Jeanne Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 01. Adolf Hitler <--- enough said 02. Baptizing Jews after agreeing to stop 03. Baptizing Native American Chiefs...an affront to native Americans (yes they will be offended) 04. Baptizing Bob Marley (an affront to Bob Marley fans :-) I'm embarrassed for the church...they won't baptize the children of a legally married gay couples but they'll baptize Adolf Hitler and worse yet seal him to his wife Eva Braun This. 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 So Johnnie Cake is embarassed, or so he says? Anyone else embarassed??? Link to comment
JulieM Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: So Johnnie Cake is embarassed, or so he says? Anyone else embarassed??? Again... Can we discuss what is in the leaks and not who is embarrassed or not embarrassed? Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 21, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You are not embarrassed by any of this? Whoa ok I'm not embarrassed that Hitler's work has been done. If you care to know why we've been discussing it on the other thread specifically about it. I have no idea why i should be embarrassed about Native American work being done. I'm part cherokee myself (great great great grandmother was full blooded cherokee). If i wanted to do the work for some of my ancestors, why should that embarrass anyone? Why should the church be embarrassed by it? As for Jews, members who have ancestors who are jewish are allowed to do their work (which seems like it should be pretty obvious) and anyone who doesn't have an ancestor that is Jewish who does the work is doing it after being expressly forbidden by the church. Again, what exactly about that should be embarrassing to the church? Can you outline what you specifically think is embarrassing about all of this? 6 Link to comment
JulieM Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not embarrassed that Hitler's work has been done. If you care to know why we've been discussing it on the other thread specifically about it. I have no idea why i should be embarrassed about Native American work being done. I'm part cherokee myself (great great great grandmother was full blooded cherokee). If i wanted to do the work for some of my ancestors, why should that embarrass anyone? Why should the church be embarrassed by it? As for Jews, members who have ancestors who are jewish are allowed to do their work (which seems like it should be pretty obvious) and anyone who doesn't have an ancestor that is Jewish who does the work is doing it after being expressly forbidden by the church. Again, what exactly about that should be embarrassing to the church? Can you outline what you specifically think is embarrassing about all of this? Was there temple work done for Jews after the leaders agreed not to? That is a question I have... Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 01. Adolf Hitler <--- enough said 02. Baptizing Jews after agreeing to stop 03. Baptizing Native American Chiefs...an affront to native Americans (yes they will be offended) 04. Baptizing Bob Marley (an affront to Bob Marley fans :-) 1. Sinner. Big time. Needs all the ordinances. Not much fruit without them. Enough said. 2. We did not agree to stop. And we never will stop. Enough said. 3. They need the fruit too. Enough said. 4. Needs all the fruit too. Including the limes with the coconuts. Enough said. 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: Was there temple work done for Jews after the leaders agreed not to? That is a question I have... Yes. And the leaders never did agree to stop completely. Enough said. 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, JulieM said: Was there temple work done for Jews after the leaders agreed not to? That is a question I have... I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised since people are dumb. Since the whole system rests completely on people regulating themselves, if some has been i don't see how it could be embarrassing to the church. Embarrassing to the stupid person who broke the rules, absolutely. 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Ahab said: 2. We did not agree to stop. And we never will stop. Enough said. CFR (regarding the Baptizing of Jews that we agreed to no longer do). Did we qualify that? Edited February 22, 2017 by JulieM Link to comment
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: CFR (regarding the Baptizing of Jews that we agreed to no longer do). Did we qualify that? I believe the exception is for direct family members. Otherwise yes, the church agreed to stop. Here's the newest article i could find on the subject. It's from 2012. "According to agreements reached between LDS and Jewish officials as recently as 2010, the LDS Church has promised that the names of Holocaust victims would not be submitted for baptism for the dead in any of the church's temples unless those names belong to direct ancestors of those submitting the names." Edited February 22, 2017 by bluebell 4 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: I believe the exception is for direct family members. Otherwise yes, the church agreed to stop. Here's the newest article i could find on the subject. It's from 2012. "According to agreements reached between LDS and Jewish officials as recently as 2010, the LDS Church has promised that the names of Holocaust victims would not be submitted for baptism for the dead in any of the church's temples unless those names belong to direct ancestors of those submitting the names." Agreed. Which is different than saying we or the Church agreed to stop. We did not agree to stop (period). 1 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, Ahab said: Agreed. Which is different than saying we or the Church agreed to stop. We did not agree to stop (period). Liars?? Same difference no matter how you wash it. Link to comment
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Agreed. Which is different than saying we or the Church agreed to stop. We did not agree to stop (period). No, we agreed to stop. 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, Jeanne said: Liars?? Same difference no matter how you wash it. Are you seriously calling the church a liar Jeanne? You're accusing the church of purposefully deceiving people? 2 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Liars?? Same difference no matter how you wash it. No, not liars. There was a change made in regards to who could submit the preparatory records, from anyone in the Church to only the people's descendents. Only those who don't correctly understand what the Church actually said should be embarrassed. 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: No, not liars. There was a change made in regards to who could submit the preparatory records, from anyone in the Church to only the people's descendents. Only those who don't correctly understand what the Church actually said should be embarrassed. No one has answered if the leaks show the baptisms continued after the leaders agreed to stop. Those may be old records (the leaks). That's what needs to be looked at here. Link to comment
CA Steve Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 So is this thread an example of Goodwin's Law in reverse? Link to comment
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: No one has answered if the leaks show the baptisms continued after the leaders agreed to stop. Those may be old records (the leaks). That's what needs to be looked at here. My earlier post answered this question and includes a link to the article where it's discussed. An individual member Got in trouble for baptizing Holocaust victims. The church removed the person's ability to access their genealogical records permanently. There have probably been more than just that person. When it comes to the church's attention they seem to take it seriously. 3 Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: No one has answered if the leaks show the baptisms continued after the leaders agreed to stop. Those may be old records (the leaks). That's what needs to be looked at here. If you wish to make that your point of focus, go ahead. My point is that if Hitler's temple work was done after 1991 then that isn't or would not be a violation of what the Church said it would not do, as long as the work was done by one of Hitler's relatives. And that I am not embarrassed that it was done. And the same goes for whoever has their temple work done. I am not embarrassed by any of it. 1 Link to comment
Ouagadougou Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: In a newly released leak, the temple ordinance records of several famous/infamous historical figures has been leaked. This one will cause a public relations uproar from the Jewish community not only because it contains famous Jews but also the temple work records of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. The names of Native American Indian Chiefs were also leaked. This is embarrassing for the church for so many reasons https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017-02-21-mormonleaks-releases-records-documenting-temple-ordinances-of-seventeen-public-figures/ the church agreed to stop doing temple work for holocaust victims in 1991...and yet it continues http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html What I find disheartening about this is: - Hitler can get baptized somehow in the temple, get his endowments, get sealed to his wife and parents (by mistake or not). - An innocent kid with gay parents is not allowed to be baptized because of something way outside of his/her control. - And then some people say we shouldn't judge and everybody is entitled to forgiveness...but this is Hitler we are talking about! - No workers in the temple had the idea to protest or question the name "Adolf Hitler died 1945 in Berlin, Germany?" Plus, if he was sealed to his wife, wouldn't that mean that a man and woman were proxy for "Adolf Hitler" and "Eva Braun?" This is a huge embarrassment to the church -- nobody in the temple could catch this, if it was a mistake?! - If it wasn't a mistake, then how do you justify Hitler being worthy of baptism, endowments and eternal marriage? Edited February 22, 2017 by Ouagadougou 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) AS mentioned above, this is not a leak but very old news. A Trib journalist investigated the Hitler ordinance submission, and discovered that the submitter gave a fake name. It was such ordinances that caused the church to tighten down the security protocols to go thru familysearch for submissions. Other submissions included fictional characters such as Mickey Mouse. Eventually several individuals were denied permission to submit names because of abuse.. This was clearly an an attempt to embarrass the church. Edited February 22, 2017 by cdowis 4 Link to comment
Ouagadougou Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Ahab said: So Johnnie Cake is embarassed, or so he says? Anyone else embarassed??? Yes, I am. 2 Link to comment
Ouagadougou Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, cdowis said: The "church" did no such thing. This is old news. Actually a Journalist investigated the Hitler ordinance submission, and discovered that the submitter gave a fake name. It was such ordinances that caused the church to tighten down the security protocols to go thu familysearch for submissions. Eventually several individuals were denied permission to submit names. This was clearly an an attempt to embarrass the church. This is just "fake" news, right? Sounds way too familiar for some reason... Link to comment
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Yes, I am. Okay. So why, exactly? Link to comment
Ouagadougou Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Okay. So why, exactly? Because Hitler can get baptized by mistake or intentionally; however, innocent kids with gay parents are not allowed baptism. I have several Jewish friends, so I really don't need to explain why this is exactly embarrassing do I? Or I think you get my point... Link to comment
Recommended Posts