If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay)   Has a Mormon posthumously baptized someone you know, love or respect? Now you can fight back by posthumously "choosing" homosexuality for one of their loved ones   (alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com) divider line 378
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

14139 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2012 at 11:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-22 10:41:15 PM  
Why stop at homosexuality? If we're going to slander the dead, why not add a crack addiction and alcoholism?
 
2012-02-22 11:47:41 PM  
Yes but what if it really works?
 
2012-02-22 11:56:06 PM  

johnny queso: Thing is, the unwashed masses are not allowed into their inner sanctum. Without full access to their records one can not know what devious uses these lists are being put.


I guess if your concerns are reduced to that, you'll probably be just fine. Thanks for the chat.
 
2012-02-23 12:11:39 AM  

treesloth: johnny queso: Thing is, the unwashed masses are not allowed into their inner sanctum. Without full access to their records one can not know what devious uses these lists are being put.

I guess if your concerns are reduced to that, you'll probably be just fine. Thanks for the chat.


I have no concerns. It's all laughable hokum. It is essentially a mass game of "stop touching me."
 
2012-02-23 03:19:13 AM  

Macular Degenerate: Why stop at homosexuality? If we're going to slander the dead, why not add a crack addiction and alcoholism?


Think about it for a minute.
 
2012-02-23 04:40:14 AM  
I hereby declare everyone who has posted or will post in this thread to be a Pope. Please pick up your golden apple at the door, and have a pleasant day.

Fnord.
 
2012-02-23 09:15:17 AM  

Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm

You are right. People are either unwilling to understand or are desperate to hate


... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.
 
2012-02-23 10:04:12 AM  

Theaetetus: Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm

You are right. People are either unwilling to understand or are desperate to hate

... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.


That screenshot never states they are members. It shows they were baptized after their deaths by clearly showing the dates. So really that screenshot proves nothing one way or another. Until we can get a side by side comparison of what a members profile looks like vs the other we really wont know. Though really the dates are all that are needed. They can add a little M or NM next to the name but that really doesn't do much other than tell us what we already know. Also they plan to do this for all the dead, everyone, regardless of background.
 
2012-02-23 10:59:14 AM  

treesloth: Morpheses: That is my belief, yes. If you talk to any missionary coming back from anywhere other than Africa or South America, they tell you people just don't buy the myth any more. They are considering shutting down European missions. So where are the new members coming from? Dead Jews, apparently.

In fact, I have spoken to missionaries from European missions. They're doing fine, it seems. But, as evidence goes, it's hearsay, anecdotal and certainly doesn't support the conclusions you claim. I'm afraid a lot more (and higher-quality) evidence would be necessary in order to successfully support your idea.

PsiChick: The first amendment does apply, but not if there's a secular interest involved--i.e. preserving history\stopping a biatchfight between two religions. That's also why cults get slammed so often--your religious rights can and will be suspended once secular interests take over.

Let's suppose that's the case. What history is being altered and is in need of preservation?


Oh, a mormon apologist. How cute.
 
2012-02-23 11:00:46 AM  

treesloth: johnny queso: ... self-serving...

I can't address dickishness as it is a matter of personal judgment, but how is vicarious baptism for the dead self-serving for an LDS church member, or the church as a whole?


Or a "just asking questions" troll, could be either one.
 
2012-02-23 11:23:46 AM  

cgraves67: Don't Troll Me Bro!: How about we don't stoop to that level. That's just petty.

My Grandma was converted to Mormon when she was a little girl (by her step father). When she grew up, she quit Mormonism. She was expelled from the church and her name struck from their big book o' baptized. However, her Mormon relatives saw fit to include her offspring (i.e. us) into their book. I don't subscribe to their brand of weirdness, so I'm not losing sleep over it.

I think that getting your panties in a wad over this is comparable to throwing a fit over a "witch" casting spells on you when you don't believe in magic. It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.


Except your local witch isn't getting involved in state and national politics, and spending millions of tax-exempt dollars attempting to strip civil rights from your gay friends and relatives.
 
2012-02-23 11:58:42 AM  

Morpheses: Pretty easy to swell your ranks with people who can't say no.


Ahh, afterlife rape! Stranger danger! :P
 
2012-02-23 12:01:21 PM  

treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm


Well, if the assumptions that other people have about your practices are so far off-base that you consider them to be "an agenda" the onus is on you and yours to make sure the wording is clear, not on everybody else to just "get it" when you come in and give your smartass reply.

/the general 'you'
 
2012-02-23 12:04:58 PM  

Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm

You are right. People are either unwilling to understand or are desperate to hate


While others are all too eager to argue that their offensive practices couldn't possibly be offensive in any way.
 
2012-02-23 12:09:50 PM  

Morpheses: Oh, a mormon apologist. How cute.


Morpheses: Or a "just asking questions" troll, could be either one.


Not a troll, but there's no way to prove that one way or the other. I can say that I've been pretty consistent in this and other threads on the topic. I really do want to understand people's views and how they arrive at their conclusions, but I know that's not for everyone.

Theaetetus: ... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.


Why do you characterize it as "post hoc"? The analogy may be somewhat recent, but the doctrine it tries to explain has been pretty consistent from the beginning.

And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.
 
2012-02-23 12:12:24 PM  

treesloth: Morpheses: Oh, a mormon apologist. How cute.

Morpheses: Or a "just asking questions" troll, could be either one.

Not a troll, but there's no way to prove that one way or the other. I can say that I've been pretty consistent in this and other threads on the topic. I really do want to understand people's views and how they arrive at their conclusions, but I know that's not for everyone.

Theaetetus: ... except, see the screenshot I linked above. While the post hoc explanations may be that it's just like "knocking on someone's door," the present evidence shows that the Mormons are claiming that the dead Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, are Mormons.

Why do you characterize it as "post hoc"? The analogy may be somewhat recent, but the doctrine it tries to explain has been pretty consistent from the beginning.

And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.


Fair enough. You know, I do live in Utah and talk to missionaries on a fairly regular basis, as well as getting the daily mormon stories in all the local newspapers. My opinion is not an uninformed one.
 
2012-02-23 12:14:14 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth: I think Aeon Rising meant that the practice has been explained clearly and frequently enough that promoting that incorrect views is evidence of an agenda. I could be wrong, though.

uggh... ftfm

You are right. People are either unwilling to understand or are desperate to hate

While others are all too eager to argue that their offensive practices couldn't possibly be offensive in any way.


It's not an offensive practice, it's a practice that others are taking offense to. They are not doing this with the intent of offending others, they are doing this as a matter of following their beliefs. It's fine for people not to agree with the practice, I only ask that people understand the practice before making declarations about it. That goes for anything in life, it's easy to hate or be offended by something you don't fully understand.

/general "you"
 
2012-02-23 12:34:00 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Well, if the assumptions that other people have about your practices are so far off-base that you consider them to be "an agenda" the onus is on you and yours to make sure the wording is clear, not on everybody else to just "get it" when you come in and give your smartass reply.

/the general 'you'


Which of my replies was "smartass"? I've honestly tried to stay away from anything of the sort in this and other threads, so tell me and I'll do what I can to fix it.

What more would you have the Church do to explain its belief and doctrine? Which wording provided by the Church is unclear? There is an article here, another here, yet another here, and still another here (all pop). Those are just from a couple of minutes of online searches; all are either directly from official LDS sites or, in the last case, linked from an official site. All of these are easily publicly accessible; I did not use any special credentials to access them. And those are just from very brief web searches; countless print articles, books, etc. also explain quite clearly.
 
2012-02-23 01:58:38 PM  

cgraves67: I think that getting your panties in a wad over this is comparable to throwing a fit over a "witch" casting spells on you when you don't believe in magic. It's not something that a logical person should be concerned about.


You don't burn a witch because they're "casting a spell" on you. You burn them because they're the type of person who thinks they have the right to do that sort of thing to you. Sure, your average hex is pointless babbling, but if this sort of behavior isn't nipped in the bud, pretty soon they'll be eating children and poisoning wells.

Same reasoning applies to Mormons and "posthumous baptism". The act isn't important, it's the attitude--that they can somehow change God's mind about a soul already entrusted to His care--that is dangerous and should be stamped out.
 
2012-02-23 02:12:10 PM  

TommyDeuce: So if, in baptism, you sprinkle water on someone's head, what do we sprinkle on the dead Mormons heads?


Coffee and Kahlua, poured through a hole in a sheet.
 
2012-02-23 03:04:39 PM  

OhLuverly: The My Little Pony Killer: Aeon Rising: treesloth: treesloth:
It's not an offensive practice, it's a practice that others are taking offense to. They are not doing this with the intent of offending others, they are doing this as a matter of following their beliefs. It's fine for people not to agree with the practice, I only ask that people understand the practice before making declarations about it. That goes for anything in life, it's easy to hate or be offended by something you don't fully understand.

/general "you"



This disgusting practice itself is an offense.

Specifically "me" here: The practice of people calling themselves christians posthumously baptizing Jews who were murdered because they were Jews is offensive to Jews. It stinks of the historical Catholic practice of nursemaids secretly baptizing the Jewish children in their care, having them declared Catholics by entering their "christian" names in the parish rolls, and kidnapping them from their families with the support of civil authorities.

Mormons are entering the names of martyred Jews in the genealogical rolls of their religion, smearing their names, obscuring their faith, and tainting their families' good names. They are claiming our dead and stealing their good names for themselves, just as Catholics once claimed our children and stole their heritage.

Since this practice has included a member of my family who was martyred at Babi Yar, (who I can say with absolute certainty has NO Mormon descendants,) it's personally offensive to "me."

The Mormon elders signed a contract in 1995 binding their religion to stop doing this to obscene thing to Jews, not just Holocaust victims. They are breaking that contract.
 
2012-02-23 03:26:38 PM  

treesloth: And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.


Except that the record does not state that it was a "baptism for the dead done on behalf of a non-LDS person," it merely states that it was a baptism. You're right that the date of death precedes the date of baptism, but to find that data, you need to investigate each and every record. A list of names included in the records of LDS members would include Anne Frank along with many Jewish people.

And, as you admitted in the last thread on this topic, all it would take is for those in-depth records to be lost, and suddenly it would not be clear from the list of names that Anne Frank was not LDS. Rather, such list would appear to definitively show that Anne Frank was Mormon.
 
2012-02-23 03:40:43 PM  

Theaetetus: treesloth: And, no, the screenshot most definitely does *not* show that. In fact, the idea that Anne, and others, are being claimed to be Mormons is one conclusion that definitively cannot be reached from that record. Had other screenshots been provided, you would see that the person's date of death is clearly recorded and that it preceded the date of baptism. Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.

Except that the record does not state that it was a "baptism for the dead done on behalf of a non-LDS person," it merely states that it was a baptism. You're right that the date of death precedes the date of baptism, but to find that data, you need to investigate each and every record. A list of names included in the records of LDS members would include Anne Frank along with many Jewish people.

And, as you admitted in the last thread on this topic, all it would take is for those in-depth records to be lost, and suddenly it would not be clear from the list of names that Anne Frank was not LDS. Rather, such list would appear to definitively show that Anne Frank was Mormon.


But that mistake would never happen. Sure we let 260,000 names slip through the cracks, but that's a simple, unavoidable mistake. mixing up or leaving a date or two off of the records. that would take a truly colossal oversight on someones part. never going to happen.

also, if her baptism was admittedly done against policy, why is anne frank still listed?
 
2012-02-23 03:43:58 PM  
sorry treesloth there is a period in there where there should be a comma.
 
2012-02-23 04:09:25 PM  

Theaetetus: Except that the record does not state that it was a "baptism for the dead done on behalf of a non-LDS person," it merely states that it was a baptism. You're right that the date of death precedes the date of baptism, but to find that data, you need to investigate each and every record. A list of names included in the records of LDS members would include Anne Frank along with many Jewish people.

And, as you admitted in the last thread on this topic, all it would take is for those in-depth records to be lost, and suddenly it would not be clear from the list of names that Anne Frank was not LDS. Rather, such list would appear to definitively show that Anne Frank was Mormon.


So by looking at a record and easily comparing 2 numbers, it is instantly obvious whether it was a baptism for the dead or not. Yes, there certainly could be an additional notation, but it really seems easy enough as it is.

And when did I admit what you say I admitted?
 
2012-02-23 04:13:16 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Except that the record does not state that it was a "baptism for the dead done on behalf of a non-LDS person," it merely states that it was a baptism. You're right that the date of death precedes the date of baptism, but to find that data, you need to investigate each and every record. A list of names included in the records of LDS members would include Anne Frank along with many Jewish people.

And, as you admitted in the last thread on this topic, all it would take is for those in-depth records to be lost, and suddenly it would not be clear from the list of names that Anne Frank was not LDS. Rather, such list would appear to definitively show that Anne Frank was Mormon.

So by looking at a record and easily comparing 2 numbers, it is instantly obvious whether it was a baptism for the dead or not. Yes, there certainly could be an additional notation, but it really seems easy enough as it is.


Except that, as I said, you have to examine each record. Until you explore each individual record, you're going to have:
List of Mormons:
Frank, Anne
Romney, George
Smith, Joseph
Young, Brigham
etc.


And when did I admit what you say I admitted?

I'm sorry, you're entirely right. I was thinking indylaw, in this thread.

/indylaw, treesloth, why they're practically interchangeable
 
2012-02-23 04:17:38 PM  

Theaetetus: Except that, as I said, you have to examine each record. Until you explore each individual record, you're going to have:
List of Mormons:
Frank, Anne
Romney, George
Smith, Joseph
Young, Brigham
etc.


Where are you generating this list from? Even if only hypothetically?
 
2012-02-23 04:20:02 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Except that, as I said, you have to examine each record. Until you explore each individual record, you're going to have:
List of Mormons:
Frank, Anne
Romney, George
Smith, Joseph
Young, Brigham
etc.

Where are you generating this list from? Even if only hypothetically?


Purely hypothetical, but wouldn't the records include names?
 
2012-02-23 04:21:44 PM  
i129.photobucket.com

Onward, Mormon Anne Frank Warrior!
 
2012-02-23 04:21:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Purely hypothetical, but wouldn't the records include names?


Yes, among various other vital facts.
 
2012-02-23 04:25:10 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Purely hypothetical, but wouldn't the records include names?

Yes, among various other vital facts.


Yes, but when you search or browse through the list, you're probably not browsing by date particular ceremonies were performed, but rather by name, no?
 
2012-02-23 04:27:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, but when you search or browse through the list, you're probably not browsing by date particular ceremonies were performed, but rather by name, no?


I've used all sorts of criteria-- name, dates of events, places of events, known relatives, etc. All have been useful as I've traced my ancestry.
 
2012-02-23 04:29:54 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Yes, but when you search or browse through the list, you're probably not browsing by date particular ceremonies were performed, but rather by name, no?

I've used all sorts of criteria-- name, dates of events, places of events, known relatives, etc. All have been useful as I've traced my ancestry.


Also, what do you mean by "the list"? There's no "list" per se, or at least nothing that I would characterize as such. There's a searchable database. Is that what you mean?
 
2012-02-23 04:46:53 PM  

treesloth: treesloth: Theaetetus: Yes, but when you search or browse through the list, you're probably not browsing by date particular ceremonies were performed, but rather by name, no?

I've used all sorts of criteria-- name, dates of events, places of events, known relatives, etc. All have been useful as I've traced my ancestry.

Also, what do you mean by "the list"? There's no "list" per se, or at least nothing that I would characterize as such. There's a searchable database. Is that what you mean?


Yes. I don't have access to it, obviously, being Jewish. Perhaps after I'm dead, I'll get a password.

Is it possible to browse the database by name? Or retrieve an identification of all entries with last name "Frank"? And does the displayed results include dates, or just a list of names, each clickable to retrieve the individual record?
 
2012-02-23 04:54:40 PM  

Theaetetus: Is it possible to browse the database by name? Or retrieve an identification of all entries with last name "Frank"? And does the displayed results include dates, or just a list of names, each clickable to retrieve the individual record?


Yes, the name is one of several criteria that can be used. The results are displayed as a table of names (first and last), birth and death (or burial) dates and places, and spouse/parent names.
 
2012-02-23 04:56:38 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Is it possible to browse the database by name? Or retrieve an identification of all entries with last name "Frank"? And does the displayed results include dates, or just a list of names, each clickable to retrieve the individual record?

Yes, the name is one of several criteria that can be used. The results are displayed as a table of names (first and last), birth and death (or burial) dates and places, and spouse/parent names.


So, in said retrieved table of names, there are no identifications of dates of baptism?
 
2012-02-23 04:59:16 PM  

Theaetetus: treesloth: Theaetetus: Is it possible to browse the database by name? Or retrieve an identification of all entries with last name "Frank"? And does the displayed results include dates, or just a list of names, each clickable to retrieve the individual record?

Yes, the name is one of several criteria that can be used. The results are displayed as a table of names (first and last), birth and death (or burial) dates and places, and spouse/parent names.

So, in said retrieved table of names, there are no identifications of dates of baptism?


No. The list would be useless for determining baptism dates, or even if a baptism took place at all. To find out anything about baptism, you'd have to look at the individual record.
 
2012-02-23 05:04:56 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: treesloth: Theaetetus: Is it possible to browse the database by name? Or retrieve an identification of all entries with last name "Frank"? And does the displayed results include dates, or just a list of names, each clickable to retrieve the individual record?

Yes, the name is one of several criteria that can be used. The results are displayed as a table of names (first and last), birth and death (or burial) dates and places, and spouse/parent names.

So, in said retrieved table of names, there are no identifications of dates of baptism?

No. The list would be useless for determining baptism dates, or even if a baptism took place at all. To find out anything about baptism, you'd have to look at the individual record.


So therefore, as I said before, someone looking at the list could easily be misled into thinking that many of the Jews named on there were Mormons.

While what you said above...

treesloth: Since baptisms for the dead are done on behalf of *dead* people that were not LDS, such a record could only conclude that the LDS church is saying that the person was *not* LDS.

... is correct regarding individual, detailed records, that statement is not true for the retrieved list, and someone viewing it could easily conclude that Anne Frank, Holocaust victim, was LDS.
 
2012-02-23 05:15:34 PM  
I *think* what he is saying is it's a generic ancestory database that happens to have a field for baptism in the detail. To say everyone on the list is mormon because the lds church compiled the list is like saying everyone on the list are US citzens because the USA compiled the list even though it is a database preserving the ancestory lines of all countries.
 
2012-02-23 05:26:25 PM  

Theaetetus: So therefore, as I said before, someone looking at the list could easily be misled into thinking that many of the Jews named on there were Mormons.


I'd hate to meet the person that would be that easily misled. That same person would search for "Microsoft" on Google, printing the list of results, and asserting that it is evidence that Google owns Microsoft. It's the intermediate table of limited results generated as part of the research process. Sure, I could search for "Frank" as a surname, click through each of the resulting thousands of pages of results (20 results per page), print them or save them or whatever, and end up with a formidable list of Franks. It has been taken from its original context, which (like any such list removed from proper context) ruins its value.
 
2012-02-23 05:30:44 PM  

OhLuverly: I *think* what he is saying is it's a generic ancestory database that happens to have a field for baptism in the detail. To say everyone on the list is mormon because the lds church compiled the list is like saying everyone on the list are US citzens because the USA compiled the list even though it is a database preserving the ancestory lines of all countries.


Every record has a field for "LDS Ordinances" so it's not unreasonable to believe the list is of LDS members.
In fact, are there any records in there that have no LDS Ordinances listed?

Additionally, earlier you said:

OhLuverly: I understand the controversy, and yes that is a very real and very serious issue with the system. IIRC members are recorded differently but as I said I am not a member so I do not have access to the database to actually do a comparison of member vs posthumous profiles. You are correct in the fact that simply omitting dates can totally screw the whole thing up to give a skewed view of history and that would in fact be a travesty one I hope never occurs in their records or any recorded history.


It appears that when searching for records, the relevant dates are omitted, which would give a skewed view of history.
 
2012-02-23 05:31:40 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: So therefore, as I said before, someone looking at the list could easily be misled into thinking that many of the Jews named on there were Mormons.

I'd hate to meet the person that would be that easily misled. That same person would search for "Microsoft" on Google, printing the list of results, and asserting that it is evidence that Google owns Microsoft. It's the intermediate table of limited results generated as part of the research process. Sure, I could search for "Frank" as a surname, click through each of the resulting thousands of pages of results (20 results per page), print them or save them or whatever, and end up with a formidable list of Franks. It has been taken from its original context, which (like any such list removed from proper context) ruins its value.


uggh...
 
2012-02-23 05:34:14 PM  

Theaetetus: the relevant dates are omitted


Really?
 
2012-02-23 05:35:16 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: So therefore, as I said before, someone looking at the list could easily be misled into thinking that many of the Jews named on there were Mormons.

I'd hate to meet the person that would be that easily misled. That same person would search for "Microsoft" on Google, printing the list of results, and asserting that it is evidence that Google owns Microsoft.


That would be an apt analogy if Google only kept a database of Google subsidiaries. Then, yes, someone seeing "Microsoft" in the list of Google subsidiaries would logically believe that Google owns Microsoft, notwithstanding that if they click on the record, and follow a few tabs within the record, they could eventually find out that Google is merely claiming they will own Microsoft, but do not presently.

It's the intermediate table of limited results generated as part of the research process. Sure, I could search for "Frank" as a surname, click through each of the resulting thousands of pages of results (20 results per page), print them or save them or whatever, and end up with a formidable list of Franks. It has been taken from its original context, which (like any such list removed from proper context) ruins its value.

Or, you could search for "Frank, Anne" and "died in Germany, 1945" and find her at the top of a list of people who've received LDS ordinances... said list not including any dates of those LDS ordinances. Which, as friend OhLuverly points out, is a travesty.
 
2012-02-23 05:36:00 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: the relevant dates are omitted

Really?


"The results are displayed as a table of names (first and last), birth and death (or burial) dates and places, and spouse/parent names.

So, in said retrieved table of names, there are no identifications of dates of baptism?

No."
 
2012-02-23 05:39:50 PM  

Theaetetus: OhLuverly: I *think* what he is saying is it's a generic ancestory database that happens to have a field for baptism in the detail. To say everyone on the list is mormon because the lds church compiled the list is like saying everyone on the list are US citzens because the USA compiled the list even though it is a database preserving the ancestory lines of all countries.

Every record has a field for "LDS Ordinances" so it's not unreasonable to believe the list is of LDS members.
In fact, are there any records in there that have no LDS Ordinances listed?


Each member of the church is encouraged to add their family genealogical records to the database. Until LDS ordinances are performed, those fields will be blank.
 
2012-02-23 05:47:53 PM  

Theaetetus: Or, you could search for "Frank, Anne" and "died in Germany, 1945" and find her at the top of a list of people who've received LDS ordinances... said list not including any dates of those LDS ordinances. Which, as friend OhLuverly points out, is a travesty.


No, it wouldn't be "a list of people who've received LDS ordinances". Ordinances are not addressed on the table of search results. One could not look at that page and determine if the person was a Church member or not, and if not, whether or not ordinances had been done on their behalf. One would have to intentionally misrepresent the results, and such misrepresentation would be absurdly easy to call out.
 
2012-02-23 05:48:11 PM  

Tergiversada: Theaetetus: OhLuverly: I *think* what he is saying is it's a generic ancestory database that happens to have a field for baptism in the detail. To say everyone on the list is mormon because the lds church compiled the list is like saying everyone on the list are US citzens because the USA compiled the list even though it is a database preserving the ancestory lines of all countries.

Every record has a field for "LDS Ordinances" so it's not unreasonable to believe the list is of LDS members.
In fact, are there any records in there that have no LDS Ordinances listed?

Each member of the church is encouraged to add their family genealogical records to the database. Until LDS ordinances are performed, those fields will be blank.


Got any screenshots of records with no ordinances listed?

Also note that this would still be contrary to what the LDS church claims, which is that the records are kept separate from the records of LDS members.
 
2012-02-23 05:49:05 PM  

Theaetetus: So, in said retrieved table of names, there are no identifications of dates of baptism?


Oh, of baptism? That's right, then. Nothing is said on the page of search results regarding baptism one way or the other.
 
2012-02-23 05:49:53 PM  

treesloth: Theaetetus: Or, you could search for "Frank, Anne" and "died in Germany, 1945" and find her at the top of a list of people who've received LDS ordinances... said list not including any dates of those LDS ordinances. Which, as friend OhLuverly points out, is a travesty.

No, it wouldn't be "a list of people who've received LDS ordinances".


Isn't it a list of people who've received LDS ordinances, by definition, if every person on the list has received LDS ordinances?

One would have to intentionally misrepresent the results, and such misrepresentation would be absurdly easy to call out.

Agreed. Like saying it's not a list of people who've received LDS ordinances.
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report