My take on mormon photos – and a hard look in the mirror for TMV
In short, I’m shocked. Unfortunately, my time is scarce for blogging these days. When I came back to blog here after a recent and extended leave of absence, I quickly and easily noticed a less moderate tone. Every coblogger that posts with any regularity offers an extensively left-wing viewpoint, and (here’s the real offense) often stooping to ridiculous levels to claw at the knees of the Republicans. As evidence, let’s turn to a man for whom I hold great personal respect, our host Joe Gandelman:
And maybe if the administration works as hard and effectively as it has so far, it’ll break those records, too.
Really, ANY member of the U.S. government WANTS more servicemen to die? They are WORKING to keep our troops there longer?
I’m appalled. This site is too rapidly becoming an echo chamber like those we once were proudly able to sneer down at.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to see religious bigotry from a new coblogger who wrote on his own blog the following gem of “moderation” :
Just do me a favor: If someone tells you how proud they are to be an American this Thanksgiving, don’t bother to get tangled up in some long winded discussion about what The Decider has wrought. Just ask to have the cranberry sauce passed to you and throw it at them.
Well, Shaun, the Moderate Voice once used to stand for civil debate (“long-winded discussion”) and not so much for throwing of food. But I guess acting like children is in vogue now – it just doesn’t seem so moderate to me.
Okay. Let’s post pictures of what others consider sacred for a cheap laugh because “it was coming anyways.” Let’s be ashamed of being Americans. And let’s devolve our debate to the point where we’re arguing that the Administration plans for the maximum casualties.
I love this site and what it has stood for. I really do, and that’s why it sickens me to see us take this path. Because if we continue along our current trajectory, a name change will be in order.
Shadow blogger two, out. May we please live up to our masthead.
UPDATE: I’d like to preempt any criticism or calling me a “neocon,” a Halliburton puppet or anything similar by saying that I supported Kerry in 2004, supported mostly Republicans in 2006, and that this post was not based on any specific opinions but rather a yearning for the educated and civil debate we used to have here. Not a forum where cobloggers respond to intelligent criticisms of their work by calling respected lawblogger Ann Althouse “Annie Pooh.” Is this a joke?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
82 Responses to “My take on mormon photos – and a hard look in the mirror for TMV”
The very fact that you have entered my late father’s name and SSN in your genealogical database is grossly offensive and I have already tried to have it removed. My father, being dead, cannot defend himself from your predations.
Holly, I respect Jewish traditions and am especially enthused about Jewish Biblical commentary. I do try to read and understand the Bible and I’m grateful for the incredible insights that Jewish scholars provide for the scriptures they have preserved for so many thousands of years. It humbles me to see what Jewish people have gone through in history as they have preserved these sacred records.
I do not know who put your father’s record in the genealogical database. Tens of thousands (maybe even millions) of people contribute names and information to these databases. Most (but admittedly not all) LDS people limit their genealogical research to their ancestors. But now that you have written up that point, it is clear to me why you have refused to respond to the reasoning in the arguments that have been going on. You have a personal beef with the LDS Church.
I’m not certain whether this was aimed at me or at DeseretScion. If it was in answer to me, it should be said that the particular Christian doctrine that I outlined is original with Christainity. The doctrine existed at a time while the Temple was still standing. The only Christian Churches (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, a couple other smallish ones) who still hold this doctrine are the ones who have a very strong sense of Tradition and have held to it throughout the last 2000 years rather than radically reinventing themselves and coming up with entirely new doctrines sometime within the last 500 years (usually more like 200 years.)
“The very fact that you have entered my late father’s name and SSN in your genealogical database is grossly offensive and I have already tried to have it removed. My father, being dead, cannot defend himself from your predations.â€?
I take it then that we’re dropping the facade that The Moderate Voice is an impartial entity in its stance towards Mormonism?
I certainly understand how it’s offensive, but I don’t understand how their baptism for the dead could possibly harm him. Certainly the God of the Jewish people is great enough to protect him, so there is no danger. Either that or you might feel that there is no genuine power in a Mormon baptism, in which case there is also nothing to worry about.
This is as non-sequitor as the Daniel thing. What does the distance from Moses and Rabbinic tradition and the situation today have to do with proper reading and understanding of the Bible? Are you trying to say that because the Rabinic tradition hasn’t managed in three thousand years to commit genocide as Moses did that that figure, a foundational figure in your faith, is no longer relvant? Is that to say that if our faith goes through a certain period of time without having things like those done by Joseph Smith done again that we can come out and claim that those who ridicule our beliefs simply aren’t reading things correctly or properly interpreting scripture and our ancient records???
The very fact that you have entered my late father’s name and SSN in your genealogical database is grossly offensive and I have already tried to have it removed. My father, being dead, cannot defend himself from your predations.
If you’ve tried to have it removed and it’s not yet removed it could be either that there are duplicate entries of his name (very possible scenario when you have hundreds of thousands of largely non-centralized researchers–we’re working at getting an 8 petabyte database online to hold our geneological records and keep better tabs on the whole situation, please be patient as it takes a bit to transfer all of our records, much of it in microfich format, and transfer it to that database) In the mean time you simply need but to be percistant. The agreements that have been worked out are ones our faith intends to honor. They never included provision for us to try and go through and actively remove on our own suspected Jewish names.
Then there’s another possibility that a relative of yours has entered it, in which case an exception to the agreement between our faith and the Jewish community would be in effect.
This is part of what I don’t understand.
She’s telling us to get over something we take offense at. Yet the very thing she takes offense at in our faith is something that our faith has openly agreed to comply with when and where offense, on a case by case basis, is brought to the attention of our faith. In other words if Holly is outraged by the presence then she can, barring she has no other relatives that are members of our faith who want his name there, petition, and have granted, requests to have such removed. Yet that is all I’m asking here. I don’t have a major issue with the initial posting, I can see it being done in ignorance on the part of the poster here. It’s not mere initial occurance that bothers me, rather this insistance that it be held to come hell or highwater even when it is revealed that the production of such a work has malintent inherent in it. Whereas on the case of Jewish names in our records our faith has openly agreed, and reaffirmed the agreement, that they will–whenever such is brought to their attention–remove offending Jewish names from the registry.
That’s all we’re asking on this issue. We don’t condemn an act of ignorance in and of itself as horrible, rather we condemn the determination to hold to such and make no conciliatory changes once such ignorance has been lifted and the offense is maintained on grounds of arrogance, malintent, or indifference. When you can change a mistake and you do not then it becomes more than just a mistake, it becomes an intentional infraction against someone’s will and desires. And intent is important.
Yes, Holly’s inconsistency has finally been made clear—by her own hand, no less. It was really curious how unwilling she has been to accept that others could be offended by things that she decides are too trivial to matter. Now we know the truth: she actually doesn’t believe that.
Holly, I’ve decided that you have no right to be offended by the entering of your relatives’ names in the LDS database. It’s just a list of names, after all, and there are lists of names all over the place. For example, I have one in my kitchen drawer right now—in fact, alongside every name is a phone number. Talk about an invasion of privacy!
So really, lists of names are commonplace and it’s just silly for people to get their knickers in a twist about them.
I was going to post, but seeing all the message board intellectual chest beating made me sick.
I’ll be back at TMV when you guys stop tearing up the grass and flinging feces at each other over STUPID, STUPID discussions.
Oh, and if you have a smug riposite for me, don’t bother. I won’t read it.
haha! wow. no, dude. no hurt feelings in the slightest. in fact, i’m finding your online flagellation rather humorous.
just the fact that you scream about “civilized” debate, and then reply with passive-aggressive, mocking language undercuts any point you’re trying to make.
hey man, be you y’are. i don’t care. but don’t purport to be one and act like the other.
There is NO reasoning in the comments to which you think I am not responding, just a general ignorance concerning the Bible, its interpretation and religion in general.
I don’t have a personal issue with the Mormon Church or any particular Mormon, as all Mormons I’ve ever met have been very nice.
I did point out the posthumous baptisms as something that offends most Jews. I did mention my father as I once found his name and SSN (an active number) on the Mormon search site. I requested its removal and was told that it couldn’t be done. To my knowledge, I do not now and never have had a Mormon relative. I have few relatives who are not Jewish.
I pointed out the baptisms as a sample of something Mormons do which is offensive that they are not going to change. To me, this is far more important than a lingerie catalogue. Do I go on Mormon sites and complain about it? No. Get a life and get an education while you’re at it.
Holly,
You do often let people know when you feel that comments are antisemitic or offensive to you as a Jew (recently you told us that you don’t approve of the use of the term neocon, for example, because some people use it as a slur). How is it any different for Mormons to comment that they found something offensive to their religion? You may not understand why they took offense, but why don’t they have the right to let us know that it was offensive to them?
Ah, so close, but so far, Holly. The problem is that you have spent the bulk of your comments in these threads dismissing the legitimacy of their offense. After all, in your words, it’s just a lingerie catalog, a picture readily downloaded from Wikipedia—nothing an LDSer ought to be offended by.
Well, some would say that having your father’s name on a geneology list is nothing you ought to be offended by, either. And yet, you are, by your own admission. You claim that this is more important than their opinions about their temple garments. Well, tough. You’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard. That is, by your own arguments, the person taking offense really doesn’t get to decide that. To borrow your penchant for trivializing, it’s just a glorified phone book.
Now if you want to move the goalposts now, fine. Now you’re arguing that even if they are offended they ought not be complaining about it. I hope, then, that means you are now conceding that their offense is, indeed, legitimate.
Once you’ve done that, then hey, welcome to the proper focus of the debate. Debating whether someone else should or should not be offended by something, particularly as it pertains to their religion, is kind of silly. But arguing what the response should be to such offense—from dismissal to complete capitulation—is more on target. And on that score I applaud the LDSers for coming on this blog and making their case instead of, oh, rioting in the streets and shooting nuns in the back.
DS, I can’t believe you equate global warming science with mystical peering into an old hat. But you further make my point. The consensus of climate scientists throughout the world is that global warming is a very real, and that we are causing it. The correlation between rising temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not something that someone dreamed up while peering into an old hat. The fact that you seem to find mystical prophecies equivalent to the diligent work of a thousand scientists seals it. No one who believes as you do will ever get my vote. We don’t need magical thinking guiding our country. We need rational and openminded review of the evidence and an honest search for professional guidance about solutions. You’re dead wrong on global warming, and that viewpoint can doom our children to live with a growing problem that we were too selfish to address.
Now as to your comparisons with other religions, you assume that I believe in one or more of these religious miracles. I do not. No big white man in the sky, no walking on water or raising the dead. I do believe in God and that the quaint magical myths and parables in the Bible are, like childrens stories, engaging ways to teach a moral. Some of them are just bad examples, and I’m baffled about what the moral is supposed to be. I don’t want anyone making my country’s policy based on a 2,000 year old book or a prophecy by a huckster looking in an old hat.
That said, you would be wise to avoid talking about people believeing God told someone to sacrifice a son, etc. There are as you know, very contemporary examples of Mormons actually killing modern day people and claiming that “God told them to do it”.
It looks like the photo has been removed folks. In the interest of everyone’s sanity lets give it a rest.
Didn’t Senate Democrats elect Harry Reid (a Mormon) as their Majority Leader? If a Mormon leader is trustworthy enough for Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Boxer et al, a Mormon president causes no agita for me.
Oops, just thought of something. Maybe it’s not Governor Romney’s religion that some folks are objecting to.
G Weightman,
It couldn’t be that Democrats are a bit threatened by the thought of a popular moderate Republican (popular even in the NE) might garner support for his candidacy for president, could it? It couldn’t be that perhaps they are looking for ways to preemptorially insert his religious affiliation into the debate to stir the pot with the religious right, in the hopes of derailing his primary run by pitting various religious factions against one another, could it now? Nah, couldn’t be
C Stanley,
Have you even been paying any attention to Romney’s positions lately? He’s completely abandoned any moderation in his politics in his desperate desire to pander to the hyperconservative Republican base. His popularity with moderate Republicans is sinking as fast as Bush while he tacks hard right.
CS,
By the way, your recent posts have accused Democrats of fomenting racism and religious bigotry in the name of politics. What was that you were trying to claim in previous threads about not being a hard core conservative partisan? Pardon me while I snicker at the deception again.
He’s completely abandoned any moderation in his politics in his desperate desire to pander to the hyperconservative Republican base.
I’m happy to see that the discussion has turned to letting Governor Romney succeed or fail on the basis of his political agenda, and not on his religious beliefs.
“CS,
By the way, your recent posts have accused Democrats of fomenting racism and religious bigotry in the name of politics. What was that you were trying to claim in previous threads about not being a hard core conservative partisan? Pardon me while I snicker at the deception again.”
I never claimed to not be a hard core conservative partisan. I see a vast many aspects of the label of liberal to be positive and I seek to be one in what I see as being the purest sense of the word, that doesn’t mean I’m not a conservative partisan at the same time.
These generalized definitions and coresponding labels are not simplistic jargon. One can cleave to the highest of ideals from the real meanings of a multiple number of terms while still, in terms of relative positioning in the presently defined political spectrum, remain solidly in one of the poles.
Could you demonstrate such beyond your mere claim? It’s easy to simply claim people are ignorant, I’d appreciate you pointing out exactly where and why I’m ignorant about the Bible. If you can’t then I’d propose it’s more an evasion tactic than a verifiable truth. But do as you wish. I can’t force you not to use lame excuses to try and get out of dirrect questions. If you want to make broad, unsupported, generalizations about my capacity to understand the Bible that’s just fine. I’ll simply point out the fact that such a claim lacks any support and move on.
Which site? Was it familysearch.org? What did your request consist of? When was the request made? These are relevant questions. If there’s a relative of yours you want taken off our church has said that they will remove it when and where it’s clearly pointed out to them. If you requested this before the deal was made or encountered problems I’d like to know and know specifics. It’s the integrity of my Church in question. If I can do anything to better it and aid it in keeping it’s commitments I strive to.
But we have said we will change it provided the requests are made by relatives to those on the list that are Jewish. We’ve not promised to dedicate ourselves to purging all on our own effort, but we offer no resistance to complying to requests. Clearly we are not going to alter an entire doctrinally based practice because a single ethnicity doesn’t want their ancestors included, but we are willing to respect individuals requests and they are working to abide such. We certainly want to have good relations with all the people we can have such with.
On the education part. Could you provide me with that on the part of not seeing the Bible as you seem to think it’s meant to be read? Would you demonstrate the errors I make in an explicit way? It’s hard to correct something or learn something when no explicit direction is given.
I’d be happy to demonstrate such if you’d be willing to engage me here—
Yes. Every time I dry my cloths all that evil H2O vapor goes up and joins that other 98% of greenhouse gass we like to call “water vapor.” (I know your objection to this, I’ll get to it later)
I contribute all the time to it. The oceans cause it. The sun does too. I’m happy we have the green house effect and that our climate varries through the ages. I mean that’s suppose to be one of the driving forces behind evolutionary theory isn’t it?
I’d also like to know, as is pointed out in the thread I linked by someone else, what the hell consensus has to do with the truth of the matter. Scientific consensus a few decades back was perilous global cooling. If the consensus was wrong back then why do you align with it now like it’s some kind of religion?
I’ve pointed out what scientific consensus for a short time led to on demonizing DDT into a de facto world ban. Now we’ve killed more people in the last 30 plus years than Hitler managed simply because the world took scientific consensus at one point and hasn’t let go of it now that genuine scientific consensus has moved on.
Scientific consensus means beans by itself. Scientific consensus on the Tacoma Narrows bridge was that it was insanity to put holes in perfectly good I beams on a bridge. Only one man advocated that, sinnce it flew in the face of every other analysis it was rejected, untill the bridge itself came down in 45mph winds.
That’s rather linear thinking there. LOOK THESE LINES CORROLATE! Well Sulfate level’s droping corolate too, you don’t see people saying “A lack of sulfates is causing global warming!” You see them tying it to global dimming, but not to global warming dirrectly.
Getting back on to the water vapor I can almost here you screaming in objection to as it’s something posited as being beyond human control and as a force multipler in it’s positive feedback in favor of global warming. To such I posit the following—
I’d be curious as to what degree feedbacks from vegitation may have a similar feed back to counter CO2 levels. Do climate models directly factor in biological factors such as vegitation trends? Increase the heat and water vapor on the earth AND dramatically increase available CO2 levels then wouldn’t you be creating prime conditions for a massive increase in vegitation’s primal requisits? I’ve never heard of such being thought about and factored into global climate models. Is it such a hairbrained suggestion? Increase CO2, Increase water vapor and thereby increase reserves for rainfall, all put together with an increase in temperature and you’ve opened up alot of new land to a higher vegetation density, and thus, a higher capacity for CO2 absorbtion.
Are any of these proposals utterly implausible? Can you point me a finger(not the middle one, please) to where global climate simulations have factored such in? Can you demonstrate to me where it’s set in stone that they know for certain how the likes of the world’s oceans and vegitation will handel the increased carbon production from fossil fuels?
I don’t find them equivilant in merit. The equivilancy I presented was in the disputed nature of the source and provability of cause and cure as presented. It was only that nature I was putting down as equivilant.
Humans may have been a significant causein global warming or may have not. Neither way is proven. It’s easy to ‘prove’ we’ve had some effect because we are part of the system that is this planet, the fact that we contribute to it is inherent to our position as a component of the whole system. I see no proof for our significance in either cause or reveral in any significant degree, even if you have a majority of scientists claiming such.
You prefer the dogma of the prevailing consensus of the experts more worthy of sacrifices.
Yeah. Those rational revolutionaries. How rational and reasonable to think you have more than the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of fending off the world’s superpower on your own as some colonial army that’s perpetually bankrupt, working with a voluntary soldiers and having to secure much of your munitions through either the waning potency of your role as a tool of emnity by the french or via theft or conquest from British stores.
You see for a good deal of history, especially this nations early history, scientific, philosophical and general academic consensus was that the Americans were a bunch of irrational loons that just managed to get lucky.
Seeing as those who will be demographically inhereting this world will largely be those who are suspect of the merits of the alarmist Global Warming chants isn’t it just deserts? Since Europe, most of modern Asia, and Russia are on their demographic deathbeds in terms of meaningful cultural survival I have a difficult time seeing your collective sides issue with it. I mean they’ve made a de facto surrendering of their real attributed value to children. If they truely valued children then they’d at least be at replacement levels rather than allowing their cultures en masse to manually sink into the depths of child per woman birth rates from which no civilization has ever recovered from.
The demographic default of these societies who are most believing in Global Warming Alarmism will be the most significant factor in the world in the coming century when set by the side of Global Warming. Cultural Suicide via voluntary demographic bust will be, I assure you, far more significant in our lives than anything Global Warming will dish out.
I assumed no such thing. Simply a matter of course for the likes of Holly who at least claim some religious contact and adherence. I’m fully aware there are significant groups that drop any openly dogmatic creeds.
A group of consensus sharing individuals with a supercomputer and a hunch and a piece of paper with “Ph.D” on it are, on issues of this scope, no more reliable and often far less. History bares this out.
Where? What are you referencing? The acts of apostates or apostate branches? Are we refering to Mountain Meadows? Give some specifics. Otherwise how are we certain these aren’t strawmen your fabricating and displaying.
And what’s so singular about sacrificing human life. Many scientific assertions and projects have done such.
For some reason the link didn’t show up to the other thread that I intended to link to when I said “engage me here–”
Here it is–
http://themoderatevoice.com/posts/1164125941.comments.shtml
Jim S,
I must have some semblence of dislexia as I now realize I responded to something you wrote to CS.
Please excuse the response or any perceived emnity directed at you. I feel really stupid for mixing up the CS and the DS.
DS,
It’s OK, Jim S was directing the barbs at me, so I’ll take it from here.
First Jim, I wasn’t aware that conservatism was a party. If there were a party that consistently espoused moderate conservative principles with integrity, then I really would be a rabid partisan to get that party into power. As it is though, I’m stuck with the GOP as the closest to my ideology and lately it isn’t very close to it at all and worse, it has relinquished any claims to integrity.
But if you are going to say that my criticism of the political shenanigans of the Democrats is an example of Republican partisanship, then using the same logic you’d have to say that TMV is a rabidly partisan Democrat site. Every day, particularly during the election cycle, there were harsh criticisms of Rovian strategy and the rhetoric of the Bush administration. Does that mean that Joe et al are simply lapdogs of the DNC? Or does it mean that they see reason for criticism of the GOP and they called the party out on it? I don’t pretend to be a moderate; I’ve stated many times that I identify myself as a conservative, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a partisan Republican. I can’t change the fact that of our two parties, the GOP is a bit closer to my ideology, but believe me, I wish there was a better alternative.
I can’t change the fact that of our two parties, the GOP is a bit closer to my ideology, but believe me, I wish there was a better alternative.
Regrettable, but true.
Holly,
If you found your father’s social security number at FamilySearch.org it is because it is public information. The Social Security Administration sells its data base of deceased individuals to anyone — not just to FamilySearch. The LDS Family History Department has simply indexed the data base and made it easy to search. You can search the same data base at several other sites.
Latter-day Saints are encouraged to focus their temple work on their direct ancestral lines but are permitted to perform temple ordinances in behalf of any deceased blood relative. For any relative who is not a direct ancestor and who was born within the last 95 years (for 2006, after 1911), permission must first be obtained from next of kin, with order of priority spouse, child, parent, sibling.
In order to honor its agreements with Jewish groups, the LDS Church actually discriminates against its own members who have Jewish ancestry. They can perform temple ordinances *only* for direct Jewish ancestors (no Jewish aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.), and even the names of direct Jewish ancestors must first be submitted to church headquarters for approval.
I seriously doubt that any LDS temple ordinances have been performed in behalf or your deceased father. However, if you are still concerned about the possibility, please send me his full name and birth and death places and dates, and I will search the temple records for you. If in fact this has somehow happened, and if we can establish that his name wasn’t submitted by his wife or child, I will help you to facilitate the removal of that record.
Tracy Hall Jr.
hthalljr’gmail’com
Mormons are overly sensitive about these things because of the way that they are openly mocked by many Christians over the years. Unfortunately, too many jump to the conclusion that ignorance is an attack and start taking offense. As a Mormon, I find it unfortunate and embarrassing. Mormons have more than their fair share of critics and it can be hard to tell the difference.
I think that the interesting thing about this election will be the reaction of Mormons if/when the religious right starts attacking Romney. The republican party has had a stronghold on Utah for years…this may be the democrats chance to weaken that stronghold, especially since the democrats have already put in a Mormon as the Senate Majority Leader.
As a Mormon, I can promise you that anything you read that sounds weird, probably isn’t the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most people just don’t realize what it’s like to have millions of dollars spent per year with the sole purpose of defacing them. I can show you hundreds upon hundreds of books written by groups we would otherwise call religions, who have spent gobs of money to make up correlated stories about imaginary doctrines of Mormons. I’m serious. I served a mission in Texas and was run off the road or spit on so many times I can’t tell you. We had one church who paid someone to follow us, 24/7, and visit everyone we visited, but with threats of damnation and comical books about what we supposedly “believed.” There is nothing weird in Mormonism. There’s peculiar stuff, but nothing the likes of what you see posted. Anyway, we discuss all this and more on my board, but I’m not sure if I’d allow a topic on garments, and for that matter I don’t know if I’d allow a topic on anything anyone considers sacred. It’s just not appropriate. But in one line, if you saw someone in a locker room in garments, which statistically you all have many times, you would never know it.
I never heard of such a thing before: having to avoid certain foods if you’re allergic to latex. I wonder if people who suffer from chemical sensitivities need to avoid certain foods as well. WBR LeoP