Eternal marriage & temple endowment handshakes, tokens, signs & passwords

[huckelberry]

Yeah, I’m not impressed with the attempt to turn these mundane record-keeping and managing efforts into something sinister.

Perhaps influenced by my wife's enthusiasm for ancestry system, their working with LDS information appears to be good thing to me. All that LDS volunteer work spreads out. Good.

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I’m not impressed with the attempt to turn these mundane record-keeping and managing efforts into something sinister.

One of the significant challenges to being a consistent skeptic is to apply the same approach to things that you wish were true to things you wish weren’t.

[Marcus]

Lol, because the lds church has such a stellar record for not taking advantage of volunteer behavior to its financial benefit. Okay.

Anyway,

Perhaps influenced by my wife's enthusiasm for ancestry system, their working with LDS information appears to be good thing to me. All that LDS volunteer work spreads out. Good.

Lol, I agree. In my family it was my maternal grandmother and my great-aunt on my paternal side, plus many others as the generations went on. When my kids were young and had the 'who is your family and where are they from' unit all I had to do was break out the pedigree charts. My kids were the only ones who could document their history back 9 generations, fully, at least on their mom's side. My spouse's Catholic family had more information than most, given that he has a rare 100% ancestry with lots of parish data on tap, so they had 3-4 fairly complete generations there also.

One thing I didn't do was add all the polygamous relationships on my side. That would have added pages and pages and PAGES to their report. And it's hard to ask a kid to explain why his ggg-grandpa had 7 wives.

On a side note, in one of my kid's Comp Sci classes dealing with databases, they had a unit that included discussing how to recognize error v. anomaly in coding. The example given was that generally a husband marrying a second wife before the death date of the first wife would be investigated as an error, unless the record was from a Mormon type community. I laughed long and hard over that one.

[I Have Questions]

Yeah, I’m not impressed with the attempt to turn these mundane record-keeping and managing efforts into something sinister.

I don't think anyone is attempting to impress you. Sinister? Without the harvesting of names temples would run dry. Temple activity costs members 10% of their income. Joining those dots into a logical sequence gives you the inescapable conclusion that harvesting these names drives income for the Church. You could argue that's a by-product of some spiritual altruistic intent by a family-loving institution. But given the Church's track record on this kind of stuff (going to great lengths to hide finances, breaching fiduciary regulations, etc.), given the fact that the Church cannot possibly achieve its stated mission of doing temple work in this life for everyone who has ever lived and died without joining the Church, I think it's right to be skeptical about what is actually going on. My view is that the Church needs names to keep members busy going to the temple - one can make one's own mind up as to why they need to do that.

There are very simple ways of achieving the mission of providing "an offer of membership" to everyone who has lived and died without joining the Church. The Church doesn't pursue those - why? Because it's about keeping the work going, not achieving the stated desired result. It seems clear to me that temple work is about engaging living people in doing something that keeps them active in the church, and active in keeping up with their tithes and offerings payments, rather than in getting up to date with "offers of membership" for everyone who has ever lived and died.

[I Have Questions]

Yeah, I’m not impressed with the attempt to turn these mundane record-keeping and managing efforts into something sinister.

One of the significant challenges to being a consistent skeptic is to apply the same approach to things that you wish were true to things you wish weren’t.

You're replying to Kishkumen, but I can't help but think you're making a pointed comment about someone else...

[Res Ipsa]

One of the significant challenges to being a consistent skeptic is to apply the same approach to things that you wish were true to things you wish weren’t.

You're replying to Kishkumen, but I can't help but think you're making a pointed comment about someone else...

Do you dispute the substance of my comment?

[Imwashingmypirate]

Lol, because the LDS church has such a stellar record for not taking advantage of volunteer behavior to its financial benefit. Okay.

Anyway,

Perhaps influenced by my wife's enthusiasm for ancestry system, their working with LDS information appears to be good thing to me. All that LDS volunteer work spreads out. Good.

Lol, I agree. In my family it was my maternal grandmother and my great-aunt on my paternal side, plus many others as the generations went on. When my kids were young and had the 'who is your family and where are they from' unit all I had to do was break out the pedigree charts. My kids were the only ones who could document their history back 9 generations, fully, at least on their mom's side. My spouse's Catholic family had more information than most, given that he has a rare 100% ancestry with lots of parish data on tap, so they had 3-4 fairly complete generations there also.

One thing I didn't do was add all the polygamous relationships on my side. That would have added pages and pages and PAGES to their report. And it's hard to ask a kid to explain why his ggg-grandpa had 7 wives.

On a side note, in one of my kid's Comp Sci classes dealing with databases, they had a unit that included discussing how to recognize error v. anomaly in coding. The example given was that generally a husband marrying a second wife before the death date of the first wife would be investigated as an error, unless the record was from a Mormon type community. I laughed long and hard over that one.

to the last paragraph.

I think polygamy is coming back into trend, only I think they call is polyamory.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I don't know that they'd need to do baptisms to get people to go to the temple. There were times where I went and didn't join in. I took my non member husband before we were married. I didn't go in with the rest, we went to the visitor centre and he was able to see the foyer and we walked the grounds. I would think most people would go to just feel how nice it feels and to experience that eeirie quiet stillness. They could open part of them up to the public?

There is glitter ALL over the floor. :O my child... Didn't need to ask which one did it. I asked p if Santa's reindeer are coming to visit and Oli grinned. She said yes. whatever amuses them... Ida got my ass kicked if I did that as a kid. Tempted to pass her the vacuum but I just know the chaos that would ensue.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps influenced by my wife's enthusiasm for ancestry system, their working with LDS information appears to be good thing to me. All that LDS volunteer work spreads out. Good.

Indeed. There are people who are purists to the point of insisting that nothing happen.

[Kishkumen]

I don't think anyone is attempting to impress you.

They don't have to. I can be unimpressed anyway. Lots of things don't impress me. The majority of them are non-sentient phenomena.

Sinister? Without the harvesting of names temples would run dry.

Yes, and? If it were me, I would say we ought to make up names to do temple work for. Surely, somewhere in the multi-verse there must be people by those names who need to be saved.

Temple activity costs members 10% of their income. Joining those dots into a logical sequence gives you the inescapable conclusion that harvesting these names drives income for the Church. You could argue that's a by-product of some spiritual altruistic intent by a family-loving institution. But given the Church's track record on this kind of stuff (going to great lengths to hide finances, breaching fiduciary regulations, etc.), given the fact that the Church cannot possibly achieve its stated mission of doing temple work in this life for everyone who has ever lived and died without joining the Church, I think it's right to be skeptical about what is actually going on. My view is that the Church needs names to keep members busy going to the temple - one can make one's own mind up as to why they need to do that.

I guess my skepticism or, rather, cynicism doesn't reach as deeply as yours does. The LDS Church is a voluntary organization, and at the same time it is faltering, probably to the point that it may dwindle in size markedly in the coming years. We might see a million active members within a few decades. Perhaps fewer and fewer in the decades that follow. Maybe one day there will only be a few hundred thousand Mormons. In the meantime, I don't see anyone forcing the faithful to believe or contribute. They will do it until they wake up one day and decide not to. In the meantime, I say let it go on. I don't think the harm done is catastrophic. I would say it is fairly minor in the larger scheme of things.

There are very simple ways of achieving the mission of providing "an offer of membership" to everyone who has lived and died without joining the Church. The Church doesn't pursue those - why? Because it's about keeping the work going, not achieving the stated desired result. It seems clear to me that temple work is about engaging living people in doing something that keeps them active in the church, and active in keeping up with their tithes and offerings payments, rather than in getting up to date with "offers of membership" for everyone who has ever lived and died.

The temple ordinances were the system that developed long before everyone became pathologically paranoid about large organizations that have lots of money. People who believed in the system invested in the system. I say let them carry on causing no harm until they wake up and realize they don't want to do it anymore. Then they will stop.