find her by driving to Missouri and finding her grave and getting her birthday from her tombstone.

And ONLY if she's MY great great grandmother.

Are we cousins? ;)

[outdamyboat]

The U.S. Constitution allows for freedom of expression of religious faith. Freedom to worship according to our conscience. The limit is that we are not to practice something that breaks the law.

The Constitution forbids a state church that requires all citizens to become members.

I read that as allowing me to believe what I want and be able to "express" it wherever it is legal for me to do so. I can write a book, I can write on a web site where they allow me to, I can go on TV, I can stand on a street corner (as long as I don't break any civic law about disturbing the peace).

I can express my faith all day long. You are also free to express yours.

What I can't do is demand that you believe what I believe. I can't force you to deny your faith and accept mine.

However, what neither of us can do is assure each other that something about our respective faiths will never upset or offend the other. That's not reasonable.

Beyond the constitution, we have our common sense of decency and fairness.

I won't ask you to give up mass. I won't ask you to remove the statues of Mary. I won't ask you to not build your church in my town. I won't ask you to not post your opinion here. I honestly wouldn't dream of doing any of that.

I will allow you to express your belief as I hope you allow me to express mine.

My church has a web site that expresses our beliefs. You are not required to read it. You are certainly not required to believe it. You are free to ignore it, speak against it with your opinion. But we are most certainly free to express our beliefs.

This in no way trumps anything to do with your faith. You are not required to believe any of it. But we are most certainly free to express it and to practice our faith as you are free to practice yours.

In terms of your above post.....why is Catholic practice referenced so much on this LDS forum...Mass, statues.....gee, glad I'm not Catholic.

Anyway, no one is asking the LDS web-site be taken down...geez, let's all get a hold of reality. The question is whether a certain link should be allowed to be posted on this private site.

If I posted a web-site that had a mechanism to record Muslim's demographics for the purpose of baptizing them into my faith (dead or alive)...would the Muslims be upset? I think they would be unhappy and attempt to stop me. And, I think my boundaries would need to be challenged...

[orbitaldecay]

With every LDS proxy baptism that is done to someone who lived another faith. I promise not to answer any post to this, so it doesn't start this up again, but if LDS truly believed everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, they would be the first to work within their own church to stop this horrible practice.

I read earlier, either in this thread or another, where someone mentioned that in Judaism, baptism was the second most offensive word--rape being the third. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that proxy baptism is a rape--an unwanted, fought against intrustion. It certainly was in my family.

But continue to fool yourselves that it is not really forcing anyone--and you are doing God's will--and every other whitewash you choose to pour on--If you respected Catholic, Jewish, Quaker (and probably untold other) religous beliefs like you say you do, you wouldn't be a part of this rape that you call "Proxy Baptism." Tell yourself the dead has the final choice--I'm sure it is a great comfort to you. . . .isn't the woman supposed to always enjoy it?

THERE! THAT IS MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF ABOUT LDS PROXY BAPTISMS! DOES EVERYONE RESPECT THAT!?

I'm immensely saddened that you think that an aspect of our doctrine is comparable to rape of a soul.:cry:

[Meriweather]

This in no way trumps anything to do with your faith. You are not required to believe any of it. But we are most certainly free to express it and to practice our faith as you are free to practice yours.

Catholics do not voluntarily walk into another church to be re-baptized. Quakers do not believe in baptism at all. If you tried such a thing on a live person, it would be called abduction, and there is a law against that. Therefore, you wait until the person is dead and drag them in when the law cannot touch you. That is what I call trumping, and that is precisely what you are guilty of.

I need to stop discussing this. It adds nothing of any value to this forum or to the thread. A few weeks ago a thread asked what was a sin against the holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin. To me, your proxy baptism is a sin against the spirit of so many things that are holy.



CALady, you and Frazzled, and Noelle are just three very lovely ladies who I am sure would to do something to get me to see the beauty you see in what you do. I'm sure you're praying as hard for God to forgive me as I am praying for God to forgive you. But when we get into this, you are going to find me utterly hostile--which is why I am going to do my best not to be drawn into these threads.

I'm only here now because I do support the LDS site that Fire Watch has said we're not to link to. Whenever I've gone in person to LDS sites, everyone has ALWAYS been incredibly helpful--and NO ONE, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has even hinted that I should contribute my own genealogy work.

I think the link issue will work itself out. It just happened to get tangled up in a hotly debated topic. I think Fire Watch has been treated abominably, and I deplore that. I'm taking out my ire by discussing proxy baptisms, but I think I'm through now--or almost through.

[CALady]

In terms of your above post.....why is Catholic practice referenced so much on this LDS forum...Mass, statues.....gee, glad I'm not Catholic.

I was addressing Meri whom I believe is Catholic. Would you like me to find things about your faith that offend me? Would that make you feel better? ;)

Anyway, no one is asking the LDS web-site be taken down...geez, let's all get a hold of reality. The question is whether a certain link should be allowed to be posted on this private site.

Right, and that's what we are addressing - banning links from this private site. I'm simply trying to understand the criteria for asking links to be banned. If the criteria is that someone is offended by something on it, then fine. I'm just trying to find out the rule.

If I posted a web-site that had a mechanism to record Muslim's demographics for the purpose of baptizing them into my faith (dead or alive)...would the Muslim's be upset? I think they would be unhappy and attempt to stop me. And, I think my boundaries would need to be challenged...

As far as I know, such a web site would not be banned. I thought that the criteria was only links to pornography. Now the question is, is that criteria now changing?

[CALady]

Catholics do not voluntarily walk into another church to be re-baptized. Quakers do not believe in baptism at all. If you tried such a thing on a live person, it would be called abduction, and there is a law against that. Therefore, you wait until the person is dead and drag them in when the law cannot touch you. That is what I call trumping, and that is precisely what you are guilty of.

Well, then proxy baptism is legal and falls under the freedom of expression.

I need to stop discussing this. It adds nothing of any value to this forum or to the thread. A few weeks ago a thread asked what was a sin against the holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin. To me, your proxy baptism is a sin against the spirit of so many things that are holy.

CALady, you and Frazzled, and Noelle are just three very lovely ladies who I am sure would to do something to get me to see the beauty you see in what you do. I'm sure you're praying as hard for God to forgive me as I am praying for God to forgive you. But when we get into this, you are going to find me utterly hostile--which is why I am going to do my best not to be drawn into these threads.

I'm only here now because I do support the LDS site that Fire Watch has said we're not to link to. Whenever I've gone in person to LDS sites, everyone has ALWAYS been incredibly helpful--and NO ONE, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has even hinted that I should contribute my own genealogy work.

Yes, if the topic upsets you, please take a time out from it. It's honestly not worth the angst, I just wish you could see that. I hate to see you upset.

I think the link issue will work itself out. It just happened to get tangled up in a hotly debated topic. I think Fire Watch has been treated abominably, and I deplore that. I'm taking out my ire by discussing proxy baptisms, but I think I'm through now--or almost through.

Fire Watch has been treated abominably??? OK, wow... for calling us the mafia??

OK, I'm not going there. That mere subject will get me banned.

[outdamyboat]

If you want to talk legalistically, the limited historic records of the dead which only includes name, DOB, DOD, children, spouses, parents is NOT personal protected information.

In other words its public info because its historic fact.

I understand if you don't want people baptizing by proxy your dead ancestors. If the LDS individuals stick to the "policy" and only do the work for their ancestors, you shouln't have to worry. But if a distant cousin of your's deceides to baptizes your ancestors, they have as much "right" to research them as you do.

The analogy I was making had to do with the legality of obtaining private medical information with out prior consent. I think that data-mining of this type of information will be legally challenged, and like medical information it will be protected from being obtained via this technology for the purpose of making a person (dead or alive) a part of a religious sect.

I still personally believe that even stomping through grave yards to change a dead persons religion is dis-respectful. That's my opinion. I would not do it, so I would not be LDS.

[orbitaldecay]

Could someone answer a simple question:

Is information given to the site by non LDS subject to use for proxy ordinances? A simple yes or no is appreciated.

I think what you might be thinking, is that once one registers their ancestors names that the church website information gatherers send those names directly for temple ordinances. It is not that way. Potential LDS descendents of yourself could one day use that information to perform proxy-bapts, just as they could use other sources. (census, gravesite, etc.)

At least that is my understanding....

[CALady]

The analogy I was making had to do with the legality of obtaining private medical information with out prior consent. I think that data-mining of this type of information will be legally challenged, and like medical information it will be protected from being obtained via this technology for the purpose of making a person (dead or alive) a part of a religious sect.

I still personally believe that even stomping through grave yards to change a dead persons religion is dis-respectful. That's my opinion. I would not do it, so I would not be LDS.

Actually, holding religious information private (baptisms, confirmations, etc.) might be considered similar to keeping medical information private. Although HIPPA only covers medical information. The concept is the same.

As for "making a person part of a religious sect", proxy baptism doesn't do that. Again, it's a misunderstanding of the act. Nobody is made a member of anything by proxy baptism. It's an offer to a dead soul and that soul can accept or reject it.

[CALady]

I think what you might be thinking, is that once one registers their ancestors names that the church website information gatherers send those names directly for temple ordinances. It is not that way. Potential LDS descendents of yourself could one day use that information to perform proxy-bapts, just as they could use other sources. (census, gravesite, etc.)

At least that is my understanding....

Right. The primary purpose is simply for geneological research. Millions of non-LDS people use the LDS libraries all the time just for such research. The Church opens it to anybody and everybody. The difference now is that with new technology, those records are being made available on the internet so people don't have to travel to SLC.

As for the uses of that, the database is no different from any other geneological database and there are many of them out there. The Social Security Index, county birth records, county marriage records, it's all public information.

Again, Scipio. Information in that database can only be used by a family member.

[Bigcanuck]

Plus, even though it has been posted numerous times... we are not baptizing them into our belief system by doing the proxy ordinances. We are giving them the ability to accept the baptism "of their own free will and choice". Nothing is being forced on anyone.. alive or dead.

This seems to be where the emtions take over... even though we tell people that it is the ancestors choice to accept or reject.. some people still get up in arms about it. If that person holds the same belief in the next life that they did in this life, the LDS have just wasted a bunch of time... however... if the ancestor has learned something that has changed their mind.. why shouldn't they have that "option"?

[Dancer]

Fire Watch has been treated abominably??? OK, wow... for calling us the mafia??

OK, I'm not going there. That mere subject will get me banned.Unless you are among those who feel the need to gang up on people who disagree with you, then he wasn't referring to you.

[Meriweather]

Yes, if the topic upsets you, please take a time out from it. It's honestly not worth the angst, I just wish you could see that. I hate to see you upset.

I hate to be upset by this--especially when I truly appreciate that Catholics and LDS do believe that our prayers can be of help to those who have passed on.


Fire Watch has been treated abominably??? OK, wow... for calling us the mafia??

OK, I'm not going there. That mere subject will get me banned.

Fire Watch noted a situation which he described in a direct, picturesque way. I think a choice was made to be offended, instead of handling it another way. That's just my opinion, reading from afar yesterday. It's still my opinion.

[orbitaldecay]

The analogy I was making had to do with the legality of obtaining private medical information with out prior consent. I think that data-mining of this type of information will be legally challenged, and like medical information it will be protected from being obtained via this technology for the purpose of making a person (dead or alive) a part of a religious sect.

As I mentioned above when info is sent to Family Search, it does not go automatically to temple ordinances: a LDS person could use the information on the website to find info on their ancestors, only(according to church policy). But they can also use other means to find info on ancestors. It's not really data-mining, b/c the user agrees that the ancestral records become public record. And if they are public, an LDS person might do temple work for related person.
If a LDS geneologist is looking for her ancestors in order to perform Proxy-Baptisms, they could google the ancestors name. Does this make Google an inherantly disrepctful website?
No, it is a neutral public database just as Family Search is.


I still personally believe that even stomping through grave yards to change a dead persons religion is dis-respectful. That's my opinion. I would not do it, so I would not be LDS.

I understand that you're not very fond of the practice, let just reinterate that we're not trying to change who that person was when they were alive.

[CALady]

What I find a little disturbing is the sense that the LDS Church is up to some secret, diabolical plan to steal all your dead ancestors and force them to be members of our church.

That's an attitude that is an undertone of some of the comments and is borderline outrageous.

We've presented the practice as openly and honestly as we can, because there is really nothing to hide about it. It's not a secret practice. It's also something that was practiced in the early church, although some differ on whether the practice was correct or not, there's no denying it was practiced.

We do this out of love for our ancestors. In the beginning of the practice, people got a bit carried away thinking they should baptize anyone and everyone. That has stopped. We now ONLY allow baptism for a direct ancestor of a member, and only with that family's permission.

We've said that many times, and honestly, it's hurtful to have people keep questioning it as if we lying or covering up something. If that's your attitude out there (to whomever) then you need to question that bias and ask yourself, why do you carry it around?

[CALady]

Unless you are among those who feel the need to gang up on people who disagree with you, then he wasn't referring to you.

Actually, I'm sure he was referring to me... ;)

[CALady]

I hate to be upset by this--especially when I truly appreciate that Catholics and LDS do believe that our prayers can be of help to those who have passed on.

Let's focus on those things we have in common then. Because I think those are the things that matter anyway.


Fire Watch noted a situation which he described in a direct, picturesque way. I think a choice was made to be offended, instead of handling it another way. That's just my opinion, reading from afar yesterday. It's still my opinion.

I wasn't around during the last blow-up. But I've learned my lesson. I'm not commenting. I've learned not to question. :silenced:

[Meriweather]

Actually, I'm sure he was referring to me... ;)


You're sure? :razz: I didn't see any horse-head smileys on anyone's pillow.


****Wanders off to see if there is such a thing as a horse-head smiley****

[justamere10]

Scipio writes in post 2138: "What you don't realize is that the banned site is just on online search engine for the "IGI". Every single entry on the banned site has "International Genealogical Index / CE" as the source. You are not addressing the simple fact that the IGI/banned site A) is a database of proxy ordinances, not just "genealogy". A great deal (ALL?) of the people listed on the banned site have had ordinances performed. B) those ordinances are hidden from public view, and are accessible to LDS ONLY."

Genealogy researchers can go to the banned site and get free online access to a large number of databases, not just the IGI. (U.S., British, Canadian census data, Family History Library catalog, Civil War records, etc.) My guess is that millions of volunteer person hours have already been contributed by tens maybe hundreds of thousands of people to compile, digitize, and make searchable many of those databases which are then made available online to people of any or no religious persuasion, free of charge. The work continues to grow the databases and make them even easier to search.

Every name on the IGI is the name of someone who has already had temple ordinances done for them. Nobody can add to the data on the IGI except (if it's still being added to the IGI) the LDS administrators/secretaries who continue to record the names, dates, temples, etc. when recent baptisms etc. have been completed. Data submitted by the public, if accepted, would go into a different database, probably the one called "Ancestral File". It would never go directly into the IGI.

Some of the data in the IGI (such as which temple the ordinance took place in) is not available on the internet, including to me. The IGI is just one of many databases that researchers can use to look for their ancestors. My guess is that millions of people appreciate it, use it, and find ancestors on it.

Regarding the names on the IGI, Scipio writes: "And this is what the "disrespect" focuses on. Whether they "do not understand....." or not is NOT the issue, it is about showing respect the faith of the dead."

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. To me it is disrespectful to the dead to try to stop baptisms on their behalf because if the Latter-day Saints are right, those baptisms are essential for the dead to progress should they choose in the spirit worlds to accept the Gospel as originally taught by Jesus Christ.

Scipio writes: "I understand the doctrine, but by that measure, there shouldn't be anyone in the IGI born after 1839 or so....."

I'm pleased that you understand that baptism is essential for everyone, even those who died without being baptized.

I don't understand your reasoning why the Saints should only do temple work for people born before 1839. LDS Church policy is to wait one year after the death of someone who is related to the Latter-day Saint who submits their name. For people whose death date is unknown it is usually (I think) 110 years after their birth date before proxy work is approved.

Scipio writes: "When was the edict that only only descendants could submit names? Example: I find nothing under "Karol Józef Wojtyła", but I do find his father, "Karol Wojtyla", whose family shows wife "Enilia Kaczorowska" and children "Unavailable". Not hard to figure out the child is Pope John Paul II (who had every "opportunity during their lifetime to be baptized by someone with authority to do so", in your view) YET DID NOT get your "valid" baptism. How is it that his "descendants" submitted his name?

I admit, if the name of a pope was submitted by a zealous unrelated Latter-day Saint for temple work, it was not a smart thing to do and was contrary to Church policy. However, if Catholics wanted to pray for or do whatever in their cathedrals for Joseph Smith, I would not personally take offense, nor do I think would he as long as it was done with sincerity to do good for him. If it was a valid effort in God's eyes, great! If it wasn't valid, so?

It might help if I describe the process of names of deceased persons being approved for temple work.

Technology constantly advances so it might be different now but the last time I personally submitted names for temple work I ran a selection program on my PAF genealogy software that prepared a diskette of the names of people in my family database who qualify as far as my computer is concerned. Automatic qualifications would include minimal identifications such as name, birth date and place and/or death date, burial date/place etc.

I would then take that diskette to a church owned computer that has "Temple Ready" software on it. I would insert my diskette into the church computer and run the Temple Ready program. That software would compare my data with the IGI to ensure as near as possible (for efficiency) that qualifying persons on my diskette had not already had temple work done for them. It would check deeper into other name/date qualifications and create a new diskette with approved names on it. I take that diskette to a temple and the work is eventually taken care of as faithful Latter-day Saints voluntarily come to the temples and serve the ancestors, as the last verse in the last chapter of the Old Testament says must happen or the earth will be cursed.

As you can see from the process I described, there is nobody checking each name to see if that person was a pope or a movie star or had been killed by the Nazis or whatever. The onus is on individual Latter-day Saints to abide by the policy that people submit only the names of people in their own family tree. Sometimes that policy may have been ignored by overzealous Saints who sincerely intended only good for those deceased.

I understand that it was not always done that way, that in the past names were gleaned from census data. But I don't think that is done anymore because the Saints have stepped up to the plate and technology has made it much easier to research one's family tree and keep the 140 or so temples worldwide busy with the work of redeeming the dead.

Scipio writes: "And of course, being non LDS, I don't have access to what ordinances were performed. You can't even admit the validity of people's offense to the practice! People should have "more tolerance", while people in your faith hijack the names of dead people for their own beliefs? On a website you want to post links to HERE????? Does that arrogance know any bounds???"

Again, proxy ordinances were performed for everyone on the IGI, every name on the IGI has had proxy ordinances performed, that is not hidden or available only to LDS. The only names that are missing, as I understand it, as those removed because of complaints. If you somehow think that Latter-day Saints have access to data that you think you should have, our doors are open, we have vacancies. :-)

Your emotions and opinions are noted.

Scipio writes: "The argument isn't about the validity or invalidity of your belief, it is about the rules of respect on this forum. Funny that you cry "religious freedom", yet you want to deny in death what faith people chose in life. And don't pull the "they can accept or deny" argument, because you and I both know the ordinances are progressive. You can't have a Temple Endowment without accepting the previous ordinances. Acceptane is an implied assumption."

Yes, free agency, the power to choose for oneself, reigns supreme in LDS belief. The Saints are providing choices for those who cannot do ordinances for themselves should they choose to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ after death. Those who have chosen a religion in this lifetime and choose to continue with it in the next, in our belief, have the freedom to do so. We do not even believe that when the Lord himself is on earth during the Millennium that everyone will choose to belong to his Church.

Scipio writes: "Hopefully you can understand why some find proxy ordinances troublesome. Hopefully you can understand why a database used for the mining of material to perform those ordaninces would be considered disrespectful to the people of other faiths in this forum, and a violation of the rules of respect."

As I explained, Latter-day Saints, like everyone else who is interested in family history, search through databases of vital information that are available all over the internet. Sometimes they find ancestors, maybe from LDS databases, maybe from others. And often, because they love them and their hearts are turned to the fathers, Latter-day Saints will submit the names of their ancestors (wherever they found them) to the temples for sacred proxy ordinances.

I understand that you and possibly many other people choose to find LDS beliefs and religious practices offensive. That's human nature. There are many people who could choose to find Catholic beliefs and religious practices offensive too. But most people I think don't let it bother them and they allow others to believe as they wish and to do as they want inside their own church buildings.

Here's the official LDS take on that, it's in our canon:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Article of Faith 11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000583/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1)


Thanks for participating in this thread.

[CALady]

You're sure? :razz: I didn't see any horse-head smileys on anyone's pillow.


****Wanders off to see if there is such a thing as a horse-head smiley****

:))

Yeah, I wasn't even here, but I'm sure I'm one of those LDS-mafia who "gangs up" on people. Like we're doing right now. I mean, several of us LDS here have responded to questions about proxy baptism and are now, by some people's definition, "ganging up!"

Guilty as charged... :rolleyes:

[outdamyboat]

1.) I was addressing Meri whom I believe is Catholic. Would you like me to find things about your faith that offend me? Would that make you feel better? ;)

2.) Right, and that's what we are addressing - banning links from this private site. I'm simply trying to understand the criteria for asking links to be banned. If the criteria is that someone is offended by something on it, then fine. I'm just trying to find out the rule.
As far as I know, such a web site would not be banned. I thought that the criteria was only links to pornography. Now the question is, is that criteria now changing?

1.) Do you know that in the post I quoted it was not specifically written: Meri? Why do you post like this? Again, I personally find this manner of posting disrespectful and am truely confused about how it leads people to Christ thru LDS doctrine.

2.) Good question. As a word picture, some things that I might find pornographic may not be illegal, but a private site may decide that because of the ill-effect is is having on it's readers to 'ban it'. The LDS link is not 'illegal' but a private site may decide to 'ban it' for other reasons; including, it does not resonate with the 'spirit' of the web-site.

3.) My Muslim ( or any other cultural group) analogy was not specific to Hannity, but to any private forum.

[Meriweather]

I think I found one!

http://bestsmileys.com/horses1/22.gif

[CALady]

I think I found one!

http://bestsmileys.com/horses1/22.gif

Nah.... that's too cute!

[Bigcanuck]

Oh man... I'm cleaning snot off my keyboard on this one... Sorry for being so graphic.

[Meriweather]

Nah.... that's too cute!

How about this one, then?

http://bestsmileys.com/horses1/25.gif

[CALady]

1.) Do you know that in the post I quoted it was not specifically written: Meri? Why do you post like this? Again, I personally find this manner of posting disrespectful and am truely confused about how it leads people to Christ thru LDS doctrine.

Huh? Now I'm confused. Oh, you mean my smiley face? I was being funny, I'm sorry if you were upset by it. I should have quoted Meri's post in mine so I apologize for being confusing by not doing so.

2.) Good question. As a word picture, some things that I might find pornographic may not be illegal, but a private site may decide that because of the ill-effect is is having on it's readers to 'ban it'. The LDS link is not 'illegal' but a private site may decide to 'ban it' for other reasons; including, it does not resonate with the 'spirit' of the web-site.

Like I said, I'm just trying to figure out the new rule for links.

3.) My Muslim ( or any other cultural group) analogy was not specific to Hannity, but to any private forum.

OK...?

[CALady]

How about this one, then?

http://bestsmileys.com/horses1/25.gif

That's close to the south-end of a horse headed north! :))

[orbitaldecay]

Nah.... that's too cute!

better?
http://kenzalewski.com/images/dnc_logo.gif

[Bigcanuck]

Let's maybe turn this discussion around and try to answer specific issues that some people have with proxy ordinance work done by the LDS... if we take it point by point, perhaps a better understanding can be reached.

Those offended by the lds practice of proxy ordinance work...please state your reasons point by point... I just feel that most of the issues I've been reading about is due to a lack of clarity on why they performed and what is believed to happen when they are performed.. Let's see if we can clarify a few things.

[CALady]

better?
http://kenzalewski.com/images/dnc_logo.gif

No, no, no... the donkey! No Democrats allowed!!!

I'm going to ask for a ban of all democrats from the Hannity board.

Think I'll get very far? :))

Probably not.

[orbitaldecay]

Let's maybe turn this discussion around and try to answer specific issues that some people have with proxy ordinance work done by the LDS... if we take it point by point, perhaps a better understanding can be reached.

Those offended by the lds practice of proxy ordinance work...please state your reasons point by point... I just feel that most of the issues I've been reading about is due to a lack of clarity on why they performed and what is believed to happen when they are performed.. Let's see if we can clarify a few things.

good suggestion, if less misunderstandings occur then there will be less contention.

[outdamyboat]

What I find a little disturbing is the sense that the LDS Church is up to some secret, diabolical plan to steal all your dead ancestors and force them to be members of our church.

That's an attitude that is an undertone of some of the comments and is borderline outrageous.

We've presented the practice as openly and honestly as we can, because there is really nothing to hide about it. It's not a secret practice. It's also something that was practiced in the early church, although some differ on whether the practice was correct or not, there's no denying it was practiced.

We do this out of love for our ancestors. In the beginning of the practice, people got a bit carried away thinking they should baptize anyone and everyone. That has stopped. We now ONLY allow baptism for a direct ancestor of a member, and only with that family's permission.

We've said that many times, and honestly, it's hurtful to have people keep questioning it as if we lying or covering up something. If that's your attitude out there (to whomever) then you need to question that bias and ask yourself, why do you carry it around?

No one is trying to hurt any LDS, but I am expressing my opinion that I do find the practice of bbp deplorable.

I find it deplorable; I am Pentcostal perhaps you find praying in tongues deplorable? I do not think it's outrageous that many Christian sects find my beliefs deplorable.

[Meriweather]

That's close to the south-end of a horse headed north! :))


Okay, but this is our last option before we go back to cute!


http://bestsmileys.com/horses2/14.gif

[justamere10]

I hope I don't eat a ban on this. I'm correcting information. wiki is good but not gospel.

This is from the family history site that a link to is banned.

here is what THEY say they are for.



Along with submissions, they get information from census, governments, social security birth/death index. The MAIN purpose of the information is geneoligical research.

I know because I've got three boxes of forms tracing my family on my mother side all the way back. To where . . . names in the bible that lead back to adam.

So the MAIN purpose of the index is genolagical. The other is just a spin off of it.

The information you quoted of course is for the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, not the banned site.

My understanding is that there are millions of hits each day on the banned site, but I could be wrong on that, they had to close down soon after opening and install more computers to handle the load. The banned site contains some of the databases mentioned in the information you quoted.

[Bigcanuck]

Okay, but this is our last option before we go back to cute!


http://bestsmileys.com/horses2/14.gif

That's not cute... that's disturbing.

[Bigcanuck]

No one is trying to hurt any LDS, but I am expressing my opinion that I do find the practice of bbp deplorable.

I find it deplorable; I am Pentcostal perhaps you find praying in tongues deplorable? I do not think it's outrageous that many Christian sects find my beliefs deplorable.

OK.. what specifically is deplorable to you?

[outdamyboat]

No, no, no... the donkey! No Democrats allowed!!!

I'm going to ask for a ban of all democrats from the Hannity board.

Think I'll get very far? :))

Probably not.

See, we can agree on some things...(smiley face, hugs).

[Meriweather]

That's not cute... that's disturbing.


Are you married? If you are, I take it you don't take your wife out dancing? :razz:

[CALady]

No one is trying to hurt any LDS, but I am expressing my opinion that I do find the practice of bbp deplorable.

I find it deplorable; I am Pentcostal perhaps you find praying in tongues deplorable? I do not think it's outrageous that many Christian sects find my beliefs deplorable.

Actually, if I did find your practice of praying in tongues deplorable, would you think I should come here and express that attitude to you as if you are purposely being offensive and diabolical? If I expressed that attitude, surely you'd see it and question it, right?

Or, I could discuss that practice by respecting your faith in it, and discussing it by asking questions and allowing you to express yourself without somehow suggesting you're not telling me the truth, or hiding things from me, right?

It's just a matter of how we talk with each other about things we believe differently.

[CALady]

Are you married? If you are, I take it you don't take your wife out dancing? :razz:

Maybe if one of the horses had a dress on, it would look a little more like a man and woman dancing. As it is... it is a little disturbing. :))

[Bigcanuck]

Are you married? If you are, I take it you don't take your wife out dancing? :razz:

My wife's not a horse standing on hind legs... dancing with another horse... disturbing.

We have been out dancing... when she forces me to.

[CALady]

See, we can agree on some things...(smiley face, hugs).

Yes! There's usually a common thread somewhere among Hannity posters.

:flag: :flag:

[chip]

If the LDS individuals stick to the "policy" and only do the work for their ancestors, you shouln't have to worry.

Too bad that doesnt happen.

[justamere10]

Could someone answer a simple question:

Is information given to the site by non LDS subject to use for proxy ordinances? A simple yes or no is appreciated.

Approved information provided by the public goes into a database other than the IGI. There it is available for search by Latter-day Saints and everyone else. Exactly the same thing happens with genealogical information provided to other websites, except that on most other websites there is a charge to access the data.

[CALady]

Too bad that doesnt happen.

Any proof that it doesn't?

[terri910]

I understand if you don't want people baptizing by proxy your dead ancestors. If the LDS individuals stick to the "policy" and only do the work for their ancestors, you shouln't have to worry. But if a distant cousin of your's deceides to baptizes your ancestors, they have as much "right" to research them as you do.
It's too bad -- truly -- that there isn't some system in place where someone could specifically request that none of their descendants perform any "proxy" ordinance on their behalf, and have that request honored.

While any great-great-grandchildren I might have may claim equal "right" to my memory, I still believe my own wishes as to my memory take precedent over that of ANY of my descendants, no matter how well intentioned.

[Dancer]

:))

Yeah, I wasn't even here, but I'm sure I'm one of those LDS-mafia who "gangs up" on people. Like we're doing right now. I mean, several of us LDS here have responded to questions about proxy baptism and are now, by some people's definition, "ganging up!"

Guilty as charged... :rolleyes:No, I think the "ganging up" idea is more in the tone of the posts, not in the number... or perhaps I should say in the combination between tone and number.

Certain people immediately start making snarky remarks about other's faiths the minute an aspect of their faith is challenged even in the most respectful way. That doesn't help this forum to maintain respect. If you don't see the snarkiness of the responses, that doesn't mean they aren't there, it just means that they might not have offended you.

Per request I have removed any mention of another poster.

[chip]

Any proof that it doesn't?

Are you serious?

If it hasnt happened why did IGI remove tens of thousands of Jewish Holocaust victims who were not direct ancestors of living members of the Church?

[CALady]

It's too bad -- truly -- that there isn't some system in place where someone could specifically request that none of their descendants perform any "proxy" ordinance on their behalf, and have that request honored.

While any great-great-grandchildren I might have may claim equal "right" to my memory, I still believe my own wishes as to my memory take precedent over that of ANY of my descendants, no matter how well intentioned.

Yes, in fact, there is a GREAT way to keep this from happening.

Right now, since you have no LDS descendants, you are "on the list" to not have any work done for you automatically, free of charge.

If some ancestor of yours ever does a proxy baptism for you, you just REJECT IT! It will mean nothing.

[CALady]

Are you serious?

If it hasnt happened why did IGI remove tens of thousands of Jewish Holocaust victims who were not direct ancestors of living members of the Church?

The policy is that TODAY (and probably as of the last 20 years or more) we do NOT do baptisms for any one who is not a direct ancestor. That is the comment you responded to. Or did you mean to respond to a different comment?

[CALady]

No, I think the "ganging up" idea is more in the tone of the posts, not in the number... or perhaps I should say in the combination between tone and number.

Certain people immediately start making snarky remarks about other's faiths the minute an aspect of their faith is challenged even in the most respectful way. That doesn't help this forum to maintain respect. If you don't see the snarkiness of the responses, that doesn't mean they aren't there, it just means that they might not have offended you.

Using Ron Jon as an example: Many non-LDS didn't see the snarkiness in certain things he posted that were very much on the edge in terms of respect regarding LDS beliefs. He was a single voice. When you have multiple people doing the same thing about OTHER faiths, it does come across with a 'gang' mentality.

Sorry, I'm not going to pursue this line of comments. I don't want to be banned again.

:silenced:

[snow96]

The information you quoted of course is for the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, not the banned site.

My understanding is that there are millions of hits each day on the banned site, but I could be wrong on that, they had to close down soon after opening and install more computers to handle the load. The banned site contains some of the databases mentioned in the information you quoted.

One in the same

[chip]

The policy is that TODAY (and probably as of the last 20 years or more) we do NOT do baptisms for any one who is not a direct ancestor. That is the comment you responded to. Or did you mean to respond to a different comment?

Evidence has shown that it continued even after the agreement in 95.

http://www.avotaynu.com/mormon.htm

Postscript. Starting in about 2000 activist researchers claimed that the LDS Church was not honoring its commitment to the Jews, for they continued posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims and others.
Investigation by me verified that information. I notified Michel who evaluated the evidence and he
agreed with the conclusion. Since 2004, Michel has had a dialogue with the Church but the matter is
still unresolved as of the summer of 2006.

[AugustGem]

Yes, in fact, there is a GREAT way to keep this from happening.

Right now, since you have no LDS descendants, you are "on the list" to not have any work done for you automatically, free of charge.

If some ancestor of yours ever does a proxy baptism for you, you just REJECT IT! It will mean nothing.

I have to ask, if it means nothing why do it?

If it something a soul can choose to accept after death, why can you not have faith that God will take care of it?

[Fire Watch]

You know, a simple apology from Rick would certainly go a long way to soothing hurt feelings on this issue,
I'm sorry I wasn't as clear as I thought I was when I posted the following in the TTTM thread.

I have no contempt for the LDS or the majority of the LDS posters here. I have utter contempt for some of the tactics employed by a certain contingent of Mormon posters. To the credit of 90% of the Mormons here, they aren't involved in such tactics.

I certainly meant no disrespect towards the LDS faithful or your beliefs. If the problem group were Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Pentecostal, ect..the statement would have been the same. It has NOTHING to do with LDS beliefs. I'm truly sorry for your sake that those in question are LDS.

By in large the vast majority of actions I've taken as a Mod in the Religion forum has been in the removal of posters for disrespect of LDS posters and beliefs.

That being said..the debate over this issue and the incivility in this thread needs to end on both sides.

[CALady]

I have to ask, if it means nothing why do it?

If it something a soul can choose to accept after death, why can you not have faith that God will take care of it?

I was addressing someone who didn't believe that the practice was valid.

I means nothing if you don't believe in it. That's the whole point. If you don't accept it, it means nothing.

For myself, I do have complete faith in it. But I believe in free will and individual accountability. I can't decide someone else's faith. Each soul decides for themself alone.

[terri910]

The policy is that TODAY (and probably as of the last 20 years or more) we do NOT do baptisms for any one who is not a direct ancestor.
Which direct descendant of Pope John Paul II did the proxy ordinances for him, again?

[CALady]

Evidence has shown that it continued even after the agreement in 95.

http://www.avotaynu.com/mormon.htm

Postscript. Starting in about 2000 activist researchers claimed that the LDS Church was not honoring its commitment to the Jews, for they continued posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims and others.
Investigation by me verified that information. I notified Michel who evaluated the evidence and he
agreed with the conclusion. Since 2004, Michel has had a dialogue with the Church but the matter is
still unresolved as of the summer of 2006.

Activist researchers? My favorite kind.

Who's Michel?

Maybe it's "still unresolved" because it's done?

[CALady]

Which direct descendant of Pope John Paul II did the proxy ordinances for him, again?

Can you show me that such a thing was done? I've never heard of it except from folks here.

[terri910]

Yes, in fact, there is a GREAT way to keep this from happening.

Right now, since you have no LDS descendants, you are "on the list" to not have any work done for you automatically, free of charge.

If some ancestor of yours ever does a proxy baptism for you, you just REJECT IT! It will mean nothing.
I was quite clear, I do not want any descendant performing any proxy ordinance on my behalf. Not, I want to reject it. I do not believe that you can say, with any degree of certainty that because I have no LDS descendants I am on some list to not have such proxy ordinances performed for me. In fact, I do not believe such a list even exists.

Such a list is exactly what I wish there was.

[AugustGem]

I was addressing someone who didn't believe that the practice was valid.

I means nothing if you don't believe in it. That's the whole point. If you don't accept it, it means nothing.

For myself, I do have complete faith in it. But I believe in free will and individual accountability. I can't decide someone else's faith. Each soul decides for themself alone.

I understand how you meant it, I'm sorry it came out wrong.

But again, if you have the faith why not believe God will address it in the afterlife?

[terri910]

Can you show me that such a thing was done? I've never heard of it except from folks here.
Right.

It was taken off the part of that website that non-LDS are allowed to view.

You honestly believe it wasn't done? (Several times, as I recall)

[chip]

Who's Michel?


Ernest Michel, a member of the American Holocaust survivor community, who discovered, in September 1994, that his grandmother and parents, all Holocaust victims, were baptized as Mormons.


Maybe it's "still unresolved" because it's done?

Its still unresolved because there has been no reply from the Morman Church regarding the latest findings. The activity of proxy baptisms for non relatives was still going on as late as 2000.

[CALady]

I was quite clear, I do not want any descendant performing any proxy ordinance on my behalf. Not, I want to reject it. I do not believe that you can say, with any degree of certainty that because I have no LDS descendants I am on some list to not have such proxy ordinances performed for me. In fact, I do not believe such a list even exists.

Such a list is exactly what I wish there was.

I said that work for you will not be done against your wishes by someone not your descendant. If you don't believe me, I can't say anything.

[CALady]

Ernest Michel, a member of the American Holocaust survivor community, who discovered, in September 1994, that his grandmother and parents, all Holocaust victims, were baptized as Mormons.




Its still unresolved because there has been no reply from the Morman Church regarding the latest findings. The activity of proxy baptisms for non relatives was still going on as late as 2000.

According to Michel. Well, I certainly have no evidence of such a thing. You can take Michel's word for it. Up to you.

[CALady]

Right.

It was taken off the part of that website that non-LDS are allowed to view.

Huh? If non-LDS can view it, can you show me?

You honestly believe it wasn't done? (Several times, as I recall)

I just said I've never heard of such a thing except from folks here. Can someone show me some proof of it other than rumor?

[chip]

Can you show me that such a thing was done? I've never heard of it except from folks here.

There are numerous articles written on that fact.

[terri910]

I said that work for you will not be done against your wishes by someone not your descendant. If you don't believe me, I can't say anything.
Then, don't. Because other LDS here have said that some, in their zeal, do not follow official church policy on this. That it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Since I believe every faith has a few that are more passionate and zealous than obedient, I find what those other LDS here have said more believable.

[chip]

I just said I've never heard of such a thing except from folks here. Can someone show me some proof of it other than rumor?

2 seconds on google

http://windysydney.blogspot.com/2008/05/catholic-church-takes-measures-to-avoid.html

Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

Sun Feb 4, 2007 6:22pm EST
Reuters By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor


Pope John Paul II was baptized not once but four times in April 2006, in line with Mormon practice of waiting a year before starting these rites. He died on April 2, 2005.
His name was purged from the online IGI, so a normal search will not find them. But his four now-anonymous files are still in the database and three still show his parents' names.
Pope Pius XII was baptized three times and also "sealed" in eternal marriage to a fictional Mrs Eugenio Pacelli. Saint Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order of priests, was also "sealed" to a bogus wife. Catholic clergy do not marry.
Names are purged from the public IGI after being found and publicized. Pope John Paul I and Pope Paul VI were both baptized and were listed on the online IGI in December but removed after Reuters asked about them, Farah confirmed.

[CALady]

There are numerous articles written on that fact.

There's lots of article written on lots of topics.

I don't doubt that holocaust victims were baptized in the past. We said that was entirely possible ourselves.

However, that it's still happening today by non-family members is what I question. That is against Church policy.

[CALady]

2 seconds on google

http://windysydney.blogspot.com/2008/05/catholic-church-takes-measures-to-avoid.html

Will Pope Benedict become a Mormon after he dies?

Sun Feb 4, 2007 6:22pm EST
Reuters By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor


Pope John Paul II was baptized not once but four times in April 2006, in line with Mormon practice of waiting a year before starting these rites. He died on April 2, 2005.
His name was purged from the online IGI, so a normal search will not find them. But his four now-anonymous files are still in the database and three still show his parents' names.
Pope Pius XII was baptized three times and also "sealed" in eternal marriage to a fictional Mrs Eugenio Pacelli. Saint Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order of priests, was also "sealed" to a bogus wife. Catholic clergy do not marry.
Names are purged from the public IGI after being found and publicized. Pope John Paul I and Pope Paul VI were both baptized and were listed on the online IGI in December but removed after Reuters asked about them, Farah confirmed.

Seriously? I asked for "proof", not some internet blogger.

:))

[orbitaldecay]

Ernest Michel, a member of the American Holocaust survivor community, who discovered, in September 1994, that his grandmother and parents, all Holocaust victims, were baptized as Mormons.

To which the church, reinterated the policy of doing work for ONLY direct ancestors.


Its still unresolved because there has been no reply from the Morman Church regarding the latest findings. The activity of proxy baptisms for non relatives was still going on as late as 2000.

And those prideful Mormons who do temple work for people who are not their relatives, are ignoring policy (and in the process sinning), so that they might be the "cool" individual who did the work for the Pope, Elvis, or Jewish Holocuast victims.
What they do is wrong. The church condemns that practice.

[chip]

However, that it's still happening today by non-family members is what I question. That is against Church policy.

You have already shown that regardless of any evidence that is given to you you wont believe it anyway.

Just because its against church policy doesnt mean its not happening, thats a pretty naive position to take.

[terri910]

Huh? If non-LDS can view it, can you show me?
Perhaps I mis-read justamere10's earlier posts? The website that was being discussed earlier. Non-LDS can view and submit information for research, but not the part that lists the ordinances performed? Where he said that when someone complains about a person having such proxy ordinances performed on their behalf, the name of the person for whom the ordinance was performed is removed from view?

[chip]

To which the church, reinterated the policy of doing work for ONLY direct ancestors.






And those prideful Mormons who do temple work for people who are not their relatives, are ignoring policy (and in the process sinning), so that they might be the "cool" individual who did the work for the Pope, Elvis, or Jewish Holocuast victims.
What they do is wrong. The church condemns that practice.


Great---doesnt change the fact its still happening.

[CALady]

Then, don't. Because other LDS here have said that some, in their zeal, do not follow official church policy on this. That it shouldn't happen, but it does.

Since I believe every faith has a few that are more passionate and zealous than obedient, I find what those other LDS here have said more believable.

Ah, nice to know I'm some rabid fanatic that can't tell the truth. I'm sorry you feel that way.

All I've asked for is some proof that the Pope was baptized. I just said I've never heard such a thing, but I didn't say it wasn't possible that some knucklehead managed to get it through.

So if some knucklehead DID manage to get that through, what do you propose we do about it?

Shall we ban the practice? Shall we give up our faith?

[chip]

Seriously? I asked for "proof", not some internet blogger.

:))

Its an article from Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0218416820070204

Happy now?

[terri910]

And those prideful Mormons who do temple work for people who are not their relatives, are ignoring policy (and in the process sinning), so that they might be the "cool" individual who did the work for the Pope, Elvis, or Jewish Holocuast victims.
What they do is wrong. The church condemns that practice.
Apparently the fact that there could be any such prideful Mormons doing anything against church policy is news to CALady.

[CALady]

You have already shown that regardless of any evidence that is given to you you wont believe it anyway.

Just because its against church policy doesnt mean its not happening, thats a pretty naive position to take.

No, all I said was, I'd like some legitimate proof since I'm a member of this church and have never heard of such a thing. I think I might have heard of it somewhere by now, besides some internet site. And you give me some internet blog site.

[Meriweather]

Seriously? I asked for "proof", not some internet blogger.

:))


I've been in LDS research rooms, with microfiche, that noted proxy baptisms. This was long before proxy baptisms became such an issue with me, and of course I have no proof. Baptisms for Popes have been done--and also for a Catholic priest I once knew.