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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Feb, 23m 1877 to John D. Lee
Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd.
...
I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Walmart. W. Bishop

Thank you for taking the time to type out the entire letter. As I suspected, your use of ellipses in the quote in your article removed what, in my opinion, is crucial information. Here is how you used the quote in your article (on p. 213):

As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public." (bold Rollo's for emphasis)

Here's that same sentence in the original 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. (bold Rollo's for emphasis)

I think there's quite a bit of difference between the two. The entire quote seems to limit what "facts" will be "added" to "facts connected with the trial and the history of the case," which makes sense because the "trial" and "history of the case" are the attorney's bailiwick.

I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong, just that the full text makes other interpretations possible and reasonable.

[_moksha]

Wow, the anti-mormons really do come off as a hateful bunch on that blog, do they not? This could score some points for the Mormons with people of conscience everywhere. I doubt however many read that blog.

[_rcrocket]

Feb, 23m 1877 to John D. Lee
Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd.
...
I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Walmart. W. Bishop

Thank you for taking the time to type out the entire letter. As I suspected, your use of ellipses in the quote in your article removed what, in my opinion, is crucial information. Here is how you used the quote in your article (on p. 213):

As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public." (bold Rollo's for emphasis)

Here's that same sentence in the original 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. (bold Rollo's for emphasis)

I think there's quite a bit of difference between the two. The entire quote seems to limit what "facts" will be "added" to "facts connected with the trial and the history of the case," which makes sense because the "trial" and "history of the case" are the attorney's bailiwick.

I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong, just that the full text makes other interpretations possible and reasonable.

What else is there besides the "trial and the history of the case?" At the least, I challenge Bagley and Brooks' reliance on Lee's confessions for conclusions about efforts during trial by the Church to thwart justice. Doesn't that fall within "trial and history of the case?"

[_Sam Harris]

This is really funny:

I have not sought to personalize this "conversation," although I know the names and identities of at least two of those who have been posting here besides myself (and the employer of one of them).

DCP: Stop disagreeing with me, or I'll get you fired!

What a pussy.

[_Sam Harris]

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.

LOL, could you be the famous DCP, now wetting his pants over his faux pas?

It seems to me, the one who needs a life is you. Are you out to post on every one of those 6,500 anti sites in order to defend the faith in your juvenile way?

[_beastie]

I just read the MAD thread that DCP started about his posts on the blog. I also read the blog in question. in my opinion, Xong gave an astute analysis of the situation. Dan did not handle the situation in a sensitive manner at all. Certainly the exmormons didn't seem too interested in the real issue, either, and more interested in using it as an opportunity to attack Mormonism. But any PR agency that would hire Dan to handle this problem would be fired.

And the outrage expressed over at MAD at xong for daring to say what I suspect would be obvious to any outsider reading the blog is a clue: the place is devoted to the adoration of the FARMish folk, by and large. That adoration has either blinded them to the well named "bull in a china shop" approach Dan engaged, or they are so enmeshed in their own world view they have lost the ability to step outside that world view and see the situation from a different perspective.

[_MormonMendacity]

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.

Okay. No mocking intended. Let's do that.

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.

Call for proof. Let's see your stats on that one, please. I suspect most just don't care and don't "get it".

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.)

I don't think you're trying to solve the problem, P. I think you're just hiding behind the excuse that it's too difficult.

But the Church promised...so let's see a solution.

P, there were about 4 million deaths PER MONTH this year, according to http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe -- so if all the church did was do CURRENT deaths and got a signed release from the living relatives we could see how many "get it".

I really doubt the Church could accommodate 55 million endowments annually in the temples. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Checks? Balances? Releases? Or are we just going to get more excuses?

[_Mercury]

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.

Mormons can't seem to get away from the use of emotive language.

You follow exmormons around yelling that we cannot seem to get a life yet you project on us your fascination with whats wrong with your religion.

[_Mercury]

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

You obviously do not understand the mechanics of professional security.

[_rcrocket]

You obviously do not understand the mechanics of professional security.

Obviously. I do have a government "classified secret" security clearance; does that count?