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

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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? 

 

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. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree to disagree!

Just kidding

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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. 

I think that regular baptism is that, but that baptism for the dead is something different, because we can't know anything about the state of the spirit of the person being baptized.  Thousands of psychopaths, and hundreds of serial killers have probably already been baptized.  That's just the nature of work for the dead.  It does not harm their victims nor does it harm the sanctify of the temples where their names were spoken.

Baptism for the dead makes the door available that leads to a covenant relationship with Christ, but doesn't attempt to get anyone actually thru that door.  All of that happens on the other side by those with the knowledge necessary to make those kinds of decisions.

I don't think it's ever inappropriate to make the door available because I believe there are keepers of the door on the other side with the authority and knowledge to manage how and if it's used.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that regular baptism is that, but that baptism for the dead is something different, because we can't know anything about the state of the spirit of the person being baptized.  Thousands of psychopaths, and hundreds of serial killers have probably already been baptized.  That's just the nature of work for the dead.  It does not harm their victims nor does it harm the sanctify of the temples where their names were spoken.

Baptism for the dead makes the door available that leads to a covenant relationship with Christ, but doesn't attempt to get anyone actually thru that door.  All of that happens on the other side by those with the knowledge necessary to make those kinds of decisions.

I don't think it's ever inappropriate to make the door available because I believe there are keepers of the door on the other side with the authority and knowledge to manage how and if it's used.

I guess we'll just have to disagree to agree to disagree to disagree. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

I had this experience on my mission in Central America. The rumor was that Mormon missionaries carried cameras to take photos of random people on the streets. After developing the photos, the missionaries took them or sent them to the temple and people in the temple were baptized for the people in the picture which would secretly make them Mormons against their will. So any missionary with a camera was evidence that the Mormons were making everyone Mormons. People were advised never to have their pictures taken by a Mormon missionary.

Move that on to temple baptisms. The uninformed believe that Mormons baptizing dead people (in proxy of course) it automatically makes them Mormons whether they want it or not. Even some members in this discussion seem to think that. The truth, however, is that the proxy ordinances are entirely contingent on the consent of the recipient. They have the choice to accept or reject and will not be forced.

Jesus's ministry to the dead was to preach the gospel to them so they could hear it before judgment and give them one more chance to accept, not to force them to become Christians. God the Father (in one of the few times we hear His voice) commanded everyone to repent and be baptized. Even Jesus, His perfect Son, was obligated to comply. Eventually, all will confess Jesus is Lord, but as the result of his overwhelming love, not force.

A correct understanding of our belief in the absolute moral agency of man is required before we can fully appreciate temple work for the dead. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant of our doctrine and don't have time or inclination to become informed. They simply react based on irrational assumptions and emotion.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

On 2/21/2017 at 9:47 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

 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.  

Given your prior history in posts,I hope  you will forgive some of us for not entirely believing that you are concerned for the image of the Church.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Given your prior history in posts,I hope  you will forgive some of us for not entirely believing that you are concerned for the image of the Church.

I'm probably the most misunderstood poster on MD&D

[Ahab]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm probably the most misunderstood poster on MD&D

Yeah I have a lot of sympathy for you Johnnie.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I have a lot of sympathy for you Johnnie.

Not seeking sympathy just believe my motives are misunderstood 

[Rain]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 0:48 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I had this experience on my mission in Central America. The rumor was that Mormon missionaries carried cameras to take photos of random people on the streets. After developing the photos, the missionaries took them or sent them to the temple and people in the temple were baptized for the people in the picture which would secretly make them Mormons against their will. So any missionary with a camera was evidence that the Mormons were making everyone Mormons. People were advised never to have their pictures taken by a Mormon missionary.

Move that on to temple baptisms. The uninformed believe that Mormons baptizing dead people (in proxy of course) it automatically makes them Mormons whether they want it or not. Even some members in this discussion seem to think that. The truth, however, is that the proxy ordinances are entirely contingent on the consent of the recipient. They have the choice to accept or reject and will not be forced.

Jesus's ministry to the dead was to preach the gospel to them so they could hear it before judgment and give them one more chance to accept, not to force them to become Christians. God the Father (in one of the few times we hear His voice) commanded everyone to repent and be baptized. Even Jesus, His perfect Son, was obligated to comply. Eventually, all will confess Jesus is Lord, but as the result of his overwhelming love, not force.

A correct understanding of our belief in the absolute moral agency of man is required before we can fully appreciate temple work for the dead. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant of our doctrine and don't have time or inclination to become informed. They simply react based on irrational assumptions and emotion.

I agree.

I do think it is important to understand the beliefs of others as well though. I have run across people that understand what our beliefs are, but still don't want their loved one baptized.

Some of them knew the person well on earth and knew that they chose not to be baptized and even expressed a desire to never be baptized by proxy. They feel it disrespectful to go directly against the deceased's wishes. I believe that someone who would do this, KNOWING the person who died did not want to be baptized by proxy, also doesn't understand agency. Yes, those persons could change their minds, but one who KNOWS of a desire against baptism should wait for a clear confirmation from the person who died or allow descendants who don't know about the desire to do it down the line. 

And by clear confirmation I don't mean they waited 1 year and were so anxious to do it that they assumed their good feeling was the Spirit.

Secondly, there are people who despite knowing we believe in agency don't believe in agency. They believe that what we do actually affects their loved one. When I understood this I finally understood why some could be so upset. The few I have heard with this understanding are Jewish, but I don't know how they feel their loved ones are affected. 

 

[Rain]

18 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Not seeking sympathy just believe my motives are misunderstood 

It may be wise to watch how you say things then. I have found that communication runs both ways. For clear communication people shouldn't assume things about others based on "tone" etc, but those speaking also need to understand that, like it or not, tone means something to those listening, even if it means wildly different things to different people. 

In my home when tone seems to give a different meaning than words we often ask, "did you mean (words) or did you mean (tone)?" That would be a good thing for everyone to do, but it is harder sometimes to distinguish there is a difference with written tone and we are dealing with a wide variety of people here.

So it may be wise to consider changing how you write your posts so they don't hear the tone, keeping in mind that because of your history it will take some time before the tones of the past will not be coloring words of the future.

[dberrie2000]

On 2/22/2017 at 0:00 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah, Bluebell!  You're simply a dolt!

Are you sure that should not be doltess?

I agree with Bluebell--Johnnie is not producing the goods.

[Guest]

On February 21, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

In a newly released leak, the temple ordinance records of several famous/infamous historical figures has been leaked.  This one will cause a public relations uproar from the Jewish community not only because it contains famous Jews but also the temple work records of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. The names of Native American Indian Chiefs were also leaked.  This is embarrassing for the church for so many reasons

I removed the links as a matter of course, as in "of course" here we go again with this common anti-Mormon hyperbole. 

This is a topic that has been bounced around the Internet for a very long time. Things like this happen in the course of doing Temple Work, with millions of names submitted, with thousands processed daily. Any name could accidently be submitted and missed, or submitted by those either seeking to do harm, or those who just don't care, or care for the Temple. 

Nothing to see here...move it along. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I removed the links as a matter of course, as in "of course" here we go again with this common anti-Mormon hyperbole. 

This is a topic that has been bounced around the Internet for a very long time. Things like this happen in the course of doing Temple Work, with millions of names submitted, with thousands processed daily. Any name could accidently be submitted and missed, or submitted by those either seeking to do harm, or those who just don't care, or care for the Temple. 

Nothing to see here...move it along. 

Please explain what you mean by "here we go again with this common anti-Mormon hyperbole"?  I don't want to misunderstand.

[Calm]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was focusing on the fact that the majority of the proxy work 'leaked' was from over 25 years ago and even the three most recent were 12 years ago by one person, so it seems unlikely that the intent on bringing them up was to change behaviour (if so, something currently occurring should be the example, not something where behaviour has already been modified) and more likely it was to attack the Church or its members in some way.

As to "here we go again", a google site search on "hitler" and "baptism" brought up a thread in 2005,  2010, 2011, a couple in 2012 in the first ten hits.  Likely many more if I kept looking.  This doesn't include all those threads that were deleted as well.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

On 2/23/2017 at 9:56 AM, Gray said:

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

It is unfortunate that you do not understand the keys of the priesthood.

Matt 19 [28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

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.

This authority is found in the church in our time.  Those whose names have been stricken from the Book of Life will not achieve exaltation, and that book reflects the church records and the judgement of the authorized priesthood holders.

Edited February 27, 2017 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

On February 25, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Rain said:

I agree.

I do think it is important to understand the beliefs of others as well though. I have run across people that understand what our beliefs are, but still don't want their loved one baptized.

Some of them knew the person well on earth and knew that they chose not to be baptized and even expressed a desire to never be baptized by proxy. They feel it disrespectful to go directly against the deceased's wishes. I believe that someone who would do this, KNOWING the person who died did not want to be baptized by proxy, also doesn't understand agency. Yes, those persons could change their minds, but one who KNOWS of a desire against baptism should wait for a clear confirmation from the person who died or allow descendants who don't know about the desire to do it down the line. 

And by clear confirmation I don't mean they waited 1 year and were so anxious to do it that they assumed their good feeling was the Spirit.

Secondly, there are people who despite knowing we believe in agency don't believe in agency. They believe that what we do actually affects their loved one. When I understood this I finally understood why some could be so upset. The few I have heard with this understanding are Jewish, but I don't know how they feel their loved ones are affected. 

 

I think the question is moot because even though I may choose not to submit my late Uncle Bustaferoso's name for temple work because he had told me in no uncertain terms that if I did, he would come back from the dead and give me rashes on sensitive body areas, there is no guarantee that cousin Fetilicia who never met him would even know of his wishes and just go ahead and do it. Or that my yet unborn grandson's wife would not submit his name 50 years from now based on a hint from ancestry.com.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the question is moot because even though I may choose not to submit my late Uncle Bustaferoso's name for temple work because he had told me in no uncertain terms that if I did, he would come back from the dead and give me rashes on sensitive body areas, there is no guarantee that cousin Fetilicia who never met him would even know of his wishes and just go ahead and do it. Or that my yet unborn grandson's wife would not submit his name 50 years from now based on a hint from ancestry.com.

But still while they may not know, you know and you choose to act or do not act on the knowledge you have and are judged on that, not on what others may do.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the question is moot because even though I may choose not to submit my late Uncle Bustaferoso's name for temple work because he had told me in no uncertain terms that if I did, he would come back from the dead and give me rashes on sensitive body areas, there is no guarantee that cousin Fetilicia who never met him would even know of his wishes and just go ahead and do it. Or that my yet unborn grandson's wife would not submit his name 50 years from now based on a hint from ancestry.com.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But still while they may not know, you know and you choose to act or do not act on the knowledge you have and are judged on that, not on what others may do.

Exactly. 

It is my integrity and understanding of agency that would be involved if someone requested me not to do their work. It would not be an act of love like it would be for a descendant down the line.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

It is unfortunate that you do not understand the keys of the priesthood.

Matt 19 [28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

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.

This authority is found in the church in our time.  Those whose names have been stricken from the Book of Life will not achieve exaltation, and that book reflects the church records and the judgement of the authorized priesthood holders.

All that power, it sounds intoxicating. :/

If your interpretation is true, the Kingdom of Heaven sounds like it's tightly controlled by a bureaucracy. The papers must be signed in triplicate, otherwise God is powerless to step in and make wise judgement? It's the church, not God, that decides who is exalted and who is not?

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Gray

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Please explain what you mean by "here we go again with this common anti-Mormon hyperbole"?  I don't want to misunderstand.

This and threads like it have been making the rounds for over a decade. 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

This and threads like it have been making the rounds for over a decade. 

I guess what I object to is your use of the pejorative anti-Mormon in this thread and the implied implication that somehow when Mormon's baptize Adolf Hitler it's somehow the fault of those people who expose this fact.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I guess what I object to is your use of the pejorative anti-Mormon in this thread and the implied implication that somehow when Mormon's baptize Adolf Hitler it's somehow the fault of those people who expose this fact.

Well it is...it is all our fault!!

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 0:16 PM, Danzo said:

Given your prior history in posts,I hope  you will forgive some of us for not entirely believing that you are concerned for the image of the Church.

Could you show me a single post of mine from my "Prior History" that would lead you to assume that the intentions of my concerns for the image of the church are not sincere?

[CA Steve]

"This has been discussed before."

 

Of course, but has it been discussed before by all those reading and participating in the thread? If not, I am not sure what the point is of raising such an objection.