Hitler Baptized

[grego]

from what i see, roosevelt, churchill, and lincoln will go to hell before hitler.

what do i see?

this will take just a little time, but i will post it here shortly (within a day or two).

now, no doubt, absolutely, surely, most everyone will say "impossible--that's not what my teacher told me". how does your teacher know? "these people have ulterior motives. look at some of the resources--this is internet stuff."

and who says that those who wrote ww2 history the first time (the winners), didn't have ulterior motives in vilifying the germans and hitler?

[koakaipo]

could you just site some of the revisionists you are talking about? That would be fine for me.

[Observer]

I'm anxiously awaiting also. I'd like some specific, eye-popping info that would make me possibly agree with your assertion that "roosevelt, churchill, and lincoln will go to hell before hitler."

Maybe in 50 years or so, someone will be scratching their heads, wondering if the "victor" exaggerated the evils of Osama bin Laden and commenced the outrageous lying and false information to little school children.

[GravyBoat]

Hitler wasn't at all devout.  He was a lapsed Catholic, didn't go to church, had some vaguely superstitious ideas about "providence," made occasional religious references in his speeches (as did Stalin, post-June 1941) but he was pretty much an atheist.

I doubt you'll find THAT on the American Atheist website!

[added]

Upon googling a few articles, it looks like whether he was faithful or not is a subject of controversy. I think I'm going to investigate this further.

...

He has shown signs of non-Christianity, that's for sure.

[HiJolly]

from what i see, roosevelt, churchill, and lincoln will go to hell before hitler. 

and who says that those who wrote ww2 history the first time (the winners), didn't have ulterior motives in vilifying the germans and hitler?

This is ridiculous. There is a TON of verifiable, hard evidence that Hitler was guilty of a LOT of despicable acts, policies and decisions. His only possible defense would be INSANITY.

I wouldn't say that there isn't a possibility that the WWII historians were driven by some degree of ulterior motives, but they weren't off so far that Lincoln would be worse. OMG!!! Just look at the journals and letter of the Vets that were actually there.

HiJolly

[grego]

well, there's a lot on all of those topics/ people, but here's what's relevant to the discussion at hand the most:

http://www.barnesreview.org/Nobel_Prize/nobel_prize.html

http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm

http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/LifeInReich.html (it gets on topic around 3 pages into it)

if you want more, there is--about some other famous leaders, the "holocaust", etc.

if the moderators would prefer, since it appears that a while ago one of my posts about jews/ the holocaust was deleted from a thread, anyone wanting more can contact me through the "personal message" feature.

[grego]

i'll start a new thread on lincoln soon.

[Nephi]

I appreciate the work done on behalf of Hitler. It shows that we as a church do not judge one another, and that its really in God's hands. We were sanctioned, and told to do God's work on the earth, which is baptisms for the dead, and other temple work. We are not to judge the ones who we are baptising; that is God's job.

Granted, Hitler was an awful person on earth. The amount of evil he propagated was unparalleled, IMHO, but who are we to judge? We are here to do the work of God on earth. Let God judge him.

[Observer]

I appreciate the work done on behalf of Hitler.  It shows that we as a church do not judge one another, and that its really in God's hands.  We were sanctioned, and told to do God's work on the earth, which is baptisms for the dead, and other temple work.  We are not to judge the ones who we are baptising; that is God's job.

Granted, Hitler was an awful person on earth.  The amount of evil he propagated was unparalleled, IMHO, but who are we to judge?  We are here to do the work of God on earth.  Let God judge him.

Refraining from "judging" Hitler may not actually be a virtue. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. According to someone out there, there's something wrong with you either way. I'll stick with harshly judging the Hitler's and bin Laden's of history because I'm just not strong enough to stomach appreciation of anything positive done on behalf of a thing like Hitler.

Oh and why the harsh judgement of that child of God? Calling Hitler "awful" sounds a bit judgemental to me and un-Christlike. Naughty, naughty.

[Dale]

The wars over. Hitler has been dead many years. If there is life after death & I believe there is he has suffered for his sins & more and then some.

[grego]

i noticed this in the bom:

alma the younger, at the time of his vision of God, desired to die that he might be with him! he says he had repented, and been forgiven. had he died then, everyone probably have thought him going straight to hell forever--wouldn't you? in fact, it was just the opposite, but only he knew it. yet he had murdered many souls, and not their body, but their spirit. what if he had died, but no one did his temple work?

we have to judge some things, especially as they pertain to us in this life. we just need to be careful about it, give the best we can, be very open to other possibilities as can be supported, etc.

if anyone claims to know anyone's complete reasons, thoughts, actions, etc. from the beginning to the point of death, that would be only God.

i think anyone who has been betrayed or rumored about can at least somewhat understand this situation.

[Del March]

I'll stick with harshly judging the Hitler's and bin Laden's of history because I'm just not strong enough to stomach appreciation of anything positive done on behalf of a thing like Hitler.

I'm wondering where your "circle of hate" stops? Does it include only Hitler, or also his lieutenants (who directed the dirty job throughout the Reich), or also all the Nazis (without whom the leaders would have been pretty much powerless), or also all the Germans (who elected Hitler chancellor, and who as a group didn't do much to remove him from power later), or also all those of German descent (like father, like son)...? Where does it stop, and most importantly, WHY does it stop there?

Del

[grego]

hey, let's not forget bush and his neocons, and the american people--see, americans in general might not think so, but the similarities between the two "reichs" has been detailed more than once.

so, do you (if you're american) accept responsibliity and blame for the war in iraq, etc.? how do you know who's doing what, and with what intent? which sins and acts of atrocity do you hold hitler purely accountable for? partially?

perception and point-of-view are very important when it comes to judging.

as i showed in my posts above, some, such as older germans who lived under hitler, and many revisionists, have very different perceptions about him and what he did, than most americans nowadays.

we should look at ourselves before judging others harshly, because of how others often see us.

[Nephi]

Granted, Hitler was an awful person on earth.

Oh and why the harsh judgement of that child of God? Calling Hitler "awful" sounds a bit judgemental to me and un-Christlike. Naughty, naughty.

Check yourself. I am judging his actions that I knew of him on earth (though history class). I did not judge Hitler as a whole (post mortal life). That is God's work. We did the work God asked of us here on earth. Let the past be the past. It is time to move on.

[Observer]

I'll stick with harshly judging the Hitler's and bin Laden's of history because I'm just not strong enough to stomach appreciation of anything positive done on behalf of a thing like Hitler.

I'm wondering where your "circle of hate" stops? Does it include only Hitler, or also his lieutenants (who directed the dirty job throughout the Reich), or also all the Nazis (without whom the leaders would have been pretty much powerless), or also all the Germans (who elected Hitler chancellor, and who as a group didn't do much to remove him from power later), or also all those of German descent (like father, like son)...? Where does it stop, and most importantly, WHY does it stop there?

Del

Although I'd usually be more than happy to explain my disdain for a man like Adolph Hitler, your comments convince me that you're the last person I'd ever explain myself to. I never imagined I'd see the day where a person actually needed an explanation for condemning Adolph Hitler. Your lemming-like mentality regarding appropriate disdain of mass murderers is, shall we say, less than magnanimous. I myself am wondering where (to borrow your phrase) this "circle of tolerance" stops with you? You display lemming qualities in defending mass-genocidal villains. Ironic that "hate" is the thing you have a problem with here, while unwittingly defending the most infamous hate-monger in history.

I make no apology for condemning the historical figure Adolph Hitler. I don't necessarily consider it hate for the man, but rather appropriate disdain. And while we're playing the poo poo on posters who hate Nazis game, I'll just say that, in my view, you display a very inappropriate level of defensiveness. But it's just my own opinion, and I'm not going to follow you around post-to-post to make darn sure you're not defending the dignity and rights of murderous Nazis. Defend all you wish. I don't understand it, but I don't understand a lot of people in life.

That you have a problem with judgmental condemnation of mass murders is -- well, your own problem.

[thesometimesaint]

observer:

I don't think we're saying that Adolph Hitler was a nice guy, and deservers anything less that our strongest condemnations for what he did in this life.

My belief is that he was one of the most truely evil men ever to darken this world.

From my standpoint however there is no indication that he ever heard, and accepted the Restored Gospel in this life. So he will be judged according to the Light that he did have.

Our Heavenly knows us more intimately than we even know ourselves. He is the ultimate authority in Justice and Mercy. Have no fear. Hilter will pay to the uttermost Farthing for the sins that he committed. I have no desire to be in his shoes at that time. All that being said You or I have no say in the ultimate destination after he pays for his sins.

[koakaipo]

There was an article back that made me think a little-I would like to see more on this but basically a church representative said that Hitler's work was nullified. It raises interesting questions really, in terms of who should people be doing work for, and is there a wait in line for some folks in terms of getting work done for some real nasty figures like Hitler? Don't know the answers, but I'm curious. And I think we can judge from his actions he was a nasty guy. I don't need to know his thoughts really when his actions speak quite clearly.

[koakaipo]

This might also be helpful, from The Salt Lake Tribune:

Four years after the LDS Church agreed to stop posthumous baptisms for Jewish Holocaust victims, perhaps the best-known of death camp martyrs -- Anne Frank and members of her family -- continue to pop up in Mormon temple and genealogical records.

Further, the records show temple work has also been done vicariously for the Holocaust's chief perpetrator, Adolf Hitler, and many of his Nazi henchmen.

Church officials acknowledge the renegade records are thorns in the flesh, but they insist they have done their best to honor their 1995 agreement to keep Holocaust victims out of temple rites -- and to eradicate records for "fictitious or inappropriate" figures, like Hitler, when they are discovered.

It took only seconds recently to retrieve Der Fuehrer's record -- and that of wife Eva Braun -- from the LDS Church's Ancestral File via the FamilySearch Internet site ( www.familysearch.org ). The records also listed two men as having provided the most recent of recurring Hitler-Braun files.

One, a Salt Lake City man, insisted he had neither submitted nor done proxy temple work for Hitler and Braun, and that his name was being used by someone else. The second man, however, acknowledged having been baptized for Hitler and several of his lieutenants -- among them Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhardt Heydrich and Joseph Goebbels -- in the Los Angeles Temple.

"I firmly believe [Hitler] will be in Outer Darkness [the Mormon equivalent of hell]," said the man, a longtime LDS Church member who agreed to talk only on condition of anonymity. "But I'm not the judge."

The man said any doubts he had about the submissions eased when, riding up a temple elevator, he saw a plaque containing a quotation from the church's canonical Doctrine and Covenants: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

Apparently, that decision has already been made in the case of Hitler and his minions. While their names may still pop up, periodically submitted by diehard genealogists, Purdy said any temple work done for them is for naught.

Recognizing their crimes against humanity, particularly Holocaust victims, submissions for Nazi leaders are deemed inappropriate to a rite originated out of members' love for, and desire to perform sacred temple rites for, their ancestral dead.

"Policy is to remove them as soon as possible. Moreover, in the case of the names in question, Hitler, Eichmann, etc., the temple ordinance work for these individuals has already been nullified," Purdy said. (emphasis mine)

from Bob Mims, "LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate," The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 9, 1999, p. C1

http://www.sltrib.com/1999/oct/10091999/religion/35861.htm

see also:

http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/04/08/p595

Here's the article I was talking about.

[Del March]

Although I'd usually be more than happy to explain my disdain for a man like Adolph Hitler, your comments convince me that you're the last person I'd ever explain myself to. I never imagined I'd see the day where a person actually needed an explanation for condemning Adolph Hitler.

Strawman. I never asked you to explain your disdain for Hitler. I can perfectly understand anyone's disdain and even hate towards Hitler, I don't need any explanation.

Your lemming-like mentality regarding appropriate disdain of mass murderers is, shall we say, less than magnanimous.

Lemming-like mentality? That's funny, I thought my "magnanimous" position on Hitler was very much in the minority. So tell me: who am I following blindly like a lemming?

I myself am wondering where (to borrow your phrase) this "circle of tolerance" stops with you?

My circle of tolerance doesn't extend to Hitler. But my circle of forgiveness does, because Christ said it should.

You display lemming qualities in defending mass-genocidal villains.

I ask again: who am I following?

Ironic that "hate" is the thing you have a problem with here, while unwittingly defending the most infamous hate-monger in history.

Hitler is dead, you're not. Hitler has finished his turn on Earth, you haven't. That's the big difference: it's too late to tell Hitler that he should drop hate, but it's not too late to tell YOU.

I make no apology for condemning the historical figure Adolph Hitler. I don't necessarily consider it hate for the man, but rather appropriate disdain.

I too condemn Hitler for his actions. But I don't disdain him to the point of calling him a "thing". He was and still is a child of God, and he is right now paying for his monstruous sins, and will most probably be paying for more than 1000 years still, because I highly doubt he will repent from his sins. However, I still choose to obey Christ's admonition to forgive everyone, and I definitely don't want to lose any energy into hating someone who is dead. I'd rather keep that energy to have compassion on the victims of violence and hate everywhere in the world right now.

And while we're playing the poo poo on posters who hate Nazis game, I'll just say that, in my view, you display a very inappropriate level of defensiveness. But it's just my own opinion, and I'm not going to follow you around post-to-post to make darn sure you're not defending the dignity and rights of murderous Nazis. Defend all you wish. I don't understand it, but I don't understand a lot of people in life.

Baloney. The only thing I'm being defensive about is of being accused of what I'm not: pro-Hitler, when all I am is pro-forgiveness and anti-hate. Accusing me of somehow defending Hitler is an incredibly offensive accusation, especially considering my family and country history.

That you have a problem with judgmental condemnation of mass murders is -- well, your own problem.

Unfortunately, it is not only your problem if you can't see that such judgemental hate and condemnation can lead only to more judgemental hate and condemnation, and not to any kind of good.

Del

[Pahoran]

I'll stick with harshly judging the Hitler's and bin Laden's of history because I'm just not strong enough to stomach appreciation of anything positive done on behalf of a thing like Hitler.

I'm wondering where your "circle of hate" stops? Does it include only Hitler, or also his lieutenants (who directed the dirty job throughout the Reich), or also all the Nazis (without whom the leaders would have been pretty much powerless), or also all the Germans (who elected Hitler chancellor, and who as a group didn't do much to remove him from power later), or also all those of German descent (like father, like son)...? Where does it stop, and most importantly, WHY does it stop there?

Del

Although I'd usually be more than happy to explain my disdain for a man like Adolph Hitler, your comments convince me that you're the last person I'd ever explain myself to. I never imagined I'd see the day where a person actually needed an explanation for condemning Adolph Hitler. Your lemming-like mentality regarding appropriate disdain of mass murderers is, shall we say, less than magnanimous. I myself am wondering where (to borrow your phrase) this "circle of tolerance" stops with you? You display lemming qualities in defending mass-genocidal villains. Ironic that "hate" is the thing you have a problem with here, while unwittingly defending the most infamous hate-monger in history.

I make no apology for condemning the historical figure Adolph Hitler. I don't necessarily consider it hate for the man, but rather appropriate disdain. And while we're playing the poo poo on posters who hate Nazis game, I'll just say that, in my view, you display a very inappropriate level of defensiveness. But it's just my own opinion, and I'm not going to follow you around post-to-post to make darn sure you're not defending the dignity and rights of murderous Nazis. Defend all you wish. I don't understand it, but I don't understand a lot of people in life.

That you have a problem with judgmental condemnation of mass murders is -- well, your own problem.

May I suggest an appropriate course of action here? Change your screen name from "Observer" to "Assumer." Virtually none of your post is supported by "observing" what Del actually wrote. Practically all of your post relies upon "assuming" things not in evidence anywhere.

You are demonstrating a "witch hunt" mentality. Anyone who hates Nazis less than you do, even to the extent to being willing to be a little magnanimous towards them, is subject to being demonised as a sympathiser.

Take a breath.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mnn727]

The topic was why was Hitler allowed to be baptized?

While I doubt Hitler repented at the last minute, let me ask you this, is there any sin so grave that even if someone truely repented of it that Christs atoning sacrifice couldn't cover it?

[Observer]

The topic was why was Hitler allowed to be baptized?

While I doubt Hitler repented at the last minute, let me ask you this, is there any sin so grave that even if someone truely repented of it that Christs atoning sacrifice couldn't cover it?

Apparently so, according to the LDS church. See koakaipo's post quoting from a report stating that church "policy is to remove them as soon as possible. Moreover, in the case of the names in question, Hitler, Eichmann, etc., the temple ordinance work for these individuals has already been nullified." - from Bob Mims, "LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate," The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 9, 1999

Somebody somewhere in the church leadership has made this decision that apparently many of you disagree with. I hope y'all don't assume the decision was made simply due to media pressure and as PR spin, rather than the simple fact that baptising or performing temple work FOR Adolph Hitler is inappropriate.

[GravyBoat]

Apparently so, according to the LDS church. See koakaipo's post quoting from a report stating that church "policy is to remove them as soon as possible. Moreover, in the case of the names in question, Hitler, Eichmann, etc., the temple ordinance work for these individuals has already been nullified." - from Bob Mims, "LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate," The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 9, 1999

Somebody somewhere in the church leadership has made this decision that apparently many of you disagree with. I hope y'all don't assume the decision was made simply due to media pressure and as PR spin, rather than the simple fact that baptising or performing temple work FOR Adolph Hitler is inappropriate.

Knowing this, I don't think anyone should feel inclined to defend that it was appropriate to baptize Hitler. It's casting pearls to swine, simply put.

[Proverbs]

Knowing this, I don't think anyone should feel inclined to defend that it was appropriate to baptize Hitler. It's casting pearls to swine, simply put.

I was not defending Hitler or even hitlers right to have someone do proxy baptism. But the right for members to do as the Prophets have asked to do baptism for the dead for our ancestors.

Someone here called it evil for temple workers to do baptism for the dead for Him. The people are not evil for doing what God commanded them to do. If the Church chooses to nullify or disallow future baptism for such individuals that is fine but it is unfair to call members evil for doing the work they were told to do.

[Pahoran]

The topic was why was Hitler allowed to be baptized?

While I doubt Hitler repented at the last minute, let me ask you this, is there any sin so grave that even if someone truely repented of it that Christs atoning sacrifice couldn't cover it?

Apparently so, according to the LDS church. See koakaipo's post quoting from a report stating that church "policy is to remove them as soon as possible. Moreover, in the case of the names in question, Hitler, Eichmann, etc., the temple ordinance work for these individuals has already been nullified." - from Bob Mims, "LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate," The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 9, 1999

Somebody somewhere in the church leadership has made this decision that apparently many of you disagree with.

Again, you are simply assuming.

I hope y'all don't assume

Why should we? You've done enough of that for all of us.

the decision was made simply due to media pressure and as PR spin, rather than the simple fact that baptising or performing temple work FOR Adolph Hitler is inappropriate.

Just so you know, the name is "Adolf," with an f at the end. I've no idea where the "Adolph" spelling comes from.

Likewise, when saying the name, please note that it is pronounced with a short a. That is, the first syllable rhymes with "mad," not "made."

As Latter-day Saints, we recognise that that decision is for the leaders of the Church to make. Which also means that it is not for us to pre-empt. In any event, Church members really should focus on their own family lines, and not go submitting the names of famous (or infamous) people.

This whole argument is silly, anyway. The only reason Temple work for Hitler gets any notice is because of religious voyeurism on the part of the Church's principle-challenged critics.

Regards,

Pahoran