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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nemesis said:

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. 

Temporarily breaking my self-imposed exile to say that I wonder if you all know that Johnnie Cake, in the guise of "Craig Paxton," is habitually rushing over to the Trailer Park (tm) to tattle whenever something is said or done here that doesn't meet with his approval.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

I am a nit picker, so please excuse me as I keep picking this nit, but the 2 options in the original statement were (1) done and/or (2) not needed.  

So to say Paul doesn't need the ordinances now because he already got them for himself would put him in the (1) done category, rather than the (2) not needed option.

I am done picking this nit now.

And yes you can call me a nit wit.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

If someone has been resurrected and appeared in latter days as a glorified angel (Moroni; John the Baptist; Peter, James and John), I think it's a fairly safe assumption he no longer needs proxy temple work -- if he ever did.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

Just now, Ahab said:

I am a nit picker, so please excuse me as I keep picking this nit, but the 2 options in the original statement were (1) done and/or (2) not needed.  

So to say Paul doesn't need the ordinances now because he already got them for himself would put him in the (1) done category, rather than the (2) not needed option.

I am done picking this nit now.

And yes you can call me a nit wit.

I didn't say that Paul had received all the necessary ordinances.  I said that there were "no historical or scriptural records that attest to the fact."  Checking the "done" box next to Paul's name would seem to be stating a fact that one could assume was true, but was not backed up by any evidence.  "Not needed" would seem to be sufficient in these cases.  Like I said, it leaves the possibility for further direction open in the future.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If someone has been resurrected and appeared in latter days as a glorified angel (Moroni; John the Baptist; Peter, James and John), I think it's a fairly safe assumption he no longer needs proxy temple work -- if he ever did.

It does seem to be a safe assumption.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If someone has been resurrected and appeared in latter days as a glorified angel (Moroni; John the Baptist; Peter, James and John), I think it's a fairly safe assumption he no longer needs proxy temple work -- if he ever did.

Everybody needs temple work to receive all of the ordinances needed for exaltation, though.

Didn't you get the memo?

Honk if you agree.

You can be wrong on any day but a Tuesday.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It does seem to be a safe assumption.

Eh. No. Now where did I put my nit picker.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Everybody needs temple work to receive all of the ordinances needed for exaltation, though.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

But not everybody needs proxy ordinance work -- or did you not "get the memo"?

 

[carbon dioxide]

My understanding of LDS doctrine is that we do temple work for the dead so that they can receive the ordinances required to exaltation. This does not mean of course that such ordinance automatically guarantees it.  I know of no provision that says we only do the ordinances to those people who we think were good people.  We are not allowed to refuse ordinances for those we know where bad or do not like.  If this is the case, which I believe it is, why should the Church or any LDS member be embarrassed for following our own beliefs?  Perhaps some people think if we do temple work for Hitler that it means the possibility of him being in the Celestial Kingdom.  Hardly the case and in this instance should the LDS Church be embarrassed of our doctrine because certain people do not understand it or should be be embarrassed for the people who do not understand the doctrine and complain about it?

Edited February 23, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not everybody needs proxy ordinance work -- or did you not "get the memo"?

 

The memo that started this  brouhaha was talking about ordinances without distinguishing whether they were received by proxy or in person, though.

And I was saying that all of us, every one of us who has or will come to experience mortality on this planet, need all of the ordinances for exaltation.

So we either need to get them or do without them, and without them we can not be exalted... meaning we all need them to receive exaltation.

Okay, wait. I think I get it now.

Some of us just don't need to be exalted.

Ever.

Problem solved.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Ahab

[Darren10]

Some people need praxy work done.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The memo that started this Bru haha was talking about ordinances without distinguishing whether they were received by proxy or in person, though.

And I was saying that all of us, every one of us who has or will come to experience mortality on this planet, need all of the ordinances for exaltation.

So we either need to get them or do without them, and without them we can not be exalted... meaning we all need them to receive exaltation.

Okay, wait. I think I get it now.

Some of us just don't need to be exalted.

Ever.

Problem solved.

I'll try one more time, and then I'm going silent again.

If someone has been resurrected and glorified, why would you assume he had not already received his saving ordinances at some point in the past? Why would you think he needs to have them vicariously done now?

Edited February 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll try one more time, and then I'm going silent again.

If someone has been resurrected and glorified, why would you assume he had not already received his saving ordinances at some point in the past? Why would you think he needs to have them vicariously done?

2 options.  (1) done and/or (2) not needed.

So who doesn't need the ordinances?.

Please notice the period at the end of my question.

And please realize that to say they're not needed because they're already done is different than saying they are not needed (period).

[CA Steve]

So I am a bit confused as to where this thread has led. Initially there was quite a bit of back and forth about how it was embarrasing to have baptized Hitler on one hand while the other side seemed to be saying that it was okay since every one had to be offered the opportunity. We then had people quoting past prophets who explicitly forbid the baptism of those who had committed heinous crimes  followed by those claiming that living prophets have over ruled the dead ones, though I am not sure I saw a source for that one. Then someone posted a very official looking letter from the church stating that the ordinances for Hitler and others had been nullified, and now we seem to be arguing about when and where and what ordinances are necessary.

 

So since the baptism of Hitler was actually nullified by the church itself, can we conclude that doing so might have been embarrassing or is baptizing Hitler the one case where Goodwins Law simply does not apply, as in hey I was baptized just like Hitler?

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So since the baptism of Hitler was actually nullified by the church itself, can we conclude that doing so might have been embarrassing or is baptizing Hitler the one case where Goodwins Law simply does not apply, as in hey I was baptized just like Hitler?

Perhaps it was nullified because it was done improperly or did not follow protocol.  Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler.  Tens of millions of Chinese died because of Mao.  I know of no policy that says "If person X killed more than ___ people, do not do temple ordinances for them."

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps it was nullified because it was done improperly or did not follow protocol.  Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler.  Tens of millions of Chinese died because of Mao.  I know of no policy that says "If person X killed more than ___ people, do not do temple ordinances for them."

Has Stalin received his ordinances?  Just curious why you're comparing the two if he hasn't  (and I don't know if he has).

I have to believe that Hitler's were nullified because of the horrible crimes and murders he'd committed.  I doubt they'd have thought a family member should have submitted his name (are any even members?).

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps it was nullified because it was done improperly or did not follow protocol.  Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler.  Tens of millions of Chinese died because of Mao.  I know of no policy that says "If person X killed more than ___ people, do not do temple ordinances for them."

True.

Maybe he has some close friends left alive we could petition to see if they would approve his baptism?

I am thinking Argentina might be a good place to look unless the JDL has already found all of them.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So I am a bit confused as to where this thread has led. Initially there was quite a bit of back and forth about how it was embarrasing to have baptized Hitler on one hand while the other side seemed to be saying that it was okay since every one had to be offered the opportunity. We then had people quoting past prophets who explicitly forbid the baptism of those who had committed heinous crimes  followed by those claiming that living prophets have over ruled the dead ones, though I am not sure I saw a source for that one. Then someone posted a very official looking letter from the church stating that the ordinances for Hitler and others had been nullified, and now we seem to be arguing about when and where and what ordinances are necessary.

 

So since the baptism of Hitler was actually nullified by the church itself, can we conclude that doing so might have been embarrassing or is baptizing Hitler the one case where Goodwins Law simply does not apply, as in hey I was baptized just like Hitler?

And even if the proxy work was nullified in the church records does that mean they are also nullified in heaven? Not sure how the two are connected.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Temporarily breaking my self-imposed exile to say that I wonder if you all know that Johnnie Cake, in the guise of "Craig Paxton," is habitually rushing over to the Trailer Park (tm) to tattle whenever something is said or done here that doesn't meet with his approval.

Yep, that is why I make no effort to avoid annoying him.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

And even if the proxy work was nullified in the church records does that mean they are also nullified in heaven? Not sure how the two are connected.

The records in heaven reflect what is recorded on earth.

Matt 16  [19} And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Edited February 23, 2017 by cdowis

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, saemo said:

Well aren't I all put in my place. I wonder if 3DOP will ever tire of being the Mormon bludgeon against Christians?

We're back then to conditional treatment where Hitler fares better than the living. 

Ouch!

Mormon bludgeon! Thanks a lot for THAT fraternal correction. Wow. Mormon bludgeon! Heh. Okay. Let me be more plain with you and my Mormon friends. I will offer more disagreement whenever I think there is any potential that somebody could benefit from a defense of Catholic doctrine and practice. Not so much lately.   

So...just for the record, I think Mormons worship a different God, and their religion is inspired by Satan, (along with every non-Catholic religion). However nobody is wrong about everything, and I think it would be consistent with a profound belief in the mercy of the God they believe in, if they should feel uneasy about the idea that some forms of villainy are beyond the reach of God's forgiveness.

From my understanding of it, within the traditional LDS framework, it seems difficult to be assured that any villain is beyond God's mercy. I think you might share that view as a fellow Catholic.

I have not knowingly said anything against Catholicism, or any other Christian sect in my only post on this thread which is about whether potential mercy for Hitler is embarrassing. I think it is not embarrassing.  

I have written repeatedly on these pages over the years about St. Francis de Sales' apologetic against Luther and the Protestants who simply ignore I Cor. 15:46. Catholics have a plausible explanation for the expression "baptism for the dead". But holding to a Catholic understanding of the meaning of baptism for the dead, does not make it impossible for the Catholic to judge the consistency of the LDS practice within LDS beliefs.

I think it would be presumptious of LDS faithful, to start judging the worthiness of different classes of sinner as though there are some who can be assumed to be excluded. That was why I took it upon myself to be "the Mormon bludgeon against Christians." If it is the position of "Christians" that it would be embarrassing if any particular person who ever lived was saved by God's grace, then they are not knowledgable Catholic Christians. Based on his embarrassment, Johnny Cake, whatever he believes, does not appear to be closer to the Catholic faith than when he might have been LDS.

If we had the cultural background, life experiences and temptations that a man with the eventual ambition and power Adolf Hitler had, can we know we would have acquitted ourselves better? It seems like it to me, until I plumb the depth of my own soul, where I can find enough darkness to make me hope that there are no limits to God's mercy. It has never been my own innate goodness that has kept me from sin. Lack of opportunity and God's grace can account for a fairly well-hidden heart that is nonetheless quite ugly. All that is good belongs to God. The rest is mine. I need all sinners to be able to hope to be saved.

I appreciate your rebuke and take it with brotherly affection. I cannot say that I entirely agree with your evaluation but I understand the perception. I have come to think that it is usually useless to try to persuade people of my point of view unless they can see that I am trying to give their point of view a fair shake. That takes more time than just diving in to arguments. Feel free to give me a prod whenever you think I am getting too soft. I'll ignore if you are totally out to lunch!

I was thinking about jumping into one of those apostasy threads the other day. Somebody said something out of left field about how "the Catholics" believe that papal infallibility played a role in changing the mode of baptism. It won't help anybody for me to make the correction. I doubt if anybody even paid it any attention. I would like to proclaim my faith as much as ever, but I am not going to push it. I've thought we might have to wait for another pope to come along before we are newsworthy around here again.

Anyway, good to see you, may you have a very good Lent, and the happy Easter that is its wonderful fruit.

All the best,

3DOP

Edited February 23, 2017 by 3DOP

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps it was nullified because it was done improperly or did not follow protocol.  Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler.  Tens of millions of Chinese died because of Mao.  I know of no policy that says "If person X killed more than ___ people, do not do temple ordinances for them."

That decision to submit the name to do the temple work will be made by the relative or direct descendant of that individual which is a member of the church and has access to familysearch, according to the current  rules of submission,

Edited February 23, 2017 by cdowis

[Duncan]

Just now, cdowis said:

The records in heaven reflect what is recorded on earth.

Matt 16  [19} And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I wonder if they can be re done? but I am imagining though Hitler and others are special cases and those are the ones we know about , what about say future baddies or baddies from pre Christ. Regardless though the atonement covers all their sins, hopefully they repent

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yes please do not do my work...I don't want to be in any claimed kingdom that would allow a Hitler

Fortunately for you, you get to make that decision after you know we are right and where he ends up even if you messed up in your decision here.

Clearly you do not understand the gospel.  So guess what?  You get a second chance.  Get it out of your system here so that you are more impartial on the other side.

[poptart]

So, why does anyone care?  If someone baptised me after Im dead I could care less. 

Also Bob Marley?  Hope the LDS faithful in the Celestial Kingdom don't mind him throwing Kona Gold seeds everywhere he can because he will.