Pissing on "Frenchy"'s Grave?; Or, a Case Study in Mopologetic Selfishness

[drumdude]

Daniel has an incredibly long new post about this on his blog.

After reading, all I can think about is how baffled the Nazarene would have been if someone had explained all of this to him on the shores of Galilee.

For Frenchy, I did create a record using the name and vitals from Find-a-Grave. I often do this as a tool to help locate an extant record when the search fails to find it because the information I have is incomplete or not quite right (in this case Frenchy was a nickname). As a result, as I hoped I would, I found an earlier record (using his real name Marceau). I then merged my record into that earlier record.

One of the side activities that all members can do is correct and standardize records. It doesn’t have to be records for their relatives. There is even a tool (The New Volunteer Opportunities on the FamilySearch website landing page) for members to assist with standardizing place names. But in my case, it is even more appropriate because Wanda IS a relative and therefore Frenchy is an in-law relative.

For Wanda, I found her record, and connected her to Marceau (i.e., Frenchy). This is also an appropriate action to take (even if Wanda was not my relative).

Once I knew that Wanda was a relative, I also added some details and sources to their records.

The Family History Department is even starting to use A.I. now to help with these kinds of record improvements, because the missionaries and members can not keep up with it.

And Jesus spoke to the multitudes, saying: "My beloved brethren, harken to MySQL and CUDA programming for the redemption of the dead. Beware merges and follow best practice with Common Table Expression (CTE) or a VIEW that limits the row set in the target, lest your brother or sister be left unbaptized and damned. And God help you if ChatGPT incorrectly renames your non-Mormon great-great-great-grandfather before he is baptized."

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Daniel has an incredibly long new post about this on his blog.

After reading, all I can think about is how baffled the Nazarene would have been if someone had explained all of this to him on the shores of Galilee.

For Frenchy, I did create a record using the name and vitals from Find-a-Grave. I often do this as a tool to help locate an extant record when the search fails to find it because the information I have is incomplete or not quite right (in this case Frenchy was a nickname). As a result, as I hoped I would, I found an earlier record (using his real name Marceau). I then merged my record into that earlier record.

One of the side activities that all members can do is correct and standardize records. It doesn’t have to be records for their relatives. There is even a tool (The New Volunteer Opportunities on the FamilySearch website landing page) for members to assist with standardizing place names. But in my case, it is even more appropriate because Wanda IS a relative and therefore Frenchy is an in-law relative.

For Wanda, I found her record, and connected her to Marceau (i.e., Frenchy). This is also an appropriate action to take (even if Wanda was not my relative).

Once I knew that Wanda was a relative, I also added some details and sources to their records.

The Family History Department is even starting to use A.I. now to help with these kinds of record improvements, because the missionaries and members can not keep up with it.

And Jesus spoke to the multitudes, saying: "My beloved brethren, harken to MySQL and CUDA programming for the redemption of the dead. Beware merges and follow best practice with Common Table Expression (CTE) or a VIEW that limits the row set in the target, lest your brother or sister be left unbaptized and damned. And God help you if ChatGPT incorrectly renames your non-Mormon great-great-great-grandfather before he is baptized."

The sheer genius of Tangata is truly astounding.

[Marcus]

Daniel has an incredibly long new post about this on his blog.

After reading, all I can think about is how baffled the Nazarene would have been if someone had explained all of this to him on the shores of Galilee.

...

And Jesus spoke to the multitudes, saying: "My beloved brethren, harken to MySQL and CUDA programming for the redemption of the dead. Beware merges and follow best practice with Common Table Expression (CTE) or a VIEW that limits the row set in the target, lest your brother or sister be left unbaptized and damned. And God help you if ChatGPT incorrectly renames your non-Mormon great-great-great-grandfather before he is baptized."

Awesome.

I thought you were kidding, but no, he actually did post yet another entry about the weird and wacky world of engaging in rituals on behalf of dead people. Without their permission. Because baptizing dead people and marrying them polygamously to multiple other dead people is just an offer. Even though someone has to stand in for the dead person and act out the rituals, records of which are recorded by Mormons in perpetuity and then added to their public records, identifying them as Mormon. Regardless of their choices while alive. Ick.

Most of it just seems to be repeats, but wow, he must REALLY feel bad about this in some way to so repeatedly keep bringing it up. What is he trying to convince himself of?? On the other hand, what else does he have to talk about but this board? He cannot live without his (perceived) enemy.

[drumdude]

Daniel has an incredibly long new post about this on his blog.

After reading, all I can think about is how baffled the Nazarene would have been if someone had explained all of this to him on the shores of Galilee.

...

And Jesus spoke to the multitudes, saying: "My beloved brethren, harken to MySQL and CUDA programming for the redemption of the dead. Beware merges and follow best practice with Common Table Expression (CTE) or a VIEW that limits the row set in the target, lest your brother or sister be left unbaptized and damned. And God help you if ChatGPT incorrectly renames your non-Mormon great-great-great-grandfather before he is baptized."

Awesome.

I thought you were kidding, but no, he actually did post yet another entry about the weird and wacky world of engaging in rituals on behalf of dead people. Without their permission. Because baptizing dead people and marrying them polygamously to multiple other dead people is just an offer. Even though someone has to stand in for the dead person and act out the rituals, records of which are recorded by Mormons in perpetuity and then added to their public records, identifying them as Mormon. Regardless of their choices while alive. Ick.

Most of it just seems to be repeats, but wow, he must REALLY feel bad about this in some way to so repeatedly keep bringing it up. What is he trying to convince himself of?? On the other hand, what else does he have to talk about but this board? He cannot live without his (perceived) enemy.

Indeed. I felt almost embarrassed reading it. “I’d love to make a voodoo doll for my friend to make sure he gets into Valhalla, but alas my cult leader said I can’t make a voodoo doll for him because we got in trouble making voodoo dolls of Holocaust victims.” It’s enough to make a cat laugh!

[drumdude]

It’s a slow day, and I’m in the mood:

By the way, the angle of attack on this issue has changed now. (I knew that it would. The conclusion always remains the same -- i.e., that I'm a depraved buffoon -- but the means used to establish that conclusion are infinitely varied. Previously, my failure to do the temple work for Frenchy and Wanda proved me to be a selfish and lazy unbeliever. Now, though, my belief in the efficacy of vicarious temple work proves me to be incredibly stoopid because the whole idea of vicarious temple work is itself incredibly stoopid.

It's amusing to watch, if one is in the right mood.

Let’s step back and look at the big picture in Dan’s worldview:

An intelligent man has sex with his many wives, repeating a pattern his ancestors have done ad-infinium.

The man and his wives produce billions of spirits. They fight a war and choose sides, have their memories wiped to get tested in mortality on a planet.

Billions of these spirits take on bodies on a world which life existed for billions of years before them, with countless trillions of conscious animals and early hominids suffering and dying in a cacophony of endless torture.

One of these spirits has to fulfill a legalistic role of “savior” as countless millions of other saviors have done, which is mostly accomplished through physical and psychological torture.

This substitutional atonement becomes the basis for a large but not majority religion on the planet.

That religion spawns an almost insignificant offshoot, making up less than 1 percent of the population.

The adherents to that religion spend their Saturdays watching movies for the dead in yet another substitutionary redemption ritual. The records of this are kept on a series of hard drives to keep track of them.

One particular Mormon enjoys the fruits of all of this, spending his days perusing the buffets and blogging on cruise ships between lectures.

All of this makes perfect sense, if you have the critical reasoning faculties of a gnat.

[Moksha]

The Family History Department is even starting to use A.I. now to help with these kinds of record improvements, because the missionaries and members can not keep up with it.

This could be a big help in doing the ordinances for those people before historic records, at least back to 300,000 BCE. This would include those people living in Missouri before the arrival of the Early-day Saints. Tagged, bagged, and exalted in the eternities!

[Marcus]

I'm not understanding tangata's latest (and wildly different from multiple past versions) post:

Just to drive a point home:

It would not be possible for your or I to reserve and perform the work for Marceau Morrell (Frenchy) since a Morrell family member has already reserved those opportunities (in July 2022 - before this discussion started and therefore before I learned of him). Had that person not reserved Marceau's record, I would have to wait until 2035. It appears that Marceau had at least two children (a son born in 1947, and a daughter born in 1948) by his first marriage, that could still be living and would need to give you or I permission if we were to try before then.

My distant cousin, Wanda was born in 1926 and will not be eligible for distant relatives (like me) to reserve her ordinances until 2036 without permission from her children (her parents and siblings are all deceased). I can't find any record of children for her. However, there is a person who is working on Wanda's parents, so I know she is known and will be taken care of, in time, by her closer family.

So, he knows that frenchy has an lds descendant? Or is he just saying some lds person reserved the right to perform rituals for them, starting 110 years after their birth?

From an lds site, familysearch.org:

What is the 110 year rule?
To do ordinances for a deceased person who was born in the last 110 years, the following requirements must be met. The person must have been deceased for at least one year. You must either be one of the closest living relatives, or you must obtain permission from one of the closest living relatives.
https://www.familysearch.org/platform/o ... 0relatives.

And if I am reading this correctly, 110 years after birth, any dead human is fair game for this Mormon ritual, regardless of their or their family's wishes. Anyone have any insight into this?

[Doctor Scratch]

Lol. Yes: you'd think that, in the midst of touring through all these historic LDS places, he'd have enough distraction such that he wouldn't keep drifting back to this topic. But, typical obsessive that he is, he is not only *thinking* about it, but actually *writing* to people in order to get clarification on the rules! Gee, you would think that, if he truly believed he'd done nothing wrong, then he'd shrug his shoulders and be done with it! But, no. Perhaps he does have a conscience after all?

In any case: no, he's not "stoopid" for believing in LDS doctrine, though he is arguably "stoopid" for apparently not understanding what's being said here. I'm glad to set him straight, though. The point here is that he acted selfishly: he did nothing at all to help with Frenchy's eternal salvation--not a damn thing. He didn't search his name in FamilySearch, nor did he do any "indexing," as the sociopathic poster known as Ideeho suggests. He was instead gleefully looking forward to Frenchy's death (as opposed to hoping that Frenchy would overcome his grief), and then, to top it all off, he repeatedly exploited all of this in order to get clicks on his blog. He won't even bother to make sure that Frenchy is going to get the benefits of the Restored Gospel, and yet he has no problem repeatedly exclaiming about how much he hoped that Frenchy would hurry up and die? These are clearly some very warped priorities.

What's so funny is that he's been claiming over and over that he was hamstrung by the Church's own rules. But of course, he's only doing this after the fact. None of his old blog entries show him lifting so much as a pinkie finger to check up on Frenchy's records, or anything like that. Heck, he did not even engage in missionary work in an effort to ease Frenchy's pain--i.e., by telling him that the Gospel could reunite him with his wife (though they would no longer be married).

[Marcus]

This is getting silly. Peterson expressed his opinion already:

In 2018:

Visiting in the spring of 2013, we immediately noticed that the grass next to my mother’s grave was fresh, and so, with some excitement, I hurriedly walked over to confirm what I suspected: Frenchy was gone. He had died on 30 August 2012.

I’m deeply happy for him. After twenty-seven long years of sorrowful separation, he’s with his wife again.

And in 2024:

... I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of accounts of near-death experiences in which those who have entered into the next life have been met upon their arrival by previously deceased spouses and other family members. So I have absolutely no doubt that Frenchy was greeted by Wanda, and that they were reunited after their long separation. Which is wonderfully good news.

After this, he realized he wasn't expressing the proper lds position, and so he has attempted to bury what he actually believes by pages and pages and PAGES! of lds back-pedalling.

He doesn't really believe that lds nonsense. That's absolutely clear. But, his image it's what important to him, so, he has written countless words to pretend something else. Too late.

[drumdude]

Excellent point Marcus!! Dan posted around a dozen or so examples of wedding vows with " 'til death do us part" in them. He was trying to make the argument that non-Mormon Christians believe that marriage won't exist in heaven.

What about your standard Christian obituary? What do Christians say about their loved ones when they die?

Obituary for Sally Ann (McMullen) DeLorey
J. Gilbert Purse Funeral Home
https://www.pursefuneralhome.com › obituary › Sally-D...
Sally married the love of her life Clifford DeLorey and they shared a long, bountiful life together. They are finally reunited again.

Shelley Funeral Chapels
https://www.shelleyfuneralchapels.com · Apr 9, 2023
I live for the day we're all reunited again.

Syracuse.com
https://obits.syracuse.com · May 8, 2023
Because of our faith, we will be reunited again in Paradise!

Anderson and Sons Mortuary
https://www.andersonmortuary.com · Jan 12, 2022
Mom you will be truly missed until we are reunited again rest in peace.

Holland & Bonine
https://www.hollandbonine.com · Dec 9, 2023
The loss of both our parents will leave an unfathomable void in our lives, but we find comfort knowing they are reunited again in Heaven.

The truth is that Daniel was following the standard Christian belief that two loved ones, when they die, are reunited in Heaven. Christians know this innately. Christ taught this in his ministry. It's only the LDS corporation that has to make it legalistic and try to divide families in the afterlife. Again, temple ordinances are a solution in search of a problem.