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

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, poptart said:

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.

Heh. He will, huh.

I will just make sure they do not grow, then.

[Rain]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Gray said:

Invoking an evil name in a sacred space is sacrilegious. Why not baptize Satan next?

Satan did not live up to the requirements to come to this earth. Hitler and others did. Something also tells me that having a body is important to this as well, but I couldn't give you anything to support that. 

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

You do know your defending the proxy work for Adolf Hitler right?  Surely someone on this board is smart enough to see how this will be used as a club to beat the church...I can't see how this is a good PR move for the church..it can only end badly for the church. I feel like I'm the only one (and a few other sane posters) here who is actually concerned for the image of the church...we've moved to crazy town.  When it finally hits the fan...I find it crazy that it was me who was the one yelling "this will not end well" While y'all continue to defend it.  

I've entered an alternative universe 

I understand why you might be upset about it. I understand, in part, because I have run into this conversation probably every other year for the last 22 of my years on the internet. That isn't saying that your feelings are invalid when you haven't heard this before. I am just saying that this is old hat for me and others, so it isn't going to make us upset about it like it might make someone hearing about it for the first time. 

I'm also not upset or embarrassed because I trust Christ. I trust Christ will put me where I belong. I trust he will put my son where he belongs. I trust he will put my great grandma who made life miserable for my dad where she belongs. 

If I want God's grace and mercy I have to trust that he will even put Hitler where he belongs or my trust in Him putting me where I belong is worth nothing.

22 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

Assuming in general you are a good person the D&C would seem to suggest that to be unlikely. Proxy baptism does not magically change a murderer into someone deserving of the terrestrial or celestial kingdoms. It's not like Hitler is going to suddenly choose to do good when his baptism is done. IF he does end up well it will only be because he has allowed the atonement to change him. He may never allow that to happen - Satan didn't. Edited to add: Just a note to say that this doesn't mean for positive that Hitler could end up in the Celestial kingdom even if his heart was changed. We are often told that even if our sins are washed away there are still consequences. I just trust that Christ will judge correctly.

17 hours 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? 

Biblical children under age 8 would be some.

I've also been wondering since reading this if those who lived under the Mosaic law (how it was given, not later practiced) need to have it done? 

I suspect thought that Scott is right. That PROXY baptisms do not need to be done since the first line of the paragraph says "please don't perform ordinances for people" so if someone had an ordinance for the living done they would not need it done by proxy as well.

13 hours 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?

No. We cannot conclude those things anymore than we can conclude that I am embarrassed about the content of the Ensign because I have stopped having it delivered to my house. I stopped it only because I started reading it digitally and it would be a huge assumption to conclude I was embarassed. The only thing we can conclude is that they were nullified. Everything else is speculation.

----

Now if I could only figure out how to save the posts I want to respond to, discard the ones that after reading 11 pages I no longer felt a need to answer and then post quotes and replies in individual posts, not one mega one.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Rain

[Gray]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

It we take the judgment and punishment of Hitler out of God's hands and instead sentence and carry out our own personal punishment of Hitler, that makes us vigilantes.   

If we declare that Hitler is unredeemable when God has not declared that, that makes us vigilantes.

How does not baptizing Hitler take the judgement out of God's hands? I don't think we have that power. 

[Gray]

22 hours ago, cacheman said:

I believe the church has stated that the vicarious ordinances of Hitler were nullified.  If so, what does that mean, and how does it occur?

-cacheman

Found a link to the letter:

Since Hitler's baptism has since been nullified, I hope that means people will stop feeling obligated to defend the church by trying to find justifications for baptizing Hitler. 

His sins are not ours to forgive. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Choosing to ignore law and taking judgment upon ourselves where that has not been given to us by God turns us into vigilantes just as when we take judgment upon ourselves contrary to man's law.

Is there a law that says we have to baptize history's worst monsters in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?

[stemelbow]

16 hours 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.

And Abraham.

[stemelbow]

15 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.

What's this exile you speak of?

[stemelbow]

15 hours 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.

Whaaa??????  Really?  I figured we all need it. 

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Whaaa??????  Really?  I figured we all need it. 

Note that Scott said "proxy". If one is already resurrected then we can probably assume they have received ordinances needed and do not need proxy ordinances.

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Biblical children under age 8 would be some.

I've also been wondering since reading this if those who lived under the Mosaic law (how it was given, not later practiced) need to have it done? 

Which 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"

died before 8?  Not all of them of course.  If Harold Hadrada doesn't need his ordinances done could it be by virtue of him being an earthly king?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Rain said:

Note that Scott said "proxy". If one is already resurrected then we can probably assume they have received ordinances needed and do not need proxy ordinances.

Seems like an unsafe assumption.  As it is other historical personalities and royal or noble Europeans aren't said to be resurrected yet they are lumped in with people from the Bible as those not needing the ordinances done.  hmmm.....This is getting more and more intriguing. 

[Johnnie Cake]

19 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.

Scott AKA Self appointed board policeman...glad I could be your motivation for getting you to break your self imposed exile.  You've often corrected me when I exaggerate so if I may turn the tables some...I'm going to correct you on your exaggeration.  I am NOT "Habitually" nor am I "rushing" nor "tattling".   01. Everyone is welcome to read anything I post wherever I may post it....and to describe what I posted on the other board as a tattle is a mischaracterization of my post.  It was a post of frustration period. 02. I've made over 1,650 post on MD&D and only 2 on the other board have referenced any posts I've made here. 03. Rushing is an extreme interpretation of a post that is made within close proximity of another post...and suggests earnest motivation.  I assure you that none exists it was merely frustration at the habitual defense of the church both before and after Hitler's nullification was introduced and echoed a similar post I made in this thread.  Nothing sinister

Oh and welcome back from your short lived exile...glad that I could be the one to drag you back into the ring...it wasn't the same without you.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

How does not baptizing Hitler take the judgement out of God's hands? I don't think we have that power. 

If we decide who is eligible for redemption and who isn't (i.e. "Hitler doesn't deserve to have his temple work done," etc.), we are essentially trying to take the judgment out of God's hands.  

I agree that ultimately we can't actually do that, but that's what we are attempting (or wanting, or thinking we have the authority) to do.  That's what I was saying.  We are taking Hitler's judgment into our own hands when we engage in that kind of thinking.

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Which 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"

died before 8?  Not all of them of course.  If Harold Hadrada doesn't need his ordinances done could it be by virtue of him being an earthly king?

 

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Seems like an unsafe assumption.  As it is other historical personalities and royal or noble Europeans aren't said to be resurrected yet they are lumped in with people from the Bible as those not needing the ordinances done.  hmmm.....This is getting more and more intriguing. 

 

Some of those people may have died before 8, some of those people had ordinances done while living, some of them have had proxy work done and I would guess that the department has recognized that those records before 1500s may have some real problems so with the limited info we have now they shouldn't be done. They neglected to get wordy about about their reasons. 

So we can get after them for not being more specific, if that was really what happened or we can just go with what they are asking: don't baptize biblical characters or royalty before the 1500s.  We can wait for the milenium to sort that kind of thing out and just do what we can now with actual info we have available.

 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since Hitler's baptism has since been nullified, I hope that means people will stop feeling obligated to defend the church by trying to find justifications for baptizing Hitler. 

His sins are not ours to forgive. 

Having your temple work done has nothing to do with us mortals forgiving anyone's sins.  You must know that, being a temple attending member. And my posts on here had nothing to do with obligation to defend the church.

 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we decide who is eligible for redemption and who isn't (i.e. "Hitler doesn't deserve to have his temple work done," etc.), we are essentially trying to take the judgment out of God's hands.  

So do you believe that's what the leaders did by nullifying his baptism?  Or do you feel differently about them doing that?

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So do you believe that's what the leaders did by nullifying his baptism?  Or do you feel differently about them doing that?

I believe that it was PR capitulation by Church leaders. While I think family history should be limited to lineal descendants (and crackpot Mormons doing celebrity temple work should not be allowed --- unless one is a lineal descendant), I didn't like that the Church made a big show of nullifying the work that had been done for Holocaust victims, etc. I don't like how the Church danced to Helen Radke, et. al.'s pistol-whipping. 

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

Some of those people may have died before 8, some of those people had ordinances done while living, some of them have had proxy work done and I would guess that the department has recognized that those records before 1500s may have some real problems so with the limited info we have now they shouldn't be done. They neglected to get wordy about about their reasons. 

So we can get after them for not being more specific, if that was really what happened or we can just go with what they are asking: don't baptize biblical characters or royalty before the 1500s.  We can wait for the milenium to sort that kind of thing out and just do what we can now with actual info we have available.

 

I think that's the hope.  they certainly don't know what will change during the millennium that will open us up to this info, but if something magical happens and we can get this info...great.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So do you believe that's what the leaders did by nullifying his baptism?  Or do you feel differently about them doing that?

Because i have no idea why they nullified it, i don't think anything can be assumed about the nullification.  As i said before, it would be interesting to know if it was because it was done inappropriately or if it was just because it was him.  It would be interesting to know what they would do if a relative of Hitler try to perform his work.  As far a i know the church has never stopped an authorized person from doing the temple work for family.  Is Hitler the exception, or was his work done against policy and by unauthorized people so that's why it was nullified?  I have no idea.

On the subject overall, I feel that the prophet, who has the authority from God that he does, can ratify or nullify what he may and i would support him because that is his stewardship.   That is why it doesn't embarrass me if the church allowed Hitler's temple work to be done.  I'm fine with the church nullifying it as well though i would love to have more information.

What I have been arguing against on this thread is the idea that believing that it is our responsibility to do the work for everyone (regardless of who they are or what they have done) and letting God decide how it affects them, should be embarrassing to us under certain circumstances.

I don't think that mindset is embarrassing under any circumstances (even with Hitler) and i think the mindset is supported by scripture and the teachings of Christ.  That has been my point throughout this thread and the nullification of Hitler's work doesn't affect it.   

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we decide who is eligible for redemption and who isn't (i.e. "Hitler doesn't deserve to have his temple work done," etc.), we are essentially trying to take the judgment out of God's hands.  

But the leaders of the church undid Hitler's temple work. Does that mean they're trying to take judgement out of God's hands? 

 

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that ultimately we can't actually do that, but that's what we are attempting (or wanting, or thinking we have the authority) to do.  That's what I was saying.  We are taking Hitler's judgment into our own hands when we engage in that kind of thinking.

I disagree. If that were true then the act of baptizing Hitler would also be taking judgment out of God's hands. Ordinances have nothing to do with any of that. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because i have no idea why they nullified it, i don't think anything can be assumed about the nullification.  As i said before, it would be interesting to know if it was because it was done inappropriately or if it was just because it was him.  It would be interesting to know what they would do if a relative of Hitler try to perform his work.  As far a i know the church has never stopped an authorized person from doing the temple work for family.  Is Hitler the exception, or was his work done against policy and by unauthorized people so that's why it was nullified?  I have no idea.

I have an idea.  The work does not get nullified because someone did it wrong unless someone complains.  It was nullified because it's an embarrassing thing to be associated with Hitler and 20 some odd years ago when this was brought up and people complained the Church decided to nullify it so people wouldn't continue to be upset and/or embarrassed. 

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

On the subject overall, I feel that the prophet, who has the authority from God that he does, can ratify or nullify what he may and i would support him because that is his stewardship.   That is why it doesn't embarrass me if the church allowed Hitler's temple work to be done.  I'm fine with the church nullifying it as well though i would love to have more information.

What I have been arguing against on this thread is the idea that believing that it is our responsibility to do the work for everyone (regardless of who they are or what they have done) and letting God decide how it affects them, should be embarrassing to us under certain circumstances.

I don't think that mindset is embarrassing under any circumstances (even with Hitler) and i think the mindset is supported by scripture and the teachings of Christ.  That has been my point throughout this thread and the nullification of Hitler's work doesn't affect it.   

I agree.  how we get embarrassed or who gets embarrassed is all a matter of perspective.  The Church should just say, "we do it for everyone, no matter how bad they were".  And leave it at that, unless of course someone complains that we did it for someone in particular.  It'd be funny if a relative of Hitler's complained tot he Church that it was disrespectful for the Church to do this.  But I'm guessing that had nothing to do with the Church nullifying the work.  It was likely more along the lines of JFS' position as Julie quoted it earlier--the Church doesn't want murderers to be included in this work.  Likely because it comes off as embarrassing. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Having your temple work done has nothing to do with us mortals forgiving anyone's sins.  You must know that, being a temple attending member. And my posts on here had nothing to do with obligation to defend the church.

 

Baptism is an attempt to bring someone into fellowship with the church. I don't mean forgiving sins in a literal sense, but there is something of that when we undertake these ordinances for people. But Hitler didn't sin against us. He sinned against Jewish people and other minorities. I don't think we have any moral authority whatsoever to take this kind of symbolic action on Hitler's behalf. If Jewish people wish to symbolically do something along those lines (or not), that is entirely in their hands. Baptizing Hitler almost strikes me as an insult to the memory of his victims, which were not our people. We don't understand what they suffered, we never passed through it. 

I'm grateful that leaders of the church undid the ordinances. I believe it was very inappropriate to ever involve Hitler in temple ordinances. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Gray

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Scott AKA Self appointed board policeman...glad I could be your motivation for getting you to break your self imposed exile.  You've often corrected me when I exaggerate so if I may turn the tables some...I'm going to correct you on your exaggeration.  I am NOT "Habitually" nor am I "rushing" nor "tattling".   01. Everyone is welcome to read anything I post wherever I may post it....and to describe what I posted on the other board as a tattle is a mischaracterization of my post.  It was a post of frustration period. 02. I've made over 650 post on MD&D and only 2 on the other board have referenced any posts I've made here. 03. Rushing is an extreme interpretation of a post that is made within close proximity of another post...and suggests earnest motivation.  I assure you that none exists it was merely frustration at the habitual defense of the church both before and after Hitler's nullification was introduced and echoed a similar post I made in this thread.  Nothing sinister

Oh and welcome back from your short lived exile...glad that I could be the one to drag you back into the ring...it wasn't the same without you.

you currently post over there?  Well give the board a shout out from me.  Likely no one remembers me, but I have some fond memories of some of them.  If you don't want to be associated with me over there, don't worry about it.  I might have to go sign back up just to pop in and say hi....maybe. 

[Bernard Gui]

On February 21, 2017 at 3:25 PM, JulieM said:

How about we discuss the topic instead of who's embarrassed and who isn't?

Let's discuss what the leaks contain and answer some questions that have been asked, ok?

Nice distraction tactic though. 

Can we place limits on the Atonement? We know that every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. We know that those who do not repent will pay for sin with their own suffering. We know that some who refuse to repent and those who crucify Christ anew will be consigned to outer darkness where there can be no redemption. We know that only God can decide who is to be forgiven, but for us it is required to forgive all men. What does all mean?

Some questions may be answered here...

Quote

Again and again the Book of Mormon teaches that the gospel of Jesus Christ is universal in its promise and effect, reaching out to all who ever live on the earth. Here are some examples, quoted directly from that book:

• “The atonement … was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, … or who ever shall be” (Mosiah 4:7).

• “And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, … all men are redeemed” (Morm. 9:13).

• “He suffereth the pains of all …, both men, women, and children. … And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men” (2 Ne. 9:21–22).

• “Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? … Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and … all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden” (2 Ne. 26:27–28).

We also read that “his blood atoneth for the sins of those … who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned” (Mosiah 3:11). Similarly, “the blood of Christ atoneth for [little children]” (Mosiah 3:16). These teachings that the resurrecting and cleansing power of the Atonement is for all contradict the assertion that the grace of God saves only a chosen few. His grace is for all. These teachings of the Book of Mormon expand our vision and enlarge our understanding of the all-encompassing love of God and the universal effect of His Atonement for all men everywhere. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/all-men-everywhere.p6?lang=eng

Or here....

Quote

I do not know who in this vast audience today may need to hear the message of forgiveness inherent in this parable, but however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.

Whether you are not yet of our faith or were with us once and have not remained, there is nothing in either case that you have done that cannot be undone. There is no problem which you cannot overcome. There is no dream that in the unfolding of time and eternity cannot yet be realized. Even if you feel you are the lost and last laborer of the eleventh hour, the Lord of the vineyard still stands beckoning. “Come boldly [to] the throne of grace,”3 and fall at the feet of the Holy One of Israel. Come and feast “without money and without price”4 at the table of the Lord. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng

 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

you currently post over there?  Well give the board a shout out from me.  Likely no one remembers me, but I have some fond memories of some of them.  If you don't want to be associated with me over there, don't worry about it.  I might have to go sign back up just to pop in and say hi....maybe. 

Actually they do remember you and many have expressed the hope that you would return...YOU were the subject of a recent thread there...and yes I've even admitted to knowing you IRL over there

Edited February 23, 2017 by Johnnie Cake