Another Mormon Leak: This one is Damaging to Church Public Image

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

yeah...or they could have just known a descendants and asked, politely for permission.  "I know you don't want to be baptized and all that, but it'd be kind cool if we could get your grandpappy baptized.  I mean, not your grandpappy Johnson, course.  You know who I mean." 

"sure.  Couldn't hurt anyone.  I'm sad I'm related to the monster, but might as well do it, if you intend to get everyone.  thanks btw.  No one has brought him up to me for years.  It's always kind of awkward, people knowing I'm related but no one dares say anything even if they're thinking and wondering..."

 

That would still be a breach of protocol since the only people you are allowed to do temple work for, if you aren't related to them, are close friends (with family permission of course).  I'm doubting there was anyone doing the work in the 90s who could claim to have been a close friend to Hitler.  You'd hope not, anyway...

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He had no children, but he had a half brother who had children.  

It'd be quite fascinating if it was a relative you got this ordinance work done.  My guess it wasn't a relative. It was some LDS guy thinking we ought to get the work done for everyone.  I guess his well-meaning effort was totally declined by the Church, though. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It'd be quite fascinating if it was a relative you got this ordinance work done.  My guess it wasn't a relative. It was some LDS guy thinking we ought to get the work done for everyone.  I guess his well-meaning effort was totally declined by the Church, though. 

That's what i think too.

[Darren10]

21 hours 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

LOL on how you phrased #4...that's funny.

No need to worry about not Baptizing children of gay couples. Like Hitler and Eva, they too will be baptized. I think Jesus was quite clear yo be baptized in order to be saved. 

A fellow blogger who was Catholic once brought up with me in his own blog how upsetting it was to Jews that the Mormon Church was Baptizing them and Holocaust victims in particular. I looked into the matter and from what I gathered it was a particular Jewish activist whom the Church met with and promised to cease baptizing Holocaust victims unless the proxy person was a direct ancestor if the Holocaust victim was being baptized for. To the Jesus activist, Baptizing a Holocaust victim rekindled forced baptism Jews once faced from Christians (I presented this as an "ahem" moment to my Catholic blogging friend ). 

Despite the Church's promise, Baptizing Holocaust victims continued. From what I found, there was no convenient way to guarantee that the person being baptized fir was not a Holocaust victim. Subsequent to that though the Church installed very advanced software that quickly and accurately connected names submitted to names of Holocaust victims. After that the Church reiterated it's opposition to baptize Holocaust victims unless direct decedency was shown between the person being baptized and the person being baptized for them. I even recall a person facing Church disciplinary for violating this standard by the Church. 

I think I got this right. I'll look into this again with sources if you desire. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That would still be a breach of protocol since the only people you are allowed to do temple work for, if you aren't related to them, are close friends (with family permission of course).  I'm doubting there was anyone doing the work in the 90s who could claim to have been a close friend to Hitler.  You'd hope not, anyway...

Well with that stipulation in place, I'd rightly claim to be close friends with Chaucer, Kierkegaard, and Mormon.  Perhaps some upstanding member felt so close to him, that he was a friend, after devouring Mein Kampf.  "now that's speaking my language, not literally of course, but man...he knows his stuff.  He doesn't have any friends but me these days.  I'm getting him baptized." <runs off to figure out who his closest surviving relative might be, followed by a pretty awkward encounter>

 I ain't putting it past anyone. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He had no children, but he had a half brother who had children.  

Those are not technically descendants in my view then, but relatives.  Not sure if they are close enough, though unless there are closer living relatives I believe they qualify in terms of church genealogy.  We probably shouldn't use the term ancestors or descendants, but "deceased family members" if we are allowing any established relationship if earlier than 95 years ago.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Those are not technically descendants in my view then, but relatives.  Not sure if they are close enough, though unless there are closer living relatives I believe they qualify in terms of church genealogy.  We probably shouldn't use the term ancestors or descendants, but "deceased family members" if we are allowing any established relationship if earlier than 95 years ago.

I'm not sure on the technical definition.  The children of the brother are listed as descendants of Hitler online, but maybe they are using the word wrong.  I know the church allows you to do work for relatives (like aunts, uncles, and cousins) without permission if they've been dead long enough.  I had to look up their policies when trying to do some work for a distant cousin.  

Hitler's relatives would qualify under the church's written policies to do his work (if his work was allowed to be done) despite not being a direct descendant.

[Calm]

I am out of the conversation as given the letter demonstrating nullification, I don't see much purpose to it.  

One last observation...All the "leaks" (they would have been pulled off public databases so not leaks) were pre1999, pre1993 iirc save three that were done on the same day same place in 2005, so obviously submitted and likely done by same person.  Names not immediately recognized by many/most people I suspect.  More than likely those names were also pulled as improper famous people submissions and the guy's privileges suspended unless shown honest mistake or repented.  Unfortunately no info provided on who it was, so no googling to see if this was an active member or someone with less sincere reasons.

I have asked a friend if they have access to policies on ordinances for murderers, if they get back with me and do, I will post that. Otherwise, I need to invest my time elsewhere now.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That would still be a breach of protocol since the only people you are allowed to do temple work for, if you aren't related to them, are close friends (with family permission of course).  I'm doubting there was anyone doing the work in the 90s who could claim to have been a close friend to Hitler.  You'd hope not, anyway...

Quote

What Ordinances Should I Not Perform? Can I do temple work for a friend?

Issues Addressed

• Can I submit batches of names that I indexed or extracted during a FamilySearch indexing or Family Records Extraction project?
• Can I submit names from a microfilm, book, or other set of records that I indexed or extracted privately?
• Can I submit a famous person to whom I'm not related?
• Can I do temple work for individuals born before AD 1500?
• What are the rules for obtaining permission to perform ordinances?

 

 

Policy

Church policy states that you may do ordinances for your own deceased spouse, child, parent, or sibling, but please consider the wishes of other close living relatives, especially a living spouse. For individuals born within the last 110 years, if you are related but not a spouse, child, parent, or sibling of the deceased, please obtain permission from the closest living relative before doing the ordinances. The closest living relatives are: an undivorced spouse (the spouse to whom the individual was married when he or she died), an adult child, a parent, or a brother or sister.  

 

You may not do ordinances for:

• Famous people
• Those gathered from an unapproved extraction project
• Persons to whom you are not related without written permission from the closest living relative
• Jewish Holocaust victims—members cannot perform the ordinances for these people except under the following conditions:
  • They are an immediate family member of the deceased (defined as parent, spouse, child, or sibling), or
  • They have permission of all living immediate family members, or
  • They have the permission of the closest living relative if no immediate family members are living.

Pre-1500 Names

Note: You no longer have to contact Support to do ordinances for people born before AD 1500 in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, or Malaysia.
 

Because there is already much duplication, members can submit names of persons who lived before AD 1500 only by contacting FamilySearch Support (excluding the countries listed above). For contact information, please go to https://contact.familysearch.org.

 

Note: Please do not perform ordinances for people from the Bible, historical personalities, or those of royal or noble European lineages who were born before AD 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. These ordinances are either done or not needed.

 

In your message, provide the following information:

• Your full name and birth date.
• Your helper access number. To find your helper access number, on the home page, click Update my profile and preferences. (By default, this is the last 5 digits of your membership record number. If you have changed the number, send the number that you changed it to).
• The name and ID number of the individual or individuals in question.
• Your relationship to the individuals.
• An explanation of why you believe the ordinances have never been done.
• Documentation about the individual.

For questions regarding temple ordinances for nonrelated individuals, send information to Support. Please note that written permission is needed in order to request temple ordinances for nonrelated individuals.  Please include the following:

• Username
• Helper access number
• Relationship of patron to individual whose ordinances are being requested
• Reason why ordinances are being requested
• Name of the individual being requested
• ID Number of the individual being requested

https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=What-Ordinances-Should-I-Not-Perform-1381812088171&lang=en

It appears you can do ordinances for those who aren't friends and not relatives but you do get written permission from the closest living relative. 

What I didn't realize:  "Please do not perform ordinances for people from the Bible, historical personalities, or those of royal or noble European lineages who were born before AD 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. These ordinances are either done or not needed."

Not needed?  that's got to be new.  For whom are these ordinances not needed? 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure on the technical definition.  The children of the brother are listed as descendants of Hitler online, but maybe they are using the word wrong.  I know the church allows you to do work for relatives (like aunts, uncles, and cousins) without permission if they've been dead long enough.  I had to look up their policies when trying to do some work for a distant cousin.  

Hitler's relatives would qualify under the church's written policies to do his work (if his work was allowed to be done) despite not being a direct descendant.

Dictionary definition indicates parent children to children, etc relationship, but church use for genealogy seems looser.  On the other hand, English allows for "direct descendant" which would be redundant by my definition, so perhaps I am wrong.

Now I am out.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=What-Ordinances-Should-I-Not-Perform-1381812088171&lang=en

It appears you can do ordinances for those who aren't friends and not relatives but you do get written permission from the closest living relative. 

What I didn't realize:  "Please do not perform ordinances for people from the Bible, historical personalities, or those of royal or noble European lineages who were born before AD 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. These ordinances are either done or not needed."

Not needed?  that's got to be new.  For whom are these ordinances not needed? 

I have no idea, but it's funny that half of these restrictions even need to be articulated.  What member thought that it would be a great idea to submit names from the bible?  

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea, but it's funny that half of these restrictions even need to be articulated.  What member thought that it would be a great idea to submit names from the bible?  

Well that seems to be the claim by half the members "my genealogy is done way back to Adam.  There's no more to do."  Boy are they misinformed, but they tell me it's rude to tell them in front of everyone else. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What I didn't realize:  "Please do not perform ordinances for people from the Bible, historical personalities, or those of royal or noble European lineages who were born before AD 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. These ordinances are either done or not needed."

Not needed?  that's got to be new.  For whom are these ordinances not needed? 

Yeah they should explain that one.  That would settle our whole discussion over whether everybody needs those ordinances.

I suspect it was an oversight because in my view everybody needs them...including Jesus who most likely has already done all of his own.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am out of the conversation as given the letter demonstrating nullification, I don't see much purpose to it.  

One last observation...All the "leaks" (they would have been pulled off public databases so not leaks) were pre1999, pre1993 iirc save three that were done on the same day same place in 2005, so obviously submitted and likely done by same person.  .  

They were done again for Hitler in 2005?  Or are you referring to someone else?

Because if his ordinances were redone in 2005, that's after the nullification.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

They were done again for Hitler in 2005?  Or are you referring to someone else?

Because if his ordinances were redone in 2005, that's after the nullification.

Do not drag me back in!!!

They were done for three Jews that would not have been on the Holocaust victim lists iirc: Theodore Herzl, Y. Rabin (can't spell his first name from memory), and one other my poor short term memory is spacing on because I didn't check details beyond ordinance date.

The rest on the 15 or so names on the leak list were all done prior to 1993.

edit:  this is totally from my crap memory so you know how to take it...

I believe Helen Radkey discovered these Jewish names not too long after they were done.  I am pretty sure there were articles discussing Rabin's baptism as well as others.  I also believe I recently read something about another update to the tech in 2012...maybe even in these threads.  Most likely with famous names, they started out with a short list of those people have done and now are more proactive in adding names to it as celebrities die as well as adding new long dead or nonexistent  inappropriate ones.  Iirc, names like Mickey Mouse were only shown to be submitted (some initially cleared for work, some not), but did not have work done, though I do not doubt many prank names have been created overtime and work done for them if not obvious, especially if the prank was done in a language not of the temple workers and patrons.  I prefer the Church give people the benefit of the doubt in their sincerity and not get paranoid anticipating a flood of pranks and sincere, but dishonest submissions and not investing a huge amount of time and resources in prevention save for where we have specifically promised, the Holocaust victims list.  Instead prompt action when new stuff sneaks through and ensuring that submitters are barred if they do not comply is my preferred approach for both practical and principle reasons.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

18 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So baptizing and performing Hitler's temple work is okay but comparing him to Trump isn't? 

He wasn't anything like Trump is (a huge compliment to Trump) but Hitler is a child of God and his ordinances are to be done for him like every other child of God.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

18 hours ago, Raingirl said:

No, you're not.

Your main participation here is to criticize the church, its leaders and members. You deliberately try to find things - "news", "leaks", what-have-you that (feebly) attempt to make the church look bad and then run here to post it.  And then make absurd claims of "embarrassment" or concern.

I left Orthodox Judaism to join the church. I see no need for embarrassment here and I find it absurd and bizarre that you would feel such, ostensibly on behalf of Jews everywhere.  I don't think you're embarrassed at all.  I think you're actually feeling rather gleeful about finding yet another way (as absurd and non-sensical as it is) to bash the church.

As I mentioned, I left Judaism.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who are so critical and hateful of the church (many of whom have left the church), spend any time - much less so much time - hanging around on discussion boards trying to get their licks in against the church.  When I try to imagine myself (or anyone else I know in the same situation) doing the same on Jewish message boards, it's all I can do to keep from laughing hysterically.  I mean, I have a life, you know?

Here's something all but you in particular may enjoy. Jonnie Cake would benefit from this article as well. 

Outraged by Mormon Proxy Baptism? Not This Jew

[Nemesis]

Well I think they've finally done it.  The final nail is in the coffin.  That's it I'm leaving the church.

 

 

 

 

 

On a serious note lets leave the extreme hyperbole and the feigned social outrage outside of this discussion if we want this thread to continue. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=What-Ordinances-Should-I-Not-Perform-1381812088171&lang=en

It appears you can do ordinances for those who aren't friends and not relatives but you do get written permission from the closest living relative. 

What I didn't realize:  "Please do not perform ordinances for people from the Bible, historical personalities, or those of royal or noble European lineages who were born before AD 1500, regardless of your relationship to them. These ordinances are either done or not needed."

Not needed?  that's got to be new.  For whom are these ordinances not needed? 

I know I wasn't going to say anything, but a possible answer popped into my mind so I am coming back to it...yet again.

"not needed" because some are mythological and may not be actual people perhaps...like King Arthur.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know I wasn't going to say anything, but a possible answer popped into my mind so I am coming back to it...yet again.

"not needed" because some are mythological and may not be actual people perhaps...like King Arthur.

I would assume that people from the bible such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Peter, James, John, Paul, Mary, Ruth, etc would fall under the category of not needed.  I would also assume that's it's not that these people don't need these ordinances, but that we don't need to be worrying about them at this time.

Edited February 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea, but it's funny that half of these restrictions even need to be articulated.  What member thought that it would be a great idea to submit names from the bible?  

Hey, King David needs all the savin' he can get!  

[Kenngo1969]

47 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

... On a serious note lets leave the extreme hyperbole and the feigned social outrage outside of this discussion if we want this thread to continue. 

Feigned?  Feigned, you say?!  

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could fail to grasp Our Dear Johnnie Cake's entirely genuine, entirely sincere sense of embarrassment, outrage, and yea, even heartfelt sadness over the harm being done to the reputation of His/Our/Christ's Beloved Church. 

The gall, I say!  The utter gall!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Nemesis]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Feigned?  Feigned, you say?!  

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could fail to grasp Our Dear Johnnie Cake's entirely genuine, entirely sincere sense of embarrassment, outrage, and yea, even heartfelt sadness over the harm being done to the reputation of His/Our/Christ's Beloved Church. 

The gall, I say!  The utter gall!

Well I'm not calling anyone out specifically.  

Yet...

nemesis 

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would assume that people from the bible such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Peter, James, John, Paul, Mary, Ruth, etc would fall under the category of not needed.  I would also assume that's it's not that these people don't need these ordinances, but that we don't need to be worrying about them at this time.

If it's the "not needed because they already got them" kind of thing then that would be what I would refer to as imprecise communications.  Some more of those "imperfections" we seem to be able to point out even in what we refer to as scripture.

Everybody needs all of the ordinances otherwise they will be lacking some of the fruit.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If it's the "not needed because they already got them" kind of thing then that would be what I would refer to as imprecise communications.  Some more of those "imperfections" we seem to be able to point out even in what we refer to as scripture.

Everybody needs all of the ordinances otherwise they will be lacking some of the fruit.

Not needed would seem to suffice.  One could say that Paul's temple ordinances were already done, but with no historical or scriptural records that attest to the fact marking them down as "done" would not seem appropriate.  A "not needed" would seem to indicate that it's something we don't need to worry about at the moment, but leaves open the possibility of further direction in the future.