posted
Your choice. I must not be quite understanding your question, but I'd be happy to answer if I can.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a question about something specific that Bob said, and he said he doesn't want to discuss it, so I'll drop it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Now, see, I wish that there was some way to convey a like sentiment to the folks who do the proxy baptisms without knowing for sure that they have the widowed spouse's approval, or barring a surviving spouse, then the approval of the deceased children. It's a courtesy, to be sure, but it is also something that does more than hit a raw and sour note if done without that personal contact. If I'd gone ahead and honored that man without ever talking to his wife, it would have been wrong. I hope, first, that everyone sees that and can at least understand that idea, if not actually agree with it.
I feel like my family has been wronged by the person who used my father's name in a ceremony. Not because it did or did not have meaning, but because it was simply the wrong thing to do from a basic standard of behavior point of view. Politeness and consideration.
See, that's sort of what surprises me most about this coming from LDS folk. I have never met an LDS person who was not scrupulously polite and considerate. But now I find out that on something I consider sort of basic, the general position is somewhere between "oh, gee, that shouldn't have happened, sorry" and "we answer to a higher power and we'll continue to do this."
I know a few (quidscribis most notably) at least see that there could be reason for upset on my part and (whether they agree or not) at least acknowledge a need for change.
I can honestly say that the other reactions disappointed and surprised me. In fact, I got downright angry, and took it out on someone (elsewhere) in a way that I regretted shortly thereafter. Suffice it to say I was not my usual nice self and got into some of the other things I dislike about the doctrine that backs up this particular practice. I'll not repeat any of it here as I have simply decided to go back to ignoring that aspect of the issue.
The part that still feels bad to me is the failure to contact surviving immediate family. I consider myself sort of a basic-level person when it comes to social graces. I figure if I know better than to do this, pretty much everyone should. It crosses a line that it seems to me is more than just obvious, but obviously basic.
And yet, I seem to gather that this problem gets more-or-less of a wink and a nod from the LDS hierarchy. A "tsk tsk, we told them not to, but oh well, what can you do with octogenerian grandmothers who're set in their ways" <insert tossed up hands here.>
And that, seems to me, just isn't enough.
It's sort of what I want to write to President Hinkley. That and the whole issue about not having adequate notices on the website of the purpose of the database.
But really, I think it's something that I'd like to present in the form of a heartfelt letter to those grandmothers. Not in anger -- I think I'm mostly past that -- but to let them know how it feels to have your father's name used without your knowledge. Even if it is for the purpose of a high honor or to meet a commitment from God.
The church leaders DO take this sort of thing very seriously. They don't just wink and nod. They stress, over and over again that permission must be received from the closest living relatives. They stress, over and over again, that we're to do work on our ancestors only. They stress, over and over again, that we're not to do private little extraction projects like taking everyone with the same last name in a town and doing ordinances for them. Those rules are in all the handbooks as well as in the software as a splash-type page. (I still agree that we need more training and more obvious in-yer-face type stuff, though.)
Most of us in the church who do genealogy know the rule and follow it. It's the few who think they're a power unto themselves who don't bother following it. They're the ones that the rest of curse and shake our heads at and lecture and, at times, yell at.
There are a number of discussion lists for family history center workers, family history consultants, and basically everyone else involved in the leadership end of family history in the church. This topic comes up frequently. Everyone, so far in the years I've been on those lists, agrees that it's a problem and the rules need to be followed, with the exception of new people to the callings, and they're quickly taught.
It's the rogues...
On those lists, we discuss ways of getting the rules across, educating people better, making sure everyone understands the whys and wherefores in the hopes that it'll help them listen, understand, and then follow the rules. We know it's a huge concern. We know it's important. We're trying.
I know this isn't any comfort to you, Bob, as far as your father is concerned. I just thought - hoped - it might help to get a bit of a sense of what goes on behind the scenes.
As far as my comments of it's usually the old and grey who do these things, I don't offer it as a way of excuse but just as an explanation. I don't think it's okay to do ordinances on someone without permission of the closest living relatives, and I don't give it a wink and a nod, nor do the leaders. We tend to get rather irritated, angry, and upset that, once more, people are screwing up in ways that affect other people and they're too stupid to get this through their thick skulls.
When it happens on my watch, I tend to start lecturing people into submission. Well, I try to give them examples and reasons why it's damaging, too. Not saying that that's the most effective approach, but it seems to be my default setting.
Most of the LDS people here at Hatrack have probably never done any genealogy, which most people tend to leave until they're old and grey and retired. Most of the LDS people at Hatrack, therefore, really don't understand what those rules are. Personally, I think that's why some of them have said some things that are, shall we say, a bit more confrontational than necessary. They don't understand. They haven't learned yet. That doesn't help as far as this discussion is concerned, but hopefully it'll help to put things in their proper perspective.
As far as writing a letter to President Hinckley, why not? I don't think it can ever hurt for us to be reminded of where we've crossed the line and why it's not a good thing. It might help to serve as a reminder that additional training or something needs to be done. Personally, I would love to see some of these sorts of letters put into the next handbooks to further help get this across, or perhaps read at General Conference, or maybe posted in every family history center. That might be what it takes to help some people finally get a clue.
We, as LDS members who do temple ordinances, need to have far more tact regarding this than we do at present.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana -- I've been thinking of your last post, and I have a question about it.
I myself would be upset to find out that somebody in my church was performing baptisms not occurance with our doctrine. I would similarly be even more upset if I found out that this person had joined our church for ulterior motives.
What I don't understand, however, is why you are offended when other religions have different doctrine concerning baptism than yours does. Or rather, when their doctrine concerning baptism differs in specific ways.
Do you get similarly offended when other religions have differing doctrines concerning, for example, the role of the Savior, the nature of God, or the relationship between of faith, works, grace, mercy, and justice?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not sure offended is the right word. You'll note that in my post I put "<something>" in place of "offence" because I'm still trying to figure out what it is exactly. Baptism, because it's such a central and important thing, as well as a personal thing, has a different emotional response for me than a lot of other doctrines.
In fact, I'm sure offended is not the right word for how I feel about the difference in doctrine. You believe one thing, I believe something else, other people believe something else again. No cause for offence. However if, for example, a Baptist friend, knowing my beliefs on the matter, offered to re-baptize me because according to his belief my baptism was invalid, I would be offended. The same as if someone told me that Bob and I are not really married and offered us a real (according to his/her belief) wedding.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’ve been trying to read through this whole thread, but I just don’t have the time right now. So someone may have already said what I’m about to say. But it needs to be said so here goes. (Well maybe it does not HAVE to be said but I’m going to anyway.):
Has it occurred to anyone that Helen Radkey may have been the one who submitted Simon Wiesenthal’s name? That is the first thing that occurred to both my wife and I when we heard about this thing.
Think about it for a minute. Helen Radkey has motive and opportunity. She has everything to gain by stirring the bucket and calling more public attention to her crusade against the Mormon Church. As for opportunity, anyone can do a temple submission. You don’t have to be a member of the church to send in a submission.
And consider this. She said, “I have been checking the IGI since September, a year since his death, and knew that his name would appear and it did.”
(You may think I have a suspicious mind. Well, I do. No question about that. The question is: am I suspicious enough?)
I’m not sure if it is possible to track down just who it was who submitted Mr. Wiesenthal’s name. Each submission is supposed to have the submitter’s name and address on it, but it would be very easy to use a fake name and address.
The church as an organization and the members as individuals have nothing to gain by submitting the names, for temple work, of those persons whom we have already agreed not to submit.
Of course, it is possible that a misguided member of the church did submit the name. If they did, then that person was in the wrong. But we can’t force people to behave themselves. And we can’t even force them to become familiar with the proper procedures. But we do continue to try to get them informed.
At any rate, whether it was submitted by an enemy full of deceit, spite and malice or a member full of ignorance, misplaced do-gooditry and self congratulations, that is the person who has insulted the memory of Mr. Wiesenthal. Don’t beat up on the Church over this thing. The folks administering the DB yanked the name off the IGI just as soon as they became aware of it, and they would have done that whether or not it hit the news. (I know. Because I’ve had a name removed from it before - with no fanfare nor world-wide news coverage.)
Some folks seem to think that we are always sneaking around trying to pull something over on someone. We are not.
What I’d like to see happen is that the Church publish, to the whole world, the name of the person who did the submission in question, and let public opinion slap that person around. (And if the name turns out to be fake, that would at least tell us something about the person who did the submission.) The church ought to let it be known that it is going to do that with every inappropriate submission from now on. That would put a stop to that kind of shenanigans. I mean come on, anyone who submits names like Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler deserves to be publicly ridiculed. (I’m not making this up. Those names have actually been submitted before.)
Anyway, fortunately the vast majority of members who do Family History and Temple work are focusing on their own ancestors - just as they should be. We have enough to do in that regard to keep us busy. We are just not all that worried about the rest of the human family because we know that God is going to sort it all out eventually in His own due time. He is going to see to it that all the T’s get crossed and all the I’s get dotted and all the loose ends get knotted. And that everyone who wants to acknowledge Him as their Savior gets to do so in the proper manner. Eventually.
posted
Its certainly within the realms of possibility, which would also give credence to the argument that there need to be stronger filters and database management to the whole process which apparently is already being done.
Helen Radkey strikes me as somebody who is intentionally disingenuous about her motives. Her statement, "There shouldn't be one single death camp record in those files," stinks of this.
As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean come on, anyone who submits names like Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler deserves to be publicly ridiculed.
Mickey Mouse, certainly, but in LDS theology does Hitler not get the chance to repent in the spirit world and be baptized? And if not, who makes the decisions about which human beings are too rotten to make the list?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, actually, that the point she is making is that there could never be a member of the church, with or without an ancestor in the camps, who had the authority to speak for the dead.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Has it occurred to anyone that Helen Radkey may have been the one who submitted Simon Wiesenthal’s name? That is the first thing that occurred to both my wife and I when we heard about this thing.
Oh, good God! Don't tell me, and the Mossad was responsible for 9/11, too. Paranoid much?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Think about it for a minute. Helen Radkey has motive and opportunity.
According to what's been said here, everyone on the planet had opportunity. Only the fact is that 5 years after the Mormons pulled half a million Jewish Holocaust survivors out, they had to pull out another 20,000. Y'all must think we care about you a lot more than we actually do if you think any of us are going to sit there and plug our own people into your database.
You don't seem to get that it offends us. Fine, you're going to keep doing it. I get that. But it's offensive. It's always going to be offensive. And trying to shift the burden from those of you who don't care that it's offensive by accusing your accuser just smells.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: (You may think I have a suspicious mind. Well, I do. No question about that. The question is: am I suspicious enough?)
Not really. The question, as I see it, is whether your motive is merely to try and excuse the Mormon church, or whether you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: I’m not sure if it is possible to track down just who it was who submitted Mr. Wiesenthal’s name.
Yet another flaw in the system. The idea that a system so "important" to the entire religion doesn't have so much as an easily-hackable password to get in just blows my mind. Requiring registration doesn't even require someone to okay the registrations. But there'd be a record.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Each submission is supposed to have the submitter’s name and address on it, but it would be very easy to use a fake name and address.
And without even bothering to check and see who is recorded as having submitted this one, and without even asking them if they did what the record says they did, you're ready to accuse someone else of entering it just to make y'all look bad? Is it paranoia, or is it delusions of importance?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: The church as an organization and the members as individuals have nothing to gain by submitting the names, for temple work, of those persons whom we have already agreed not to submit.
And yet they've done it before. Some here have claimed that it's simple ignorance of the rules. But that's not good enough for you, right? You have to set up a strawman where either it was entered with malice aforethought, just to get those pesky Jews, or it was a conspiracy, probably plotted by the Zionist Occupation Government.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Helen Radkey strikes me as somebody who is intentionally disingenuous about her motives. Her statement, "There shouldn't be one single death camp record in those files," stinks of this.
As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
She's 100% correct. You don't have a right to put a Jew who died as a Jew into your ceremonies just because one of the poor guy's descendents abandoned Judaism. Sure, you'll do it anyway. Sure, it's not covered in the 1995 agreement (but then, neither were the 20,000 records that snuck in between 1995 and 2000). But from our point of view, it's absolutely wrong, and you can't expect us not to say so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, just so you know....your explanation to mph was exactally what I was feeling as well. I just didn't phrase it as well. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Muhammed in there? I'm just curious. I'd simply love to hear what the imams have to say about that. I expect it would make the Cartoon Riots look like a picnic in the park.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As if there could NEVER be a member of the church with ancestors who spent time in holocaust camps.
Well, just to take it out of the realm of speculation, there certainly are members of the church with ancestors who were killed in the death camps. My best friend is one of them. She is a Jew who converted to Mormonism.
However, out of respect for her family's wishes she has never submitted (and never will submit) the names of her ancestors for temple work, other than that of her own father, who was not a Holocaust victim.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Yeah, someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa I think he was suggesting that perhaps she was trying to illicit a reaction similar to the Muslims who knew about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and bode their time setting up when to make a big deal about it.
Yeah, someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
posted
Lisa, if you are offended by the fact that someone tried to submit Mr. Wiesenthal’s name after the church agreed not to do that, then I’d say that your outrage is justified.
But if you are offended by our doctrine of vicarious work for the dead and our doctrine that God will eventually seal together, as families, all mankind or else the whole purpose of earth’s creation would be wasted -- if this doctrine is what offends you, then nothing we ever do is going to please you.
(If that is the case then perhaps you are also offended by the concept that through His atonement Jesus Christ preformed a vicarious work for all of mankind, past present and future, in that He saved all mankind from the fall - a work that had to be vicarious since no human could save himself from the fall.)
As for me being paranoid, I know for a fact that the church has enemies. I know for a fact that there are those who are willing to lie and do just about anything to discredit the church. I know for a fact that the very existence of the church offends some people. I have met some of them. But I came to grips with the fact about 30 years ago that I am never going to be able to please everyone, and I stopped letting it bother me.
I had a boss once who was a born-again-Christian and who had the attitude that things like abortion and the Mormon Church were such abominations that he and other born again Christians were justified in doing whatever it took to eradicate such abominations. I’m not making this up. He told me to my face that that was his attitude.
So maybe paranoid is not the right word. Maybe it is just a realistic view of how the world is. Not everyone likes us. Oh well. We try not to give offence, but when your very existence is an offense, what can you do? You can use appeasement only so far.
As for whether or not Helen Radkey submitted that name, I don’t know. I merely suggested that as one possibility that ought to be considered. Because I have a nasty suspicious attitude.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Yeah, that someone was me; no I don't think that rioting and killing are pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church. Rather I think that in both cases there is a large religious group taking offense, feeling violated by a group of people who are arrogantly asserting one of their most fundamental rights. The response is not the same, but I think the situation is illuminating in its parallels (certainly more so than, say, pissing on someone's grave, which I think someone used earlier).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: But if you are offended by our doctrine of vicarious work for the dead and our doctrine that God will eventually seal together, as families, all mankind or else the whole purpose of earth’s creation would be wasted
<yawn> So you're going to use this as an excuse to recapitulate everything over and over again?
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: if this doctrine is what offends you, then nothing we ever do is going to please you.
Have you read through this thread? Yes, I know. You're going to keep doing things that offend us, and we're going to keep on being offended, and that's life. I'd do the same thing in your position. To me, the difference is simply that we're right and you're wrong, and that's obviously not an argument that's going to mean anything to you.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: (If that is the case then perhaps you are also offended by the concept that through His atonement Jesus Christ preformed a vicarious work for all of mankind, past present and future, in that He saved all mankind from the fall - a work that had to be vicarious since no human could save himself from the fall.)
Yes, of course I'm offended by that. Differently, because it doesn't involve you messing with my people directly the way the posthumous baptisms do. But of course I'm offended at the idea that I, or any other human being in all of history, is "fallen" at birth. It's a really horrible idea, made horribler by the fact that our holy books have been misrepresented to try and support it.
As long as you're asking.
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: As for whether or not Helen Radkey submitted that name, I don’t know. I merely suggested that as one possibility that ought to be considered. Because I have a nasty suspicious attitude.
Because the best defense is a good offense, I think you mean.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: someone made that comparison earlier in this thread. Someone who thinks that rioting and killing people is pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church.
Yeah, that someone was me; no I don't think that rioting and killing are pretty much the same thing as condemning the Mormon church. Rather I think that in both cases there is a large religious group taking offense, feeling violated by a group of people who are arrogantly asserting one of their most fundamental rights. The response is not the same, but I think the situation is illuminating in its parallels (certainly more so than, say, pissing on someone's grave, which I think someone used earlier).
On the contrary. The pissing parallel is a lot stronger. The pisser may not want to do anything except perform a natural function. But we're the ones getting pissed on, which is the reason that we're the ones getting pissed off.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: messing with my people
Where do you keep "your people." Did you build a fence around them to keep the Mormons out? Got any black folks in there?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand being paranoid, or, better yet, reasonably suspicious. What I can't really understand is why the church hasn't implemented reasonable standard security measures on the website. If it is a source of embarrassment, and it can be used by the church's enemies pretty much anonymously (so, that it's also equally "reasonable" to suspect that some well-meaning, rule-breaking Mormon did the dead), then it seems like fixing the problems ought to be a priority.
I'd like to understand the reasoning behind NOT fixing it that doesn't involve the motive of just having as many names as posssible, and damn the consequences.
Certainly it's not a lack of funds...I can name you companies that'd fix the whole problem for under $1 million, and give you tech support thrown into the bargain. The LDS church could find that kind of scratch by delaying a building program for a month or two. Besides, I'm betting there are probably Mormons with tech skills who would do the job for a lot less than $1 Million.
And if it's more a budgetary thing -- justifying the expense and maybe having to fund it over a year or so -- then it'd be cool with your detractors to at least be working on it.
It's really quite simple: 1) require people to sign up and get a user name and password and have a legit e-mail address before they can actually enter names into the database. This isn't foolproof, but it's a start.
2) As people enter names, you check the date of birth and death (or whatever info you have). If the person died less than X years ago, you put up a flag and send the submitting person a warning page that makes them verify their relationship to the deceased. Or...have a separate submittal process for names of people who died more recently -- like they'd have to be submitted in person at a temple office, with backing documentation showing that the person submitting is the closest living relative. Or, just don't take names of people who have been dead less than X years. Pick a method and implement it. If it doesn't work out, implement a different one.
3)Use DMV-like software to check for potential duplicates and names that shouldn't be put on the list. This technology exists now and it's readily available. Call UTAH DMV, seriously. It's not that hard.
btw, I'm also interested in the answer to Hitler thing. I wouldn't have immediately assumed that putting Hitler's name on the list was done maliciously or in jest. If he is barred, how far "down" the list of Nazis does the "ban" go?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, what you say has loads of merit. I don’t know all the details of what the church has done and is planning to do about more security in this regard. But I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
As for the Hitler question, I would be happy to say more about that, but I just don’t have time right now. Maybe I can this weekend.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep it up, Dag, and I'll let someone else be in charge of my fan club.
For the avoidance of doubt: your manner of expressing your dislike for others' posts is usually offensive, and often more offensive than the posts you take offense to. You often exhibit the exact behavior you complain about and you have little respect for the beliefs of others. You often misrepresent what others have said and put words in their mouths. Further, you invoke anti-Semetism inappropriately; your invocation of ZOG in response to Samuel's speculation is a prime example of this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some misunderstanding regarding the online database and how it's used. Let me clarify a few things.
If someone wants to submit a name for temple ordinances, they can either do it on paper or by disk at one of the temples (either in person or by mail). If it's submitted on paper, then someone at the temple transcribes it onto a computer and then runs it through TempleReady, the program that checks to make sure there's sufficient information and also runs it through a filter to make sure that it hasn't already been done and it's not in one of the unallowed locations. If it's on disk, then it goes through TempleReady, but at the submitter's local family history center usually or at the temple. Hopefully (and not always), an additional program is used as a bridge to access the database online - this is not at this point required.
The change that's happening is that TempleReady will go online so that the checks will all go through the online database and whatever filters are there, which will be improved on what is in place now.
For the last few years, new family history centers have not been installed in North America, but instead have been installed in other parts of the world. This, because there are enough family history centers in North America to provide internet access for enough people, many of whom already have internet access in their homes.
In the rest of the world, not so much.
For example, Sri Lanka received a family history center a year ago, complete with high speed internet. It's in Negombo, an hour to an hour and a half north of Colombo. It's about five or six hours from Kandy, another congregation in the interior of the country. This family history center provides internet access to local members who otherwise do not have internet and have never used a computer.
India similarly received a bunch of family history centers over the last couple of years, and I believe Pakistan received one as well.
All this is to get the rest of the LDS members in the world up to speed with computers and internet access so that, if not everyone, at least most members or a lot of members will have access to the same online database and programs.
At present, the online database is for finding information only. It's not, at present, for submitting names to the temple for ordinances. The security you're talking about at present, Bob, isn't required because of how the database isn't being used.
However, even at present, in order to access information on the LDS temple ordinances on the online database, not just birth, marriage, death information, a person has to provide their LDS record number and date of confirmation. No record number, no confirmation date, no access to LDS data.
Back to TempleReady. At present, when a person runs names through that program, if the person is born within a certain time period, (last time I used it) you have to indicate how you're related to the people you're submitting.
Now, for Hitler. Yep, he's had his temple ordinances done. So have a lot of European royalty and a whole lot of other people. We, as mere mortals, do not make it a policy to withhold temple ordinances regardless of their righteousness/evilness. We believe that people will have the option of accepting or rejecting ordinances after they die based on their worthiness to do so, which is between that individual, Jesus Christ, and God.
Yes, I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us would agree that Hitler is evil (if you believe in evil) and doesn't deserve a chance in ... But that's between him and God and Jesus.
Not my business. I have my own stuff to worry about. I hope that makes sense to you.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the avoidance of doubt: your manner of expressing your dislike for others' posts is usually offensive, and often more offensive than the posts you take offense to. You often exhibit the exact behavior you complain about and you have little respect for the beliefs of others. You often misrepresent what others have said and put words in their mouths.
I agree with this.
You often so thoroughly discredit whatever you are purporting to defend that I wonder sometimes if you aren't deliberately sabotaging whatever cause it is.
posted
When I used "my people", I was referring to Jews. Pardon me if I was unclear. Your question, then, seemed to be asking whether there were any Jews who are black. That's the question I was answering, and I suspect it was the question that Rivka answered as well.
Do you have a problem with me looking at the Jews, as a group, as "my people"?
There are even, if I can trust what I've read in this thread, Jews who are Mormons. They're still Jews. Just Jews who are doing the wrong thing. And my wish for them is that they realize their error and return to God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I don't think you even want to avoid being tacky and unclassy. You don't come off as a righteous warrior for God - you come off as someone who uses religion as an excuse to act badly and be proud of yourself for it.
You know how one of the rebuttals to the accusation that religion makes humans do bad things is that humans do bad things anyway and religion is just the excuse? You're like the living embodiment of it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I act badly, kat. I think I'm blunt. I think I'm unwilling to tolerate crap. I'm often a bit undiplomatic, but I don't think diplomacy is always appropriate.
I'm not a fan of the extreme view that tact and diplomacy are only ways of weaseling around the truth, but sometimes they are.
I'm sorry that my bluntness isn't to your taste. There are people who actually like it. Not that that's why I'm blunt. I just am.
As far as "tacky and unclassy" goes, I suppose it was tacky and unclassy for me to make the comment I did about Carter in the RIP Ford thread, just as an example, but then, I despite Jimmy Carter with every fibre of my being, and I wasn't striving for class when I wrote that.
And what does religion have to do with it, btw? I walloped Rabbit when she posted her views about enslaving everyone for the good of "society". That wasn't about religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: You would find yourself in good stead with your anticarter attitude if you ever move to Taiwan.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
No problem. I don't mind in the slightest.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
