Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You haven't answered the question. I'm curious to see whether and to what degree you are capable of empathy/understanding something from someone else's point of view.

I provided an answer, albeit one that you feel does not adequately address the initial question. In some cases I find myself very capable of understanding something from someone else's point of view. In other cases I find myself largely inadequate.

What offends me about the practice? Many things, among them is this. If a person in life choose NOT to associate with a particular group, or holds core beliefs directly at odds with said group, inducting him/her into the group post-mortem dishonors that person's memory and is an act that violates what he/she stood for in life.

From the LDS point of view, however, baptism for the dead does not in and of itself induct anyone into the LDS Church.

Do I think the LDS Church has any authority? Of course not. Can it affect me? Not directly, no, but symbolically, absolutely. You must live under a rock if you cannot figure out that symbols matter, and they matter a lot, to people.

I believe symbols do affect me and others. I also believe I am involved in the process of allowing symbols to affect me.

(By way of analogy, displaying the Confederate flag on state property doesn't affect anyone directly, but symbolically it affects many, and powerfully. You remind me of the Southern redneck/racist/good ol' boy/etc. (take your pick) who for the life of him cannot fathom why black people find public displays of the Confederate flag offensive.)

I don't consider vicarious baptism and displaying a confederate flag as being equal. The flag being displayed prominently differs greatly from a one-time brief ceremony in a private Mormon temple.

Try for once to step outside your self identity as a Mormon and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kiss the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

I believe people can be offended if they so choose.

Your comment can be turned around and equally apply to yourself: Try for once to step outside your self identity as a critic of Mormonism and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kick the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

[_asbestosman]

I don't consider vicarious baptism and displaying a confederate flag as being equal. The flag being displayed prominently differs greatly from a one-time brief ceremony in a private Mormon temple.

It's not a perfect analogy, but the flag doesn't have power in itself any more than people think baptism for the dead does. The symbol itself is hurtful.

How would you feel if the names of your ancestors were used as drug-dealers, child-molesters, and other criminals for someone's private d20 role-playing game (just one session), but they record the outcome of this game and put it online?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't consider vicarious baptism and displaying a confederate flag as being equal. The flag being displayed prominently differs greatly from a one-time brief ceremony in a private Mormon temple.

It's not a perfect analogy, but the flag doesn't have power in itself any more than people think baptism for the dead does. The symbol itself is hurtful.

How would you feel if the names of your ancestors were used as drug-dealers, child-molesters, and other criminals for someone's private d20 role-playing game (just one session), but they record the outcome of this game and put it online?

Baptism is here equated with drug-dealing and child molestation.

To answer the question, I wouldn't care because I don't believe many people look up private d20 role-playing information.

[_guy sajer]

You haven't answered the question. I'm curious to see whether and to what degree you are capable of empathy/understanding something from someone else's point of view.

I provided an answer, albeit one that you feel does not adequately address the initial question. In some cases I find myself very capable of understanding something from someone else's point of view. In other cases I find myself largely inadequate.

This case appears to fall in the latter category.

You're right, I'm not satisfied that you answered my question. In fact, you didn't even address it, aside from trying to turn the tables on me. Note that I specifically answered the question you posed, unlike you you.

What offends me about the practice? Many things, among them is this. If a person in life choose NOT to associate with a particular group, or holds core beliefs directly at odds with said group, inducting him/her into the group post-mortem dishonors that person's memory and is an act that violates what he/she stood for in life.

From the LDS point of view, however, baptism for the dead does not in and of itself induct anyone into the LDS Church.

And here you've proved my point. You still appear either unwilling or unable to see this from another perspective. I think we all agree that necro-dunking doesn't officially make someone a member of Mormon Inc.--that's not the issue. The issue (or one of them) is how we honor the dead and their memories, and what they stood for in life.

Do I think the LDS Church has any authority? Of course not. Can it affect me? Not directly, no, but symbolically, absolutely. You must live under a rock if you cannot figure out that symbols matter, and they matter a lot, to people.

I believe symbols do affect me and others. I also believe I am involved in the process of allowing symbols to affect me.

So we allow symbols to affect us. This doesn't address the issue at all. You're still avoiding addressing the question.

(By way of analogy, displaying the Confederate flag on state property doesn't affect anyone directly, but symbolically it affects many, and powerfully. You remind me of the Southern redneck/racist/good ol' boy/etc. (take your pick) who for the life of him cannot fathom why black people find public displays of the Confederate flag offensive.)

I don't consider vicarious baptism and displaying a confederate flag as being equal. The flag being displayed prominently differs greatly from a one-time brief ceremony in a private Mormon temple.

I'm not arguing equivalence (where did I suggest equivalence?). The two are similar in that individuals, or members of a group, find certain behaviors/symbols highly offensive, while those who promote the offensive symbols are fundamentally unwilling/incapable to even try to understand why. Both are examples of insensitivity and lack of empathy.

Try for once to step outside your self identity as a Mormon and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kiss the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

I believe people can be offended if they so choose. Being offended isn't always so easy a choice as you make it sound. Sure, sometimes people get offended way too easily, and they, frankly, need to grow up. I don't see this as an example of this, however. How we choose to honor/remember our dead is a vitally important social function and not something to be dismissed so easily by a simple, "oh grow up you whiners."

Your comment can be turned around and equally apply to yourself: Try for once to step outside your self identity as a critic of Mormonism and perhaps perceive that people world--wide aren't quite so anxious to kick the Mormon backside (metaphorically) as you are.

I spent 40 years as a faithful Mormon. I am quite empathetic/understanding of the Mormon mindset. I understand fully where they're coming from. In this case, however, I disagree with it, and I find it arrogant, offensive, and insensitive.

[_asbestosman]

Baptism is here equated with drug-dealing and child molestation.

Wrong. The extent of the equivalence is dishonoring the memory of a deceased loved one by imagining that a loved one is doing something one strongly disagrees with even though it's a private, one-time brief thing. Playing a d20 RPG doesn't involve actual drug-dealing or child molestation.

To answer the question, I wouldn't care because I don't believe many people look up private d20 role-playing information.

But what if the information is found when someone doing geneological research and indeed this information is what is used to obtain names to use for practices you hate (abortion clinic doctor perhaps)?

[_The Nehor]

Playing a d20 RPG doesn't involve actual drug-dealing or child molestation.

You're playing in the wrong games ;)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This case appears to fall in the latter category.

Thou sayest.

And here you've proved my point. You still appear either unwilling or unable to see this from another perspective. I think we all agree that necro-dunking doesn't officially make someone a member of Mormon Inc.--that's not the issue. The issue (or one of them) is how we honor the dead and their memories, and what they stood for in life.

If vicarious baptism for the dead is a huge trial for someone then perhaps they ought to feel fortunate that what they have to complain about pales tremendously in comparison to other problems in life. Sometimes, like in the OP's case, perhaps the hurt of the loss is compounded by the vicarious baptism. I can only hope they will get over it. I personally wouldn't purposefully seek to do vicarious work for anyone who specifically requests against it, or whose family have specifically requested against it. I don't know of any member of the church purposefully seeking out names of individuals to baptize in order to offend people. I don't see people saying "Hey, remember your grandma who just died? We baptized her into our church, sucker!" (Parenthetically the year wait may help somewhat in some cases.)

I'm not arguing equivalence (where did I suggest equivalence?).

You offered an analogy with which I disagree. If you were just bringing it up as something with which we ought to understand, I do understand why many black people are offended by the confederate flag. I still don't see the public display of the confederate flag as equal to private vicarious baptism.

I believe people can be offended if they so choose. Being offended isn't always so easy a choice as you make it sound. Sure, sometimes people get offended way too easily, and they, frankly, need to grow up. I don't see this as an example of this, however. How we choose to honor/remember our dead is a vitally important social function and not something to be dismissed so easily by a simple, "oh grow up you whiners."

If I were to send you a letter saying "I burned a picture of your dead grandfather, in order so that his soul will feel all burny, jerk!" You'd probably just think I was a little off balance. Do you believe it would affect your grandfather? Would you hold on to the memory of my action for a long time and let it bother you?

I spent 40 years as a faithful Mormon. I am quite empathetic/understanding of the Mormon mindset. I understand fully where they're coming from. In this case, however, I disagree with it, and I find it arrogant, offensive, and insensitive.

Agree to disagree.

[_rcrocket]

One can request that their ancestors' names be removed from the IGI public display. That will hold good unless another descendant has or will enter the information. That will hold good unless somebody else evades a restriction by altering a field name slightly to circumvent it. And then, when that is caught, it will be removed.

The Church does not extract Jewish sources, much less Holocaust sources. When Holocaust ancestors arrive on the IGI, it is because a patron (who may or may not be a member) enters it. The largest sources of patron-submitted Jewish names today are from Jewish users, most of whom use the Manhattan genealogical library, and are non-members. When I toured the Manhattan temple I was then informed that 80% of the users of that library are Jewish non-member patrons, and that there were many complaints when the Manhattan temple was under construction because it temporarily took off-line the Manhattan library. Jews post their ancestors' names knowing that IGI availability means that temple work will be performed.

There is on-going debate among Jewish groups as to whether this name submission is desirable. Some say it is necessary to advance the cause of Jewish genealogical work. These tend to be the religious-oriented groups. Some say it is a desecration of the ancestor's name; these tend to be secular organizations.

The church's submission policies for names is quite open, because the church maintains the public and temple data bases for the purpose of its members, and not the Church corporate. Anybody can submit a name, and anybody can submit any name, whether it be fake or true, so long as sufficient data points are hit. So, if you were to submit the name of your great-grandfather's horse, so long as it had the right data points, it would be accepted and temple work would be performed.

There is almost no policing of those names in advance, but they are policed retroactively when complaints are pursued. The reason there is almost no policing of the names in advance is that there is no heuristic algorithm that can handle the two key impediments to an advance filter: (1) names are not unique, thus a strong filter would keep out legitimate names, and (2) simply modifying one letter or number in any data field would evade a filter, and given the problems with point (1), a too-strong filter will keep out too many good names.

There is no way of filtering for ethnic groups, such as Jews. Who is a Jew? In the Bible, one's father had to be a Jew. In the middle ages, one's mother had to be a Jew. Today, Jewish groups are split. Thus, screening solely for names won't hit it.

So, you all may accuse the Church of arrogance in this work, but the reality is that except for the extraction program (discussed next) the program is entirely patron-driven. And, patrons need not be members and there are tens of thousands of names or more submitted by non-members.

Regarding the extraction program, this has been studied extensively in a recent BYU Studies publication. It serves basically two purposes (1) to help patrons find names from difficult sources and (2) keep the temples busy when patron names fall off. But, the extraction program does not extract (i.e., submit to the temple) from Jewish or Islamic sources, or from sources governments or sponsoring organizations (churches) which prohibit it but otherwise make records available. In the latter case, the FHD may retrieve and index sources, but not extract.

[_asbestosman]

If I were to send you a letter saying "I burned a picture of your dead grandfather, in order so that his soul will feel all burny, jerk!" You'd probably just think I was a little off balance. Do you believe it would affect your grandfather? Would you hold on to the memory of my action for a long time and let it bother you?

Yes, off balance.
No, it wouldn't affect grandpa.
It would bother me at least for a while. It'd bother me more since you seem to care about other things like helping people after a disaster or doing service. You're not nasty to the bone or completely nuts and yet you would burn a picture of my dead grandpa?

Obviously burning a picture of grandpa isn't the same a proxy templework, but I think it'll work as an anology.

[_guy sajer]

This case appears to fall in the latter category.

Thou sayest.

Indeed I do.

And here you've proved my point. You still appear either unwilling or unable to see this from another perspective. I think we all agree that necro-dunking doesn't officially make someone a member of Mormon Inc.--that's not the issue. The issue (or one of them) is how we honor the dead and their memories, and what they stood for in life.

If vicarious baptism for the dead is a huge trial for someone then perhaps they ought to feel fortunate that what they have to complain about pales tremendously in comparison to other problems in life. Sometimes, like in the OP's case, perhaps the hurt of the loss is compounded by the vicarious baptism. I can only hope they will get over it. I personally wouldn't purposefully seek to do vicarious work for anyone who specifically requests against it, or whose family have specifically requested against it. I don't know of any member of the church purposefully seeking out names of individuals to baptize in order to offend people. I don't see people saying "Hey, remember your grandma who just died? We baptized her into our church, sucker!" (Parenthetically the year wait may help somewhat in some cases.)

This is totally irrelevant. There's almost always something else we can complain about that is more serious that this or that. So what? Does this mean that complaints about things that are less severe than, say, losing our uninsured house in a fire, losing family members in a horrible car accident, etc., are inappropriate?

This is a stupid argument. No offense intended. (You're not stupid, your argument is.)


quote="LifeOnaPlate"]

I'm not arguing equivalence (where did I suggest equivalence?).

You offered an analogy with which I disagree. If you were just bringing it up as something with which we ought to understand, I do understand why many black people are offended by the confederate flag. I still don't see the public display of the confederate flag as equal to private vicarious baptism. [/quote]

I believe that I was reasonably explicit about the reason I brought up this analogy. Given this, why do you end your reply once again by saying it's not "equal to private vicarious baptism?" You cannot give up arguing against a point I never made. Let it go, LOaP, let it go.

quote="LifeOnaPlate"]

I believe people can be offended if they so choose. Being offended isn't always so easy a choice as you make it sound. Sure, sometimes people get offended way too easily, and they, frankly, need to grow up. I don't see this as an example of this, however. How we choose to honor/remember our dead is a vitally important social function and not something to be dismissed so easily by a simple, "oh grow up you whiners."

If I were to send you a letter saying "I burned a picture of your dead grandfather, in order so that his soul will feel all burny, jerk!" You'd probably just think I was a little off balance. Do you believe it would affect your grandfather? Would you hold on to the memory of my action for a long time and let it bother you? [/quote]

It would probably bother me for a time, but not too seriously. I would think you're off balance. But the standard is not necessarily how I would feel. We're dealing here with groups who have explicitly made known their opposition to the Mormon Church using their records to necro-dunk former members of their community into a religion with which the person chose not to be affiliated with in life. The issue is not what I feel about you hypothetical example, but what these people feel and why, and whether it is legitimate.

quote="LifeOnaPlate"]

I spent 40 years as a faithful Mormon. I am quite empathetic/understanding of the Mormon mindset. I understand fully where they're coming from. In this case, however, I disagree with it, and I find it arrogant, offensive, and insensitive.

Agree to disagree.[/quote]

Fine by me. I still see little to no evidence that you've made a good faith effort to understand why those opposed to the practice in question oppose it.