posted
I think the fact no ordinances were performed is crucial. His memory *hasn't* been desecrated if no ordinances were performed.
In some ways it means the system is working, because they can be caught if entered improperly before ordinaces are performed
I'm curious as to when this bit of the agreement was actually fulfilled...
quote:Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Lisa - the agreement was made by Mormon leaders, and it appears they've kept what they agreed to. Your rage seems misplaced.
How did they make such an agreement? I thought it was "under commandment".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Who exactly has shown eveidence that Mr. Weisenthal's name was not submitted by relatives? rivka's contacts? How do they know?
Because they knew him and know his family.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How did they make such an agreement? I thought it was "under commandment".
And part of that commandment, apparently, is that the church leaders may determine how the commandment is implemented and that other commandments may take priority.
This should not be a foreign concept to an observant Jew such as yourself. I believe you're the one who posted the story of Rabbis telling God that it was their job to interpret a particular piece of the Torah, not His.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
Because it will make you our enemies. Maybe you care, maybe you don't. But that's about the size of it.
I know it would be wrong to make any assumptions about the nature of fellow members of your religion, or their conflicts with others of different religions, based solely upon the fact that you made that statement. So I won't.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: If we broke a promise, I can at least agree that the church is in the wrong and needs to make amends.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trepidatious about posting because I feel like people are just waiting to pounce, but from what I gather, a promise was made, it was accidentally broken, it was rectified before the work was actually done and the LDS church is truly trying to keep it's promises.
For anyone who calls Mormons contemptuous, they probably don't know many Mormons. As has clearly been stated before, posthumous baptism is just a oppotunity to accept, not a granted conversion. The LDS posters in this thread, IMO, have tried to explain the practice pretty respectfully. It seems to me that lack of respect for the LDS religion is more prevalent here than the other way around.
If I were to die and find that Judaism, or any other religion, were indeed the way to eternal salvation and that, though I was strongly LDS all my life, I had been mistaken, I would hope that I would be able to receive the opportunity to follow that path.
Looking at it from a Jewish perspective I can understand how initially it may seem offensive, but I would hope that with more understanding of LDS beliefs a greater understanding would ensue.
That said, I really really don't want to argue, so I will try not to post further as I don't know how much good it might do.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? The church didn't agree to filter the IGI. They agreed to remove offending entries. (Which, I guess, is a kind of post-submission filtering - note, however, that nowhere in their agreement do they state how quickly offending situations must be rectified) So... maybe they need to change thier agreement, but I can't see how they broke thier agreement. In fact, wouldn't the removal of Mr. Weisenthal from the IGI be proof of Mormon intention to honour the agreement?
Also, I agree with BlackBlade. If the church has broken their deal, they should apologize. It just doesn't seem to me that there is evidence they've broken their deal.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: If anything it is YOU who is disrespecting the memory of the man. He lived and died according to his convictions and to you we should just worship his past while ignoring who the man is right now. To you he is a memory, to us he yet exists in a better place.
Clearly, you ignored the explanation you were given of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Not to mention my explanation, which I linked to.
What do I have to do, quote it?
Far from me to ignore it, but perhaps I did not understand it in the way you meant me to. If you can quote it that is greatly appreciated, but Ill look through the thread too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And is anyone willing to admit that the Mormon church has done what they previously agreed to do in these cases?
And still - why doesn't the Mormon church filter IGI submissions?
You can't have it both ways.
Do you mean since the church isn't filtering the IGI it isn't living up to its agreement? Quoting from the earlier list, the church agreed to "Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy." They specifically did not promise to prevent all names of deceased Jews of ever getting on the list.
A filter would be problematic for the same reason that there are so many multiple records of individuals floating around in IGI space; searching against fuzzy or ill-defined records (is this the same person? the name's right, but the date of birth is a little different and the location is a neighboring town) is a heretofore unsolved problem in machine (and human for that matter) intelligence.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to quote a section of Lisa's blog, listed under your profile, and hope that this isn't too offensive.
Before quoting, let me state that I have no objection to this particular belief, but it seems awfully similar to the complaints that you have, Lisa, toward posthumous baptism (not counting ones done against a promise).
quote: At some stage, we're going to have to start taking responsibility for the other parts of the land God gave us.
Certainly, we have no interest in imposing direct rule over lands which are heavily populated by non-Jews. But it behooves us to make the point that this land is ours, even though we are content to allow the native populace to rule themselves.
Now I understand that this states that you are content to let them rules themselves, just as LDS people are content to let deceased persons choose whether to accept a posthumous baptism. However, it also states that God said the land is yours (which I actually also believe as an LDS person) and that it is very important to let them know that this land is yours. Now, by making such a statement, you are not infringing on someone's rights, just as posthumous baptism does not. But, those people could be very offended by such a religious statement that God gave you that land, just as people can get offended at the suggestion of getting baptized for their deceased ancestors.
Can I say it is disgusting and nasty to say the land is yours? (which, I actually will not, because I don't think it is nasty to say so).
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suppose we consider Mormonism a branch of Judaism...
By that logic, you can consider every Christian sect a branch of Judaism, as well as Islam.
quote:OK Lisa can you do me a favor and rationally explain to me why we should not do this despite our beliefs concerning the nature of the dead.
You're asking her to take into account your beliefs concerning the nature of the dead while *at the same time* ignoring her beliefs on the nature of the dead.
So, the question could easily be turned around. Rationally explain why you should continue your practice despite her concerns for the dead.
quote:The actual ordinance is under commandment, and the Lord's opinion takes precedence over yours
Not to be incendiary, but that's the same logic that Phelps' church uses, no? That the Lord's opinion takes ultimate precedence, so they can do as they wish as long as they're following what they believe God has ordained?
The "God said so, so I don't care what you say" argument is a bit much. A lot has been done and said in the name of God that many people wish could be undone.
quote:I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world
I'm sorry, but this argument just seems silly to me.
This is a database, right? A site that people can enter information into?
Can't someone write a filter with a whole bunch of names, so that when someone enters a name on the "do not use" list an error will pop up?
For instance: A person types in: "John Doe, DOB 02/02/1902, DOD 02/02/1952". Then they get an hourglass as the system checks against the list. Then a pop up tells them "We're sorry, this name cannot be entered into the database" with an explanation.
Doesn't seem like this would be too much to ask.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is this really a "Mormon's are disgusting, deceptive (and they like to desecrate) and don't keep their agreements" problem, or an IT/DB Admin problem? Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:searching against fuzzy or ill-defined records (is this the same person? the name's right, but the date of birth is a little different and the location is a neighboring town) is a heretofore unsolved problem in machine (and human for that matter) intelligence.
It seems in the spirit of consideration, there should be a "when in doubt, do not add until more research is done".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to be incendiary, but that's the same logic that Phelps' church uses, no?
It's also the same logic Lisa (and here I'm being very specific to Lisa, not others) takes with regard to Israel, enforcing a particular law on someone based on a choice that someone's ancestor made, and several other things.
Lisa, at least, can't consistently disagree with the general principle that if God orders someone to do something others find offensive, that someone should do it anyway. She simply disagrees that the orders were actually given in this case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I'm trepidatious about posting because I feel like people are just waiting to pounce, but from what I gather, a promise was made, it was accidentally broken
Given that this was not only foreseeable but actually foreseen, it goes from accidental to negligence, IMO.
And the church agreed to adequately educate its members, implying (if not stating outright) that they would do their best to keep this from happening again (and again and again and again). I do not believe much effort has been spent on that. What is wrong with something along the line of FC's suggestion? Include an "I believe this person should be added anyway, and here's why" explanation form option (which gets reviewed by an actual person).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Rivka that an explanation form would be good, but suppose that person provides a good reason to add that person's name? I see the same problem arising, namely an objection to the name being added, regardless of the reason.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAIK, the only reason that is supposed to override is if the person who is doing the adding is a descendant, neh? Seems like something that can be pretty easily proved or disproved.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The promise was not broken. You might think the church should have agreed to police the IGI, but they didn't for whatever reason, either because they felt they couldn't do it effectively or because they objected to the administrative overhead or some other reason entirely. They only agreed to take names down when requested, and to ask members not to submit names other than direct ancestors. That's all. Implications not withstanding.
Furthermore, if you look at the relative numbers, the first purging resulted in the removal of about 500,000 names; the second purging (five years later) resulted in a purging of appr. 20,000 names. While 20,000 in five years may seem like a lot, relative to the previous rate it's a dramatic decrease. I'd say the message has at least penetrated somewhat to see such a substantial decline. I read it multiple times during my training as a family history worker and informed all members I worked with about the policy.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For anyone who calls Mormons contemptuous, they probably don't know many Mormons.
I don't know that I'd use contemptuous, but my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs. So, I don't know that I'd agree with that assessment.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we have a constructive solution that could keep Jewish names off of the IGI, and prevent situations like these. It's still clear, though, that the original agreement between the Mormon and Jewish communities has not been broken - it could just be tightened up to make some people happier.
Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this? Somone has stated that these agreements appear in official handbooks, and have probably been read over the pulpit at least once. Big signs in geneological libraries reminding people not to submit Jewish names? And what about non-Mormons who submit to the IGI? (This is why a filter seems like the simplist solution.)
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's also the same logic Lisa (and here I'm being very specific to Lisa, not others) takes with regard to Israel, enforcing a particular law on someone based on a choice that someone's ancestor made, and several other things.
And I've had my battles with her over that same logic.
I'm not a big supporter of "my God says it's okay, so I don't care what anyone else thinks" attitudes. That line of thinking can be used to justify a lot - from completely harmless customs to truly horrific acts.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose this is where I remark that it's telling that the conclusion being leapt to quite frequently in this thread is willful urination on the memory of dead heroes, instead of an oversight that should not have happened and should be corrected...and we'll all pretend that the first part isn't happening, and only the second part matters.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky - I'm sorry the Mormon's you've met here seem to care little about others beleifs. Most of the Mormon's I know try to be very respectful of other's beliefs - although they may sometimes be a bit ignorant (but no more ignorant than anyone else).
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really hard for me to feel compassion for someone in one group who is getting upset at another group's arrogance to believe what they believe is true and then see comments from their side which basically express shock and horror at a member of their group joining thei other group.
So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
quote: Many faiths believe that the actions of the living can affect the dead - including my own. It's actually kind of strange to think something can be wrong in only one way.
Of non-believers? I haven't seen anything that shows this in this thread, nor have I ever heard of any faith where the actions of non-believers effect the status of a believer in the afterlife. Perhaps I have missed it, but if I could see elaboration on this, I would be grateful.
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this?
I was not specific enough. I have no idea in terms of how much effort has been put into education.
But every time (before this thread, and I am happily surprised that it's not being dismissed this time) that I or someone else has suggested a filter of the like previously, it has been met with whines that it's too much work.
(That includes requests made through official channels. Not by me, but by people I know.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, Check out the links to past conversations provided. I know rivka, at the very least gave an explanation of this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I am going to quote a section of Lisa's blog, listed under your profile, and hope that this isn't too offensive.
Before quoting, let me state that I have no objection to this particular belief, but it seems awfully similar to the complaints that you have, Lisa, toward posthumous baptism (not counting ones done against a promise).
quote: At some stage, we're going to have to start taking responsibility for the other parts of the land God gave us.
Certainly, we have no interest in imposing direct rule over lands which are heavily populated by non-Jews. But it behooves us to make the point that this land is ours, even though we are content to allow the native populace to rule themselves.
Now I understand that this states that you are content to let them rules themselves, just as LDS people are content to let deceased persons choose whether to accept a posthumous baptism. However, it also states that God said the land is yours (which I actually also believe as an LDS person) and that it is very important to let them know that this land is yours. Now, by making such a statement, you are not infringing on someone's rights, just as posthumous baptism does not. But, those people could be very offended by such a religious statement that God gave you that land, just as people can get offended at the suggestion of getting baptized for their deceased ancestors.
Can I say it is disgusting and nasty to say the land is yours? (which, I actually will not, because I don't think it is nasty to say so).
Go ahead. I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land. They show their anger by blowing children up. You aren't comparing that to me starting an angry thread on Hatrack, are you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do either of these religious beliefs take precedence over the other?
1) It is essential that all persons, whether in this life or the next, have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2) It is essential that deceased Jewish persons' names not be desecrated through their names being submitted for posthumous baptism into other faiths.
If deceased Jews are baptized posthumously, their belief is trampled on.
If Jews request that their deceased members not be posthumously baptized, then LDS persons' beliefs are being trampled on.
Is this an impasse?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In such an impasse, the wishes of the deceased, as far as we can tell, should be the deciding factor. Family and friends should be the determiners of what that would be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do either of these religious beliefs take precedence over the other?
1) It is essential that all persons, whether in this life or the next, have the opportunity to accept or reject baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
2) It is essential that deceased Jewish persons' names not be desecrated through their names being submitted for posthumous baptism into other faiths.
If deceased Jews are baptized posthumously, their belief is trampled on.
If Jews request that their deceased members not be posthumously baptized, then LDS persons' beliefs are being trampled on.
Is this an impasse?
No, of course it isn't. As is the case every time something like this comes up, wanting to do something to people is not equivilent to them not wanting people to do things to them.
Although, to be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that LDS should be prevented from doing this by anything other than a sense of respect for other people and their beliefs that they apparently lack.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
This case has been dealt with as it has in the past, as per the Jewish/Mormon agreement. If anything useful has come out of this thread, it's that there are people who'd like to add pre-submission filtering of the IGI to that agreement. I think that's a whole different issue than the accusation that "Mormons desecrate the memory of Simon Weisenthal".
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I am not at all comparing your thread to the evil actions of those people. You have a right to post your thoughts here, they don't have the right to murder people. I would never compare the two.
I am comparing your belief that God gave you that land to my belief that God wants all people to have a chance at baptism into the LDS faith.
I am not degrading your belief, as I stated that I have no problem with it. You are entitled to that belief. I just don't understand how you can have that belief, while being so disgusted at an LDS person's belief.
I assume that even if the people in that land were not violent or evil, that you would still believe God gave you that land. My comparison has nothing to do with the type of people living in that land, but with your belief.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Go ahead. I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land.
I'm beginning to see the nature of Lisa's real beef. It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people. That makes a lot more sense.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They show their anger by blowing children up. You aren't comparing that to me starting an angry thread on Hatrack, are you?
I think he's comparing the actual beliefs, not the reactions to them. This is the first I've seen here where someone says that a belief is wrong because the reaction of the believers' enemies is less extreme.
And, just for the record, I don't think that the Mormon faith or the Jewish faith are true, and I'd be happy if they both kept their hands off my personal beliefs. But if I had to choose between someone in Utah taking a dip in a pool while spouting my grandma's name, and someone saying that my home is their property and I'm only allowed to live here out of the goodness of their hearts, I know which one I'd find more offensive.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, we are not talking about doing things to people in posthumous baptism. If we were digging up bodies to do it, then that would be different. All posthumous baptism involves is speaking a person's name and saying we are getting baptised for them. This infringes on no rights that I am aware of.
Note that I think this is separate from the issue of making sure the LDS church follows-through with its commitments to not perform this work for people they agreed not to.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you are not doing things to people's bodies, but you are doing things to people.
It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of respect. And, as I said, based on my experiences with LDS here, I don't expect most of you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: [QB] I'm beginning to see the nature of Lisa's real beef. It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people. That makes a lot more sense.
I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
Marlozhan, you may not be doing something to the body; presumably you are doing something to the spirit. Why do you think that doing something to the body is worse than doing something to the spirit?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think anyone is saying that LDS should be prevented from doing this by anything other than a sense of respect for other people and their beliefs that they apparently lack.
Yep, they lack it so much that they agreed not to and, when someone did that either in error or in deliberate violation of the rules, they took the name down.
quote:my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs.
I'm not sure about LDS compared to the world at large, but they're generally more respectful towards others' beliefs than you are, judging solely from my experience at Hatrack.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a lighter note... I've often wondered if my dogs are going to end up baptized. You see the Family Search free genealogy software also happens to be an excellent free tool for tracking canine pedigrees, although I've removed some of the information. I have e-mailed the files to other people and I know there are some pretty direct ways to send the info to the LDS site (hopefully I haven't accidentally clicked on the button)
I know there are supposed to be some checks and balances but I still find it amusing that it *could* happen.
posted
As much as I disagree with MrSquicky's general bias against Mormons [really, dude, your bias and painting with your broad brush strokes were pre-existent and not just the result of what has taken place here at Hatrack], his analysis is correct.
LDS can hardly claim that it doesn't hurt anyone when we devote time and resources to it. It's a symbolic act that we believe has some sort of efficacy. Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
That said, I like much of what you said here, Marlozhan. You have been one of the most civil and productive contributors to this thread.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
