DCP lashes out at critics of proxy baptism for S. Wiesenthal

[_harmony]

My favorite quote from the blog:

"Don't crap on my lawn and argue it's fertilizer."

Eventually it will be.

What I want to know is: who told Daniel to post there? It's certainly not his normal forum.

[_Jersey Girl]

Has DCP ever NOT disappointed and appalled you pathetic little people?

You follow him around panting, slobbering, and complaining all the time. Get a life.

And you monitor this board ( panting, slobbering and complaining) and searching for threads about DCP? Anyone see the irony in this? Do you think Daniel isn't capable of defending himself if he deemed it necessary?

Jersey Girl

[_rcrocket]

Has DCP ever NOT disappointed and appalled you pathetic little people?

You follow him around panting, slobbering, and complaining all the time. Get a life.

Plutarch? Is that you?

You might recall that I do not use typographical emphasis.

Some points on this thread.

If they can't control and monitor the information, they shouldn't be doing these proxy ordinances. It's as simple as that.

"They" can't, any more than "they" can control proxy baptisms for Genghis Khan or Jane Seymour (the real one). The "Church" does not submit the names. The Church provides the medium; patrons submit the names to save their ancestors. It is very easy to circumvent any blacklist the Church may employ to catch Holocaust names.

P

[_MormonMendacity]

They" can't, any more than "they" can control proxy baptisms for Genghis Khan or Jane Seymour (the real one). The "Church" does not submit the names. The Church provides the medium; patrons submit the names to save their ancestors. It is very easy to circumvent any blacklist the Church may employ to catch Holocaust names.

That's a cop-out. Put in a process of checks and balances. Business do it all the time. People do it in their own lives to control out of bounds situations.

What you are essentially whining about with this lame cop-out is that the Church leaders just can't have anyone "...evil speaking of [them]..." -- i.e. questioning THEIR decisions.

The apologists are failing at spinning this PR nightmare away.

[_Pokatator]

"They" can't, any more than "they" can control proxy baptisms for Genghis Khan or Jane Seymour (the real one). The "Church" does not submit the names. The Church provides the medium; patrons submit the names to save their ancestors. It is very easy to circumvent any blacklist the Church may employ to catch Holocaust names.

P

It is amazing to me just how weak and powerless the Mormon God is. He can't even keep track of his own creation he has to have the creation itself keep track for him and the created has the responsiblity to save his own creation for him. At least the EVs have a God that knows what and who he created and has a means for saving his own creation, he doesn't put that requirement on the backs of the mortals he created.

Just like the Mormon God doesn't even know who I am...... unless I am washed and annoited, given special underwear to wear, given a new name, wear temple robes and participate in a bunch of ritual oaths swearing to commit suicide 3 different ways assuring I am able to keep secrets that I have to whisper into the Mormon God's ear at the veil and egads...... if I don't do this and do it right this Mormon God won't know who I am???????? This Mormon God doesn't even know who he created, doesn't even know who one of his children is? The Mormon God is omni-impotent!!!

The New Testament reads: Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. P... The Mormons are dead (just like Jesus was saying about the Jews of that day), so let the dead bury and baptize and endow the dead.

Go figure, and P wonders why the world outside of Mormonism thinks that Baptism for Dead is just a little bit weird.

[_rcrocket]

Do we perhaps know you by a different name?

No. Monitor's my real full name.

Well, hey, in any case, I'm still interested in looking at the text of that MMM letter. Whenever you get the time.

I have previously posted that letter on this Board. I sent a copy to Rollie. The letter is referenced in my published article. I tend not to want to repeat myself for people who ask but never provide sources when asked.

You are such a person.

P

[_rcrocket]

They" can't, any more than "they" can control proxy baptisms for Genghis Khan or Jane Seymour (the real one). The "Church" does not submit the names. The Church provides the medium; patrons submit the names to save their ancestors. It is very easy to circumvent any blacklist the Church may employ to catch Holocaust names.

That's a cop-out. Put in a process of checks and balances. Business do it all the time. People do it in their own lives to control out of bounds situations.

There are such checks and balances; both human and technological. Malicious folks, some of whom believe they are led by God, and some who are non-members, know the tricks to evade the technological checks and it takes some time for the human inspectors to catch up. There really is no possible software algorithm which intercepts non-persons, pigs, donkeys, Holocaust victims who are not on published Holocaust lists, or Holocaust victims whose names and indentification fields are slightly tweaked.

The Church removes any name requested for removal by a descendant unless another descendant has submitted the name.

I know you and others mock my answers, but logically I suggest that you separate the criticism of the "weirdness" of the doctrine, which is one thing, and the efforts to accomodate the sensitivities of living persons, which is a completely different matter.

By and large the Jews who are actively critical of the process are the finest people this planet has ever produced. They "get" and respect the Church's doctrine and don't ridicule it like you and others on this board do. What they don't "get" is the inability of the Church to police its records, which are basically being hacked intentionally for the most part and negligently for another part. (One man was asked to quit submitting Holocaust names by an apostle; the man agreed to do so and then just submitted them through an unsuspecting member, with alterations to avoid detection.)

P

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I have previously posted that letter on this Board. I sent a copy to Rollie. The letter is referenced in my published article. I tend not to want to repeat myself for people who ask but never provide sources when asked.

I don't recall reading the letter on this bb, and I never got the copy you sent to me. Yes, the letter is referenced in your article, but you only quote a few words. I'd like to read the entire letter.

[_Mister Scratch]

Do we perhaps know you by a different name?

No. Monitor's my real full name.

Well, hey, in any case, I'm still interested in looking at the text of that MMM letter. Whenever you get the time.

I have previously posted that letter on this Board. I sent a copy to Rollie. The letter is referenced in my published article. I tend not to want to repeat myself for people who ask but never provide sources when asked.

You are such a person.

P

When have I ever failed to produce a source? I'm guessing that you're referring to our peer review discussion, in which case you never really asked for a "source" in the conventional sense.

In any case, all I've seen you doing in regards to this letter is evade. You've been evading for weeks now, P. It would be a very simply matter of copying and pasting the text. Your excuses aren't very impressive at all, my friend.

[_rcrocket]

Feb, 23m 1877 to John D. Lee
Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd. I thank you for the same, before I know I have done all I knew how to do for your benefit. I am conscious of tfact that men of greater ability could have been secured to defend you, but I will insist that no man could have been found to would have been more truly devoted to your interests then I have been. I still claim that the law is on our side, that laying aside outside pressure and prejudice I would have been successful - but we may as well look at facts as they are. We have the prejudice of civilization to contend with - the united press of the nation opposed us, and no one was found who would speak a word of kindness in your behalf. Added to this we found the so-called Head of the Church furnishing evidence against you and the members all arrayed as willing tools under the leadership of Genl. Wells. Treachery was added to hatred and the whole people it appeared demanded a victim. Under such circumstances we could only fail in the Territorial courts - I am sorry that you were unable to raise the money to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States before I do think we could have reversed the case in the accord - But it is useless to speak of what might have been - it is existing facts that now demand attention - I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public. I wish you to forward to me your Journals such as you have I will use them & return of them to your family when I am done with them. I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began - giving a full statement of all the fax and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that he is if you have held anything back. In Justice to your self & to me - as well as your family “tell it all”. I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Walmart. W. Bishop