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.

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

Regrettable, but true.

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 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.

Here it is–

http://themoderatevoice.com/posts/1164125941.comments.shtml

DS, I can’t believe you equate global warming science with mystical peering into an old hat.

I’d be happy to demonstrate such if you’d be willing to engage me here—

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.

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.

The correlation between rising temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not something that someone dreamed up while peering into an old hat.

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?

The fact that you seem to find mystical prophecies equivalent to the diligent work of a thousand scientists seals it.

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.

No one who believes as you do will ever get my vote.

You prefer the dogma of the prevailing consensus of the experts more worthy of sacrifices.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now as to your comparisons with other religions, you assume that I believe in one or more of these religious miracles.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oops, just thought of something. Maybe it’s not Governor Romney’s religion that some folks are objecting to.

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”.

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.